House of Commons

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 27 April 2011

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to increase access to Government contracts for small and medium-sized enterprises.

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

6. What steps he is taking to increase access to Government contracts for small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to increase access to Government contracts for small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to increase access to Government contracts for small and medium-sized enterprises.

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

On 11 February, the Prime Minister and I announced a package of measures, including launching our Contracts Finder website, eliminating burdensome and unnecessary pre-qualification requirements from the procurement process, and introducing new ways to allow small and medium-sized enterprises to challenge contract procedures when they operate in a way that makes life difficult for them. In addition, from the end of April, all Departments will be required to publish a set of specific, targeted actions to increase their business with SMEs.

[Robert Halfon]

Will the Minister set out what steps he is taking to increase access to public contracts for smaller, grass-roots charities as well? Does he agree that for the big society to work properly, we need to build the little society too?

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well. All the measures that we are taking to enable small and medium-sized businesses to participate more fully in Government contracts will, of course, apply to the voluntary and charitable sector as well. Indeed, it is estimated that 35% to 40% of the value of the contracts recently awarded under the Department for Work and Pensions Work programme will go to organisations from the voluntary and charitable sector. We believe that that will be worth in excess of £100 million a year.

[Julian Smith]

Will the Minister take this opportunity to name and shame those Government Departments that are doing well in opening up to small businesses and those that are currently doing less well?

[Mr Maude]

I certainly do not want to shame the ones that are doing well. We have found a number of examples of procurement processes that are not meeting the new requirements. For example, Durham police recently issued an invitation to tender for a £50,000 leadership training contract. The pre-qualification questionnaire alone was 38 pages long and contained a request for 163 separate items of information plus a security vetting form. That is unacceptable, because it causes many smaller businesses to lose the will to live, and they simply do not apply.

[Mark Pawsey]

I am the former owner of a small business supplying products to the public sector. When applying to be added to a new tender list, I was often frustrated by the amount of red tape required. Will the Minister confirm that in future fewer company policies and statements will need to be provided to participate in the tendering process?

[Mr Maude]

We want to strip away all that nonsense. Under the last Government, there were 6,000 pages of guidance for some kinds of procurements. It is not surprising that smaller businesses just did not bother to apply; they knew that they were going to be excluded. There were turnover requirements and requirements for a track record of doing exactly that kind of work. The truth is that that is very bad for small businesses and we want to make things much better.

[Amber Rudd]

During a recent meeting, small and medium-sized enterprises in Hastings raised with me the difficulties not just of the paperwork, but of getting the capital requirements in this climate for procurement contracts with the Government. Will the Minister reassure us that that aspect will also be considered, as we try to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to engage with the Government?

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are concerned that the working capital requirements should be proportionate and sensible and that the turnover requirements should be proportionate to the needs of the contract. All ridiculous requirements such as those that existed under the old regime—for example, always requiring three years of audited accounts, which automatically excluded huge numbers of new and innovative businesses—will be swept away.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept the macro-problem? In south Yorkshire, a large number of private sector enterprises depend in whole or in part on public sector contracts. So much demand is being taken out of the economy, because of the deficit reduction plans, that such businesses face serious challenges. Does he accept that small enterprises face a real problem because of his Government’s macro-economic policy?

[Mr Maude]

I acknowledge that there is a problem—and it is one caused by the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member and supported. They left Britain with the biggest budget deficit in the developed world. I am waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to apologise for that; that would be timely.

[Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

In looking at an increased role for small and medium-sized businesses, will the Minister let the House know when his Department will publish the public services reform White Paper? It was commissioned last October to be published early in the new year. January became February, and the Prime Minister said that it was only two weeks away. Two weeks have become more than two months and there is still no sign of the White Paper. Is that the Government’s biggest pause, or have they just given up on public services?

[Mr Maude]

I am thrilled that the right hon. Lady is waiting for the document with such obvious excitement, and I can assure her that it will be well worth waiting for. This Government are committed to breaking up the old public sector monopolies and providing diversity, particularly with the growth of public service mutuals. The document will be published later this summer, and I can promise her that she will be delighted with it.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

2. Whether private sector organisations will be able to make applications to the big society bank.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)]

The big society bank will provide finance for the voluntary and community sector through funds to social lenders and investors. It will provide funds only to bodies that are onward lending or investing in the voluntary and community sector, charities and community groups.

[Lindsay Roy]

I thank the Minister for his response. In the light of that, can he please indicate how the bank will define social enterprise, as currently there is not a legal definition? How will he ensure that all social enterprises have access to funding but that no organisation that exists for private profit has such access?

[Mr Letwin]

Social enterprises can take a wide range of different forms, but the common feature is that they do not seek to make a profit for shareholders. I think there is a widely understood definition of voluntary and community sector groups, and the big society bank will be organised in such a way that it can identify those and make sure that the funds that it is providing to social investors and social lenders go only to those groups.

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

May I commend the intellectual ideas behind the whole concept of the big society? May I also commend to my right hon. Friend an article by Tim Montgomerie that appeared on ConservativeHome earlier this week entitled, “Conservatives can win the poverty debate but not if the Big Society is our message”? Is the big society more accurately described as a label for a collection of policies rather than a policy itself?

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the Minister will answer with particular reference to private sector applications and the big society bank.

[Mr Letwin]

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr Speaker.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the big society is an idea with a very wide application. The big society bank is a fund that will have a very wide application, because we believe it is extremely important that it should be able to foster all sorts of voluntary and community enterprise which, in one way or another, enormously support the alleviation of poverty—the subject of the article to which he refers.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

The idea of such a bank to help to develop the centre of civil society is a good one, but effective government requires a mix of big ideas and getting the details right. In this connection, has the Minister seen today’s report by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, which suggests that if the big society bank lends purely on commercial terms, it will be

“failing to support those that it is set up to support”?

What can he say to ensure that the lofty rhetoric of the big society bank does not founder on the rock of inadequate administrative detail?

[Mr Letwin]

The hon. Gentleman is of course right to say that the big society bank could not operate as it is intended to operate if it were lending, or investing, on purely commercial terms. It will have what is often described as a double bottom line: it will seek to achieve the highest possible social returns alongside reasonable financial returns. Indeed, part of the point of the big society bank is to show that there is no conflict between achieving high social returns and achieving modest but reasonable financial returns.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

3. What recent representations his Department has received on the big society initiative.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I am delighted to assure the hon. Lady that the Cabinet Office receives many representations on the big society from a wide range of individuals and organisations, not least many colleagues on both sides of the House who have accepted our invitation to bring in representatives from their local voluntary and community organisations.

[Helen Goodman]

I do not know whether the Minister ever gets representations from voluntary sector organisations that fold. The organisation that I used to work for folded a few weeks ago. Will he admit that that is because the cuts are too deep and too fast, and the transitional fund is too little and too late?

[Mr Hurd]

I am obviously sorry to hear about the fate of the organisation that the hon. Lady used to work for. She will know that in reality the sector cannot be immune from the necessary cuts in public expenditure, and I do not think it would have been immune under a Labour Government. The Government have tried to give the sector maximum support through this difficult period. The transition fund—£100 million of taxpayers’ money; serious money in this context—is there to help organisations that are in a hole.

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

Yesterday, Ed Cox, the director of the Institute for Public Policy Research North, said:

“Our research shows that the Big Society will not be fair to the North without changes to government support for philanthropy and charitable giving. Good will is beginning to wear thin as people in the voluntary and community sector try to deal with budget cuts, and organisations in the North cannot turn to big corporate or high value donors to make up the gap”.

What is the Minister doing to ensure that the big society does not usher in further unfairness and exacerbate the north-south divide?

[Mr Hurd]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. I refer her to the geographical spread of successful applications to the transition fund, with which we are pleased. She mentioned the need for further incentives for giving in this country. I refer her to what was an extremely helpful Budget in that context, which had a major initiative to encourage giving through inheritance tax and a substantial reform of gift aid to make it easier for smaller charities to receive it on smaller donations. The Government are working extremely hard to make this difficult period of transition as easy as possible for charities.

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

4. What recent estimate he has made of the number of charities and voluntary sector organisations that will be affected by reductions in public expenditure in the next 12 months.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

9. What recent estimate he has made of the likely change in the number of jobs in the voluntary sector as a result of reductions in public expenditure in the next 12 months.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

Unfortunately, the sector cannot be immune from cuts, for reasons that have been explained. That would have been exactly the same under a Labour Government. We are trying to help the sector to manage a difficult transition, while shaping what we believe are significant opportunities for the sector, not least in terms of more public service delivery.

[Mrs Glindon]

Since the late 1980s, Wallsend people’s centre has helped hundreds of unemployed and disadvantaged people in North Tyneside to gain the necessary skills to get to work. In the past year, it has lost more than £450,000 through cuts to Government grants. Four experienced support workers will now lose their jobs. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the communication he has received from the people’s centre about its plight, to which he has not yet replied?

[Mr Hurd]

Again, I am sorry to hear that that organisation is in difficulty. I am more than happy to meet representatives from the community to discuss it. The transition fund has been made available to help organisations in difficulty. I point out to the hon. Lady that many of the funding decisions and cuts are local decisions, and that many councils across the country are taking a positive approach by maintaining or even increasing spending on the local voluntary and community sector.

[Paul Flynn]

Cutting charities reduces our ability to help one another and undermines the structures of neighbourliness that form our big society. That is the opinion of the chair of the Charity Commission, who knows about these things. Is not the Government’s big society a big confidence trick?

[Mr Hurd]

Absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman has been around enough to know that the size of the deficit means that the sector, which receives almost £13 billion a year of taxpayers’ money, cannot be immune from the reduction in public spending, and that it would not have been immune, as the Opposition have admitted, under the ghastly scenario of a Labour Government. We have to be realistic about that. We are trying to minimise the short-term damage through initiatives such as the transition fund, and to create the building blocks for a better future for the sector, not least through more incentives for giving and more opportunities for it to deliver public services.

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

5. When he expects the first payments from the big society bank to be made.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

11. When he expects the first payments from the big society bank to be made.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)]

The first payments will be made in the next few months. The exact timing and amounts will be decided by the Reclaim Fund once it has assessed the amounts that it has received from the banks and the amounts that are likely to be reclaimed from depositors.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

We hear constantly from businesses and social enterprises that high street banks are unwilling to back innovative or new ventures. How will the Government ensure that the big society bank is different and that it assesses applications in such a way that it does not exclude start-ups and innovative organisations in favour of only the established players in the social enterprise and charities sector?

[Mr Letwin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that issue. The whole point about the big society bank, as I tried to indicate to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) a moment or two ago, is that it will be entirely different from a commercial bank. It will be set up precisely to achieve social return as much as commercial return. The other vital point is that it will operate through social lenders and investors already in the marketplace, so it should be able to reach out to the smallest community and voluntary groups and not just be restricted to the large groups that also play an important role.

[Jack Lopresti]

Is the latest estimate of money to be raised from dormant bank accounts still £400 million, and what progress has been made in securing an additional £200 million from the UK’s largest banks?

[Mr Letwin]

Yes, the estimated amount to be raised from dormant accounts remains at £400 million. The Reclaim Fund will now assess the exact amount that it can release in the first year, and the current estimate is somewhere between £60 million and £100 million. Then there are, of course, the negotiations that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General is having with the four main lending banks that were party to the Merlin agreement about another £200 million of funding. Altogether, there should be a considerable amount of funding coming through this year and in following years.

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

The NESTA report referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) stated that the big society bank

“should not expect to achieve commercial returns on all its investments”.

By far the majority of demand for capital is for soft capital and patient capital. Why, after two months of intense talks between the banks and the Treasury, do we still not have an agreement? The banks are saying that they want commercial returns. Will the Minister confirm today that the big society bank will not be about commercial returns for the banks but about genuine support for social and community enterprises?

[Mr Letwin]

The right hon. Lady is confusing two levels of lending and investment. There is the question of what the big society bank demands of the investments that it makes, and as I have said, that will be both a social return and a modest financial return, but not the type of commercial return that one might make with a hedge fund or in another such way. Then there is the relationship between the big society bank and the main commercial banks that are party to the Merlin agreement. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General is currently discussing the exact terms on which that investment will be made. It will have to be compatible with social objectives and the social returns that the big society bank is intended to make.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

10. What recent progress his Department has made on establishing public sector mutuals.

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

In August last year, we launched a pathfinder programme of 21 groups of public sector workers setting up mutuals with the help of mentors. In addition, millions of public sector employees will be given rights to provide public services as mutuals, such as those recently announced in the national health service. That will free up public sector workers to innovate and provide better and more efficient services. We have committed to funding a £10 million support programme to help such new organisations get off the ground. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am bound to say that it is very difficult even for me to hear what the Minister is saying. As a consequence, I feel sorely under-nourished. The situation is unsatisfactory.

[Andrew Selous]

Given the evidence that productivity and efficiency increase dramatically when staff are given a role in shaping services, is not the scaremongering about the proposals on mutuals unhelpful to users, taxpayers and the staff concerned?

[Mr Maude]

Anyone who visits the pathfinder mutuals, talks to the staff—now co-owners—of those organisations and sees the excitement with which they are pursuing their new vocation will give up on the scaremongering. This is a profoundly important movement that should command support from throughout the House.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

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

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

I have overall responsibility for the work of the Cabinet Office, while the Deputy Prime Minister has specific responsibility for the Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.

[Mr Bone]

Last week on the doorstep in Wellingborough, the hot issue was the responsibility of the Cabinet Office for implementing constitutional reform. Why is it that, under the alternative vote, British National party votes and Socialist Workers party votes in my constituency would be counted twice, but Tory votes would be counted only once?

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is no doubt why, I gather, rather more than half of Labour MPs now support first past the post.

[Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

T3. Staff at My Civil Service Pension are concerned that plans to turn the organisation into a mutual are a step towards privatisation. The Minister said in a meeting with union representatives in March that he would not act without the broad consent of the work force. Will he tell us how he has consulted those staff and whether he yet has that consent?

[Mr Maude]

We are moving down the path of freeing up My Civil Service Pension so that it can administer in the most efficient way civil service pensions to the 1.5 million members who are dependent on them. We are exploring different ways in which that might be configured, but crucially, employees will have a meaningful stake in that entity going forward.

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

T2. Fifty business leaders have got together to offer free mentoring advice to small and new business start-ups in my constituency. Will the big society Minister meet me to see how we can roll out that initiative beyond north Yorkshire?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

The short answer is yes. More than ever, the country needs to get behind its entrepreneurs. My hon. Friend’s local initiative sounds like an excellent one, and I would be delighted to meet him—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise and far too many private conversations are taking place in the Chamber.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T5. Which Cabinet Office conferencing, translation and interpreting services have not been put out to tender for small businesses to win, and why not?

[Mr Maude]

I have not the slightest idea, but I shall find out.

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

T4. When can the House expect the Public Bodies Bill? What will be in the Bill, and can we revert to the normal practice, whereby such controversial Bills begin in this House and not in the other place?

[Mr Hurd]

The Public Bodies Bill is obviously very important—it is an opportunity to improve radically the accountability of decisions and to make significant savings from the vast number of quangos that proliferated under the previous Administration. My hon. Friend will know that the Bill is passing through the Lords, with Third Reading expected on 9 May. Obviously, it is for the House authorities to determine the programming for debate in the House, but we expect the Bill to enter Committee after the Whitsun recess.

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

T7. A recent survey of charity leaders by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations suggested that charities are not happy, because they feel that the rhetoric that was sold to them before and after the election bears no resemblance to the money that they need to ensure that they deliver the services that are required. Forget about all the waffle, will the Minister tell us exactly how he will fund those charities and how he will ensure that they do things for people?

[Mr Hurd]

There is obviously understandable concern in the sector about the impact of reductions in public expenditure, but in my experience, charities are increasingly alive to the opportunity to deliver more public services—they are delighted by the announcements in the Budget to increase giving and by the progress that the Government have made in setting up the big society bank.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

T6. Will my hon. Friend the Minister please update the House on the progress of the national citizen service? Will he join me in congratulating the Lincolnshire and Rutland Education Business Partnership, which I have met on a number of occasions, on the invaluable work that it is carrying out to pilot and promote the national citizen service?

[Mr Hurd]

The national citizen service provides a fantastic opportunity for young people from different backgrounds to work together to make a positive difference to their communities. I am delighted that we are offering 11,000 places this summer in many locations throughout the country. I am also delighted that that scheme is coming to Lincoln, and that my hon. Friend is taking such an active interest in such positive opportunities for young people in his constituency.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

T8. What estimate have Ministers made of the cost of the VAT increase to charities?

[Mr Hurd]

VAT issues are obviously a matter for the Treasury, and I would refer that question to Treasury Ministers. As the hon. Gentleman knows—he is a former Minister—that is a long-standing issue for the sector. He will also be aware of a number of initiatives to look at how we can make the VAT regime more helpful.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

T9. Will the Minister relax regulations on investments by foundations and trusts to empower them fully to support innovations such as social impact bonds?

[Mr Hurd]

My hon. Friend will know that this Government are totally committed to helping to develop the social investment market, so making it easier for social entrepreneurs to access capital. The big society bank is our major player in that area, but we are looking at a range of ideas. He will also be aware that the Charity Commission is reviewing its guidance to foundations, which have a critical role to play in that context.

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

T10. Why is the public sector mutual fund late in going out to tender, and when will it be ready to accept bids?

[Mr Maude]

We will announce details in due course. It would have been easy to go ahead and just flash money around, but there is not much money thanks to the legacy of the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. We need to ensure that the money is husbanded and spent wisely, for example by providing advice for groups of public sector workers, of whom there are very many who want to form mutuals, and by ensuring that the advice is made available to as many as possible.

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

In his discussions about public sector contracts for small business, will my right hon. Friend talk to the Ministry of Defence about its habit of bundling together contracts for multiple services, which means that an expert calibration firm in my constituency cannot offer the specialised service unless it also offers paperclips and toilet rolls?

[Mr Maude]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will take it up. It is exactly how contracts are bundled up and procurements are undertaken that has squeezed out so many really effective small businesses from the Government market. That is exactly what we now want to change.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 April.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I know that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Colour Sergeant Alan Cameron from 1st Battalion Scots Guards, who died on Thursday 31 March as a result of injuries he suffered while serving in Afghanistan last April, and Captain Lisa Head from 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps, who died on Tuesday 19 April. Colour Sergeant Cameron was an inspirational figure to his regiment, providing support to injured colleagues and their families even while he was being treated in hospital for his own injuries. Captain Head demonstrated great bravery in her work making safe improvised explosive devices to protect both her colleagues and the local population. They will not be forgotten, and our wishes and best condolences should be with their families and friends.

I am sure that the whole House will also want to join me in sending our condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of Police Constable Ronan Kerr. Those who murdered him must not be allowed to deter the wishes of the overwhelming majority of people who want a peaceful and shared future for Northern Ireland.

On a happier note, people across the country—and, indeed, the world—are getting excited about the events on Friday, and I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in sending our best wishes to Prince William and Catherine Middleton ahead of their wedding this Friday, and to wish them a long and happy life together.

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

[Jim Shannon]

I would like to associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments and condolences to those people who have lost their lives in Afghanistan. I also welcome the Irish Rangers and the Irish Guards back home after their tour of duty in Afghanistan.

On Easter Monday, dissident republicans held a commemorative parade in Londonderry and threw down the gauntlet to all the law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland. The murderous thugs that are dissident republicans threatened to kill Police Service of Northern Ireland officers, both Roman Catholic and Protestant; they threatened the churches, both Protestant and Roman Catholic; they threatened politicians, both Unionists and nationalist; and they threatened Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and MPs in this House. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that this attack on the democratic process will be met forcefully, and that those republican terrorists must be brought to justice?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give that assurance. I am sure that everyone in the House and the country would agree that scenes of people dressed in balaclavas in Londonderry are completely unacceptable. We have funded the PSNI appropriately. It is now properly devolved and working well, and I urge it to do everything it can to hunt down these people. Above all, the words that should ring in our ears are those of the mother of PC Ronan Kerr, who said she hoped that this would not prevent more Roman Catholics from joining the PSNI and doing a great job policing Northern Ireland.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister recognise that lending to business by banks was down £3.4 billion last month in March, and that the construction industry was down in productive terms by 4.7%? Does he see a connection, and if so, what will he do about it?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right about the figures today and that what is happening in the construction industry is disappointing. We need to get Britain building again, which is why we are introducing the new homes bonus. However, what is encouraging in the figures is that the British economy is growing once again, manufacturing is up, exports are up, and we are seeing a rebalancing of the economy so that we are not over-reliant on private consumption. That is good news. We also have an agreement with the banks that they must increase their lending to businesses large and small. That needs to happen.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Colour Sergeant Alan Cameron and Captain Lisa Head. Both demonstrated enormous courage and bravery, and our thoughts are with their families and friends. I also pay tribute to Police Constable Ronan Kerr, who was senselessly murdered simply for doing his job. We should all be encouraged by the expressions of outrage that we have seen across all communities in Northern Ireland in response to this act.

I also join the Prime Minister in sending best wishes to Prince William and Catherine Middleton on their happy day on Friday. I am sure that I speak for the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and myself when I say that we will all do our best to be suitably attired for the occasion.

On the economy, does the Prime Minister think that it is a mark of success or failure that the economy has flatlined over the last six months?

[The Prime Minister]

It is clearly a success that the economy is growing. The figures out this morning show the economy growing in the first quarter of the year. They show manufacturing and exports up, and we have 400,000 more people in work in the private sector than we had a year ago. However, the right hon. Gentleman predicted a double dip. He said that we were going to get two quarters of negative growth, so when he gets to his feet, perhaps it is time to apologise for talking the economy down.

[Edward Miliband]

What world is the right hon. Gentleman living in? What extraordinary complacency. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) asked what was happening to small business lending. What terrible complacency from this Prime Minister. Six months ago, what did he tell us? He told us that we were out of the danger zone. Since then there has been no growth at all in the British economy. Yesterday the Chancellor was reported to have told the Cabinet that the economy was on track, but it is not even forecast to meet the Office for Budget Responsibility’s figures published last month by the Chancellor. Is it not the case that it is his cuts that are too far and too fast, and that are squeezing living standards, undermining consumer confidence and holding back growth in our economy?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman was desperate for the economy to shrink today. He had written his questions and come to the House; the only problem was that the economy was growing, not shrinking. He and the shadow Chancellor said that there would be a double-dip recession. They had talked the economy down. Now that the economy is growing, why can they not find it in themselves to welcome the growth in the economy? We should be talking up the fact that manufacturing is increasing and we are exporting more, with 390,000 more people in private sector jobs than a year ago. These are welcome developments.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the danger zone. I will tell him what the danger zone is: it is countries such as Portugal, Greece and Ireland, which did not deal with their debts, and as a result have interest rates rocketing and real problems. We have debts, tragically, because of what we inherited and a deficit the same size as Greece’s, but we have interest rates like Germany’s. It is time for the right hon. Gentleman to admit that he was wrong about the deficit and wrong about the economy.

[Edward Miliband]

It is not me who is talking down the economy; it is the Prime Minister’s austerity rhetoric that has led to the lowest levels of consumer confidence in history in this country. He has been Prime Minister for a year. He cannot blame the Greeks, he cannot blame the Bank of England, he cannot blame the last Government—he cannot even blame the snow. Why does he not admit that we have had six months of no growth because of his decisions, his Chancellor’s decisions and his Government’s decisions?

[The Prime Minister]

The economy has grown by 1.8% over the last year, but let me tell the right hon. Gentleman this. I did a little research, and all the time that he was in the Cabinet, there was not a single quarter when the economy grew more than 0.5%—not one. That is his great record. Let me tell him something about the need to make public spending cuts. We are now in a new financial year—the year in which the Darling plan was going to start the process of cutting the deficit by half. For every £8 that we are proposing to cut this year, Labour would be cutting £7. Have we heard a single sensible proposal for making any cuts, or have we just heard blatant opportunism and talking the economy down? I think we know.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the appalling, disgraceful, untruthful and misleading leaflet that is being distributed by the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign, which is being chaired by the Electoral Reform Society? The leaflet seeks to diminish Parliament and therefore damage democracy, which, given the content of the leaflet, can be the only objective of the Electoral Reform Society.

[The Prime Minister]

What matters, in the week that we have left before we vote in this vital referendum, is that we get back to the real arguments about competing electoral systems. I am very clear that first past the post is simple, fair and effective and that it has worked for our country. I have to say that it is not often that I like to look out on a sea of red badges, but today it looks quite good.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Q2. Is the Health Secretary’s job still guaranteed? He is over there, by the way.

[The Prime Minister]

The Health Secretary does an excellent job. Let me draw a little contrast—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is very discourteous and it is very unfair. It is unfair on the Prime Minister and it is unfair on me. I want to hear the answer.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me draw a little contrast between what the Health Secretary is delivering here—real-terms increases in health spending—and what is happening in Wales. The Labour-led Administration in Wales are cutting the NHS in real terms. Everyone in Wales needs to know that if they get another Labour-dominated Assembly, they will get cuts in the NHS, whereas in England we will see increases in the NHS because of the magnificent work of my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

Q3. People have been shocked at the scale and extent of the phone hacking allegations against some of our most popular newspapers. In order to uncover the truth, will the Prime Minister instigate a full judicial inquiry and, in particular, look at the relationship between the Metropolitan police and News International?

[The Prime Minister]

What is absolutely clear is that phone hacking is not only unacceptable but against the law. It is illegal; it is a criminal offence, and I would urge the police and the prosecuting authorities to follow the evidence wherever it leads. That must happen first, and we must not let anything get in the way of criminal investigations.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister explain why, if there is a genuine pause in the enactment of the Health and Social Care Bill, the inception of cluster primary care trusts that are preceding the GP consortia, including the Greater Manchester cluster PCT, has been brought forward from 1 June to 3 May? Is not this pause nothing more than window dressing? It is political manoeuvring before next week’s elections.

[The Prime Minister]

No, I think the hon. Lady is wrong. This is a genuine exercise in trying to ensure that we get the very best out of these reforms. We are looking specifically at areas such as public accountability, choice and competition, education and training, and the patient involvement aspects of the reforms. Of course we have to go ahead with driving out the bureaucracy and additional costs from the NHS. We inherited from Labour, I think rightly, a £20 billion efficiency programme, and we have got to take that through, but there is a genuine opportunity to make these reforms better still.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Q4. Suffolk is among the worst-served areas of the country for broadband, and the commonly cited final third of premises beyond the reach of commercial broadband deployment is more like a final two thirds in that area. Given that nearly one fifth of all Suffolk premises receive a speed of less than 2 megabytes per second, does the Prime Minister agree that investment in broadband in Suffolk is essential to boost our economic recovery?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must put this investment in. We are spending, I think, £530 million investing in broadband. Particularly in rural areas, broadband is going to be absolutely vital in driving the creation of the small businesses and growing businesses that will be so important to keep the growth of employment in our country.

[Edward Miliband]

Can the Prime Minister tell us why 98.7% of nurses have no confidence in his health reorganisation?

[The Prime Minister]

Inevitably, when you make changes in public services, it is a challenge taking people with you. But that is the whole point of pausing the reforms and then trying to get them going again with greater support from doctors and nurses. What we are finding is that 90% of the country is covered by GP fundholding practices that want to see these reforms succeed. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he wants to make some constructive suggestions, why not have a try?

[Edward Miliband]

Dearie me, that wasn’t a very good answer, was it? I asked the Prime Minister why 98.7% of nurses have no confidence in his policy. It is because it is a bad policy, a policy nobody voted for. It is a policy that was not in the Prime Minister’s manifesto, it was not in the Deputy Prime Minister’s manifesto either at the general election, and it was not even in the coalition agreement. Perhaps one of the reasons why nurses have no confidence in his policy is that two years ago, he went to the Royal College of Nursing and said there would be no more pointless, top-down reorganisations.

Next question: why is it that hospital waiting times fell year on year under the last Labour Government, but have risen month on month under this Government?

[The Prime Minister]

That is simply not the case. If we look at out-patient waiting times, we find that they fell in the last month, so the right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong about that, as he usually is. I have had the opportunity to study his representations about the reforms, and I have had a good look at them. He says that we are introducing EU competition policy for the first time; we are not. He says we are allowing GPs to charge; we are not. He says that patients will be left without services; they will not. Why does he not realise that instead of frightening people, he ought to make a constructive contribution.

[Edward Miliband]

Another totally hopeless answer! I asked about waiting times. The Department of Health figures are these: waiting times are 20% up for those waiting more than 18 weeks, and A and E waits are at a record level compared to six years ago. One of the reasons why waiting times have gone up is that the right hon. Gentleman is diverting billions of pounds from patient care into this costly reorganisation. Let me make this suggestion: just for once, why does he not listen to the doctors, the patients and the nurses and scrap his reorganisation?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman asks me to listen to doctors, so here is one doctor I am definitely going to listen to. I hope Opposition Members will remember Howard Stoate, who was the Member of Parliament for Dartford. He is no longer an MP because he lost the election—because of the Conservative candidate, I am afraid. He is now a GP—[Interruption.] Calm down, dear. Listen to the doctor. Howard Stoate, GP, says:

“My… discussions with fellow GPs… reveal overwhelming enthusiasm for the”—

[Interruption.] I said calm down. Calm down, dear—and I will say it to the shadow Chancellor, if he likes. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us briefly have the answer and move on to Back Benchers, whose rights I am interested in protecting. I want a brief answer from the Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

This is a very brief quote from a Labour MP who is now a GP. He said:

“My… discussions with fellow GPs… reveal overwhelming enthusiasm for the chance to help shape services for the patients they see daily”.

That is what Labour MPs, now acting as GPs, think of the reforms. That is what is happening.

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

Apologise to her!

[The Prime Minister]

I am not going to apologise; you do need to calm down. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. [Interruption.] Order. It makes a very bad impression on the public as a whole, and others are waiting to contribute. I think the Prime Minister has finished.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

During the recess, a number of European issues have arisen: the Portuguese bail-out, the increase in the European budget and proposals for corporation tax at the European level. Will the Prime Minister re-coin a phrase and simply say to all those matters, “No, no, no”?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the European budget. The idea of a 5% increase at a time when member states are having to make reductions in difficult public spending programmes at home is completely unacceptable, and we will make sure it does not happen.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Q5. On the proposal to build the largest wind farm in England in my constituency with 45 wind turbines 100 metres or more high, just less than a mile away from two big conurbations and on beautiful landscape in the area, can the Prime Minister tell us what influence my constituents will have under the Localism Bill on the planning decision concerning this massive intrusion on the landscape? Will he ask the relevant planning Minister to meet me and a delegation of constituents to discuss it further?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to arrange that meeting. I think it important for local people to have a greater say in planning decisions, and that is what we are enabling them to do. However, I also believe that when wind farms go ahead, local people should see a greater benefit in terms of the finance that goes into the area, and our plans will achieve that as well.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

In 2007, the Labour Government implemented the Medical Training Application Service, or MTAS. Junior doctors will remember what a disaster it was. That large-scale, disruptive and untested system had disastrous consequences for junior doctors in training. Is the Prime Minister aware that there are concerns that the current proposals to reorganise medical training and work force planning could have similar unforeseen consequences?

[The Prime Minister]

I must say to my hon. Friend that she is a lot better at getting them to shut up than I am. I think that she is a future Speaker in the making.

I can absolutely guarantee to my hon. Friend that we will not make the mistake that the last Government made in respect of medical training. They created an utter shambles.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Q6. Eddie Kay from Maghull received excellent treatment when he was in hospital recently, and I am glad to say that he is recovering well. However, while he was in hospital his operation was cancelled four times, and he was also told of bed closures and nursing redundancies on his ward. Does not Mr Kay’s experience show that the Prime Minister was wrong to claim that he would not cut the NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course things go wrong in our national health service, which is one of the reasons why I think that we need to reform and modernise it. The fact is, however, that at the last election only one party said that it would increase the NHS in real terms, and that is exactly what we are doing. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about NHS cuts, he should have words with his colleagues in Wales who are proposing to cut the national health service—not in cash terms, but in real terms—and he should help us to put a stop to that.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

Q14. Across the country, 2 million families are on waiting lists for social housing. Nearly 1 million homes lie empty, and the average age of a first-time buyer is 37. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that there is a housing crisis in Britain, and will the Government publish a strategy to tackle it?

[The Prime Minister]

We do acknowledge the very difficult situation that we inherited. House building was at a 60 or 70-year low. We need to introduce ways of ensuring that local communities see more houses built. The old top-down system did not work, but I believe that the new homes bonus and the incentives that we are giving local authorities will mean that extra housing goes ahead.

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

Q7. Rather than losing his rag because he is losing the argument, will the Prime Minister explain why waiting times have been rising in my constituency and across the country?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong about waiting times. I quoted the figures. Waiting times have been broadly stable over the last couple of years—that is a fact.

The key point that I would make to the hon. Gentleman, who is meant to be a moderniser, is that if he wants to see waiting times come down and stay down, the best answer is a system that involves greater choice, and enables patients to choose where they are treated and establish how quickly they can be treated. The hon. Gentleman used to be a moderniser; there is still time to get on board.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Q15. I am engaged in a consultation with my constituents in east Cheshire on an issue that is of great concern to them: the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood. As a parent, does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituents that action needs to be taken to find real solutions to this challenging issue, and to give every child the childhood that it deserves?

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As a parent of three little ones, I know that it is incredibly worrying to see what is becoming available in some shops and other places. We are, effectively, asking our children to grow up too early. I think that there is a lot more that we can do, which is why we have asked the chief executive of the Mothers’ Union to conduct an independent review of this vital area. We are looking at a range of specific issues including television, video and other pressures that are put on people, and we expect the report to be published in a few weeks’ time.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Q8. The Prime Minister has described hospices as one of the great successes of the big society, so why, as a result of his Government’s increases in VAT and cuts in gift aid, is Nightingale House hospice in my constituency paying an extra £20,000 to his friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year? Will he give it the money back?

[The Prime Minister]

The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that the hospice movement is a fantastic example of the big society and we should see it expand, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has increased gift aid so that more people can give more money more effectively. As the hon. Gentleman is another Welsh Member of Parliament, let me put this point to him: why is he supporting an NHS cut in Wales that will hit not just hospices but hospitals, GPs and community services? That is what is coming out of this Question Time. Labour is cutting the NHS; you cannot trust Labour with our national health service.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Q9. The whole House will be aware that younger women drivers face a massive hike in their insurance premiums next year as a direct result of a European Court judgment. In that context, does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that this judgment has been warmly welcomed by London’s Labour MEP Mary Honeyball, who has indicated that she considers it to be admirable and the price of equality?

[The Prime Minister]

Well, I have to say to my hon. Friend that that shows that some of the loony left is still alive and well in our country. [Interruption.] I think you’ll find it’s over there. Frankly, insurance premiums ought to reflect risk, and my hon. Friend is, as ever, displaying common sense, whereas the European Court did not.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

Q10. It is now almost 12 months since the Prime Minister visited the West Cumberland hospital in my constituency in the wake of the shooting atrocities that took place there. It is, I believe, a matter of profound regret to Members on both sides of the House that the Government have chosen to do nothing on gun laws in the intervening period, but while the Prime Minister was at the hospital he also visited the accident and emergency clinicians and other clinical service providers, who are now facing the prospect of their services being removed as a result of GP commissioning. Will he do them and my constituents a favour by removing GP commissioning from the Health and Social Care Bill?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I well remember visiting the hospital in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It is a fantastic hospital and it did brilliant work during those incredibly tragic times about which he spoke. I can absolutely reassure him that he does not need to worry about the future of the West Cumberland hospital. I understand that he has met the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), to discuss the concerns, and they are in agreement that issues need to be resolved swiftly. The Department of Health is working closely with the local NHS to produce proposals to redevelop the hospital. That is what is going to happen: investment will be going into the NHS because of the commitments we have made, whereas, sadly, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s party—[Interruption.] Luckily, he is not in Wales, where Labour is cutting the NHS, but I suspect it would do the same in England as well.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

Q11. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be aware that this country lost 1.7 million manufacturing jobs under the last Labour Government. Will he explain what plans the Government have to make sure this decline is reversed?

[The Prime Minister]

We have already seen over the last year an increase in manufacturing output and in manufacturing exports. I was up in Bedford last week at the GM plant, which is massively expanding. It is creating more jobs and bringing £150 million of offshore contracts back into the UK. We are backing that with low tax rates, deregulation and more apprenticeships. This is a Government who are pro-enterprise, pro-jobs and pro-manufacturing and who are going to dig us out of the mess the last lot left.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Q12. Does not the nightmare of Fukushima mean that the planned renaissance of nuclear power will be stillborn? Should not the Prime Minister be planning for a future that will be free of the cost, fear and anxiety of nuclear power, and rich in renewables that are British, that are green, and that are inexhaustible and safe?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we have to learn the lessons from Fukushima but, as I have said before, that is a different reactor design in a different part of the world with different pressures. The British nuclear industry has a good safety record, but, clearly, it has to go on proving that, and doing so in the light of the new evidence, such as it is, that comes out of Japan. That is what must happen, and the head of the nuclear inspectorate will do exactly that.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

The Prime Minister is a vociferous opponent of the alternative vote system and reserves special disdain for the idea that someone might win after coming second in an early round. Will he therefore stand aside in favour of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who beat him to the post in 2005?

[The Prime Minister]

I seem to remember that my leadership contest ended up with the two of us touring the country and it was a popular vote. I am pleased to say that, unlike in some parties around here, the person who won actually won.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Q13. Given that our recovery has, in effect, stalled since he became Prime Minister, does the right hon. Gentleman stand by what he said to this House after his first Budget last June, which was that unemployment will fall “every year” in this Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

I was quoting the Office for Budget Responsibility, but the fact is that 390,000 more people are in private sector jobs than there were a year ago. I would have thought with the economy growing, with exports up, with manufacturing up and with more people in work, the right hon. Gentleman should be welcoming that, instead of joining the doom-mongers on his Front Bench, who can only talk the economy down.

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

Will the Prime Minister join me in calling for an independent international review following the UN report into the crimes committed by the Sri Lankan Government against the Tamil people?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are still unanswered questions from that period, and I will look closely at what he says and write to him.

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

The service of our armed forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere deserves to be recognised at the highest level and all the time, as the Prime Minister has often said. Why on earth, therefore, have the Royal Irish Regiment and the Irish Guards been denied a homecoming parade in Belfast? Will the Prime Minister intervene and talk to colleagues to ensure that this process of recognition for our troops and appreciation by the citizens of Northern Ireland can rightly take place as soon as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, because the bravery of the Royal Irish Regiment and the Irish Guards in Afghanistan has been outstanding and, sadly, both regiments have suffered loss of life during their recent deployments. As I understand it, a number of homecoming events will be taking place across Northern Ireland. We are discussing with Belfast city council and others how we can give recognition to their tremendous bravery. No decision has yet been made and I will make sure he is fully involved in those discussions. It is also worth noting that because they are actually stationed in north Shropshire, they have already had a very successful homecoming parade in Market Drayton, and I am sure that they will have many others besides.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Crawley borough council on freezing its council tax this year? Can he say how many other local authorities across the country have frozen their council tax, against the advice of the Labour party, which described that policy as a “gimmick”?

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased to announce that in spite of the fact that Labour dismissed it as a “gimmick” and that the leader of the Labour party said that councils ought to be able to charge more, every single council in the country has given their hard-pressed council tax payers a council tax freeze. We all remember what happened over the last 10 years when council tax doubled. It was the tax of choice of the Labour party, taking money out of people’s pockets. We are freezing that council tax to give people a break, and they deserve it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must now move on and we come to the ten-minute rule motion. I ask right hon. and hon. Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, extending the same courtesy to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) as they would wish to be extended to them in such circumstances.

Pleck Library (Walsall)

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

The petition is from the users of Pleck library, Walsall. The petitioners wish to prevent the closure of Pleck library and therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to protect Pleck library for the future. There are 1,108 signatories to the petition in similar terms.

The petition states:

The Petition of users of Pleck Library, Walsall,

Declares that the Petitioners wish to prevent the closure of Pleck Library. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to protect Pleck Library for the future.

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

[P000916]

Export Credits Guarantee Department (Regulation and Reporting)

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

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

12:33

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to impose certain requirements on the Export Credits Guarantee Department, including the publication of an audit of all sums owed to the Department, an annual impact assessment and a real-time disclosure policy on all supported projects; to prohibit the support of certain activities by the Department; to provide that debt cancellation by the Department cannot be defined as official development assistance; to prohibit companies from receiving support from the Department for a period of at least five years following a relevant conviction of corruption; to introduce a duty of care provision which must be followed in the Department’s operations to provide access to justice for those affected by supported projects; and for connected purposes.

We are in the midst of an economic crisis caused in part by a lack of transparency and regulation in a system that thrived on excessive risk-taking for short-term profit without regard for the wider implications or the impact on people’s lives. It is now, I hope, widely acknowledged that private enterprise is bound by the same moral codes that bind us all and that activity in all areas of the economy should be both sustainable and accountable. We have obligations to one another and that is true for business as much as it is true for individuals. That is why I seek to introduce this Bill today: to shine a spotlight on a Government Department that uses taxpayers’ money to fund business activities overseas some of which are neither sustainable nor accountable and that have, in the past, caused significant damage to people and the environment.

The Export Credits Guarantee Department falls under the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and acts as the UK’s export credits agency. It uses Government money to support private exporters in winning contracts overseas in countries where alternative support is not readily available to those businesses. It spends a huge amount of taxpayers’ money—in 2009-10, it issued guarantees of more than £2 billion—yet it operates entirely in a moral vacuum. Campaigners have unearthed countless astonishing examples of projects that cause significant damage to people and the environment, such as the sale of weapons to General Suharto in Indonesia that were then used to suppress his own people; a power station in India, which was significantly overpriced and now lies dormant because the electricity that it generated was too expensive for the Government to buy; and a hydroelectric dam in Lesotho that was overseen by a chief executive who was later jailed for 18 years for taking £3 million-worth of bribes.

It is worth dwelling on one more example: the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline in the Caucasus. From the very beginning, non-governmental organisations voiced significant concerns about the project. Its design, they said, violated World Bank and European safeguards on human rights and the environment on more than 170 occasions, yet the ECGD went on to ensure the construction of the pipeline by the BP-led BTC consortium, providing credit totalling £150 million. Part of the deal was a series of “host Government agreements” with the countries involved. Those agreements take precedence over all national laws, except the constitution, and prohibit improvements to human rights or environmental regulation through new laws if they might affect profits. In effect, the deal puts profits above people, sometimes with the most appalling consequences.

As Amnesty International has pointed out, the deal created a “rights-free corridor” and during its construction much of the route was militarised. In all three countries, local people and international investigators were harassed, detained and arrested and there were allegations of torture. The UK Government have since conceded that the consortium broke international rules governing human rights, but it surely cannot be right that we are facilitating such activities not only without ensuring that human rights can be upheld but while human rights are actively being prevented from being upheld.

Those actions potentially put the UK in breach of international law and are certainly at odds with our human rights obligations, but for recipient countries the implications are much worse. If the deal falls through the exporter is paid anyway and, in the short term, the UK taxpayer foots the bill, but in some cases the ECGD goes on to re-designate that fee as a debt owed by the recipient country. An astonishing 95% of developing country debt owed to the UK has been generated by ECGD-backed operations. Those countries could have spent that money on developing their own economies, but instead they are forced to pay for a service that often does little for their people. Sometimes they are paying for damage inflicted on their people and their country.

I have a personal interest in this matter. Before I entered the House, I had the privilege of working with a group of remarkable children who had suffered appalling abuse and poverty overseas. I feel incredibly strongly that as a country we should be doing everything in our power to prevent the harm that is done to them, yet instead, in some cases, we are underwriting it.

The situation appears to be getting worse. The standards the ECGD applies are, in the words of the Jubilee Debt Campaign, “weak and getting weaker.” In 2010, the previous Government removed mandatory screening of child and forced labour for ECGD-backed projects. Between 2009 and 2010, the ECGD backed £21 million-worth of unscreened projects. In comparison, the OECD recently pointed out that all the UK’s major competitors and the vast majority of export credits agencies screen all the projects that they fund. The UK should be leading the way on this most important of issues, but instead we are trailing further and further behind.

Most of what we know about the ECGD comes from campaigners because it is neither transparent nor accountable. There is no legal requirement on it to publish a list of the projects that it supports and it does not reveal which outstanding debts relate to which projects. Indeed, requests for such information have been repeatedly declined. The ECGD has no duty of care at all to people who are affected and there is no grievance mechanism for those who are affected. Lender responsibility is disregarded and all the repercussions are borne by importers, even if there has been no, or limited, benefit to those countries. That is precisely the opposite of social responsibility.

My Bill would require the ECGD to adopt a list of prohibited activities and proactively to publish information on the projects it supports, including impact assessments, consultation and the monitoring and evaluation of projects. It would also prevent companies that have been convicted of corruption from receiving support from the ECGD for five years after the date of conviction. I want to make it clear that I am not attempting to stifle support for British business, which needs and deserves support from the Government now more than ever, but we should be supporting sustainable trade that is of long-term benefit, that safeguards human rights, that protects the environment and that at the very least does not exacerbate poverty.

Currently, the ECGD supports a handful of large companies that operate in just a few sectors. In the past year, for which we have figures, virtually all its support went to one company alone, Airbus, which hardly represents the diversity of the British economy, and that does absolutely nothing for the small and medium-sized businesses that we are all so keen to support. The ECGD could instead support and promote new, green industries and make productive investment that would generate jobs and prosperity. Renewable energy, public transport projects and low or zero-carbon industries should all be considered for support. Instead, we support proportionally more carbon-intensive industries than any other EU country. A credit line of £50 million, which was rightly ring-fenced for renewable energy in 2003, has not been touched to date.

Reform of the ECGD is backed by Members from the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green and Scottish National parties. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), who is now the Secretary of State with responsibility for the relevant Department, proposed reform of the ECGD just two years ago. There is clear consensus that the most urgent task facing the Government is the recovery of the economy but that can and must be achieved through sustainable and productive investment. We should be promoting the best of British business to the rest of the world and we should be leading the way in our commitment to human rights and the environment.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Lisa Nandy, Zac Goldsmith, Roger Williams, Caroline Lucas, Tony Cunningham, Anas Sarwar, Dr Eilidh Whiteford, Sheila Gilmore, Bob Russell, Dr Julian Huppert, Teresa Pearce and Yasmin Qureshi present the Bill.

Lisa Nandy accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 November, and to be printed (Bill 182).

Points of Order

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

12:43

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter relating to ministerial accountability to Members of the House. I recently sent a letter, at the request of a constituent, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose office then notified me that it was being forwarded to the Department for Education for reply. Today, I received a reply from the Department—from the permanent secretary. This is the second time I have received such a letter. The matter about which I wrote was politically controversial, so the permanent secretary has, whether he wished it or not, been drawn into party political controversy by expounding and defending Government policy. This clearly is not satisfactory, Mr Speaker, and I shall be grateful for your guidance on how we should deal with such a situation and prevent its recurrence.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House for 40 years—I think he is in his 41st year of service in the House—so he will know that how Ministers respond to questions is principally a matter for them. However, I certainly think the point that he has raised warrants a ministerial response. For my own part, I will stick my neck out and observe that when a Member of Parliament tables a question, the Member of Parliament wants a reply from a Minister, not from an official. It might even be thought a little unwise to respond to the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, in the way that was done, but I am sure the Secretary of State will have something to say about the matter.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for this opportunity, as I am determined at all times to ensure that my Department responds promptly and fully to questions from colleagues across the House, and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) is a particularly assiduous correspondent on behalf of his constituents. I have had the opportunity in the past to reply personally.

On some occasions it is appropriate when responding to parliamentary questions and to correspondence to enlist the support of those who do such a good job in the civil service and in arm’s length bodies. It is always a matter for ministerial discretion, but if any Member of the House is unhappy with any reply that they have received, I would be delighted if they would write again to me. In almost every case where a parliamentary question has been answered or parliamentary correspondence has been received, there has been a note from a Minister stressing that if the reply and the information contained therein is unsatisfactory, Ministers would of course be delighted, as I am at any time, to provide further information.

I am also delighted and grateful to you, Mr Speaker, to be able to say that the backlog of correspondence that we inherited has now, thanks to the generous and energetic work of officials in the Department, been cleared. I hope that in the future I will be able to answer all questions from all parts of the House as promptly as Members deserve.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State. That closes the matter on the subject of questions and correspondence. I invariably receive personal replies in the form of letters from the Secretary of State, and I have come to look forward to them with eager anticipation.

Opposition Day

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[15th Allotted Day]

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

12:47

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that improving the life chances of children and young people from all backgrounds should be central to Government policy; recognises that the Sure Start network of 3,600 Children’s Centres, introduced by the previous administration, is crucial in delivering high quality early education and early intervention for children, as well as support, advice and specialist services for parents and carers; notes that the funding to local authorities for the Early Intervention Grant in 2011-12 represents a real terms cut of 22.4 per cent. nationally, compared to the 2010-11 allocations before in-year cuts to area based grants; recognises that, in the context of this cut to early intervention funding, the large, front-loaded cuts to other local authority funding streams, and the removal of the ring-fence around Sure Start funding, Sure Start Children’s Centres will inevitably be put at risk; notes that before the General Election the Prime Minister promised to protect and strengthen Sure Start; and therefore calls on the Government to protect the Sure Start network of Children’s Centres by thinking again about their deep cuts to Sure Start funding, to monitor the evidence and, if local authorities are choosing to disinvest in Sure Start centres, to commit to reinstating the ring-fence for Sure Start funding to ensure that vital and valued services are not lost.

How tempting it might be to continue the discussion that just took place. The record of the Department in answering parliamentary questions and letters is pretty lamentable: 90% of named day PQs are not answered on time. That gives a glimpse of the chaos that reigns in the Secretary of State’s Department. But I note your ruling, Mr Speaker, that the matter is closed for now, so we will turn to Sure Start.

It is not always the case that policies debated and voted on in the House become universally accepted as a good thing in the country at large, but occasionally, between us, we get it right. Every now and again an idea comes along that is right for its time, addresses a real need, makes life better for many people and slowly becomes part of our national fabric. It acquires a broad appeal across the Benches of the House and its longevity becomes secured. Sure Start, it seems, is in that rare category of policies.

Last year, a survey by the Institute for Government considered the most successful policies of the past 30 years. Sure Start was judged to be the fifth most successful, beaten only by the national minimum wage, devolution, privatisation and the Northern Ireland peace process. Such a commendation for a flagship policy of the last Labour Government gives rise to a deep sense of pride among Labour Members today, but we are realists too. We know that other Labour achievements, such as the national health service, the Open university and the national minimum wage, will endure only if we convince all parts of the House that they are right.

It did not go unnoticed just over a year ago when the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, gave this pre-election manifesto statement to the National Childbirth Trust:

“We are strongly committed to Sure Start Children’s Centres and will strengthen this service”—

a clear promise to parents when the Prime Minister sought their votes. We have called this debate today to hold him and his Government to account for it.

This is not our first recent opportunity to discuss Sure Start. Seven weeks ago, the House had an excellent debate about the subject, but back then councils were still setting budgets and making choices. Today, we are in a much better position to make sense of the emerging picture on the ground, and we can judge the oft-repeated claim from the Secretary of State and his Ministers that they have given councils enough funding to keep all Sure Start centres open and, in the words of the Secretary of State at the most recent Education questions in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), that they have given them

“sufficient to guarantee every child a high-quality place.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 697.]

Today, we can test the claim made by Ministers from the Dispatch Box that councils have enough money to do both. Does the claim hold water?

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman not pleased to know that in Harlow all the Sure Start centres remain open and are as strong as ever? Given that councils throughout the country have £10 billion in reserves, should they not use some of that money to strengthen their Sure Start centres?

[Andy Burnham]

I certainly say, “Good old Harlow”. The hon. Gentleman sits on a very fine inheritance from Labour in that constituency, and I trust that he will look after it well. Indeed, he follows a very distinguished former Member.

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

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not consider Kent to be a bastion of Labour support, but all the children’s centres in the county are being kept open.

[Andy Burnham]

We will judge a week on Thursday whether Kent can return much Labour support, and we look forward to that judgment, but again I pay tribute to those local authorities that in difficult circumstances are doing their best to keep the Sure Start infrastructure intact. They deserve credit for that, because they are making some difficult decisions, and later I will go through some local authorities and list those examples that the House will be interested to hear.

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

Westminster council is also seeking not to lock the doors of its 12 children’s centres, but it is achieving that by implementing an 18% cut in funding through reduced outreach services and reduced services for child development, and by ensuring that smaller centres no longer provide any help for families seeking employment. How does that fit with the Government’s objective of getting mothers back into employment?

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I look over her local authority’s border into Hammersmith and Fulham, where even more worrying steps are being taken, steps that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) has skilfully exposed. I will come to those issues later, because there is a real issue about whether, in keeping open a centre, the service to parents in local authorities throughout the country is being destroyed. That is the key issue for the House to consider.

Let me, however, give the Government credit where credit is due—most unlike me, but here we go: they have certainly talked a good game on early intervention. To show just how committed they were to the issue, they commissioned not one but two distinguished Opposition Members to advise them on it, and the Field review—I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) in his place—and the Allen report found common ground.

First, each report sets out a persuasive case for investing public resources heavily in the early years of a child’s life. They argue that doing so will help us to tackle the root causes of poverty and to build true social mobility in Britain. Only that will challenge a society where, in the words of my right hon. Friend,

“at the age of three but certainly by five, the die of life is set for most children.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 320.]

We all must seek to work together to challenge such a world.

Secondly, their recommendations are based on the assumption that the existing 3,600 Sure Start children’s centres throughout the country, one to serve every community, should be the essential infrastructure—indeed, the delivery system—if the vision of high quality early intervention is to become a reality. That is the key question that we need to consider today.

The departmental Select Committee in the previous Parliament found that Sure Start had begun to make an appreciable difference to children’s lives. It stated:

“Parents in Sure Start areas relative to those in non-Sure Start areas reported using more child and family-related services…and their children were socially more competent. These results seem to show that programmes are becoming more effective over time, particularly in their work with the most disadvantaged, and that children are feeling the benefit of longer exposure to the programmes.”

That is a ringing endorsement.

In essence, Sure Start built into the early years universal comprehensive education. Its strength is that it brings together parents, of all backgrounds, who may not have known each other before. Instead of providing only state support, Sure Start, by bringing those people together, helped them to create self-sustaining support networks in the community, through one parent working with another, and in that way it gave all young parents the extra support that they need. That is a fundamental strength of Sure Start, and it must not be lost.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that Labour-controlled Tameside council has committed to keeping open all its children’s centres, despite a tough financial settlement, but did not the Conservative spokesperson on children and families let the cat out of the bag on the front page of the Tameside Advertiser this week, when she said that Sure Start should not be a universal provision serving every community?

[Andy Burnham]

That absolutely does let the cat out of the bag, and I am about to go through some examples of Conservative spokespeople in local government who do not seem to have read the Prime Minister’s words before the election last year.

I congratulate Tameside council, however, because it has dealt with a disproportionately larger cut to its early intervention grant than other authorities in Greater Manchester—Trafford, to name but one, which Government Front Benchers routinely mention. In Tameside, for every young person aged under 20 years old there has been a £70 per child cut in the early intervention grant.

The council is working in those circumstances to keep the network of Sure Start centres open, and that is why I congratulate Tameside, and I hope my hon. Friend will take my congratulations back to his friends. Owing to all the benefits that I have described, it is not surprising that the Field review concludes:

“Local Authorities should aim to make Children’s Centres a hub of the local community”.

My right hon. Friend describes them as a “targeted universal service”.

Two authoritative reports delivered to the Government advocate the importance of children’s centres, but now we get to the heart of the matter. We will soon discover whether the Government really wanted to hear the views of my esteemed friends on that crucial subject, or whether they were brought in for presentational reasons—as a piece of theatre to send a desirable political message.

To be fair to the Prime Minister, I remember well how about a year ago, during the election campaign, some Labour Members doubted the sincerity of his commitments to Sure Start. I looked back to what he said, however, because I remembered it from the television debates, and on 5 May 2010, on the very eve of the general election, readers of The Independent sent in questions to the then Leader of the Opposition. A questioner asked:

“As a parent who relies heavily on Sure Start centres for the educational and social needs of my child, I would like to know whether these centres will continue to receive funding.”

The Prime Minister replied:

“Yes, we back Sure Start. It’s a disgrace that Gordon Brown has been trying to frighten people about this. He’s the Prime Minister of this country but he’s been scaring people about something that really matters.”

That is what the Prime Minister said last May. In some ways, his anger was reassuring because it looked as if the Government-to-be were genuinely committed. I wonder how the Prime Minister feels today, given that it has turned out that those things that, as he said, “really matter” are under serious threat.

Evidence is emerging of widespread disinvestment by local authorities in Sure Start children’s centres. That seriously challenges the deliverability of the vision set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am happy to join the cavalcade of other Conservative authorities that have already been mentioned; in West Sussex, no Sure Start centres are closing. Indeed, there is a greater desire to improve the services for early years. Surely that is at odds with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.

[Andy Burnham]

It is a mixed picture. We will get to the bottom of the true picture on the ground as we get into the debate today. If Conservative local authorities are not just keeping the centres open, but protecting the services within them, I will of course recognise that that is what we want and what the Government said they would do. If that is the case, then good. But other Conservative-controlled authorities are not doing that. My question back to the hon. Gentleman is: what are he and his Front-Bench colleagues saying to Conservative authorities that are disinvesting from Sure Start and siphoning the money out? I look forward to an equally fulsome answer on that question.

If the Government accept the vision in the review that they commissioned my right hon. Friend to produce, I put it to the House that it must urgently consider what is happening on the ground and ask the Government to change course to preserve the network of children’s centres and services. As I will show today, children’s centres are closing right here, right now. Highly trained staff are being made redundant. Some children’s centres are keeping the lights on, but no more. That is the reality on the ground that the Prime Minister must urgently confront.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to what is going on in Sefton. The council faces 30% cuts in its budget and it has had to review all 19 of its Sure Start centres. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has made that decision, which emphasises my right hon. Friend’s point about the cuts being made by Conservative-run or led authorities. Families in Sefton are clear that they need the entire network. It is essential for people from all the different parts of the community that the network should be maintained. People from different parts of the community need different elements of the service.

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend points out that coalition councils are not acting to protect Sure Start. He has come to an important point. The Government will have to decide. When the Prime Minister made promises last May, was he promising to keep Sure Start as a universal service? If he was, he really has to act. If, however, he had decided to let it become a targeted service—available in some communities and not in others, available to some parents and not others—he needs to be honest about that. He needs to say that and it needs to be clear that that is the Government’s policy.

The Government built a clear expectation among parents that they were preserving Sure Start as a universal comprehensive service that would give all children the best start in life. Indeed, at the last Education questions, the Secretary of State said that he would guarantee all children a high-quality place. The Government will have to live up to that promise.

If today the Prime Minister believes as strongly in Sure Start as he appeared to on the eve of polling day, he must act to save it. He must stop the disinvestment in Sure Start by councils and reinstate the Sure Start ring-fence in the next financial year, as our motion suggests, to protect a service that is still very much in the early years itself.

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

Will the shadow Secretary of State also congratulate Medway, an authority that is retaining its 19 Sure Start centres? It is going beyond that and showing the Government’s commitment to helping and supporting the young ones in their early years. I have a letter from the Department for Education dated 13 March 2011. It says that the Government are giving an additional £275,000 to Medway to increase provision to two-year-olds, three-year-olds and four-year-olds. That shows the commitment from local councils and the Government.

[Andy Burnham]

I am not in a position to judge the decisions of Medway council. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the cuts introduced by the coalition since the last election have led to a £40-per-child cut in the early-intervention grant in Medway. If the council is making the best of a bad lot, I say good luck to it; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage other councils to do the same.

[Robert Halfon]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I will now make some progress.

There is a dissonance between commitments given from the Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State and the actions of councils on the ground, which are dealing with the reality—the hand of cards—that the Government have given them. How did we get to this position? First, let me examine the issue of national funding to support Sure Start. In his statement to the House on the spending review, the Chancellor said that he had found

“more resources for our schools and for the early years education of our children.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 964.]

On that day, we said that that was a highly questionable statement. But ever since, the Secretary of State and his Ministers have stuck loyally to the line that the Government have given councils enough money to maintain children’s centres and services—that is, until the debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) a couple of weeks ago on estimates day. I do not know what possessed him, but the Secretary of State intervened on a point being made by my hon. Friend and for the first time broke the discipline that Government Front Benchers had been observing so carefully. He said:

“The hon. Lady was kind enough to mention earlier that by her own calculation ring-fencing Sure Start within the current early intervention grant envelope would mean that other services would have to go. How will she protect those other services? Will she raise taxes, cut spending elsewhere or, as she said earlier, simply cross her fingers and hope for the best?”—[Official Report, 2 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 359.]

That is a revealing statement, for implicit in the Secretary of State’s words is the admission that the Government have not given councils enough money in the early intervention grant for everything that they need to pay for to sustain both Sure Start and other crucial services, such as short breaks for disabled children, teenage pregnancy services and the children’s social care work force.

The Secretary of State could not have been clearer—we cannot have both: ring-fence Sure Start, and face cuts to some of those essential services for children. At least we saw a degree of honesty from the Secretary of State, but his problem is that his statement directly contradicted the Prime Minister’s a few weeks earlier; that is not a good career move for a man in his fragile position.

In February, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister claimed the polar opposite of what the Secretary of State said. He said:

“On Sure Start, the budget is going from £2.212 million to £2.297 million. That budget is going up. That is what is happening.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 293.]

To be fair to the Secretary of State—and I do not often say this—on this occasion he has a much better grip on the detail than his boss. The £2.212 million referred to by the Prime Minister is the early intervention grant for 2011-12. The Prime Minister conveniently took 2011-12 to be his baseline year—and yes, between 2011-12 and 2012-13 the contribution goes up in cash terms. However, not for the first time at the Dispatch Box, he was playing fast and loose with the figures. The only way to show what has happened to Sure Start and early intervention since the change of Government is to compare 2011-12 with the financial year that has just ended—that is, 2010-11. A departmental ministerial statement dated 13 December 2010 said that in 2011-12 the amount to be allocated through the early intervention grant

“is 10.9% lower than the aggregated 2010-11 funding through the predecessor grants.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 67WS.]

The Prime Minister said that the budget was going up; the Department explicitly says that the budget is going down. That is not acceptable. In fact, it is worse than that because the Department’s calculation leaves out in-year early cuts after the general election to the area-based grant that many local authorities, particularly in more deprived areas, used to receive.

New research from the Library gives us the full picture. Its figures show that the equivalent EIG at the start of 2010-11 was £2.794 million, meaning that this year’s £2.212 million represents a real-terms cut of 22.4%.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

The implication of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that under a continued Labour Government the cash settlement for all these services would have remained the same, yet in the Labour manifesto there was no promise to ring-fence the Sure Start grant, the Department for Education or the Department for Communities and Local Government. Given that the previous Chancellor intended to make savings across Departments, where does the right hon. Gentleman believe that this money would have come from?

[Andy Burnham]

Sure Start was ring-fenced—that was the policy of our Government. The Labour manifesto talks of strengthening early intervention. I am holding the Prime Minister to account for what he said when he was seeking the votes of people in this country. He said, in terms, that he would strengthen Sure Start, so I am saying that we should look at the evidence on the ground. Is Sure Start strengthening or weakening? When I read the hon. Gentleman some of the evidence, I hope that he will make an honest judgment on whether the service is getting better or is under threat.

The research from the Library tells us that in England the average cut in the EIG between 2010-11 and 2011-12 is £50 for every child in this country. Altogether that is absolute proof that the PM, who is undoubtedly a good talker—a PR man—is dangerously cavalier with the facts at the Dispatch Box, as Oxford university recently found to its cost. He said at the election that he would protect Sure Start, but in fact he has cut it, in real terms, by about a quarter. This takes us to the crux of the matter. The Government have not had the guts to be honest about the cuts that they are making to Sure Start. Instead, they have cut the budget, removed the ring fence, and offloaded the problem and the responsibility on to local authorities up and down the country, some of which face invidious choices in cutting essential services for children—child safeguarding and other important services. That is a terrible position for local authorities to be in, be they Conservative, Liberal, Labour or in coalition. Some other councils are cutting way beyond what would have been the ring fence. They are cutting into funds that were given by the Government for the purposes of Sure Start, siphoning them off and spending them elsewhere.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talked about cavalier language. At the last election, Harriet Harman, the Member for—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind Members that they should not name other Members? The reference should be to the constituency represented; I think that the hon. Gentleman was about to get on to that.

[Ben Gummer]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for correcting me.

At the time, the lady of whom I spoke came to Ipswich and told my constituents that children’s centres would be cut in Ipswich. Since the election, every single centre has stayed open and two more have been added. The right hon. Gentleman is a decent man. Will he apologise on her behalf for having misled people, because I have tried to get her to apologise and she has refused to answer my letters?

[Andy Burnham]

I will happily look at what is happening on the ground in Ipswich. However, there is an important difference that I point out to the hon. Gentleman. It is possible to keep a children’s centre’s lights on and keep a receptionist and a cleaner, but what is going on inside? Is he satisfied that an appropriate level of service is being provided to support the parents of Ipswich? That is the judgment that he has to make. It is not just a case of whether he can come to the House and say that Ipswich is keeping the lights on—it needs to do more than that. Indeed, his own Government have funded it to do more than that. Suffolk, which is the local authority concerned, has had a huge cut of £40 per child in its area. He has to ask his Front Benchers whether that is acceptable for his constituents.

Let me go around the towns and point out what is happening on the ground. Derby, home to a Tory-Liberal coalition, seems like a good place to start. Surely there, if anywhere, people would implement coalition policy to the letter, would they not? Well, perhaps not, because we find that in Derby six children’s centres are threatened with closure. In a BBC news report on 10 March, Kelly Jennings, daughter of the Tory leader of the council, Harvey Jennings, said:

“I voted for the Conservatives because I thought there was going to be more help for the NHS. Now they are cutting that off and locally they are cutting off the Sure Start centres which single parents like myself rely on.”

We have been very pleased to welcome Kelly into the Labour party because she sees that in these tough times only Labour will be the voice of people and stand up for the services on which people depend. [Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, so let us look at some Tory authorities. We have heard wonderful praise for many local authorities today; let us look at a few others. Are they working hard, like other authorities, to implement the Prime Minister’s clear pre-election pledges?

In Hammersmith and Fulham, we saw the first use of an interesting tactic that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) mentioned earlier. Many of its 16 children’s centres were under threat of closure. My hon. Friend went to the council meeting to see it discuss the issue. Then we heard the news that six would become hubs and 10 would remain as spokes. Only when we dig a little deeper do we find that nine of those so-called spokes will receive £25,000 a year. What is that enough to pay for—a receptionist, a caretaker, a bottle of bleach? Is there much more that it would pay for? I do not know, but it could not be very much. At the last Education questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) recalled the hospital without patients in “Yes Minister”. This coalition may be remembered for a more modern equivalent —a children’s centre without any children in it. That could be the Secretary of State’s legacy. I do not know about hubs and spokes, but there are certainly plenty of mirrors and smoke when it comes to presenting the facts about Sure Start.

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

I hope that my right hon. Friend might have an opportunity to look at what else is happening in Hull, controlled by the Liberal Democrats, which has seen a 32% cut in the children’s budget across the board and a 50% cut in the money going to children’s centres. Of the 20 children’s centres that we had under the Labour Government, 13 have effectively been mothballed by the Liberal Democrats and will have very few services.

[Andy Burnham]

I am glad that my hon. Friend raises that important point. As she says, the budget for Sure Start in Hull has been cut by 50% from £9 million to £4.5 million. During a previous Opposition day debate on the education maintenance allowance, the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and advocated that people should vote Liberal Democrat, particularly in Hull, pointing to some excellent provision that was available. I wonder whether we will hear that again or whether he will revise that advice to the electorate in advance of next Thursday. A 50% cut—can that be what the Prime Minister had in mind when he said he would strengthen Sure Start? This is the decimation of services on the ground.

Let us talk about some more Tory authorities before we get on to the Liberal Democrats. Tory-controlled Barnet is removing funding from eight of its 21 children’s centres, making £6.4 million of savings. Tory-controlled Bromley is closing 13 of its 16 centres. How can there be a service for the whole borough when just three centres are left? Are Ministers really saying that every parent in Bromley can access those centres and their services? I doubt that very much.

In Hampshire, 28 of the 81 children centres are set for closure. However, we should not worry because help is at hand. The right hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) has signed a petition against the changes. Thank God for that!

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I would like to correct the right hon. Gentleman on his facts, unfortunately. Hampshire county council has pledged to protect all front-line Sure Start services and only back-office costs will be cut.

[Andy Burnham]

Well, there was a plan to close 28 children’s centres. I was led to believe that the council was considering the plan and consulting on it. I do not know when it had a change of heart. Perhaps it was because of the force of the representations of the right hon. Member for Eastleigh. We will have to find out. I am tempted to ask the Liberal Democrats to relay back to their colleague that rather than sign the petition, it might have been better for him to speak up in Cabinet to oppose the Secretary of State for Education and his cuts to the early intervention grant. Would that not have been a quicker way of resolving the matter, whether or not the local authority has had a last-minute change of heart with the local elections looming?

I do not know what to make of the behaviour of the right hon. Member for Eastleigh. Am I alone in finding his behaviour increasingly strange and Cable-esque? For the past 11 months, he has sat with his Lib Dem colleagues in Cabinet as the Tories have put various questions before them. They were asked, “How about trebling tuition fees and creating a market in higher education?” They said, “Why of course, be our guest, go and do it.” The Secretary of State for Education asked, “How about scrapping EMA?” “Please do,” said the right hon. Member for Eastleigh, “and why not decimate the careers service while you’re at it?” They were asked, “Shall we cut Sure Start?” “Please do,” said the right hon. Member for Eastleigh, “it will give me a good campaign at local level. Please get on and do it.” However, when the Tories ask, “Won’t AV mean we spend a little more on counting machines and the cost of elections?” all of a sudden, there is talk of resignation, legal challenges and Lord knows what. I struggle to understand that response from the right hon. Member for Eastleigh.

Does that synthetic rage not expose once and for all the absolute moral bankruptcy of today’s Liberal Democrats? When the interests of millions of young people were at stake in Cabinet discussions, they sat on their hands, but when their self-interest is challenged because they might not win a vote on a change to the voting system, it is time to bring down the coalition. That tells people everything they need to know about the Liberal Democrats: their politics are flaky, unprincipled and cynical, and their disloyal Ministers are preparing for life beyond the coalition.

There have been increasingly desperate statements from the Deputy Prime Minister. What has he said about Sure Start? At the Lib Dem spring conference he said:

“I cannot tell you how proud I am that not a single Liberal Democrat-led council is closing a single Sure Start children’s centre.”

Liberal Democrat Members have gone quiet. Are any of them prepared to back up that statement today? Stand up now. Does anyone hold to that statement?

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

indicated assent.

[Andy Burnham]

You do. So the Liberal Democrats all think that that is a correct representation and stand by it.

Let us consider Kingston upon Hull, where there is a 50% cut in the Sure Start budget. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) says that that is not true. Perhaps somebody has more up-to-date information and will beg to differ. Kingston upon Thames is another interesting and revealing example. Channel 4 FactCheck picked up the suggestion from the Deputy Prime Minister that the Lib Dems were not closing any centres and Cathy Newman went to Kingston upon Thames to look at whether any centres were being closed. Indeed, one was being closed in Hook. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Cornwall says that it is not a Sure Start centre. Well, when Cathy Newman went there, she found a plaque on the door that read, “children’s centre”. How can it not be a children’s centre, I ask the hon. Gentleman? I am struggling with this defence.

I acknowledge that Labour councils, too, are taking difficult decisions. We have heard coalition Ministers target Liverpool and Manchester. Liverpool is losing £90 per young person and Manchester £80. Both are working to keep service reductions to a minimum. Hampshire, by contrast, is losing just £30 per child and plans to close 28 centres. How does that work?

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

I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said about Liverpool. Will he join me in congratulating Labour-led Liverpool city council, which has not closed any children’s centres and is desperately trying to keep them all open? I hope to intervene on the Secretary of State to ask for his support for that.

[Andy Burnham]

I do congratulate Labour-led Liverpool city council and its leader, Joe Anderson. Sure Start is clearly close to his heart, as he said when he set the budget. I am delighted that it is working to keep all its centres open.

Perhaps our calling this debate has led some people at local level to have a change of heart. Perhaps it has led to some U-turns at local level, of the kind we have become familiar with from the Government. The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) mentioned Hampshire. [Laughter.] The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) laughs, but only yesterday, Hampshire decided that its centres would remain open, but that the budget would be cut from £17 million to £11 million. [Interruption.] I do not read the Hampshire local press every day. Does the Under-Secretary? The council had a plan to close—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will say two things. First, it is not necessary for the Under-Secretary to behave like a child to demonstrate his empathy for children. That is not a requirement of the job. Secondly, although I am very much enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s geographical tour of the United Kingdom and always relish his exchanges with the Secretary of State, I am conscious that Back-Bench Members also wish to contribute. I am sure that those on the Front Benches will take account of that and apply a certain self-denying ordinance.

[Andy Burnham]

I agree, Mr Speaker, and will bring my remarks to a close.

Liverpool is doing well, despite facing difficult budget cuts of £90 per child. Hampshire is losing just £30 per child and is in a mess at local level, as is clear. These are the real politically motivated cuts. Hampshire is cutting its budget from £17 million to £11 million—a council in a more affluent area siphoning funds out of Sure Start and away from children who are facing the biggest challenges.

The evidence is racking up. Sure Start is being starved and is shrinking. Coalition policy is turning a much-loved, universal service into a patchy postcode lottery, which breaks the Prime Minister’s promise to parents. The ministerial team are making a mess of this successful policy in precisely same way as they mangled EMA and school sport partnerships. The Government say that they accept the Field and Allen recommendations, but the rhetoric does not match the reality. Early intervention services are under intense pressure as councils wrestle with impossible choices. Later this week, Labour will publish a survey of 70 directors of children’s services, which reveals a worrying picture of the quality and coverage of child safeguarding services in the current climate. It is becoming increasingly clear that Sure Start will not survive if the removal of the ring fence continues.

The motion makes the reasonable request for the Government to consider the emerging evidence and change course. We were right about school sport and we were right about EMA. If the Government care about the promises they have made, it is time for another U-turn and the reinstatement of the ring fence. I hope that they will listen, but somehow I doubt that they will. The decisions to shrink Sure Start fit entirely with the direction of Government education policy: at every stage of the education journey, they are making life harder for those who face the biggest challenges. They are breaking the promises that they made. We have heard what is happening to pre-school education, despite the fact that the programme for international student assessment has shown that all the best school systems in the world are based on the most extensive pre-school provision.

On four-to-16 education, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box on the day of the spending review and promised more resources for schools, and said that the pupil premium would be “truly additional”. Heads know how hollow those words were, as they have to use a static or falling budget to buy back central support services previously provided for free by the local authority. Most schools are facing 80% cuts in their buildings budgets, as the Secretary of State showers extra money on his free schools.

On 16-to-19 education, the Prime Minister made a personal promise to young people at a further education college to keep the education maintenance allowance, but the Government scrapped it. Even the OECD has recently called on the Government to reinstate it. The effect of scrapping it will be that education and the route to a better life will now be closed off to many young people.

On higher education, holier-than-thou promises from the Government that £9,000 fees would be the exception rather than the norm have proved utterly false, as we will debate later today. Universities such as Cambridge are left to say what the Government will not—that state school pupils will start to drop off and find it harder to gain access.

What is the combined effect of all those misguided education policies? I can almost hear the sound of falling aspiration in my constituency and in former industrial areas where so much was done to lift expectation, and I can tell the Secretary of State that it terrifies me. The Government are breaking their promises to parents and young people, and the effect will be to reinforce disadvantage at every stage of the education journey. Families with a little extra money will probably be able to insulate themselves from the worst of the changes, but the combined effect on the children who have least will be that the odds are stacked even further against them by an old elite, slamming the door in their face and kicking away the ladder.

What about when young people try to move from education into today’s more competitive workplace? The Deputy Prime Minister made a feeble promise to open up work experience and internships, and days later the Prime Minister laughed in his face and reassured his old network that it would be business as usual.

The coalition’s true colours are slowly being revealed, and what we see is the same old ruthless Tories. Promises were made to soften their image—“We will look after the NHS.” “EMA will stay.” “Sure Start will be strengthened”—but they have all been cynically abandoned after less than a year in office. The Government are acting as though they got a mandate last May. They did not, but we have a Liberal Democrat party that is letting them behave as though they did. Last May, the Liberal Democrats sacrificed everything and sold the shop for a referendum on the voting system, a change that they want in their own electoral interests. Now we see how viciously they are prepared to fight to secure that self-interest, while we remember how meekly they sold down the river millions of young people whose votes put them in Parliament.

Children and young people deserve a lot better than this. Labour will stand up for young people and give them all a fair start in life, and we will be their voice in tough times. I commend the motion to the House.

13:33

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

In this post-Easter season, there is cause for all of us to celebrate, because a number of gloomy predictions have been confounded. At the beginning of the football season, some of us might have imagined that the dominant team on Merseyside would be Everton, but in fact, thanks to Kenny Dalglish’s inspired leadership, the reds are five points ahead of the blues. The gloomy obituaries that were being written for that great team have had to be put back.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Who do you support?

[Michael Gove]

QPR, as it happens, but I admire Liverpool, and particularly Kenny Dalglish. [Interruption.] We are top of the league, you know.

Another gloomy prediction was made by Labour Members, but it has not come to pass—that of a double-dip recession. That was the mantra at the top of the Labour party, from the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour election co-ordinator, whatever his name is. The news today, however, is that our economy is growing once more—another gloomy prediction confounded.

We also heard a series of gloomy predictions from Labour Members about what would happen to the network of Sure Start children’s centres in this country. We were told by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) that we would see a reduction in the number of children’s centres in Hammersmith and Fulham, but actually, as the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) almost acknowledged, not only are all the existing Sure Start children’s centres being protected but a new one is being built. There is an increase in the number of Sure Start children’s centres in Hammersmith and Fulham.

The right hon. Member for Leigh told us halfway through his speech that Hampshire was going to close all its children’s centres. Sadly, that slur—[Interruption.] It was a slur. That slur on Hampshire county council was very effectively rebutted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage). The council is ensuring that every single children’s centre will remain open. The right hon. Gentleman did not have the grace to acknowledge either that it was a Conservative local authority that was keeping them open or that he had got it wrong. I admire his passion, but he must get his facts right before he comes to the Dispatch Box and attempts to tarnish the good name of an effective local authority that is doing a great job for children and young people.

In a spirit of generosity, I have to say that a great many Labour local authorities are doing a good job and ensuring that Sure Start children’s centres remain open. There are also Liberal Democrat local authorities doing a good job. One of the most disappointing things about the right hon. Gentleman’s speech was his attack on the Liberal Democrats, which I felt was mean-minded and beneath him. I understand that as an election co-ordinator, with just a week to go before he shores up the Labour vote that is collapsing in Scotland and evanescent elsewhere, he has to pick what he thinks is an easy target, but he has picked the wrong target.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, with whom I do not always agree, was right when he said that Liberal Democrat authorities were keeping all their Sure Start children’s centres open. We can look at what is happening in Kingston upon Hull, where all the centres are remaining open and services are being delivered from all of them. The same is true in Kingston upon Thames. The Liberal Democrat councillors in those authorities represent a party that I would not vote for, but they are doing the job a darned sight better than the Labour councillors who used to run Hull when it was the worst local authority in the country according to the Audit Commission. It is now the most improved.

[Andy Burnham]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

Talking of room for improvement, I give way to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andy Burnham]

Before we leave this matter, let us get to the bottom of the point about Hampshire. There was clearly a change of heart yesterday—[Interruption.] Will the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), hear me out? If there was a change of heart, the news had not reached me, and I welcome it. However, we must ask, a change of heart to what? The Sure Start budget there is going from £17 million to £11 million, a 35% cut. Is the Secretary of State applauding Hampshire for making a cut on that scale? He has just applauded the local authority and invited me to do the same. Is he saying that such a cut to Sure Start is acceptable and that the local authority should be applauded for cutting the service by more than a third?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman has not misled the House—he never misleads the House—but I am afraid that he has got himself in what we call in Scotland “a bit of a fankle”. He asserted that Hampshire was going to cut children’s centres, and then he was caught short by the facts. I know that he has more respect for the House than to want to put himself in a position of having inaccurate facts in front of him, so all he needs to do, as graciously as is his natural custom, is acknowledge that Hampshire is keeping its children’ centres open and congratulate it on that.

One reason why Hampshire, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kingston upon Hull, Kingston upon Thames and many other Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils, as well as Labour ones, can keep their Sure Start children’s centres open is that there is enough money. I can make that assertion because of the evidence that has been put forward by two of the people who have the best understanding of the early years. Anne Longfield OBE, chief executive of 4Children, has said that the Government are

“continuing to provide adequate funding to keep centres open and councils should resist the temptation to use this money to plug gaps elsewhere.”

Anand Shukla, the acting chief executive of the Daycare Trust, has said:

“The Government has allocated sufficient funding for the existing network of Sure Start Children’s Centres to be maintained”.

The money is there—independent witnesses say so—and well-run local authorities all over the country, represented by councillors of different parties, are maintaining that network. Therefore, every single plank of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument has collapsed beneath him, and I have been on my feet for only six minutes.

[Ms Buck]

What does the Education Secretary say to parents in my constituency, which has the seventh highest child poverty in the country, in the light of Westminster city council’s briefing? The briefing states:

“As you may have heard in the media, central government funding for Sure Start Children’s Centres nationally has been reduced, which means in Westminster we have to save 17% from our Children’s centre budget”,

meaning a saving of £715,000, including roughly £250,000 off early learning and child support, and £400,000 off outreach and family support. Children’s centres will be bricks and mortar without the staff even to ensure that services can be run safely.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady is a highly energetic constituency MP—indeed, I was represented by her for a brief period, and I know how passionately she takes up such causes. However, Westminster, like many other local authorities, is succeeding not just in keeping the Sure Start children’s centre network open, but in providing an enhanced service for children and young people. The question that she and every Opposition Member must address is this: if they believe, as I do, that Sure Start is a valuable service, and that it is a good thing that the Government have set up an early intervention grant, and that we are devoting resources and intellectual energy to the early years, will they support the coalition in the steps that it is taking, or do they have an alternative plan? Do they believe that money should come from other areas of Government expenditure to spend more on any of those services? If they believe that we should spend more than we are spending, can they explain which services they would cut or which taxes they would increase? I am very happy to give way to any right hon. or hon. Member who can enlighten me on Labour’s economic policy, including the hon. Member for Hammersmith.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Let us deal with the figures. If the Secretary of State has come along simply to give incorrect figures, he does not help the debate at all. Hammersmith and Fulham was spending £3.983 million last year; this year it will spend £2.206 million. Most of the nine Sure Start centres will have their budgets cut. Some will receive £19,000 to be satellites—the £19,000 is for the upkeep of the premises, but services will be delivered on-site by another children’s centre. The Secretary of State must stand by his words if he says that that means he is keeping the centres open. However, his stance in this debate and making such assertions does him no credit. He should at least live with the consequences of his actions.

[Michael Gove]

The consequence of the Government’s actions is that we have ensured, as both Anne Longfield and Anand Shukla have pointed out, that there is enough money to maintain that network. In addition, under Conservative leadership, Hammersmith and Fulham has been singularly successful in reducing the council tax burden on its ratepayers, and in diversifying the sources of funding it receives to support education and care for children and young people. It is a superb local authority. Instead of continually talking down the service that is provided by public servants in Hammersmith and Fulham, it would be nice to hear from the hon. Gentleman some sunny, uplifting words, rather than grim predictions of disaster, which as we have just heard, turn out never to be true.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Northamptonshire county council on deciding to go ahead with its plans for 50 children’s centres in the county, and on its support for my proposals to introduce a Northamptonshire parent-infant project in children’s centres, which will provide a parent-infant psychotherapy service for the families most in need who are struggling to bond with their new-born babies?

[Michael Gove]

I am delighted to congratulate Northamptonshire, where not a single children’s centre is closing. It is also the home of the innovative Pen Green children’s centre. More money is coming from central Government to help that council to develop news ways of providing support for children in their earliest years.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I have some sunny words for the Secretary of State. Sure Start Palfrey in my constituency was one of the first in the country to get an “outstanding” rating from Ofsted, which it gained because it did a lot of outreach work, including through a fathers’ club—84 fathers came to one session. However, there are rumours, which the Secretary of State might like to quash, that the staff will be replaced by health visitors, which moves the centre into a medical model rather than an educational model. Will he confirm that those specialist workers will not be replaced by health visitors?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. To be fair to Labour Members, I want to emphasise that Sure Start has been a success in the past, and we hope it will be an even greater success in the future. However, one matter on which it has not been as successful in every part of the country as it should have been is in outreach, particularly to the most disadvantaged. The Government believe that health visitors, as trusted faces of the state, can be one of the most effective ways in which we can increase outreach. We also believe that local authorities that have innovative solutions that succeed in ensuring that children in hard-to-reach communities receive those services should be supported. The coalition Government believe in supporting local authorities that are innovative in their use of resources, which is why we removed the ring fence, created the early intervention grant, and allowed a greater degree of innovation to flourish at local level.

[Diana Johnson]

The 50% cut is set out clearly in Hull city council’s budget to children’s centres—it is a fact. The centres cannot provide the service that they provided before that 50% cut. They have abandoned the local authority’s early years service team, and no one is doing early years service planning in that authority. The cut means that services are not the same as they were under the previous Government. Surely the Secretary of State must recognise that.

[Michael Gove]

First, we are entering the financial year in which cuts would have been made if we had stuck to the plan of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). However, I have heard not a single word from the hon. Lady or anyone else about where those cuts would have been made. Secondly, she and others—I understand that she is electioneering, which is fair enough—said that children’s centres would close, but in fact they have remained open.

Thirdly—I did not want to repeat this but the hon. Lady compels me to do so—the Audit Commission said that Hull was one of worst local authorities in the country when Labour ran it, and it is now the most improved local authority. I know that those three points are uncomfortable for her to deal with as she tramps the streets of the east riding attempting to drum up Labour votes, but they are undeniably true. That is why she is shaking her head—in anger at Labour’s record.

I specifically wanted to address some of the questions on the importance of outreach raised by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). The broader question is this: what do we want to achieve in the early years? A consistent theme in constructive questions from Opposition Back-Bench Members has been that the bricks and mortar are being preserved—that concession, for which I am grateful, is in stark contrast to the scaremongering that we have heard from Opposition Front Benchers—but what is happening in Sure Start children’s centres? Are we improving the quality of service that is provided to children and young people? That is a tough challenge.

One thing that we are doing—the right hon. Member for Leigh did not refer to this—is increasing resources to ensure that early education and child care are provided not just for three and four-year-olds, which the previous Government introduced. We have already extended the number of hours of free early education and child care from 12.5 to 15 hours for all three and four-year-olds—we implemented that and increased expenditure to do it—but we are also increasing the number of hours for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds. The plan under the previous Government was for 30,000 of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds to receive 15 free hours, but we are ensuring that 130,000 do so. That is an investment of up to an additional £300 million in the early years at a time when we have to make uncomfortable budget reductions elsewhere because of the desperate economic mess that we inherited. That is a sign of our determination to do best by the early years. It would only be fitting for the right hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that.

[Henry Smith]

The state of the country’s finances that was bequeathed to us by Labour was appalling. Is it not remarkable that the amount of interest that we are paying on Labour’s deficit is 39 times the Sure Start budget?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that the interest we are paying on our debt is 39 times the Sure Start budget under the previous Government. If we really cared about our children’s future, would we have saddled them with a debt at that level? Clearly not. I am afraid, however, that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the last Labour Cabinet were happy to spend, spend, spend without any thought to whether future generations would be saddled with an enormous debt. It is to the great credit of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that they were prepared to ensure that a coalition Government took the responsible steps necessary to deal with the dire economic mess, and it is to the discredit, I am afraid, of the current shadow Cabinet that not a single constructive suggestion has come forward for how to deal with the deficit. In just a few days’ time, when people think about how to cast their vote, I hope that they will reflect on which parties are acting responsibly in dealing with the national crisis, and which parties prefer posturing, irresponsibility and the emptiness of eternal opposition.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I would like to exempt one person from that stricture, however, and it is the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), to whom I am happy to give way.

[Mr Field]

The whole House welcomes the re-announcement by the Secretary of State that the number of poor two-year-olds who will receive nursery education will rise from 30,000 to 130,000. To ensure that it occurs, will the Government ring-fence the money?

[Michael Gove]

I believe that money additional to the early intervention grant has been budgeted for to cover the years 2012-13 to 2013-14, and we are currently discussing with the sector how to ensure that the money is spent most effectively. Rather than having a top-down approach to delivering support for children in the early years, we need to work in partnership, not just with local government, where there are many brilliant leaders, but with those in the voluntary and charitable sector who have a huge amount to add.

I mentioned Anand Shukla and Anne Longfield, but I am also very grateful to people such as Bernadette Duffy, who runs the Thomas Coram children’s centre, which has helped the coalition Government to move forward in developing a framework to ensure that children in the foundation years receive the support that they really need. For example, all of them have worked with us on the response to the report by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the interim report produced by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). In both reports a compelling case was made—this argument was also made eloquently in the first half of the speech by the right hon. Member for Leigh—that investment and the right interventions in the earliest years can have a dramatic effect in closing the opportunity gap that has grown up in this country.

All of us will have been struck by some of the figures released by the coalition Government and analysed by the Financial Times this week that show that social mobility in this country is still not moving in the right direction. In particular, we see evidence in some of our most deprived areas of children who have not reached an acceptable level of child development by the age of five. In those deprived areas, children who are falling behind continue to do so. I want to ensure that as much as possible we have a cross-party approach to dealing with that problem. Again I have to say that steps were taken by the Deputy Prime Minister, in the launch of his social mobility strategy, to outline exactly what we need to do to tackle these problems. All of his suggestions, particularly the emphasis on intervention at every stage in the life cycle and the prioritisation of early years, would seem to commend themselves to people of good will in every party.

[Andy Burnham]

I want to make it clear that I welcome some of the steps that the right hon. Gentleman is taking, particularly on two-year-olds, which builds on something that we were talking about. However, I want to ask him a serious question. I am listening carefully to what he is saying, and he is itemising some of the individual things that the Government are dong, but I want to know about the big picture so that I can understand his position on Sure Start. He talked about how Sure Start will develop in the future. A simple question: does he envisage Sure Start as a targeted service or a universal service?

[Michael Gove]

I envisage Sure Start as a universal service. [Interruption.] Second question? It is an interview. I almost feel like I am on “The Andrew Marr Show”—I will come to him in a moment. I believe that Sure Start is a universal service, but it is also important to recognise that there are children in greater need on whom we should target greater resources. The original Sure Start programme started out targeting areas with the greatest need, and subsequently, as it moved to phase 3, it became universal. Even within that, it is an example of what one might call “progressive universalism”. Yes, the service is there for all, and yes we recognise that disadvantages exist, even in some of our apparently wealthier communities. That is why the service should be universal. Nevertheless, we know that there are areas of real deprivation, such as the constituency that the right hon. Gentleman represents, and we need to ensure that our resources and energy are targeted in that area.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

A number of hon. Members want to intervene. I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales).

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State share my regret that last year the National Audit Office found that Sure Start centres had completely failed to address inequality in our disadvantaged communities?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman, who represents brilliantly a constituency with real deprivation, is absolutely right. Yes, Sure Start has the potential to make a significant difference, and yes on the ground it was already making a real difference, but we need to build on that by ensuring that we have the targeted interventions that help those children in the most difficult circumstances.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I note that the shadow Secretary of State spent 45 minutes on quantitative issues, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s emphasis on quality. Does he agree that we should be showcasing the really good interventions and effective use of money across the country? I regret that we have cuts, but surely we must be celebrating and giving confidence to the sector.

[Michael Gove]

That is the best intervention yet. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I and my departmental colleagues are anxious to point out that there are many committed professionals in the early years sector with a greater level of expertise in developing evidence-based interventions, all of which can help children in difficult circumstances. I have been impressed by how people have worked constructively across the sector, and I have been particularly impressed by the fact that, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North pointed out in his report on early intervention, we now have a better body of evidence that allows us to identify what works. We should celebrate the fact that some of that innovation has been operating at a local level in children’s centres run by exemplary local authorities.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I would like to make progress, because I am conscious that Members would like to speak after me. However, I took in vain the name of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, so I am happy to give way to his former Parliamentary Private Secretary.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I understand that there are proposals for developing a payment-by-results scheme for children’s centres. I think those proposals have great merit: they will ensure the proper examination of which interventions work, and will lead to better outcomes for children. What is the Secretary of State’s thinking on this, and has any progress been made on developing such a scheme?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very fair question. The answer is yes. We are examining this matter with the sector to establish which successful interventions we can encourage and incentivise to be spread more widely. Building on the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), I would add that some children’s centres are hugely successful at outreach. The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) referred to how a children’s centre in her constituency has succeeded in tackling some hard-to-reach families. We know that some families resent and resist what they see as state intervention and coercion in their families’ lives, but actually they desperately need that support, so we must incentivise those children’s centres that are good at outreach.

There is something else that is critically important. There is sometimes an understandable confusion between the provision of child care to ensure a higher level of female participation in the work force, which is a good thing in itself, and child development. Those are allied but separate issues. I would like to see a renewed emphasis on child development. The original Sure Start proposals, which the Treasury developed, had a real focus on child development, and through the work that Dame Claire Tickell has led, we have sought to look at the existing early years foundation stage and build on what is good about it. The focus of the foundation years should be on ensuring that children arrive at school school-ready and effectively socialised. That will sometimes require interventions to support parenting and to raise the quality of staff. However, we can identify and support good practice, and indeed support many of the voluntary organisations, such as 4Children, that are already doing a fantastic job.

I want to stress that the changes we are talking about depend on having in place the staff capable of leading our children’s centres in the right direction. We have provided funding specifically to ensure that the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services can ensure that there is a trained cadre of at least 400 highly qualified individuals with a new depth of training in running children’s centres, and that we move broadly in the direction hinted at by hon. Members towards a vision of children’s centres leaders as people who enjoy the same prestige and esteem as head teachers. We should see what is happening in children’s centres as part of the seamless process of education that should start at the earliest possible age and, in my view, continue for as long as possible, in order to prepare people for the world of work and progression.

At a time when we have to make economies, I recognise that it is difficult to concentrate on some of these areas of debate, but we have made a good start in the last 12 months. The constructive approach taken by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Nottingham North, along with those in the sector, is something on which we can all build. It is often tempting to knock local government, but I have been hugely impressed by the way in which the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, with its outgoing president Marion Davis and the incoming president Matt Dunkley, has engaged with the coalition Government to operate constructively.

I know that many hon. Members will want to use their speeches to make points in advance of the local elections—that is fair enough; it is that time of year—but I hope that in the remainder of this debate, their speeches will continue in the tone so admirably set by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. We all recognise the great work done by professionals in early years. I hope that we will all give some thought in the hours that we have left to how we can build on those successes and ensure that children, who are our first care and concern, can have the best possible start in life.

14:01

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It does not help the House if the Secretary of State comes here to defend the indefensible or to use what is essentially wrong information to do so. I will therefore correct some of the figures and facts that he got wrong—and, for the record, I will be doing so for the third or fourth time. I should also say that I do not have any local elections in my constituency. Indeed, it is somewhat insulting to say that Members who have supported their networks of children’s centres and been proud of them—that probably goes for Members from all parties in this place—have come to this debate simply to score cheap political points. That is not the case. I do not know whether my words will influence the outcome of the alternative vote referendum—if they lead to a yes vote for AV, then all well and good—but I assure the Secretary of State that that is not my intention today.

Hammersmith and Fulham council began on 10 January this year with a report, passed in full, that said:

“At present H&F has a network of 15 children’s centres…We are looking at options to restructure this provision in line with the likely levels of efficiency and grant reductions expected…However, it is not likely under this scenario that LBHF could continue to directly fund more than 6 Children’s centre teams.”

The cut in grant is about 13%, whereas, as I said in my intervention, the cut in the budget is about 45%. It is therefore no good Hammersmith and Fulham hiding behind the cut in grant. It is right to say, however, that as soon as that announcement was made public—albeit shortly after Christmas—there was, shall we say, a lively reaction in the constituency and the borough. A lot has happened in the three months since, partly because the local authority realised that it might be in breach of its statutory duties, which were quite properly introduced by the previous Government.

Those duties are such that either, first, the council would have had to return the nine centres that it was closing—those whose grants it was cutting entirely—to the Department for Education, or would have been liable to do so; secondly, it had not performed its statutory duty to consult before making the decision; or, thirdly, it was no longer clearly providing a network of children’s centres. The local authority’s response was based on trying to bring itself within the law, not on recognising it had made a mistake about levels of provision. Every one of the minor and incremental changes that it made was more to do with PR than with the service or keeping all the centres open. The general amount given to the nine centres that were, in fact, closing was £19,000. The council said that after consideration and consultation—it was a substantial consultation, with many thousands responding in fairly clear terms—it would increase the budget. In some cases, the budget was increased by £1,000 a year, so a budget that was £19,000 became £20,000, where previously it had been £250,000. Clearly the Secretary of State has been briefed in same propagandist way—“Yes, we’re going to open a new centre.” However, the new centre is one of the libraries that the authority is closing, and it will also receive a grant of £19,000, so we will have another empty building.

The third thing that happened was a substantial protest from my constituents. There were many demonstrations, including one attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), the shadow Children’s Minister. We reciprocated by bringing a party of Hammersmith and Fulham parents to the mother’s day protest outside No. 10 Downing street and presenting 2,000 signatures from parents in my constituency against the Sure Start closures. When the inevitable decision was finally made on 18 April to go ahead with the closure programme, 150 parents with buggies again turned up to protest.

I pay tribute to Ruthie Walsh and those involved in Hammersmith and Fulham Parents Unite for organising those protests, not because they are politically motivated, but because they care about their children and they absolutely value the service. Many say it is a lifeline, helping them through relationship break-ups, or loss of job or income, or even helping them to get back into work, providing not just child minding or play services but high quality support, particularly for children with developmental difficulties or special educational needs. That is what Sure Start provides and what, however we dress it up, we are losing when we close nine centres in Hammersmith and Fulham. After all the protests, all the jiggery-pokery and all the propaganda, the net effect is that the budget is indeed being cut by 45%, from almost £4 million to just over £2 million, that the number of Sure Start centres in Hammersmith will now be six, rather than 15, and that the number of children served by those centres will go down by two thirds, to no more than 2,000. That is the reality, with the spin removed, about the services that will be provided.

It is no coincidence that the pattern of Sure Start cuts fits the pattern of cuts in other children’s services. Four of the borough’s seven youth clubs have been closed in my constituency, along with after-school services, of which we are very proud, play services and a complete network of dedicated services. That has all been shut down, and because of Government cuts, the playbuilders scheme and the Building Schools for the Future programme have also been cut. The impact of local government cuts, as well as those directed through local government from central Government, unavoidably bears down overwhelmingly on children and people on low incomes in my constituency.

One of the most shameful things—this might be unique to Hammersmith and Fulham—is that rather than say, “This is regrettable, but it’s to do with finance and matters of that kind,” the local authority has tried to rubbish Sure Start as a programme. In its most recent report on the cuts, the council said that

“no Sure Start Local programme effects emerged in the case of ‘school readiness’ defined in terms of children’s early language, numeracy and social skills needed to succeed in schools.”

So there we have it: the reason for the almost 50% cuts in children’s centre budgets and the two thirds cuts in provision for children is that they do not work. Is that the Government’s attitude? Despite the protestations, do they actually think that we are talking about a wasteful service that should not be provided, or that pre-school services should be provided only to those who can afford to pay for them? To give the council credit, that is clearly the view of Hammersmith and Fulham, but it is not the view of my constituents, irrespective of income or background.

I do not want to take up too much time, but I want briefly to mention some of the Sure Start centres in my constituency that cater for and care for thousands of children every year in Hammersmith and Fulham. Cathnor Park family centre was the first to open in 1998, and the council now describes it as a “super spoke”—it is much better than a satellite: it is a super spoke. The centre receives £50,000 in funding, as opposed to the £473,000 it received last year. The same goes for Broadway family centre, which also received £473,000 last year, but which will receive £19,000 this year. The funding for Wendell Park, my local Sure Start centre, has been cut from £250,000 to £25,000, and that of the Bayonne family centre has been cut from £250,000 to £19,000. The Normand Croft centre’s funding has been cut by the same amount.

Those centres are popular, well used and well loved by everyone who uses them. They have established themselves and they believed that they would continue because they were told by politicians of all parties that they were providing a wonderful service to the parents and children of the borough. However, they will all be gone. We do not know about closures in children’s services yet, but we know about the closures of youth centres and play centres. Not only are the services being closed, but the buildings are being sold off. The assets are being disposed of, so, if there is another Labour Government, or another Government who are more enlightened than this one, or a local authority able to provide the services, it will not be possible to recreate them. They will be gone for good. That will be the legacy of this Government, and it is the legacy of the Conservatives in local government in London.

These decisions are ideologically driven. If they were driven by the need to save money, we would be seeing what the Minister of State promised us when she responded to debates on the subject—namely, cuts at a level that would allow the networks to survive. I have said this before to the Secretary of State: he should intervene on those local authorities that are choosing to close their children’s centre networks or not to provide such networks. They could be in breach of their statutory duty, and there will certainly be a legal challenge in Hammersmith and Fulham. There has not been proper consultation, and we have heard nothing but spin and disinformation, which, to his discredit, the Secretary of State has repeated today. The Government purport to believe in children’s centres and early years development, yet local authorities are cutting services to the bone and closing them down, to the extent that nothing remains except the shell of the building. The Government should intervene to stop them.

14:11

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

This Opposition day debate has been billed as one that would land a big blow on the Government on a crucial issue. The shadow Secretary of State gave us a number of examples in his lengthy trip around the country, but they were perhaps not the killer blow that he was hoping to land. He prefaced his remarks by saying that there was a great deal of recognition on both sides of the House of the good that Sure Start has done. I share that view, having seen what Sure Start has achieved in my constituency and elsewhere. Notwithstanding the issues raised in the National Audit Office’s report, to which we might return later in the debate, the programme has great strengths. All things can be worked on and improved, but the programme’s fundamental objectives of reaching and supporting people who need help, and encouraging people to work together to support each other, have been achieved in many children’s centres. Of course we welcome and support that.

Speaking as a rural MP, I believe that delivering such services in places such as North Cornwall is different from delivering them in urban areas. There has always been a hub and spoke approach in rural areas, because of the many village Sure Start children’s centres that we have. I see that as a strength, in that some services travel around all of them. I would caution the shadow Secretary of State against saying that there must be a fully staffed suite of people just hanging around in case someone walks in through the door. Instead, we should be looking at the best way of using resources.

[Andy Burnham]

I agree; that is a reasonable and fair point. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the examples that I gave. I think that he is the Back-Bench education spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, and I would like him to give us a straight answer today. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) that Lib Dem-controlled Hull city council is cutting the Sure Start budget by 50%. Does the hon. Gentleman support that move?

[Dan Rogerson]

We are in a period in which people are getting used to a coalition Government, and I am certainly not a Front Bencher here. I am speaking as a Back Bencher, and I am sure that you would be the first to jump on me if I claimed to be a Front Bencher, Mr Deputy Speaker. I and a number of other Liberal Democrats have a Back-Bench group in which we discuss many of these issues with other people inside and outside the party. We are also able to talk to the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who, as a Minister in the coalition Government, is at the heart of taking these decisions and leading policy forward, along with her other colleagues. My view on what is happening in Hull is that it now has a council that has taken over what was the worst council in the country under Labour and turned it around. It is in challenging financial times—I want to return to that subject later—but it has managed to ensure that all its children’s centres will remain open.

As I said earlier, the hub and spoke model, which is already operating in other parts of the country, can be successfully undertaken. The shadow Secretary of State also referred to a postcode lottery. That is one way of saying that locally elected councillors should be able to take decisions that affect their local areas and, having talked to the local community, use the money available in ways that the community believes will be most effective. That is my view of how local democracy should work. Instead of talking about a postcode lottery, we could talk about the young people in my constituency who had £300 less than the national average for their education under the Labour Government. Cornwall is recognised by the European Union as one of the most economically disadvantaged areas of the country. Those are the issues that we should be looking at, rather than at the way in which different councils take decisions about the money at their disposal.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to early years provision. As we have heard, they have involved Opposition Members in the debate, and I am delighted to see the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) in his place today. The Liberal Democrats have always placed a strong emphasis on early intervention, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who is no longer in her place, for the work that she has done over the years, inside and outside the party, and for chairing the all-party parliamentary group on Sure Start children’s centres. She makes a significant contribution to the debate.

The shadow Secretary of State attempted to say that the only thing that the Liberal Democrats were worried about was next week’s referendum. It is absolutely clear, however, that the coalition Government will continue, whatever the result of the referendum. I would point to the commitment to investing in child care and early years education for two-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds as something that my party has been arguing for. I also believe that the pupil premium, which the right hon. Gentleman has real problems with, will deliver real change and real investment for disadvantaged young people up and down the country. I would also point to the review by Dame Clare Tickell, and the aspiration to simplify and streamline the bureaucracy around the early years foundation key stage. That was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. I am sure that the Secretary of State and Conservative colleagues will want to emphasise their own credentials when it comes to tackling bureaucracy, but those measures were certainly in our party’s manifesto. I therefore have no problem with running through the Government’s programme and looking at all the Liberal Democrat priorities that are being delivered in it.

The key point that I want to make is that we are in difficult financial circumstances and, yes, the money going to local government has been restricted and efficiencies are having to be made. As other hon. Members have pointed out, a pot of fairy gold seems to exist in the minds of Opposition Members, along with the belief that, were they in charge, all the financial problems would be solved. However, the cuts programme that they set out when they were pretending to be responsible in government has now disappeared. They said that billions of pounds of cuts would be necessary, but they are now not being at all specific about where those cuts would have been made. It is tiresome that, time and again in these Opposition day debates, whatever the subject, all we hear from them is, “Of course we know that cuts have to be made, but we wouldn’t do it there or in that way.” They never tell us what their alternative would be.

It will become increasingly obvious as this Parliament progresses that that refrain just will not do. When that refrain is tied to a motion such as the one before us, which seeks to scaremonger before a local election about the closure of a service on which people rely, it is even more unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that the “killer statistics” that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was hoping to present have not emerged; the picture is different.

Sadly, some jobs will go, which is absolutely to be regretted. I look forward to continued investment in early years education and leadership programmes that might provide something for people wanting to move from one job to another and allow them to carry on using their skills and make a contribution. I also welcome the Government’s Green Paper on special educational needs, particularly the strong aspiration to tie in health spending on matters that perhaps previous were seen as solely the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education. There are lessons to be learned from Sure Start. In its early days, there were programmes to support breastfeeding, for example, which a primary care trust sometimes struggled to fund, given that supporting children’s centres was not part of the Department’s core area of responsibility. That was a controversial matter at the time.

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

I note the hon. Gentleman’s support for early intervention, but I only wish that he had been more enthusiastic in the Education Bill Committee in supporting my proposals for achievement-for-all partnerships. In view of his point about Sure Start, does he share my concern that local authorities such as mine in Waltham Forest are having to make terrible decisions because of the funding cuts? Fantastic projects such as the Hamara family project—provided by Barnado’s for work with children with special educational needs—and the outreach buses on the Attlee Terrace estate are having to be cut in order to keep the centres open. These services are going and we will not have the centres to maintain them.

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Lady has managed to put on the record references to a number of projects in her constituency; as an assiduous local MP, it is absolutely her right to do so. It is for her local authority to consider and to reach a conclusion about what happens to these services. The local electorate will look at those decisions and no doubt respond accordingly—not this year in the hon. Lady’s area, but in other parts of the country. My point was about trying to get health spending brought more closely together with what the Department for Education does; further gains could be made from that approach, which is why I greatly welcome investment in health visitors, for example, during this Parliament. We will have extra professionals on the ground to deliver these key priorities in early intervention and support for people who, without it, might find it difficult to keep the family together. It is important to support young children in those crucial years.

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

I am pleased to hear from my hon. Friend that, whatever the outcome on 5 May, I can continue to work with him for the greater benefit of the coalition in Cornwall in righting some of the terrible wrongs that have been left, especially the underfunding of education for Cornwall’s younger people. Does my hon. Friend agree that health visitors, particularly in remote rural areas such as Cornwall, will play an increasingly important role in supporting families with young children?

[Dan Rogerson]

It is crucial to ensure that programmes that sometimes seem specifically targeted at urban areas also deliver in more rural areas. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding that all rural areas are prosperous communities and that money should be targeted elsewhere. That is not the main thrust of what I am saying, however, so I do not want to get drawn further down that road. Of course I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) to ensure that Cornwall gets its fair share of spending and investment.

Sure Start has done a fantastic job of reaching out to people in communities, but there are questions about whether all the money has been spent efficiently. When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) pointed to projects under threat in her constituency, she specifically referred to a planning team. I am not aware of how much on-the-ground work that planning team does—it might be crucial—but it does not sound to me like a front-line service that is, as her Front-Bench team seek to imply, for the chop.

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

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, will he comment on—and, hopefully, dissociate himself from—his colleague who intervened and quoted one part of the Audit Commission’s report totally out of context, suggesting that the Audit Commission had said that early years intervention through children’s centres was a waste of money?

[Dan Rogerson]

I do not think it was said to be a waste of money. The argument was that things can always be done better, which is what the National Audit Office said. I hope that all Members agree that where issues have been identified independently and targets and aspirations for a policy have not been met, we can look for ways to do it better. My fundamental point is that, despite the financial situation, good councils up and down the country will prioritise children’s centres and keep them open to ensure that services have a reach—even if there is no insistence on having full-time workers in every specialism in every centre, which is what I would like to see if the money were available to fund it.

[Diana Johnson]

Of course all Members would agree that if efficiencies can be made, it is all to the good and we should see it happen, but is the hon. Gentleman honestly saying that a 50% cut to the children’s centre budget in Hull can be seen as a good thing and that services will improve because it is an efficiency saving?

[Dan Rogerson]

Of course I am not saying that spending less on a service is desirable. If we have the money in the first place, I would like it to be spent on front-line services, but I am not in a position to comment on how every single penny has been spent in Hull. I am pleased to note that my Liberal Democrat colleagues running the city council are keeping the children’s centres open and will provide services at them, which will reach across all the communities of Hull.

I conclude on that note. I hope that the debate will proceed by focusing on the positive aspects that Sure Start has delivered and the opportunities to continue delivering them.

14:27

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

A year ago during the general election campaign, a woman in my constituency asked me what Labour had done for Gorton. We were standing outside the St James Sure Start centre on Stelling street, where she was waiting to collect her child. That lady, like many constituents of mine, will be wondering what is going to happen to that centre, which she took for granted as though it had always been there, archetypally provided by some heavenly intervention. It fact, of course, it was created by the Labour Government and was one of their most successful innovations. Incidentally, when Parliament was considering the Sure Start proposals, the then Conservative Opposition did not support them.

In a city such as Manchester, which has many areas of deprivation, Sure Start made a hugely positive impact. We have 14 major centres, of which several excellent ones are in my constituency. One in Farrer road in Longsight was built anew at a cost of £3.25 million and provides an exceptional environment where parents can take their children and be confident that they will be looked after. Throughout my constituency—from Gorton right through to Whalley Range—my constituents have come to rely on Sure Start and take it for granted. That is true not only of the centres, but the other facilities provided by Sure Start. In several parks, such as Platt Fields, they provide play areas and playgrounds that were not there before.

Sure Start is very well used and enormously valued. That was shown when my constituents, along with those of other Labour Members with Manchester constituencies, came down to London a few days ago to present a petition to 10 Downing street—to which we have so far had no response—asking for Sure Start to be protected.

Some of the petitioners came from the Levenshulme area in my constituency, and a couple of weeks ago we held a special meeting in Levenshulme to discuss with local parents what they wanted to happen now that Sure Start was under threat as a result of the Government’s policies. Mothers listed a number of reasons why Sure Start had made a difference to their lives and the lives of their families. They spoke of a cohesive approach, and said that Sure Start had given them points of contact with other parents. They said that, as well as providing facilities and services, Sure Start had given them an opportunity to make friends and establish links with peer groups. They said that it was particularly valuable to those who did not have much family support, and that it was very important to single-parent families. They also said that it gave parents the power of choice, but that power of choice is now being undermined and placed in jeopardy by the huge cuts being imposed by this joint Liberal Democrat-Conservative Government. The city of Manchester is one of the top four cities in the entire country to have suffered cuts in local government funding from this Government. Next year the cut will be £109 million, and the following year it will be £170 million.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is painting a good picture of the work done by Sure Start in my constituency, but I wonder whether he and his fellow Manchester Labour Members will make representations to the city council about the £95 million cash reserves that it is holding, and about one or two jobs that it is advertising. For instance, it is offering annual salaries of £38,000 for a communications manager and £128,000 for a creative graphic designer. Would that money not be better put towards Sure Start?

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

The hon. Gentleman reads out some brief that has been thrust into his hands and talks about Manchester. I can tell him that he knows nothing whatever about life in Manchester and nothing whatever about the lives of my constituents, a huge proportion of whom have already lived in deprivation and are now living in worse deprivation as a result of what is being done by this Conservative Government. The latest unemployment figure is 9.4%. Let the hon. Gentleman not be briefed by his Whips to tell me about Manchester, because my constituents sent me to tell the House about Manchester, and that is what I will continue to do.

[Andrew Bingham]

rose—

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

If the quality of the hon. Gentleman’s first intervention is anything to go by, I think that the House will be better off without a second intervention from him.

However, the problem is not simply the cuts in Manchester’s overall funding but the cuts in the early intervention grant, which helps to fund Sure Start. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said that nationally the cuts amounted to £50 per head. In Manchester, the figure is £80 per head: that is what this Government have done to the city. Manchester city council is utterly determined not to close any of our Sure Start centres, but because of what the Government have done—because of the disproportionately high cuts in the early intervention grant—the service that we have been used to in Manchester, and which the council wants to go on providing, will no longer be available.

The council is examining options, not one of which it would prefer to consider. It will have to withdraw from its current role as a provider of services and become a “commissioner of provision”. That means that it will try to provide services which are of sufficient quality and properly targeted, but because of the Government cuts it will not be able to continue to provide the service that a Labour Government enabled my constituents to take for granted as something that they would always have. When I was electioneering for the local elections—

[Michael Gove]

Ah!

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

Oh yes. I shall say more about the local elections in a minute.

When I was electioneering for the local elections last Friday, a constituent came up to me and asked, “Why are the Government doing this to us in Manchester? We did not want this Government in Manchester, but we are stuck with them, so why are they discriminating against us?”

The best that we can do is not to close any centres and to engage in a consultation process. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh has pointed out, on this as on so many other issues, what was said before the general election by both the parties that comprise the present Government bears no relation to what they are doing now to service after service. The present Prime Minister said:

“we back Sure Start, but we will improve it, because at the moment the people who need Sure Start the most—disadvantaged families—are not getting enough of the benefit. So we’ll contract independent organisations that have a proven track record in helping families”.

One of the huge values of Sure Start was that it was socially cohesive. It did not discriminate socially between those who were more affluent and those who were in employment, and those who were less affluent and those who were not able to get jobs—and heaven knows, those who are not able to get jobs constitute an increasingly high proportion of the people I represent. But if the Prime Minister really wanted to approach Sure Start in the right way and to help disadvantaged families more, that is being breached to an even worse extent. The statistics show that constituencies such as mine are being penalised and targeted by the Government, whereas the families who, according to the Prime Minister, do not need Sure Start as much are suffering much less from cuts.

As I said earlier, the early intervention grant in my city has been cut by £80 per child. In Surrey, Buckinghamshire and Wokingham, it has been cut by £30 per child. The Government have decided to discriminate in favour of the affluent Tory-voting south, and against deprived constituencies like mine which need Sure Start. The Prime Minister himself needs Sure Start. But it is not only the Prime Minister who deceived the country before the general election. The leader of the Liberal Democrat party said:

“My party will protect existing child care entitlements and Sure Start”,

and:

“Sure Start is a really important programme that has made a real difference to millions of parents. Difficult decisions are going to have to be made in public spending but Sure Start is one of the best things the last Government has done and I want all these centres to stay open.”

That is what the leader of the Liberal Democrats says, whose party is conniving at undermining Sure Start and taking its valued facilities away from parents in my constituency who need them.

I have mentioned the local election campaign and what people are seeing happening, and I say this: a week tomorrow we in Manchester will be able to pass our verdict on the Liberal Democrats. There is no point in our passing our verdict on the Conservatives because we do not have any of them on the council, but we will be able to pass our verdict on what they have connived at in the abolition of—[Interruption.] I see a Minister grinning at what the Government have done to the deprived people in my constituency—at what they have done on education maintenance allowance and on Sure Start, at the £100 they have deducted from the winter fuel payment, at the deprived and the poor and those who need money having it taken away from them while the bankers’ bonuses go on soaring and soaring. We will decide in Manchester, and this House has got the right to debate these issues, and we will go on debating them until we have shamed this Government out of existence.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me say that 11 Members still wish to speak and the wind-ups will start at 3.40 pm.

14:41

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I start by addressing the sunny side that we have been aiming to get to today by talking about the benefits of Sure Start. It has been fantastic for many of my constituents. At the age of 17, one of my constituents found herself pregnant with twins as a single mum. She had to deal with the challenges of that without the help of a loving family around her, and the burden of those challenges led her to self-harming. I am pleased to be able to say that she is now the proud mum of healthy, happy five-year-old twins, and she maintains that that is all down to the help and support she received from Sure Start. It led her to gain the right medical help that she needed and to gain the parental skills necessary to cope with the challenge of twins—which, let us face it, we would all struggle with. Sure Start put her on the right track and taught her how to be a responsible parent, giving her the skills required to be self-sufficient—so much so that she now acts as a mentor to young mothers in my constituency. She is a bright, shining example of why Sure Start is a good thing. The fact that people who were previously on the edge of society can come back in that way shows the great value of Sure Start.

My husband is in the military, so I know at first hand the difficulties involved in trying to bring up a family effectively as a single mum while a partner is away on duty. Two weeks after the birth of my second child, my husband was deployed overseas. Fortunately, I had a strong and supportive family around me to help, but I know that others are not so lucky. On my visits to local Sure Start centres throughout my constituency, I have met many mums with partners in the military who are living in married quarters that are miles away from their home town and from the support network of family and friends that those with young children sometimes need. All of them have emphasised the importance to them of Sure Start. It provides support for mothers to come together and gain the help and advice they need, and it provides them with a welcome opportunity to talk to someone over the age of five.

Sure Start centres provide important services for children and families and they must not be undermined. A recent independent review found that 54% of current incidents of depression in women and 58% of female suicide attempts can be attributed to adverse childhood experiences. That hammers home the great importance of the early years of our childhood to our future prospects. Research has shown that a child’s development at 22 months is an accurate indicator of educational outcomes at 26 years of age, while boys deemed to be “at risk” at the age of three have almost three times more criminal convictions in adulthood than their peers. This is why we must support children from the very start.

It is important to remember that Sure Start was initially introduced to provide a haven of support and advice for our most vulnerable families in particular, yet Ofsted reports that, under the last Government, half of Sure Start children’s centres were not reaching out to the most vulnerable. Therefore, it is crucial that these resources are protected in order to help those who are most in need of help—from the children, whose health and well-being is improved, to the young parents, who are given the support and parenting skills that may have been lacking in their own lives. I know how much they gain from this lifeline.

Sure Start was one of the few positive legacies we inherited from the previous Labour Government, and it surprises me that it is the Labour-run councils up and down the country who are seeking to save money by closing these valuable centres almost as a first resort.

[Andy Burnham]

Which ones?

[Caroline Dinenage]

I will go on to give a couple of examples.

Some of these councils are cutting valuable front-line services to save money, while protecting the pay packets of the council hierarchy. There are some bizarre—and, frankly, ridiculous—job titles, including a creative director at the county council of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), earning £120,000 a year. Labour-run Liverpool city council is closing four Sure Start centres, and its record is a prime example of the wasteful spending that has plagued the effectiveness of our front-line services as, meanwhile, it has an astonishing 23 employees earning over £100,000 a year. Its recently retired chief executive earned more than double what the Prime Minister earns.

Labour-run Manchester city council has put question marks over its Sure Start centres, as the right hon. Gentleman outlined, despite having paid 18 employees over £100,000 a year, having cash reserves of £95 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) pointed out, and having the highest levels of funding per head in the area. The recent efficiency measures will provide the councils that have been reckless in their spending with an opportunity to reform their strategies and, as a result, function in a more streamlined and effective manner.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady understand that councils whose areas suffer the greatest deprivation, and which are therefore mainly Labour-run, have faced disproportionately large cuts from the Tory Government, and does she accept that the biggest cuts are taking place because they have received less grant from the Government?

[Caroline Dinenage]

I cannot comment on the councils in the hon. Lady’s area. I can only speak about my own area, which has some of the highest levels of social deprivation in the south of England, and highlight the fact that our country would not be in this situation—spending 39 times the Sure Start budget on the deficit—if the previous Government had not left us in such a pickle.

[Andy Burnham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Much as I would love to give way to the shadow Secretary of State, he will have plenty of time to say what he wants when summing up.

Hampshire county council has been discussed a lot in the debate. There were plans to keep the number of individually managed centres at 81, but to reduce the number of management hubs to 53. There were never plans to reduce the number of centres. No Sure Start centres in Hampshire were ever planned to be cut; it was just the management of them that was considered. I can well understand why the Opposition struggle with the concept of reducing bureaucracy, management and red tape even though not doing so would be at the expense of front-line services.

Hampshire county council is making £6 million-worth of savings while protecting front-line services. It is even planning to increase the number of family support workers but outsourcing some of the IT and admin from the county council in Winchester and merging some of the management structures of the smaller centres that are closer together. No front-line Sure Start services will be cut, nor will any family support worker posts. From speaking to the mums who use the Sure Start centres, I know that the most important thing for them is that the service will continue in the same way. In fact, they have all identified that savings can be made, while front-line services can be protected. I have given them my absolute commitment that I will continue the dialogue with Hampshire county council to ensure that that is what happens to front-line services and that no mums or families suffer in any way. That is why I called on the Prime Minister in a recent Prime Minister’s Question Time to endorse proposals that protect front-line services, and that is why I criticised the mischief-making that has resulted in Sure Start being used as a political football. It is, was, and always will be, far too important for that.

Sure Start transforms lives in areas such as Gosport, and I have been inspired by the work of our local centres in dramatically improving the well-being, educational achievements and health of children.

14:49

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I wish to pose a question at the beginning of my short contribution: why are we attaching such importance to today’s debate? I say that because Sure Start is part of a wider area of concern, which the Secretary of State rightly called the “foundation years”. There are two reasons why the House is concerned about this area and what is happening to it, how it will be developed and how it might be affected by any cuts programme. The first is that over the past decade or so we have been given a great deal of new knowledge about how brains develop. In the past, we looked to schools and universities to make good class differences, but development in neuroscience suggests that we need to start much earlier and take action as children develop from the womb and until the age of five. So if we are really concerned about widening life chances and ensuring that people can move from their early years into education and into work, we need to prioritise the foundation years.

Much of the concern of Labour Members has been about what has been happening to Sure Start, and I want to pose some questions about that and end with a suggestion. We are not going to persuade the Government to go back on their non-ring-fencing, much as we would like them to, and so I make a plea to them. Other programmes and public expenditure reviews will take place during this Parliament and I hope that before the Government embark on their second, and probably last, public expenditure review for this five-year Parliament, they will question whether, with hindsight, the non-ring-fencing of some of these key services has been a good idea. The Secretary of State needed all his skills to avoid answering questions from Labour Members today, because real losses are clearly involved when local authorities with reduced budgets have to make choices on what they think is most important in the area covered by the intervention grant.

If the Government are to make real sense of the foundation years during this Parliament, they will need to change their attitude towards non-ring-fencing. I intervened earlier to ask whether the money for the new initiative of very significantly increasing the number of poor children between two and three who will receive nursery education will be ring-fenced, and the Secretary of State gave us the good news that it would be. So we can conclude that although the Government are not going to say in public that, with hindsight, they were probably wrong not to ring-fence, it is clear that in any future settlement they will prioritise those areas where they believe the greatest gains for taxpayers can be got from spending their money. I suggest that, in the next review, foundation years spending is one area that needs to be ring-fenced.

The second question that I wish to pose applies particularly to Labour Members, but also to those on the Government Benches. We are all anxious to present Sure Start in the best possible light. It is true that it has established itself as a universal service that is non-stigmatising and offers help, but I question whether we have the information at our disposal to be so confident that all Sure Start centre budgets are being spent in the best way possible. When Sure Start began in Birkenhead 10 years ago, I sought in vain to gain from our four local centres information on the number of children in their area, the number of children that they were contacting and whether they were ensuring that the greatest help went to the most-deprived children—I never received answers. Now that Sure Start centres know that things are up for grabs and that, for example, the schools in Birkenhead are probably going to bid for the centres, people are of course anxious to talk about what their services might provide.

In an age in which there is less money in most areas for Sure Start, it is more important that the money is spent on the poorest children, not the richest. Adam Smith’s hidden hand seemed to work at the doors of Sure Start, in that the doors were opened most widely to those bushy-tailed mums who are confident about themselves and who saw what a wonderful service it was and went in—they have benefited fully. I still ponder about the number of mothers in my constituency who are very poor, who are suffering from post-natal depression and with whom nobody makes contact. That is the group that Sure Start needs to be most involved with.

[Dan Rogerson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think we could ensure that the more resource-intensive activities that take place in the children’s centres could be targeted while also ensuring that they can still be used in other ways to encourage everybody to come in, to work together and to learn from each other and support each other? Does he think we can get the balance between those two things?

[Mr Field]

My report tries to suggest how we can keep the service universal while also concentrating help on those in greatest need. That is crucial if in the next 10 years we are to see not only a development of the Sure Start budgets, but a significant increase in the budgets for foundation years—that is where any new money should go. It would help Sure Start to meet that objective if the Government were to move as quickly as they could to ensure that foundation years provision overall, and Sure Start in particular, was paid by results. In that context, we need to consider whether more children are better ready each year to start school as a result of expenditure in this area. I have asked heads in my constituency, where we have had Sure Start for 10 years, and they have said that that is not so.

The collapse in parenting may be occurring at a greater pace in some areas than it is more generally throughout the country—this problem is not a particular one. One of the great reasons why we support the foundation years is that more children are less well nurtured now than was the case 10, 20 or 30 years ago. One of the great things that Sure Start is about is trying to ensure that those young people who did not have good parents and who did not learn the ropes from them find from somebody else the best way of ensuring that their children are really fit to start their first day of school.

I hope that the Government have learned the lessons about ring-fencing. We will see this in their actions, because I do not expect a Minister to say at the Dispatch Box, “I think our approach was wrong, but next time it will be played differently.” Secondly, I hope that we all agree that whatever our framework for Sure Start, we want to ensure that the most vulnerable children are helped most. I wish to make a brief suggestion about the next stage of this policy. The Government have accepted all the proposals that they could immediately accept from my report, but one proposal relies on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggested that each time the Chancellor considers whether to increase benefit rates for children, he should consider whether in that year it would be more appropriate to spend some or all of that money not on benefit increases, but on building up foundation years provision.

Some Labour Members are slightly apprehensive about that suggestion, because we have been committed to abolishing child poverty, as defined in monetary terms, by 2020. Those on the Government side are also committed to that and I think that Labour Members fear that if the Government decided to move moneys from benefit increases to services, we would lose that goal of abolishing child poverty as we defined it when we were in government. I wish to suggest that that clash does not exist. A couple of years ago, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation supported research examining the most effective ways to ensure that more children live in households with incomes above the target of two thirds of median earnings. It found that that was done not by increasing benefits, but by increasing the amount of child care. In fact, if we attended to that and ensured that child care was of high quality, up to half of those children who are now deemed to be poor would not be poor because their parents would be able to combine the work and tax credits that are available to give them an income that would take them out of our definition of financial poverty. I suggest that the Government consider significant increases in child care and that they finance that by holding back on some benefit increases for children in future years. We will not only achieve more quickly the goal of abolishing the numbers of children in financial poverty but, by ensuring that child care is of the highest quality, we will also ensure that many of those children are better prepared to start school and that their lives will be very different from those of their parents.

I chair the new academy in Birkenhead and we have been debating what should be in our contract with the town. I think that one part of our contract will be that we will run an academy that will ensure that children coming to our school will have the opportunity to get better jobs than their parents did when they had to start work. That is what most parents mean by social mobility, and I hope that I have shown today that if we consider the amount and quality of child care, we might not only lessen the amount of financial child poverty in our country but significantly open up the life chances of our poorest children.

15:01

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I have listened with great interest to the debate. Speeches seem to have fallen into two categories: they have shown Sure Start as a shared success on which today’s debate gives us an opportunity to improve and they have made it a partisan issue and an opportunity to score points. We just heard from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), a man whose comments are always listened to very attentively by Members on both sides of the House, and his speech was a classic example of the first of those two categories. He made some very good points, one of which I shall comment on—that is, improving and taking Sure Start to the next level. Of course, we have heard other speeches, most notably that made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), that are more partisan and point-scoring.

I felt that the shadow Secretary of State’s speech was uncharacteristically ineffectual today. I always look forward to listening to his speeches, but I felt that it fell somewhere in the middle, as though his brief told him to make some electioneering, rallying, partisan points but his heart told him that Sure Start was far too important to be brought down to that level.

I want to try to address some of the points and try to avoid some of the partisan claims. My first point concerns the closure of Sure Start centres. I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends went through the general election confronted by Labour party smear stories about our intentions for Sure Start. It was a disgraceful smear then and it is a disgraceful smear when we hear it repeated, albeit in a muted way, today.

I am glad to have heard Members on both sides of the House talk about those councils that, even in very difficult times, are showing their commitment by maintaining Sure Start centres and to have heard the commitment on that point from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. When we hear that councils such as Harlow and Kent, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) mentioned, and, I understand, Liberal Democrat Councils and Labour councils such as Tameside have committed to maintaining Sure Start centres, surely that shows that this is truly a shared commitment for all parties. Why are other councils closing Sure Start centres? What have they done to find other savings? What sorts of overpaid jobs are they protecting? How analytical have they been about their budgets? Are we sure that they are not playing politics with children’s futures? I do not care what their political stripe is—I ask the Minister whether, through this process, he will pay close attention to the reasons why those councils are closing or threatening to close Sure Start centres.

[Julie Hilling]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how a local authority such as Bolton can cut 25% of its budget without harming any of the services it provides?

[Richard Fuller]

That will definitely be a challenge. I know that the hon. Lady has deep experience in youth affairs and youth matters from her previous role, but people in Bolton have a higher level of public expenditure per head than we have in Bedford, where the deprivation level is about the same. When there are sharp reductions, that will cause some issues. That is an issue for her council to consider and it is crucial that services should come first for her council and for other councils. The methodology for delivering those services is where resources need to brought back into the budget.

[Sarah Newton]

Cornwall council is keeping all 40 of its Sure Start centres by using innovative methods involving consulting parents or federating the centres under the advisory boards or school boards. That will lead to reductions in management costs without reducing services. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a good example of a council that is not cutting front-line Sure Start services?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I do not want to get too distracted by the issue of public expenditure, which I shall come to a little later. I am not sure that we want to tie our views about the future of Sure Start specifically to this period of deficit reduction measures and their consequences for local councils.

One benefit of being smeared by the Labour party about our intentions on Sure Start during the general election—a smear that has been proven to be completely without foundation—was that I got the great opportunity to visit a number of children’s centres in my community of Bedford. I must reinforce some of the points made by Members on both sides of the House about what a tremendous venue they are for networking and experience sharing between young mothers and fathers. In my home community, which is marked by a tremendous amount of ethnic diversity, when one goes to a community centre such as the neighbourhood centre in Queens Park and sees the Sure Start centre and the children’s services offered there, one really sees people from different communities mixing. That would not have happened without Sure Start—or, at least, not in such a great way—and we all want it to be maintained.

Many comments have been made about ring-fencing and about its role. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) we heard that neither the Conservative party nor the Labour party continued to commit in their manifesto specifically to ring-fencing this budget. It is important, however, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead just said, to see what the consequences of getting rid of the ring fence will be on our budget. I am not sure that I would come to such a definitive conclusion as he would, if there are examples of where the loss of ring-fencing has led to closures. This period of reduction is quite exceptional and considerable benefits can be found by putting the responsibility for determining the budgets for Sure Start centres down into the local communities. As councils reinforce their commitment to Sure Start centres in difficult times, that opens up more opportunities for examples of best practice to come to the fore and broadens the service offerings that local councils will seek to put in their centres.

Let me return to the issue of the overlap between cuts to public expenditure and the commitment to Sure Start. This is not good territory for the debate. As I mentioned, it is incredibly difficult for councils to match their budgets in difficult times but the issues about the future of Sure Start need to go beyond the short-term deficit reduction measures that councils are having to take. Importantly, we should remember when we hear speeches about committing more money to something that we lead ourselves down a false path if we think that that always leads to better outcomes. Commitment is not shown by how much money is spent. That kind of thinking leads to profligacy, waste and ultimately to a complete mess of the finances, as we have seen with the situation of general government. Thinking that money is our indication of commitment is more sinister because it sets up expectations of what will be provided far beyond what it might be possible to commit to. It stifles innovation, creativity and opportunities to make more out of less and it also withdraws a commitment to volunteering.

Volunteering is an area in which we are already seeing, in many of the Sure Start centres in Bedford, a significant number of volunteers coming forward to expand the role of the services offered. That should surely be most welcome in all areas and communities. Volunteering reinforces the networking value that we get from our centres and enables us to do more effective outreach into our communities, particularly hard-to-reach communities, in all our towns and constituencies.

Today has been a good opportunity for us to identify ways in which Sure Start centres can be improved beyond the measures already identified by the Government in terms of expanding early-years provision. However, progress must be based on a recognition by all parties that there is now a shared commitment to Sure Start, which is being reinforced and not threatened in these tough times. I hope that all Members on both sides of the House will support the Government’s endeavours in that regard.

15:11

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

It has been a good debate. I have been interested in early years for a long time. When I became the Chair of the then Select Committee on Education and Skills, the very first report I did was into early years. Some Members who were on the Committee during that inquiry are still in the House. We thought it was pretty groundbreaking of us to hire at the beginning of the inquiry someone with a PhD who was expert in the development of the child’s brain. We had the benefit of wonderful research people such as Professor Kathy Sylva, who was a significant influence in understanding that a child’s life chances are largely determined by early-years stimulation before 22 months. That is quite startling and was very new thinking 10 years ago.

I have always been absolutely committed to the idea that what we do for children in their early years is of the utmost importance. It sometimes irritated me, as the years went on, when we did inquiries about every other bit of education right through to higher education, that we seem to live in a strange world in which we take things for granted and spend less on early years and more as children get older. I heard a small voice constantly telling me—you will remember sharing this view in your former role, Madam Deputy Speaker—that we should be spending more money on the earlier years and tailing off spending in later years. The amount of resources we put in does matter, but I agree with the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) that what is important is how that money is spent and the quality of the spend.

Interestingly, the very last inquiry I did as the Chair of the Committee was also on Sure Start and early years. In parallel to that last inquiry we did another into NEETs—those not in education, employment or training. There is a very strong relationship between what happens to a child in their first months and years and whether they are likely to end up as a NEET. That link is vital. Stimulation is important and it is sad to go into a school or other setting and be told by people there that they can identify pretty accurately very early in the life of a child whether that child is a potential NEET. That is depressing. I am sure that everyone in the House would agree that, although we came into politics for all sorts of strange reasons, most of us share the belief that all human beings ought to get the chance to develop the potential and the skills that they were born with. For me, that is what the Sure Start and early-years stimulation debate is about. I am sure that we all want to ensure that potential is developed to the full and that we do not want talent to be wasted. We live in a competitive world and I am unashamed to say that I want our country and our economy to be successful. I want it to grow and do wonderful things. If I were to speak in the next debate, I would say that there is a clear link between what happens in a child’s early years and their potential to go to university and make the most of their life.

This issue is partly about resources and partly about spend, but it is also about quality and how it is monitored. It is very difficult to find really good experience and then to spread it fast. That is even more difficult given that the nature of poverty is changing. I know that I am in danger of boring the House on this point because I keep coming back to it. For so many people in the House and outside it, their idea of poverty is a concept from 30 or 50 years ago—a kind of static poverty. When I go to early-years settings and schools up and down the country I find a dynamic poverty. I am talking about children not being in the same school for very long and moving on as their parents move. I am talking about a dynamic in which people come from other countries and do not have the English language at home, perhaps having a foreign language on their televisions. I am talking about children who get very little support from the home environment. The nature of poverty has changed and, like all human beings, we tend to live a little in the past. We have to recognise the nature of poverty today, the challenges of deprivation that a child in poverty has today and the fact that they are different from the past.

One inspiring thing about the work on early years is the fact that the quality of research is better than any educational research I have come across. I have often criticised the quality of educational research in some of our universities. There are complex reasons for that, such as a lack of good salaries and a lack of attraction to those areas of research, perhaps because there are much better salaries for those who stay on and become successful head teachers or principals. The quality of early-years research has been outstanding and we have to build on that.

We also have to be able to evaluate success. It is not good enough to go along anecdotally and say, “I saw this wonderful example of a Sure Start centre” in Southampton, Huddersfield or anywhere else and think that it is easy to replicate. So many of the successful systems that one looks at are difficult to replicate because they involve excellent people who have shown leadership and built successful teams. That is not impossible to clone—it is not impossible to have a system—but we have to realise that it is difficult. When the concept of Sure Start was originally introduced, we decided that we would go to the 500-most deprived communities in the land, but there was a big flaw in that approach because most poor children do not live in those 500 poorest communities. That is a dilemma for us all. It is more difficult than asking where the 500 poorest communities in Britain are. That does not work and there have to be more centres than that, which is why we moved to a figure of 3,500.

I think there are some ideological—no, not ideological, but intellectual—differences between us. When we looked into this issue in the final report, a couple of members of the Select Committee would have liked to have gone back to a smaller number of centres. I do not think that that was callous or because they wanted fewer centres; I think it was because they thought that we could probably do better over a period of time with 500 centres and that dissipating talent as a resource was dangerous. I disagreed with that, as did the majority of the Committee, on an all-party basis, because we thought that 3,500 was the number necessary to reach those poor children wherever they were in our country. There is a lot to learn and my worry is that the methods for assessing quality are not refined enough. I do not think that Ofsted has been good enough in the past; it has been improving but still more needs to be done in terms of assessing and spreading good practice.

One of the wonderful things about our Sure Start and children’s centres—I hope that people agree—is that they represent the end of looking at children in bits. Previously, we would look separately at a child’s health, stimulation and so on. In a Sure Start centre, for the first time, the assessment of all sorts of bits of their needs were brought together in one place, so that a child, for whom there might be a lot of pressures and challenges, was looked at holistically. That children’s centre was a one-stop shop where the child was evaluated and got the proper help. That is not always in a building. It is a matter of outreach, finding out which child needs the help, and giving it. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) that that is difficult, but it can be done.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Bedford about resources. No one wants to waste resources, but we all know what will happen if Sure Start is cut by a significant percentage. I do not care so much about buildings, although having a building near a community which people can identify and get to is pretty important. If, as is the case in the constituencies of some of my colleagues, a children’s centre that used to have a substantial budget now has £25,000, not much can be done with that. It is all about resource.

I make a plea to the Secretary of State. He always says that cuts are necessary because of the economy and the dreadful things that the Labour Government did in connection with debt. He would say that, as we would probably do in his place. Those of us who care about children and about education want him to go into Cabinet as a bruiser and a thug, to bash the table and say, “I want a budget for my children and for the future of children in our country,” and to be much more physical about it. Sometimes I think he is a little too polite when he gets round that table.

15:21

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

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).

I oppose the motion moved by the shadow Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), and his assertion that local authorities are disinvesting in Sure Start centres. My local authority, Medway, has 19 Sure Start centres and all 19 are being kept open. Seven of them are in my constituency. There is a seven-year age gap between the centres in the two parts of the constituency. Medway, an excellent Conservative-run local authority, recognised that the centres were a valuable lifeline. It is always right for such decisions to be made by local authorities, because they know what goes on on the ground.

The seven Sure Start centres in my constituency include one at Burnt Oak school in Gillingham, which I attended back in 1984. It is a tough area where there are real social and economic problems. The Sure Start centre deals with those.

The shadow Secretary of State accepted that Sure Start centres were being kept open by local authorities across the country, but he asserted that they were only bricks and mortar, and that there was nothing substantive about them. He is wrong about that. If he comes to Medway, I will take him around our Sure Start centres, show him what they do, and show him that they are not just bricks and mortar. They hold drop-in sessions for parents and children, play activities with music and stories, ante-natal classes and baby clinics. The centres offer encouragement and support for parents thinking about training and finding new jobs. They have links with local schools and voluntary agencies. They provide information and advice on breast feeding, speech and language therapy, and parenting classes. That is what goes on.

The shadow Secretary of State may acknowledge that Conservative authorities show no inclination to close Sure Start centres and that it would be wrong to assert otherwise, but he asserts that they are just bricks and mortar. They are not. The Government and Conservative authorities such as mine in Medway are committed to keeping those Sure Start centres and helping the most vulnerable to get the best start in life.

The role of central Government is crucial, in partnership with local authorities. We are discussing the extra funding and resources that may be made available in future for two-year-olds, but it is not something that will happen only in the future. I have a letter from the Department for Education dated 31 March—[Interruption.] Maybe the shadow Secretary of State is not putting his questions properly or succinctly, and that is why he is not getting answers. The letter is addressed to the authority to which I referred, Medway, and it states:

“I would like to thank you for the bid that you submitted to test out effective approaches to the expansion of free early education for two year olds and to improve provision for three and four year olds. We are pleased to confirm that your bid has been successful.”

So it is not just about the future. It is about this Government. Within the first 12 months they have expanded facilities for two, three and four-year-olds. That is why I say that in partnership with local authorities, which do an excellent job, the Government are committed to supporting early years provision for our young children in the most difficult and deprived areas, which I certainly represent in Gillingham and Rainham.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) spoke about deprivation up north. She may have her experiences of deprivation, but in my constituency there is a seven-year difference in life expectancy between one part of the constituency and another. I grew up in that constituency and in that deprived area, and still live there. We in the south have high levels of deprivation. The discussion should not be about north or south. Wherever there is deprivation, help must be provided. I will work with the hon. Lady on that.

Of course Sure Start centres are crucial to help early years development, but the role of the voluntary sector should not be forgotten. For example, Contact a Family helps to support 300,000 families with disabled children. It is right and proper that we recognise the excellent work that it does. The state, local government and the voluntary sector each have a role, and should work together in partnership.

I recognise that brevity is a virtue, not a vice, so I shall be brief. Many of those who work at Sure Start centres or who want to work with the voluntary sector are hindered by bureaucracy. For example, those who work with children in the early years must have qualified teacher and early years professional status. There are not many in the voluntary sector who have such qualifications. I welcome the Government’s commitment to review that requirement. There are many people out there who want to work with our young ones through the big society and the voluntary sector to give them the best start in life.

I welcome the support given by central and local government. I pay tribute to the excellent workers in our Sure Start centres. They are dedicated and committed, and they need that support. They also need freedom from bureaucracy. It is right that the Government should review the requirement for Sure Start centres to be open for 40 hours a week, although there may not be a need for that and those resources could be used elsewhere on the front line. I support the Government’s provisions and proposals, and disagree with the shadow Secretary of State’s motion and assertions.

15:30

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I want to talk briefly about the cumulative effect of cuts to the organisations that make up the sum of Sure Start provision, because Sure Start is not just about child care; the best centres provide so much more.

Meadowbank in my constituency provides support for families in one of the most deprived wards in Wigan. It provides not only the usual support for parenting and child care, but all sorts of educational provision for mums and dads, encouraging them to improve their basic literacy and numeracy and to get back into formal learning. Those courses are at risk, however, because of cuts to further education funding.

The centre works in partnership with the Connexions service to support young people into employment, and Connexions is not—or perhaps I should say, was not—just about careers advice; it was also about providing opportunities for young people to build their confidence and skills and to undertake different work experience. Money was available to provide bespoke opportunities to help the hardest to reach into employment, training or education, but Connexions funding is part of the early intervention grant, so it is disappearing as we speak. Thousands of Connexions workers were made redundant on 31 March, and many thousands more have received letters to say that they are at risk of redundancy.

Meadowbank also provides sexual health services to young people and to their parents, services that are at risk due to the cuts in teenage pregnancy and health service funding. Teenage pregnancy funding was also put into the early intervention grant pot. Meadowbank has worked with the youth service to provide informal education to children and young people, but guess what? Youth service funding is also part of the early intervention grant and faces savage cuts. I truly hope that Meadowbank stays open, but it will not be able to provide the services that it did 12 months ago.

Sure Start centres in other parts of my constituency have run out of libraries—libraries that are at risk of closure because of the disproportionate cuts that the Tory-led Government have made to local authorities in the north-west. That in turn puts Sure Start services at risk.

I was always taught that you cannot get a quart into a pint pot, or indeed a quart out of a pint pot, but the Secretary of State seems to think that you can. He has put a range of funding streams into the early intervention grants, and forgive me but I am going to list them. They are Sure Start children’s centres; early years sustainability; the two-year-old offer; the disabled children short breaks programme; the January guarantee; Connexions; the child trust fund; Think Family; the youth opportunity fund; the youth crime action plan; the challenge and support project; the children’s fund; positive activities for young people; the youth taskforce; the young people’s substance misuse service; the teenage pregnancy service; key stage 4 foundation learning; the targeted mental health in schools programme; ContactPoint; the children’s social care work force; and the intensive intervention fund. I think that I have listed them all, but I may well have missed some.

The Secretary of State says that Sure Start funding has been increased, and I suppose that we could say that—if we agreed to get rid of every other programme funded by the early intervention grant. That is impossible, of course, because of the statutory duty to provide many of those services, but it is also unwise, because of the work that service providers actually do.

It is time for honesty in this debate. Funding to all the areas now covered by the early intervention grant has been cut, so funding for Sure Start has also been reduced.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that this is all about political will? In Nottinghamshire, where we too have had great cuts in Government money, not only have we ensured that we do not need to close a single one of our 58 Sure Start centres, but in Awsworth in my constituency we have actually opened one. It is about political will—balancing the budget, cutting bureaucracy and getting into the reserves. Does she not agree?

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I do not know how Nottingham manages to get a quart out of a pint pot, but when we look at a £50 per head cut and, in Wigan, a £60 per head cut in funding, we find that it is impossible to keep all the services open. We only have to look at the faces of councillors and council leaders in Bolton and Wigan to see the difficulty that they have in trying to support existing services. Bolton has to find £42 million of cuts this year. How on earth is it supposed to do that? Over two years, one quarter of its budget will be cut.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Julie Hilling]

No, let me finish my point.

Bolton and Wigan will not—I hope—close any of their Sure Start centres. They are at risk because of the cuts to libraries and other services, but my overall point is that the other services which make up the Sure Start project will be cut: youth services will be cut, Connexions will be cut and teenage pregnancy funding will be cut. All those services will be cut because the Tory-led Government have savagely cut their grants to local authorities.

[Anna Soubry]

And those cuts would have been made if the hon. Lady’s party had been elected, because her party would have had to make cuts of at least 20%. So will she answer me this, please? How would her local council have implemented the budget had there been a Labour Government with 20%-plus cuts?

[Julie Hilling]

I am absolutely delighted to answer that question, because Bolton council prepared for £15 million of cuts this year—the amount that the Labour Government told the authority that it was likely to face. It was therefore facing £60 million of cuts over four years. No doubt, that money was difficult to find, but the council now has to find £60 million of cuts over two years, and potentially another £30 million after that. With £15 million of cuts, would life have been hard? Yes, life would have been difficult, but instead of that it has to find £42 million of cuts.

[Andy Burnham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I can, I hope, give the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) an answer and support what my hon. Friend is saying. Let us look at the range of the per-child cuts under the early intervention grant this year. In a number of authorities, such as Kingston upon Thames and Hampshire, they start from £30 per head for every person under 20. Let us turn to some of the authorities that my hon. Friend mentioned. The cut for Wigan is £60 per head, while for Liverpool—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is supposed to be making an intervention, and we are coming towards the end of the debate.

[Julie Hilling]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to my right hon. Friend giving more of that information.

It is utterly unacceptable that the Government should be playing a game that says that local authorities have the funding and are therefore making the choice. The Government have cut funding to local authorities and have cut the pot of money that is funding Sure Start. They are wrong to do so and they should reconsider their decisions to harm families, children and young people struggling for survival in the dark days of high unemployment and ever-rising costs of living.

Finally, it is not enough to say that Sure Start centres will remain open. The question must be about what services remain and whether they are of the quality and quantity that prevailed previously. The answer, too often, is a resounding no. The Government should rethink their decision and truly look at how they can support children and families, without saying that the money exists within local authorities to do that, when patently it does not.

15:36

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I have to profess that I am underwhelmed by the motion. It asks, in the end, for the Secretary of State to monitor the evidence. The Opposition do not ask for the closures of half the Sure Start centres in the country to be reversed, but that was the threat put before the electorate at the last election.

As I mentioned earlier, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was in my constituency during the last election. I confronted her at the entrance to the Tree House Sure Start centre. She shouted at me that centres in Ipswich would be closed within months of the general election. What has happened? Not only has every centre stayed open, but two new ones have opened. The services have been protected because of the decisions of the Conservative county council, which faces £90 million-worth of cuts over the next two years, and because of the strength of will of Councillor Graham Newman, who leads the children’s and young people’s services there.

Suffolk shows how it can be done. The shadow Secretary of State suggests that the centres are hollowed out. Last week I was at the Tree House centre, on the anniversary of that altercation with the right hon. and learned Lady. I went inside with Claire Ball, the manager of the centre. It is true that parts of the organisation of Sure Start centres are having to be remodelled, but Claire Ball is introducing new services and the county council is excited about the possibilities in the Health and Social Care Bill, which will allow it to integrate social services yet further within Sure Start centres.

I assure the shadow Secretary of State that every centre is staying open. Perhaps he will tell that to the right hon. and learned Lady. I have written to her and confirmed that she has not apologised for the smear that she made. Every centre has stayed open and the services are being improved and increased.

That bears testament to the passion that Government Members feel for Sure Start. It is telling that more Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members are attending this Opposition day debate than Labour Members. I exempt the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) from that criticism. I do not want to embarrass him once again by mentioning him, but he has driven many people on both sides of the Chamber into politics. Having been discouraged from this vocation from perhaps too close a connection with it, he was the one person who saved it in my mind.

The genesis of the right hon. Gentleman’s idea is to have a broader universal service, with funding targeted at those who need it most, to repair the damage of decades of failure—not dreamt of or created by anyone deliberately—in communities across the country. The failure has been of a structural welfare state that does not support families and does not, at times, support communities. That failure was not designed, but it has happened. We are in the process of re-stitching together communities, and Sure Start is part of that.

May I ask the Secretary of State and Ministers to address two things that could be improved? We need proper longitudinal studies through Sure Start into primary education so that we can understand the evidence, but there are blocks in data protection which prevent that from happening. Primary school teachers would very much welcome better co-ordination with Sure Start managers and assistants, and they could do that better if data protection rules were relaxed. It would also be useful to be able to encourage a greater diversity of providers so that we can share best practice across the country.

Conservative Members are passionately in favour of Sure Start, and that is why it is such a pleasure to see it flourishing in my constituency under this Government.

15:40

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

This debate, like others before it, has shown the strength of feeling in this House that the children of this country deserve the very best.

Let us be clear about why we are here today. The Government’s mandate was to protect and improve the Sure Start network; instead, they have done the opposite and put centres up and down the country at risk of cutback and closure. There is no way in which Ministers can hide behind the favourite line we hear of late that this is a coalition and manifestos do not count. It is not the case that the Tories wanted to abolish Sure Start and the Lib Dems heroically stood their ground with the Business Secretary wielding his secret weapon menacingly, because the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and every single Member sat opposite me today were elected on a promise to protect and build on the Sure Start centre network. The fact that they have done the opposite represents yet another broken promise to the British people.

I was always brought up to think that when someone breaks a promise, the least one can expect is an apology. This debate gave the Secretary of State a chance not only to apologise to the parents, carers and children who will suffer because of his broken promise but to make amends for it. Our motion gives Ministers an opportunity to say to all the parents who are fighting tooth and nail up and down the country to save their children’s centres, “We are sorry; we will keep our promise.” Ministers have said in this Chamber that there is enough money in the early intervention grant to maintain and improve Sure Start. In the comprehensive spending review, the Chancellor told us that there is £1.135 billion every year throughout this Parliament. If that were true, they would have no problem in voting for the motion, but they will not do so. The Minister will no doubt cite the localism agenda. Decisions should be taken locally, he will say—but these should be decisions about how to improve outcomes for children rather than where to cut inputs. In this case, localism is not about who makes the decisions but about who takes the blame.

Reinstating the ring fence is not a panacea, but it would bring back the stability and security that the Sure Start network needs. It would let managers and staff concentrate on how to deliver the improvements that we all want in children’s centres rather than forcing them to focus on financial fire-fighting year in, year out. Parents would have the sense of security, which they do not have at the moment, that their local centre would be there from the moment their child is born right up until they started school. We would have a sign that the Government are listening to all the advice that they have sought—not least from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), whose excellent speech we heard earlier, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen)—and that they are taking early education and early intervention seriously. It would also mean that we would not be left with situations such as those in Tory-controlled Hampshire, which is facing 35% budget cuts; Liberal Democrat-led Hull, with its smoke and mirrors and 50% cuts; and Tory-led Hammersmith and Fulham, which has a strange hub-and-spoke model where the spokes are buildings with a caretaker and a bottle of bleach. A building running on £25,000 a year or less is not a Sure Start children’s centre—it is just a building.

We are giving Ministers a chance to increase their popularity with parents—and not just the Toby Youngs of this world, either: parents such as those I met on mother’s day outside Downing street, who were handing in petitions from all over the country that, on that day alone, contained 52,000 signatures; parents such as the ones who came to the Sure Start seminar in Parliament, which was hosted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham); parents such as those I met recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), who are fighting Tory-controlled Derby city council over its plans to close or cut centres; and parents such as those I have met on doorsteps over the past few weeks in Sheffield, York, Peterborough, Gravesham, Newcastle and Sunderland in my own constituency. No matter where one goes, the view is the same: the Government are letting down families and attacking social mobility at every stage of a child’s life.

We have heard a lot today about Hampshire. The debate has done a real service in exposing the cynicism of some Conservative councils. We heard the surprise news that a last-minute extraordinary meeting was called in Hampshire yesterday, although a final decision is not due until 24 May. That is a blatantly cynical move to get through the local election period. The council is still cutting £6 million from the budget, which will cut right to the heart of the service. One of the petitions handed into Downing street on mother’s day was from Hampshire, and another petition signed by 22,000 parents was handed in on 18 April by 50 mums from Hampshire. That may well have led to yesterday’s U-turn. Twenty-eight centres were earmarked for closure or serious cuts, and there was a legal challenge to the rushed consultation.

[Caroline Dinenage]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Hodgson]

You have already spoken, thank you.

We announced the subject of this Opposition day debate last week, just before the bank holiday weekend. The fact that an extraordinary meeting was called over a bank holiday weekend and hastily arranged for the other side of the weekend is very telling. I am sure that the tens of thousands of parents in Hampshire who signed the two petitions were happy when they heard the news, as we were when we heard it today. However, the news is bitter-sweet. Although we are told that no centres will close, they face a 35% budget cut: going from £17 million to £11 million is a £6 million cut, which is huge. A £6 million cut is much more than just the streamlining of services, and parents know that. They use the services, and will notice if they are taken away or diminished. Indeed, on the Facebook page for the Hampshire children’s centres campaign, this is not seen as a U-turn or a great victory. The group is still campaigning, because it is deeply worried about the £6 million cut and the effect it will have on children’s centres. It says that the campaign goes on.

The Secretary of State loves playing to the gallery, so why will he not give the people what they want and say that he will consider bringing back the ring fence? After all, it would be a nice boost for all those Tory and Lib Dem candidates who are struggling on the doorstep. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, who is one of the most knowledgeable people in this area, challenged the non-ring-fencing of this vital area of expenditure and said that the Government should change their attitude to non-ring-fencing. That is strong stuff from a highly respected expert in the area. I hope that the Government pay heed to that.

It is not as if the Secretary of State has not had practice at backing down. In fact, he is probably the most qualified person in the Cabinet when it comes to U-turns, and that Cabinet includes the Deputy Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh laid bare at the beginning of the debate the reasons the Secretary of State probably will not back down and support the motion. He repeated the claims of Ministers that Sure Start funding is protected and showed that that simply is not true. There is not enough money to maintain the current network of children’s centres if Ministers expect councils to deliver all the other important programmes that the grant pays for, such as short breaks for disabled children. How can there be enough, when there has been a real-terms cut of 22% in the pot?

If I am wrong, why are centres closing or effectively being mothballed, and why are services being cut? If I am wrong, why would Ministers have a problem with the motion? But I am not wrong: they are, just as they have been wrong on Bookstart, on EMA, on the English baccalaureate and on Building Schools for the Future. They are the most incompetent Department in a shambolic Government, and the worst thing is that children’s lives are at stake.

I know that some Government Members do see the value of Sure Start and recognise the importance of protecting it, and we have heard from some of them today. My plea to those Members is simple: support the motion and show their constituents that they understand the priorities and concerns of ordinary, hard-working families, even if their Front-Bench colleagues do not.

15:50

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

What a debate we eventually had. I have to say that in almost 14 years in the House, I have never known such an anticlimax at the opening of an Opposition day debate as when the shadow Secretary of State spoke today, following his top billing in the press and his frenetic tweeting about this important motion and debate.

We were promised a grand tour d’horizon of local authorities taking the axe to children’s centres. After the shadow Secretary of State stated the blindingly obvious about Sure Start centres featuring in the top five most popular policies—and after reminding us of how former Prime Ministers had constantly scaremongered about Conservative policy on Sure Start—he tantalised us with the prospect of “getting to the bottom of the facts on the ground”. He started tentatively with the mention of Derby, where, allegedly, some six Sure Start centres could be threatened. That went unchallenged.

We then heard about Hammersmith and Fulham, where, in fact, a new Sure Start centre has been opened. We briefly heard mention of Barnet and Bromley, and then we went on to Hampshire, where we were told no fewer than 28 Sure Start children’s centres were going to be closed—until it was pointed out that in fact not a single one is going to be closed or ever was going to be. Yet when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), the shadow Secretary of State said that he did not read the Hampshire daily press.

The right hon. Gentleman then came up with the absurd claim that Hampshire council had deliberately performed a U-turn because it felt so threatened and intimidated by the prospect of today’s Opposition day debate that it had to climb down. Then we heard that it was all about electioneering in Hampshire, despite the fact that Hampshire county council, which runs the Sure Start centres, does not have any elections this year. If any local authority was so fickle as to base its policy on the prospect of a 46-minute, lacklustre, misinformed, misfired and opportunistic speech by the shadow Secretary of State, I would want my money back if I was a council tax payer in that authority’s area.

Even when the right hon. Gentleman had been well and truly rumbled, was there a word of apology, a hint of retraction, a whimper of humility? Not a murmur. Indeed, he went on to repeat his calumny later in his speech. And that was it—that was the tour d’horizon around the United Kingdom. He then quickly shunted off into the sidings with an attack on the right hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) on EMA, tuition fees and AV, none of which features in the motion. It was 46 minutes of gloomy and mostly unfounded predictions—what a dead loss of an opportunity.

Perhaps we can see the reason for that lost opportunity. Although the shadow Secretary of State is not a reader of local media in Hampshire or elsewhere, as we have found out, he is certainly an enthusiast for Twitter. The basis for today’s debate was his tweet of 25 April, when he proudly announced:

“Labour has called debate on Sure Start & Tory/Lib Dem broken promises this Weds. Tell me which local egs you think we should highlight.”

I looked, and not many people tweeted back. There was a tweet from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) about Sure Start centres, but that was it. From what I can make out, answers came there none, although the right hon. Gentleman does appear to have had at least one fan.

What an anticlimax from the mover of the motion. However, his scaremongering was soon eclipsed by the news from the Government Back Benches about yet more local authorities pledging to keep their children’s centres open, even over and above those on the list recently surveyed by 4Children and the Daycare Trust. Northamptonshire is adding an early attachment expertise centre, West Sussex is not closing any Sure Start centres and Ipswich is adding two, despite the scandalous observations and scaremongering of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that half of them would disappear if we won the election. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that a centre opened recently in her constituency.

This is an important debate on an important subject. Clearly, there is all-party support for retaining a network of children’s centres, which has never been in doubt, as every Back-Bench contribution made clear. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) went on about the importance of children’s centres, but as usual got his figures wrong—he completely ignored the revenue streams for children’s centres apart from the local authority stream.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) rightly said that there were no killer statistics in the motion. What is the Opposition’s alternative? What would they cut?

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who has returned to the Chamber, made a rather arrogant speech. He thinks that Manchester, and he as a Manchester representative, have a monopoly on deprivation. However, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who said that multiple deprivation is the same whether it is in the north, the south or any other part of England. If wards with multiple deprivation in my constituency had a fraction of the funding that wards in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, had, they would be much happier than they are now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, having skilfully rumbled the shadow Secretary of State, showed how Sure Start centres can transform the lives of our constituents. As usual, that skilful, well-informed paragon of reasonableness—the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field)—made a very important point about ring-fencing and payment by results. His point on the latter was absolutely right. The question we should ask is this: are more children being made school-ready as a result of spending on children’s centres? He is right that payment should flow on that basis.

I hope that we do not need to ring-fence money. Rather, I hope that local authorities spend money and do the right thing in the interests of their constituents. They are best placed to decide on that, and I do not want to ring-fence money if their decisions produce the right results.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) spoke of our shared commitment to children’s centres, but why do only some councils choose to close children’s centres while others manage not to do so? Why are some councils adding to their reserves rather than trimming back on overheads before they look to trim spending on Sure Start?

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who as we all know has form on early intervention, made an important point about the strong correlation with those not in education, employment or training. He said that much of the thinking on early intervention and Sure Start is backed by empirical research, which is what we want. The Government are interested in qualitative research on the outcomes of children’s centres. The entire Opposition argument is based on quantitative analysis and figures. The Government want better Sure Start centres, producing better services for better effects on the children who desperately need them, particularly those from the most deprived communities.

Let me be clear yet again that this coalition Government are 100% committed to Sure Start. We always have been. Early years is a priority, and Sure Start has proven itself as a programme that has the capacity to be life changing. We have no intention of forgetting that; on the contrary, we want to build on the success of Sure Start and to put it at the heart of our approach to early intervention. We want to narrow gaps in achievement and improve social mobility, which the previous Government singularly failed to do as they presided over an unprecedented widening of the poverty gap.

However, this Government believe that the best way to do that is through greater local decision making and accountability, greater involvement of organisations that have proven expertise in service delivery, and the greater use of evidence-based intervention. We want children’s centres to provide the foundation for stronger earlier support, retaining a network of children’s centres that offers universal services that are accessible to all families, but with targeted support for those families who are in greatest need.

This coalition Government are 100% committed to Sure Start children’s centres, but reform is needed to make them more effective in providing a universal service that is focused more effectively on families in greatest need. This Government, however, have an approach to reform that is radically different from that of the previous Government. Children’s centres need to have more flexibility to do more to help the families in the greatest need, to involve a greater diversity of providers and to be more accountable to local communities. There are no easy solutions or quick fixes, but it is time we trusted local authorities to make the right decisions for local people—we do, but Labour does not, and that is why I urge the House to vote against this opportunistic motion.

Question put.

16:00

Division 259

Ayes: 207

---

Labour: 201
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 312

---

Conservative: 269
Liberal Democrat: 42

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I now have to announce the results of the deferred Division on the question relating to short selling. The Ayes were 287 and the Noes were 20, so the Ayes have it.

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

Higher Education Policy

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I remind the House that because of the large number of Members wanting to participate in this debate, there is an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

16:15

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the failure of the Government to deliver the commitment made to Parliament that £9,000 a year student fees would be ‘exceptional’; further notes that the Office of Fair Access (OFFA) has said that it has no powers to set university fees or determine university admissions policies; notes with alarm the warning of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills that average fees higher than £7,500 would mean reducing student numbers or further cutting university teaching funding; condemns the failure of Ministers to explain their policies by publishing a Higher Education White Paper; believes that Ministers are putting at risk the success of universities and the future of generations of students; further believes that current policies are unfair, unnecessary and unsustainable; and therefore calls on Ministers, as soon as practicable, to set out to Parliament how they will meet the promise that fees of £9,000 will only be in exceptional circumstances, to guarantee that there will be no fall in the number of university places or further cuts to university teaching budgets, and to outline what powers, if any, they propose for OFFA on determining fee levels and enforcing access arrangements.

I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in his place, although I understand that he is not following the usual courtesy of responding to my opening remarks. I am nevertheless grateful to him for attending the debate.

I make no apology for raising for the third time in an Opposition day debate the dismal record of this Secretary of State and the Minister for Universities and Science on university fees. Nothing is more important to this country’s future than the rising generation of young people, including all those who are working hard as we speak on their GCSEs and A-levels. We owe it to them to give them the best opportunities, to make the most of their talents, the most of their abilities, the most of their willingness to work hard and do the best for themselves. All of us depend on them to ensure that, through their innovation and creativity, this country can pay its way in the world and create jobs in the future. Despite fashionable sneers, we need more people, not fewer, educated at a higher level. That is what is happening in every country with which we compete. Young people will benefit from their higher education, but so will the rest of us. That is why our young people deserve a fair deal and good opportunities.

Under the last Labour Government, the number of students in English universities increased by almost 380,000, and 51% of young women now go to university. Now, however, the ladders of opportunity are being kicked away. The education maintenance allowance has been scrapped, and Aimhigher, which persuaded countless young people that they could go to university, has been scrapped. Sir Peter Lampl of the renowned Sutton Trust said:

“I think these fees are going to put a lot of children from lower and middle-income homes off universities.”

A poll today shows that more than half of final-year students at 14 Russell group universities in England would not have enrolled if annual fees had been £9,000.

For those who do aim high, fees are being trebled—to the highest average fees of any public university system in the world, and all because this Secretary of State decided to cut the higher education teaching grant by 80%, to make most students pay the whole cost of their higher education and to embark on a bizarre ideological experiment devised by the Minister for Universities and Science. It was always a bad idea, but these Ministers have implemented it with truly staggering incompetence: they have lost control and are making it up as they go along. Instead of being open and honest about finances and open and honest about their future policies, they are resorting to veiled and not-so-veiled threats, planning the biggest ever interference in the autonomy of universities.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

If a Labour Government had been re-elected, would tuition fees have risen?

[Mr Denham]

We have made it quite clear in every debate since the Browne report was published that it would be unrealistic to say that higher education budgets would be untouched by the deficit reduction that we would have had to introduce. However, we have also pointed that if, for the sake of argument, the reduction in higher education spending had been in the order of 10% to 20%, as faced by most public services, we would certainly not have been talking about tuition fees above about £3,800—and certainly not the £9,000 that this Government are implementing.

Since Parliament voted to treble tuition fees in December, Ministers have ensured through their actions that record numbers of disappointed students will be turned away from university this year, with perhaps 150,000 applicants missing out on places. More of the students across England who are studying hard for their A-levels today will be rejected than ever before, because tens of thousands are rushing to avoid the trebling of fees, and because Ministers have already cut 20,000 places for 2012 from the number that Labour had planned for 2010—and that is before any more cuts that may be in the pipeline.

On 3 November, the Minister for Universities and Science told the House:

“We… are… proposing a basic threshold of £6,000 a year, and in exceptional circumstances there would be an absolute limit of £9,000.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 924.]

That was the solemn promise on the basis of which the House was asked to treble fees. The Minister did not say, “Most universities will charge £9,000 or as near as makes no difference”; he said that £9,000 would apply “in exceptional circumstances”, and that is not going to happen. Of the universities that have made declarations, 71% have declared fees of £9,000 and 85% have declared fees of £8,000 or more.

The Minister continues to live in a world of his own. In March he was saying of arts and humanities degrees:

“Most institutions should only need to charge £6,000—or perhaps a bit more once inflation has been accounted for.”

So where are those £6,000 arts and humanities degrees in the most sought-after universities? Where, for that matter, are the £6,000 arts and humanities degrees in less sought-after universities? The truth is that the Minister and the Secretary of State have lost control of the system through their own incompetence. They have created a system in which there is every incentive for universities to charge high fees and virtually no incentive for them to charge low fees, and it is young people who will pay the price. Some will be put off university altogether, while those who go to university will face 30 years of debt repayments, with middle-income graduates paying more money and a larger proportion of their incomes than the wealthiest. They will still be paying off their student debt when their own children have started university.

The Minister is now trying to say that what matters is the average once the reduced fees for some students have been taken into account. How disingenuous can you get? When the Minister promised fees of £9,000 “in exceptional circumstances”, I do not believe that a single Member of the House thought, “Oh—that means that most universities will charge most students £9,000, or as near as makes no difference.” That is not what Members thought; they thought that he meant “in exceptional circumstances”. I do not think they thought that middle-class, middle-income students would have no choice but to pay close to £9,000 a year no matter which university they chose to go to. The Minister’s failure to admit that he got it wrong does him no credit.

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

Given that universities that charge £9,000 will have to satisfy fairly stringent access requirements, will they not be helping the very students whom the right hon. Gentleman says we should be helping?

[Mr Denham]

That argument is worthy of further examination, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be dealing with it in due course, at—I hope—not too much length. It gets worse.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Denham]

Ministers have consistently claimed that fees above £6,000 will be allowed only if tough access agreements are in place. Before I say more about that, however, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am sure my right hon. Friend realises that the universities that have not raised their fees to £9,000, such as my own London Metropolitan university, are giving themselves a large financial problem which is resulting—in the case of the London Met—in the loss of possibly as many as 10,000 student places over the next three years, a large number of redundancies, and a loss of access to higher education for students from working-class backgrounds. That is the perverse effect of the Government’s strategy of effectively trying to privatise higher education.

[Mr Denham]

My hon. Friend has underlined a point that I have already made. Individual institutions have had to make their own choices, but this was a system in which almost every incentive for the vast majority of institutions was to raise fees, and there were almost no incentives to lower them. Given the number of professors of game theory in the universities of England, one would have thought that Ministers could have got a few together and asked them, “What will you do, in practice, if we introduce a system like this?” Every single one of them would have replied, “We will make the fees as high as we possibly can.” The Minister and the Secretary of State are just about the only people with any connection to higher education who are surprised by what has happened.

Of course, Ministers have consistently claimed that fees above £6,000 will be allowed only if tough access agreements are in place. When Cambridge university announced it wanted a fee of £9,000 per year, the Deputy Prime Minister—the man who promised no fee increases—exploded, stating:

“They can say what they like. They can’t charge £9,000 unless they’re given permission to do so. And they’re only going to be given permission to do so if they can prove that they can dramatically increase the number of people from poorer and disadvantaged backgrounds who presently aren’t going to Oxford and Cambridge.”

That sounded pretty clear, but what has Cambridge actually proposed? Its current access target under the current fees policy is to reach 60% to 63% of state school students—not, we should note, poorer or disadvantaged state school students, just any state school students including those from selective schools. What has it proposed in the new access agreement? It has proposed that the target should be not 60% to 63% of state school students, but 61% to 63% of state school students. As the Financial Times put it:

“Cambridge basically reckons it can triple student fees and placate the Government by adjusting the bottom of its target range for state school pupils by one percentage point.”

Does anybody in this House believe that Cambridge will not be allowed to charge £9,000?

The Secretary of State’s guidance to the Office for Fair Access did not request that OFFA take into account past performance on benchmarks or widening participation, nor could it legally have done so. It will be many years, at best, before OFFA can possibly judge whether the new access agreements have been complied with and made any difference to access. Will the Minister for Universities and Science tell the House today how long he expects it to be before OFFA could feasibly sanction any university for failure to comply?

It is obvious that these bungling Ministers thought OFFA had powers it simply did not have. When The Times asked Sir Martin Harris, the director of OFFA, whether Ministers had been aware of his limited powers when plans to treble the cap on fees were approved by Parliament, he replied:

“I think that the powers of OFFA became clearer as this debate went on.”

That is a tremendously polite way of saying, “They didn’t understand what they were talking about,” and he went on to say, for the avoidance of doubt:

“It is very important that everybody understands that OFFA is not a fee regulator.”

Tory peers made sure of that in 2004. In another place, they passed amendments that ensured that Labour’s fees legislation could not allow the very interference that the Tory-led Government are now threatening.

Of course, in theory OFFA can reject an access scheme, but only a stupid and incompetent vice-chancellor would run that risk. Universities just need a rational plan for school outreach work, and bursaries or fee waivers for some students; if they get that right, OFFA’s powers to limit fees to £6,000 collapse, and the university is free to charge up to £9,000. That is the second reason why £9,000 is becoming the norm, not the exception.

The cynical talk of tough access agreements is raising false hopes among students, and now the finances are unravelling. The permanent secretary at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills recently appeared in front of the Public Accounts Committee, and he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) about the consequences of fees higher than an average of £7,500. She asked:

“You have a gap, haven’t you, that you are going to have to plug”?

The permanent secretary replied: “Yes.”

The Secretary of State has already made it absolutely clear how he will respond. He told the Higher Education Funding Council for England conference:

“Government essentially has two ways of dealing financially with collective over-pricing: either cutting the teaching grant or student numbers.”

So there will be more cuts in teaching grant, or even more cuts in student numbers beyond the cut of 20,000 from the total Labour planned for September 2010 and the number he will allow in 2012-13.

Frankly, the Government are all over the place on this. On the one hand the permanent secretary says there is a problem, and the Secretary of State says he may cut student numbers or the teaching grant. On the other, he says there is not a black hole. The House of Commons Library has published estimates of the financial shortfall at average fee levels above £7,500. Ministers say they do not recognise the Library figures, so will the Minister guarantee to the House today that the average fee will be no more than the £7,500 first promised? If he cannot guarantee that, will he tell the House what the black hole will be, and how he is going to balance the budget?

That is not the only question about finances, because the whole fiasco has been driven by the Secretary of State’s claim that he needed to sacrifice higher education to cut the budget deficit. There are increasing concerns that the policy will not save any public money. The cut in teaching grant has to be set against the massive increase in the level of student debt that has to be written off because of loans that will never be repaid. London Economics, million+ and the Higher Education Policy Institute are among the organisations that have pointed out that quite small changes in assumptions about future graduate earnings or the rate of non-repayment would wipe out any savings. Yesterday, the director of the Office for Budget Responsibility wrote to me confirming that the OBR will re-examine the Government’s assumptions once all the universities have set their fees.

As it has become increasingly clear that fees approaching £9,000 will be the norm, Ministers have constantly threatened to enact new laws to stop them. In their guidance to the Office for Fair Access, these Ministers said that

“if the sector as a whole appeared to be clustering their charges at the upper end of what is legally possible, and thereby increasing the pressure on public funds, we will have to reconsider what powers are available, including changes to legislation, to ensure there is differentiation in charges.”

They have talked of cutting all university places by 5% to 10% and then auctioning them off to the lowest bidder, including foreign-owned private universities. They have also talked of strengthening OFFA’s legal powers, but part of this disgraceful situation is that they make threats but they will not publish any details.

So I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister for Universities and Science whether, having said that they are prepared to legislate to stop universities charging high fees, they will stop hiding behind weasel words and tell us what they actually propose to do. Will there be an auction of student places? Is OFFA going to be given powers to set fees or impose quotas for students from different backgrounds? There are people on both sides of the House who would like to have the answer to that question. Does the Minister have any idea how he would get such a policy through the House of Lords, given that the Lords insisted on explicitly limiting OFFA’s powers in 2004? It really is not good enough for the Secretary of State and his Minister to keep making it up as they go along.

The Minister said that he would double the level of student loans available for study at private universities and he has made it clear that he wants more competition from private universities, but he has not set out how they will be regulated, how quality will be maintained or how the problem of fraud, which is being investigated by congressional committees in the USA, will be avoided—this involves the same companies he wants to expand their activities here. Once again, veiled threats are being made in panic as Ministers lose control of the system, but we are being given no details, no substance and no openness. It is not good enough to keep this House, future students and universities in the dark about what they plan to do.

Let me turn now to another aspect of Government policy that is becoming clear. The Secretary of State and his Minister plan to force tens of thousands of students from squeezed-middle homes to pay a levy to cut the fees of other students, often those from similar backgrounds. In a typical access scheme—hon. Members can go on websites to look at these—a student with two working parents both on £24,000 a year will pay a full £27,000 a year in fees, but that will include a £3,000 levy to cut the fees of the student from next door with one working parent on £24,000 a year. So two graduates with the same degree from the same university starting the same job will start their working life with as much as a £9,000 difference in their level of debt. How many of our constituents will think that having two hard-working parents should be a disadvantage that stays with someone for 30 years?

[Mr Gyimah]

Will the right hon. Gentleman briefly explain to us how his proposal of a graduate tax can address the challenges in higher education that he has so eloquently highlighted?

[Mr Denham]

I am flattered by the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. No system of student payment for the cost of higher education makes easy the problem of an 80% cut in teaching grant. The fundamental problem we face is that the Government have decided to make most students pay the entire cost of their higher education. The great advantage in a system of repayment of moving towards a graduate tax is that it is fairer; it ensures that what people pay is better related to what they are able to earn as a graduate. But nobody should be under any illusions: the fundamental problem we are dealing with is not the choice between a graduate tax and a fees system; it is the choice between slashing higher education teaching grant by 80% and not doing so.

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

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about a matter that was brought to my attention by a constituent? She is so concerned about the level of fees that her children will have to pay for the rest of their lives if they go to university that she is looking into retiring early to prevent them from being burdened with them. That could be an unintended consequence of this policy across the board—people could be incentivised not to work.

[Mr Denham]

Although this does not apply to the case that my hon. Friend raises, she has touched on an issue that will need to be examined in greater detail on another occasion. It has long been an oddity that the incomes declared to the Student Loans Company by those applying for loans appear to be rather low if they are set against the statistics about the social class from which people come. There is a financial incentive for minimising declared income when applying to the student loan system, and we must acknowledge that that was present to a degree under our system, too. Any sensible person will have real concerns that as fees rise towards £27,000 for a typical degree, with possible significant differences in the maintenance awards available and significant fee advantages for declaring a lower income, the temptation creatively to declare household income, shall we say, may well rise.

I think that it is a tragedy if, in a legitimate way, people take a household decision that takes somebody out of the labour market to enable somebody to take advantage of such opportunities. I am just flagging up this point without developing it further, but there is an issue here that the whole House will have to consider in the years to come.

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

Does the shadow Secretary of State not understand that he is fuelling fears for those who wish to go university by constantly referring to what students have to pay? They do not. In the words of a former Home Secretary, it is graduates who pay and who benefit. That is the difference. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman thinks carefully about the damage that he is doing to the potential of young individuals.

[Mr Denham]

With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I shall read back to him directly the words I spoke before I took those interventions: two graduates with the same degree from the same university starting the same job will start their working life with as much as a £9,000 difference in their level of debt. That is an accurate representation of the system that there will be and of the current system, in which, as Government Members do not understand, fee repayments start after graduation. The issue, however, is that students—those planning to go to university—are being told that they will be responsible in most courses for footing the entire cost of their university education. That is undoubtedly true.

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

rose—

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Denham]

I am going to make a little more progress, because I am aware of Madam Deputy Speaker’s strictures about time and I need to draw to a close very quickly.

Let me complete the point I was making about the unfairness that is being introduced into the access system. Labour’s progress on social mobility must be maintained—[Laughter.] There is laughter from those on the Government Benches, but let me remind Ministers and the House that under the previous Labour Government the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university increased every single year after the changes we made to higher education. We will wait to see whether this Government can maintain that progress.

These Ministers have put the burden unfairly on the shoulders of hard-working squeezed middle families and the Commons Library suggests a significant risk of no overall increase in money spent on widening access because schemes such as Aimhigher have been scrapped and the widening participation premium is in doubt. That risks the worst of all worlds: middle income students and their families being asked to pick up the tab, with no increase in spending on widening access.

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

First, will the shadow Secretary of State confirm that, under Labour, a widening of participation did not occur in the Russell group universities? Secondly, if he is concerned about those on middle incomes, is not the answer for him to say that universities should offer no fee waivers, because if there were none, the inequity that he suggests will follow would not happen?

[Mr Denham]

This is bizarre. The right hon. Gentleman is the Government’s access tsar, but he is asking, “Why do not we all agree that there should not be any fee waivers?” Because it is a requirement of the national scholarship programme that there should be fee waivers. That is the scheme that he has advocated, designed and developed.

The right hon. Gentleman has been as guilty as anybody of raising false hopes about what the Government’s policies are going to do. It was he who said there was going to be

“a really tough regime that does not allow any college or university to charge more than £6,000 unless it is in exceptional circumstances”.

The truth is that he is one of those who have no understanding of how the system operates. I hope that further progress is made on widening participation, including in the Russell group universities. However, nothing that Ministers have set out, and nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said, matches the rhetoric that he has been putting all over the newspapers. He has played a role in trying to persuade the media in this country that the Government are serious about social access while doing absolutely nothing to deliver on that. He should be ashamed of the role that he has played. He knows that he should have voted against the measures in the first place but he was bought off with a title and he has done nothing to deliver on the responsibilities he has been given.

The Government have broken their promise on the level of fees. They have made claims about access they cannot deliver and they have based their arguments on savings that may never materialise. They said that they wanted to set universities free but they are planning the biggest attack on university autonomy in history, and the sad truth is that all this was not only predictable, but was predicted. From the outset, the Opposition have said that the Government’s policy was unfair, unnecessary and unsustainable. We called for a delay in the fees vote and said that the House should not vote before the Government were clear about how they would control student numbers and how private providers would be regulated. We wanted them to give details about the cost and fairness of the new loans system and to be clear about having an independent assessment of the effect of their measures on social mobility, but they ignored us and four months later they have still failed to answer those crucial questions. In January, the Minister for Universities and Science told the House:

“We are consulting students, universities and other experts and will publish a White Paper in the early part of this year.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 421.]

It is nearly May and there is no sign of this White Paper.

England’s higher education system is not perfect, but it is widely recognised as one of the best in the world. That is not just because of the quality of its world-class research institutions but because of the diversity and quality across the whole higher education system. No one should be afraid of having an honest debate about how it can be made better, but it is so important to all our futures that it needs competent Ministers who are capable of protecting all that is good about it.

Public concern about the Government’s NHS reforms has at least forced a temporary period of reflection on that policy, but no such luxury exists for students and universities, which are on a tight timetable to introduce the new system for 2012-13. The Secretary of State must act now, so will Ministers tell the House today what action will be taken to deliver the promise that fees of £9,000 will be charged only in exceptional circumstances? Will they legislate and if so how and when? Will they promise that there will be no further cuts to student numbers and no further cuts to spending on the teaching grant, research or public funding for widening participation? What will they do to deliver the wild promises of widened participation and improved access? Will they strengthen the powers of the Office for Fair Access to set fees or to impose quotas? If the measures, which are the biggest interference in university autonomy in history, are rejected, what will they do? If the Minister for Universities and Science cannot answer these questions, the House must conclude that he and the Secretary of State have lost control of the policy for which they are responsible.

16:44

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

I welcome this opportunity for us to set before the House the Government’s approach to higher education and to clear away the farrago of confusion, misplaced speculation and plain old-fashioned errors that we have just heard from the shadow Secretary of State.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on one thing: his sheer audacity in standing in the Chamber and denouncing cuts and financial black holes, when he was in the Cabinet of a previous Government who got our finances into the crisis that the coalition inherited. So yes, we are having to take some tough and difficult measures, but that is because, as always, Labour left behind a mess and then denounced us for clearing it up.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Some months ago the Minister indicated in the House, in response to a question from me, that his proposals were not to do with the deficit, but were to do with a new way of providing for the financing of higher education, yet he introduces his speech by referring to the deficit.

[Mr Willetts]

I will turn to that point as I develop my argument. I hope the hon. Lady will accept that the Government whom she supported left behind a fiscal crisis. We were borrowing £120 million a day and were heading for the largest budget deficit in the G20. In fact, the position was so bad that the previous Chancellor had set out proposals for bringing down the deficit by reducing public spending. It is an irony that the Opposition called this debate in the very month when the previous Government’s spending cuts would have started to take effect—£14 billion of cuts planned for this financial year by the previous Chancellor, £16 billion of cuts that we are implementing.

As the shadow Secretary of State knows because he was in the Government at the time, it is clear from the pre-Budget report of December 2009 that there was a commitment to £600 million of cuts from the higher education and science and research budget. It was never explained what those were to be. As we know from the work done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies when it tried to assess Labour’s plans when the previous Government left office, there were to be reductions in public expenditure that the IFS estimated as a 25% reduction in the budget of the Department where the Secretary of State and I serve. So we inherited a mess that we have to sort out.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

The question is not whether the deficit needs to be reduced, but whether the decision to impose cuts of 80% on universities is the right way to do it. How will students benefit when they pay three times as much in fees but get less spent on the quality of their education in our universities?

[Mr Willetts]

Let us turn to that. Given that we face a crisis in the public finances, and given that even the previous Government had planned £14 billion of saving, how does one best deliver those in a departmental budget which I do not think any of the three parties represented in the House said could be exempted from reductions? Fortunately, the previous Government set in train an exercise that helped tackle precisely that problem. In November 2009 they commissioned Lord Browne to review the financing of higher education, and they made perfectly clear the wide range of options that they wanted him to look at.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Willetts]

I will give way in a moment to the right hon. Gentleman, not least because of his role as a Minister in the previous Government, but I hope he will accept that Lord Browne’s report was commissioned precisely so that when public expenditure had to be saved, the finances of higher education would be examined.

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the higher education review was indicated in the Higher Education Act 2004, some years before the deficit.

[Mr Willetts]

It was made perfectly clear—[Interruption.] Let me quote from the very first sentence of the terms of reference of Lord Browne’s report. It was to

“analyse the challenges and opportunities facing higher education and their implications for student financing and support. It will examine the balance of contributions to higher education funding by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers.”

So, the previous Government left us a deficit, recognised that they needed to make £14 billion of savings and set up an inquiry under Lord Browne to look at how universities should be financed in those circumstances—almost in the same month, incidentally, that we had the plan from the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) for large reductions in public spending.

After considering Lord Browne’s report, which took him a year to produce and in which time he took a large amount of evidence, the coalition has adopted a strategy that, although not in every respect his strategy—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I do not know why Opposition Members react with such glee; in many ways, we have improved on the strategy that Lord Browne put forward. The fundamental proposal in the report that the previous Government commissioned is the one that we are now implementing in order to put the finances of higher education on a stable footing.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Willetts]

Let me just develop this point, because crucially the best way to save money is not to go for reductions in the teaching grant per student, as that simply means a lower-quality experience for students in our universities; instead, the aim is to provide universities, as the teaching grant is reduced, with an alternative source of income from fees and loans which does not involve students paying any money up front.

[Hugh Bayley]

rose—

[Mr Willetts]

I am just going to carry on explaining the basic finances of the measure, because they are so important and the Opposition clearly do not understand them. The point is about lending students money to pay fees. For example, if we lend them £1,000, we can reasonably expect, on the basis of outside forecasts, about £700 of that to be repaid, so we account for the £300 of the loan that is written off—that will not be repaid—but know that we will get approximately £700 back. That is the financing model in Lord Browne’s report, which the Labour party commissioned, and that is what enables this coalition to save money for the Exchequer, to continue with high levels of finances and to ensure that students do not have to pay any money up front. That is an excellent combination of policies at a time when money is tight.

[Tristram Hunt]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as he digs himself ever deeper and reveals the fallacy of the sums involved. The whole point of the Browne review was that it would introduce a market in higher education, but, if we strip away the teaching grant and everyone charges £9,000, we do not have a market. That is why the policy is such a car crash.

[Mr Willetts]

I will move on to that stage of the argument in a moment, but let me just explain to the hon. Gentleman why this measure, which is not mine but that of the report commissioned by the Government whom he supported, is very straightforward, simple and absolutely the right way to tackle the challenge of financing higher education at a time of fiscal crisis. It enables us to save money for the Exchequer, because the money that goes into universities is lent to students and is not a grant, and at the same time we ensure that universities are well financed.

The shadow Secretary of State sounded as if he was willing to contemplate large reductions in the amount of resource going to universities, but that would affect the quality of students’ education. On our estimates, the cash going to universities rises from about £9.2 billion in 2010-11 to £10 billion in 2014-15, so we save money, there is more resource going into universities and, crucially, at the same time the money is accompanied by reform.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Willetts]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart).

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will my right hon. Friend nail the misinformation, peddled not least by Opposition Front Benchers, about the increase in fees putting people from lower-income backgrounds off going to university? The truth is that the payments per month will be lower under the new system, that those who earn lower amounts will pay less, that the new system is more progressive and that Opposition Front Benchers, who cry crocodile tears for caring about those from the lowest incomes having access to a university, are scaremongering and providing misinformation. Will he please put them right?

[Mr Willetts]

That was an excellent intervention. After this debate, I hope that Members on both sides will agree to commit ourselves to visit, between now and the summer, the secondary schools and colleges in our constituencies and explain to them that not a single young person is going to have to pay up front for their higher education. They will repay only if they are earning more than £21,000 a year and that means that their monthly repayments under our proposals will be lower than under the system we inherited from the previous Government.

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

rose—

[Mr Willetts]

I will accept the hon. Lady’s intervention, especially if she makes that commitment.

[Dr Whiteford]

Last month, the BBC published figures from the accountants Baker Tilly. They suggested that a student who borrowed £39,000 to complete their higher education would end up paying back something in the region of £83,000. What does the right hon. Gentleman make of those figures?

[Mr Willetts]

I am afraid that I do not recognise those specific figures. We are talking about a system whose powerful logic is simple—no student pays up front, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness correctly made.

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

rose—

[Mr Willetts]

I need to make some progress because this is not simply a matter of finances, important though they are. It is essential that the measures be accompanied by reform. Above all, that means a focus on the quality of the teaching experience for students. Many students, and their parents, come away from university not convinced that they had the teaching that they needed during their time in higher education. The third challenge, therefore—as well as saving money for the public finances and ensuring that proper financing gets into our universities—is to focus on improving the quality of the teaching experience. We do not achieve that by—

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Willetts]

I am responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt); it is an important stage in the argument. The money must be accompanied by reform that puts teaching up front and enables students, for the first time, to choose the course and university that they believe will best meet their needs. That is why the Secretary of State and I are absolutely committed to ensuring that it is easier for universities to escape from the shackles of the detailed quotas and restrictions set, university by university, in the system that we inherited from the previous Government. One of our highest priorities is to ensure that our reforms also improve the quality of the student experience. That will be at the heart of our White Paper.

[Graham Stringer]

Will the Minister explain how the quality of education will improve? Due to his miscalculations about the number of universities charging £9,000 and the structure of the students who will be going, there will be a huge deficit. That will lead to cuts in universities or in the number of students going to universities.

[Mr Willetts]

Let me deal briefly with that point. A fortnight ago, the Labour party was claiming that there was a £1 billion shortfall; last week, apparently, the shortfall was £450 million. We simply do not recognise those figures. We will see in autumn next year exactly what students are paying and how much they choose to borrow; they do not necessarily even need to borrow the full amount of fees that they face. That will be a decision for them. At that point, we will assess the financial situation that we face, but we see no reason to amend the broad estimate that we put before the House last autumn.

[Angela Smith]

Given what the Minister has just said, will he guarantee that there will be no cuts in quality or numbers in higher education?

[Mr Willetts]

We have a set of proposals that ensures that increasing resources will go to our universities, so, absolutely, I see no reason why quality should suffer. Indeed, I believe that as we liberalise the system in the way that the Secretary of State and I wish to, we will see improvements in the quality of the student experience. I do not see any need for a reduction in student numbers; on the figures that we have in front of us, I do not believe that that will be necessary.

I want to deal with another point made by Labour Members. There is so much confusion and misapprehension on their part that there is a large amount to sweep away.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Willetts]

I wanted to move on to the improvements that we have made to the Browne plan, but of course I give way to the shadow Minister.

[Mr Thomas]

Will the right hon. Gentleman distance himself from the Secretary of State’s comments at the Higher Education Funding Council for England conference when he threatened universities with either more cuts to the teaching grant or further cuts to student numbers?

[Mr Willetts]

We will obviously have to keep a very close eye on the situation. When one looks behind the headline figure of the £9,000 fee, there are so many waivers and special arrangements that the average fee will be significantly lower than that. Given the evidence that has so far come through, we do not recognise the so-called figures for fiscal black holes that are being perpetrated by Labour Members. I suggest that they calm down and wait until the autumn of 2012 when we see what students are actually paying in fees when they arrive at their universities.

[Mr Thomas]

The right hon. Gentleman was asked a very straight question—does he, or does he not, agree with his Secretary of State, who clearly threatened universities at the HEFCE conference with either further cuts in teaching grant or further cuts in student numbers? Does he agree with him—yes or no?

[Mr Willetts]

I am always in agreement with the Secretary of State. The position that he was describing related to options that would be necessary if the financial position was very different from the one that we estimated last autumn. On the basis of the evidence that we have, we do not believe that that will be the case.

[Margot James]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that university costs should be looked at very closely, just as with every other kind of public sector institution? Lord Browne found that the average fee was £6,000 if one took into account efficiencies that universities could make in relation to what would be the break-even point compared with what they currently enjoy in terms of funding.

[Mr Willetts]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We look forward to the report that Ian Diamond is preparing on precisely how we can improve efficiency in our universities.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Willetts]

No, I am going to make some progress because Members in all parts of the House wish to speak and I have a lot more ground to cover.

We have not only taken on Lord Browne’s proposals in the report commissioned by the previous Government as their way of reforming the finances of our education system, but tried to improve on those proposals. The crucial way in which we have done that is by improving the repayment terms for graduates. A very important feature of the new system is that instead of the repayment threshold of £15,000 that was left to us by the previous Government, we propose a threshold of £21,000. The only way in which people pay for higher education is as graduates repaying their loans, so the level of threshold and the amount of the repayment that they make is crucial. Under our scheme, a care worker graduating in 2016 with a £20,000 starting salary would repay nothing. Under Labour’s £15,000 repayment threshold, that care worker would have been repaying £37.50 a month. Under our scheme, an accountant graduating in 2016 with a £25,000 starting salary would repay £30 a month. If the repayment threshold had remained at £15,000, that accountant would have been repaying £75 a month.

The crucial figure that matters for young people thinking about the cost of their higher education is how much they will have to repay. Under our scheme, their monthly repayments will be significantly lower. That is why the Secretary of State and I are confident that these reforms are the right way forward and are genuinely progressive. We are discharging our obligation to future generations in exactly the way the shadow Secretary of State set out at the beginning of his speech. That is the crucial challenge and we believe that our reforms rise to it.

That is not just my view or that of the Secretary of State, but the view of bodies that have scrutinised our financing proposals. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that

“the Government’s proposals are more progressive than the current system or that proposed by Lord Browne.”

The OECD endorsed the coalition’s policy:

“The increase in the tuition fee ceiling is reasonable and should pave the way for higher participation in tertiary education”.

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

Can the Minister quote any vice-chancellor of any reputable higher education institution in this country who has said that the Government’s record in their first year of office has been good for higher education in this country?

[Mr Willetts]

I have been at many events with university vice-chancellors at which they have all accepted that, given the circumstances that we inherited and faced with the policy options of reducing teaching grant, reducing student numbers or implementing Lord Browne’s proposed changes in student finance, we took the right decision. I am confident that we have improved on Lord Browne’s proposals by making the repayment threshold more progressive.

Let me quote someone who is not a vice-chancellor, but who is perhaps still treated with a degree of respect by some Opposition Members, namely Lord Mandelson. The new postscript to his excellent memoirs, which I commend to Opposition Members, states:

“When the university fee debate came up before the Lords, for example, there was a large part of me that felt I should weigh in.”

I am sure that there was. It goes on:

“It was I, after all, who had set up the Browne Review”—

the Labour party seems to have forgotten that—

“into what future changes were necessary to ensure proper funding for universities in the best and fairest way, for both them and their students. When I did so in November 2009 I assumed, as the Treasury did, that the outcome would have to include a significant increase in tuition fees. I felt that they would certainly have to double in order to offset the deficit-reduction measures that we too would have implemented had we won the election. The alternative would be a disastrous contraction of higher education.”

Those are the words of the previous Secretary of State, and I take them as an accurate account of what was in the minds of Labour Ministers when they set up the Browne review.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I remind the Minister of the words of Professor Steve Smith, the president of Universities UK, who said that the coalition Government’s higher education policies

“will bring in the resource needed to allow students to go to university regardless of their financial circumstances, provide financial sustainability for universities, and ensure that we can maintain the UK’s international competitiveness in terms of undergraduate education.”

[Mr Willetts]

Absolutely. That is the view of Universities UK, and, as I have explained to the House, it holds that view because in the difficult circumstances that we inherited from the previous Government, we have taken the correct strategic decisions.

I have set out our approach to higher education. What was striking in the speech of the shadow Secretary of State was the complete absence of how he believes higher education should be financed in tough times. What was particularly noticeable was the absence of any reference to what we understand to be the preferred policy of his party leader, namely a graduate tax. We are still waiting to see the move to the graduate tax, which we understand is now the view of the shadow Secretary of State. Of course, the last Labour Government produced a helpful document on the subject entitled, “Why not a Pure Graduate Tax?”, which sets out clearly some of the issues surrounding a graduate tax. We are still waiting to hear whether the shadow Secretary of State advocates it.

Of course, our proposals involve a capped graduate tax, which has a threshold of £21,000 and a rate of 9%, is linked to the university that one went to, and is extinguished when one has discharged the cost of one’s higher education. That is the right way of delivering a graduate tax to pay for higher education. I would be very interested to hear from the shadow Secretary of State whether he believes that that system should be improved in some way. Does he prefer a model of graduate tax with, perhaps, a lower threshold and a lower rate?

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Willetts]

No, I am going to make some progress on this important point.

Would the shadow Secretary of State prefer a model with a 3% tax for graduates? That is one possibility, but of course it would bring low earners into the burden of graduate tax, whereas they will be exempt from it under our proposals. It would have another significant defect, because whereas we can collect student fees from people across Europe, there is no way in which a graduate tax could be collected from a graduate who has been educated in Britain and then goes to live abroad.

Once again, the memoirs of Peter Mandelson are very clear on this point, and we now know where the Labour party’s policy comes from. He writes:

“To be fair to Ed”—

he is referring to the current Labour leader”—

“from his days in the Treasury when we were first introducing the top-up-fees scheme in government, he shared Gordon’s preference for an alternative graduate tax”.

So it was Gordon who wanted a graduate tax—that is where this bold, new Labour idea comes from. The memoirs continue that the current Labour leader held that view

“even when our research concluded that it was simply unworkable.”

That is what Peter Mandelson says. Labour’s research showed the defects of a graduate tax, and we are still waiting to hear from the shadow Secretary of State what his policy is on such a tax.

The position is clear: the Government have a plan for financing higher education in tough times. We are financing it in a way that continues healthy support for our universities and enables us to save funding for the Exchequer at the same time. We are doing that without any cuts to student numbers or to the teaching resources going to universities, without any burden on students when they are at university and while improving the regime for graduate repayments after they have left university. That is why our plan is realistic, sober, reformist and progressive. We believe it is the right way forward, and in the absence of any constructive proposals from the Labour party, we remain convinced that ours is the correct strategy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This is a popular debate, and an eight-minute limit has been put on Back-Bench speeches, with the usual two-minute injury time allowance for interventions.

17:12

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate, as I am very worried about the Government’s plans for higher education and their impact on many of my constituents and the city I represent.

I was deeply concerned when the Government announced their intention to raise the cap on fees, and like every Opposition Member I voted against that rise. I did so not just because of my pledge during the general election campaign but because I felt that the Government were rushing through their plans without proper thought and consultation. Like many Members, I felt that fees of £6,000, £7,000 or £8,000 would deter many bright and able students from low and middle-income families from applying to university, or from applying to the university or course that would best suit them. As university after university has announced its intention to charge fees of £9,000, my concern has only deepened. Far from being the exception that the Prime Minister promised, £9,000 fees are becoming the norm. Why? It is because universities have to fill the huge hole left by the cut in the teaching grant.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Lady confirm for the benefit of her constituents that the monthly payment that each of them will have to make will be lower under the new system than it was under the previous system? The monthly payment will be lower at all times. The bad news is that people will have to pay for longer, but the payments will be more affordable and people will have to pay only when they are earning £21,000. Her constituents need to hear that so that they are not put off. I hope that she agrees.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The concern that many of my constituents express is that they will have to pay back at least three times more than they would if they were a student now or had been recently.

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

One difficulty is that we do not know the real rate of interest that will be charged. When we debated the Education Bill, Opposition Members proposed measures that would enable us to find out what those interest rates would be, but Government Members, including the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), voted against such a process, so we simply cannot tell how much the bills will be for our constituents.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact is that many of my constituents who are considering going to university are terrified at the prospect of paying back debts of £30,000 or £40,000. That is about not just how much they have to pay, but how long they have to pay for. I am sorry that the Minister would not take my intervention, but under a graduate tax system, surely those who earn more would pay more.

[Nick de Bois]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

No, not at the moment. Under the Minister’s scheme, those who earn the most will pay less, because they can pay their loans off quickly, before they have substantial amounts of interest to pay on top.

Sir Martin Harris, the director of the organisation charged with improving access to higher education, says that there is a “real risk” that teenagers from low-income homes will feel unable to attend university, which makes me even more convinced that this Government’s policies are not properly thought through.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

No—I am not taking another intervention.

Unfortunately, my concerns were further confirmed when I recently met staff from Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Connexions services. Careers advisers were not only demoralised by cuts to their service when young people most need advice and guidance to help them to make difficult choices, but deeply concerned about the impact of Government policies on the teenagers whom they are committed to assist. They told me that fee increases are having a clear impact on many young people, and that many young people in Nottinghamshire feel that they can no longer afford to study for a degree.

The problem is heightened by the increase in youth unemployment. Young people are worried not only that they will rack up debts of £30,000 or £40,000, but that they may not even be able to secure a job at the end of it. It was particularly sad to hear a member of staff of the Aimhigher campaign, which supports young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have the potential to go on to higher education, tell me that it has become increasingly difficult to convince such young people that university is for them.

Young people and their parents frequently bring this issue up on the doorstep. On Monday afternoon, a constituent asked me how he could afford to send his children to university.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

No. I have already taken several interventions.

My constituent was in work and owned his own home, and his children would not qualify for bursaries. He understood the importance of learning as a worthwhile investment in their future, but like many middle-income parents he felt that higher education was becoming out of reach for his children. The Government talk a great deal about widening access and ensuring that more young people from lower-income families go to our top universities, and about improving the chances of those in state schools, which are admirable aspirations, but they have done nothing to ensure that those things happen.

I fear not only the impact that the fees increase will have on our young people from low and middle-income families, but the impact that those policies will have on Nottingham. As many in the House will know, Nottingham is home to two excellent universities that attract students from all over the country, and indeed the world. The university of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent university make a huge contribution to our city and are vital to our local economy. Our city’s most successful businesses tell me that one of the main reasons for locating in Nottingham is the availability of highly educated young people. Although residents may on occasion wish that there were fewer students in the local neighbourhood, they also know that our universities are vital to the city’s economy and future financial success.

Last week, I spoke to a senior member of staff of Nottingham Trent university. She expressed concern that the increase in fees represents a threat to our ability to attract the brightest and best students to Nottingham, and reported that many young people and their families are considering studying close to home because they feel that they cannot afford the costs of living away on top of fees.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Has the hon. Lady met the vice-chancellor of Nottingham university? If she has, will she confirm that he supports the Government’s policy?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I have met him, and he is in favour of an increase in fees, but unfortunately the people of Nottingham, and prospective students, do not agree with him, and I am rather more concerned about representing them.

I was speaking about a senior member of staff at Nottingham Trent university who said that many young people and their families are considering studying closer to home. They are limiting their choice of university for financial rather than educational reasons, which has implications not only for individual students who feel unable to choose the university that is right for them but for the universities, particularly those in areas of high supply. The east midlands is a net importer of students, and therefore might expect to suffer disproportionately if more students choose to study close to home. What analysis have the Government made of this problem, what discussions have they had with local enterprise partnerships on its impact, and how do Ministers expect any reduction in the number of students coming to the east midlands to affect local and regional economic growth?

It is increasingly clear that in their rush to secure a deeply unpopular rise in fees as soon as possible after the election and before the next one, Ministers failed to come up with a coherent plan for higher education. Six months after the fee rise, we still have no higher education White Paper. The Department’s spending plans, based on average fees of £7,500, are in disarray, and measures sold to the electorate as necessary to save money are likely to cost the same or more. On top of 80% cuts in teaching grants, universities now face the threat of further cuts in grants or student numbers. The impact on local economic growth is uncertain, and young people and their families are paying the price of this Government’s incompetence. It is no wonder they feel so let down by the Business Secretary and his colleagues. I have no doubt that we will see quite how let down they feel when next week’s election results deliver the verdict on 12 months of the miserable compromise that is the coalition Government.

17:22

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who spoke passionately in defence of students in her constituency. I do not intend to speak for long—I hope to keep to five or six minutes.

I make no apology for continuing to support and vote for the policies of the Government, because I am in no doubt that the medium and long-term strengths of our higher education sector will be substantially improved by the measures we have taken so far—and, I hope, will continue to take. It is true, however, that over time we will need to make further changes in some areas. Nevertheless, the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State have got this one wrong. As Lord Mandelson has shown, even many members of the Labour party believe that mistakes are being made. In particular, the analysis of the role of the Office for Fair Access is wrong. But I will come to that later.

My first observation concerns student numbers. One of the fundamental strengths of the new system is that it empowers students by making money follow their choices, so that universities are incentivised to raise the quality of their courses and of the student experience in order to attract students and generate income. Professor David Eastwood, vice-chancellor of the university of Birmingham and a member of the Browne review, recently emphasised that the

“key policy imperative is to say that numbers will follow informed student choice”.

He has argued that expanding higher education places to meet demand would force down fees at less popular universities and cost the taxpayer less. I believe that he is probably right.

[Mr Denham]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but does he accept that the Government have not told us how they intend to allocate student numbers—or indeed whether we will have a model in which the money follows the student or whether numbers will be centrally allocated, as they are at the moment? The Opposition called for that information before December, so does he share my regret that Ministers have completely failed to answer that question? Indeed, the lack of an answer means that we do not know whether the hon. Gentleman’s point is valid or not.

[Mr Wilson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, because there are certainly questions still to be answered, which is something I will come to.

I am concerned that the restrictions on student numbers will mean that we fail to realise the full benefits of competition in the higher education sector, which would have encouraged universities to achieve greater efficiency and offer more value for money. As a recent report by Tim Leunig for the think-tank CentreForum put it,

“because government restricts the number of students that each university can take, this is not real competition”—

and indeed, it is not. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree that the Government must devise a system in which universities and courses that are popular and economically important can expand, if necessary at the expense of unpopular courses and institutions. Does he therefore share my concern that capping student numbers will threaten one of the key benefits offered by the Government’s reforms? What further action does he propose to take to ensure that courses that students want to take, at a price that they want to pay, can expand at the expense of courses that they do not want to take, at prices that they do not want to pay? In these difficult times the Treasury is keen not to spend more on subsidies for students than it absolutely has to, which provides the Secretary of State and the Minister with a big challenge if they want real competition in the higher education sector. If the Minister cannot convince the Treasury that removing the cap on student numbers will reduce overall HE costs, there will be no genuine market in HE.

However, I hope that the Government are thinking creatively about seeking micro-solutions to the problem. In particular, I would recommend that they look at three areas that are perhaps worthy of further consideration. The first is how we encourage private sector institutions to enter the HE sector and offer degree courses. There is no reason why they should not be allowed to enter the sector and overcome any real or perceived barriers to entry, which can easily be removed. Secondly, the further education sector needs to be encouraged to offer more degree and higher education courses. The changes that we have made in the HE sector offer huge opportunities for FE colleges to offer high quality, affordable, specialist courses. Once again, we can look across the Atlantic at what is happening in the US community college system as an example of the model that we need to strive to follow in this country.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, the content of which I agree with. Does he agree that many FE colleges are now delivering the quality that should enable them to confer degrees, rather than being dependent on universities, which in times of financial uncertainty tend to reduce what they allow FE colleges to do? We need to give them freedom if they are to compete properly in the market.

[Mr Wilson]

Indeed I do agree with that. There are some fabulous FE colleges that could easily deliver high quality higher education degrees.

Thirdly, if we are to have a Treasury-imposed affordability limit on student numbers, we need to think more creatively about how we tease the best out of a more limited market system. As I have said, we need to encourage the best high-quality, sought-after courses that students actually want to take. We have to design a system that allows good universities with good courses to expand, and poorly performing universities with poor quality courses to decline, or at least take action to improve their offering.

[Mr Willetts]

My hon. Friend is focusing on the crucial issues of how we get more competition and choice into the system. I assure him that these are absolutely the issues that we will focus on in the White Paper.

[Mr Wilson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reassurance.

Let me turn quickly to my other point about the Office for Fair Access. As Professor Eastwood rightly argued, more higher education places should mean more social mobility. Although I welcome any constructive suggestion to increase social mobility and opportunities in this country, I am concerned that a heavy-handed attempt to do so would risk another cornerstone of our university system, which is academic freedom.

In a commendable feature of the Higher Education Act 2004, OFFA was given a legal duty

“to protect academic freedom including, in particular, the freedom of institutions…to determine the criteria for the admission of students and apply those criteria in particular cases.”

The first guidance letter issued by the Labour Secretary of State in October 2004 confirmed that the Government’s priority was financial support for the poorest students, and noted that

“institutions that generally attract a narrower range of students may want to put more money into outreach activity to raise aspirations”.

The guidance also made it clear that institutions’ admissions policies and procedures were outside OFFA’s remit.

This Government’s new guidance to the director of fair access is much more aggressive, and I believe that it has clear and serious implications for universities’ admissions policies. It instructs OFFA that it

“will want to ensure that each institution is making sustained and meaningful progress towards a more balanced and representative student body, reflected year on year in its own benchmarks, measures and targets.”

Under the February 2011 guidance letter, if an institution is deemed to have seriously or wilfully breached its access agreement, OFFA can decide not to approve or renew the agreement. That would remove the institution’s right to charge its students above a basic fee level. I understand that a fine of up to £500,000 is also available.

The message to universities, via OFFA, appears to be that unless they make progress each year towards achieving a “more balanced and representative” student body, they can expect OFFA to set much more onerous obligations and require them to devote more of their resources to outreach and financial support. In addition, they could be fined. So, while the Opposition call for new powers for OFFA, will the Minister confirm that the Government remain committed to protecting the academic freedom of universities, and that they have no plans to interfere with university admissions policies through access agreements?

[Mr Willetts]

I can give that assurance. We have no plans to change the legal framework guaranteeing the freedom of universities to run their own admissions procedures.

[Mr Wilson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance, but the legal framework is slightly different from the access agreement. I do not have time to go into that now, however.

I agree with the Russell group when it argues that too few poorer pupils are getting the right grades and that the achievement gap according to socio-economic background is getting even wider. It also argues that the most effective way to get low income students into the best universities is to help them to improve their academic performance at an early stage. It is in the schools that we should be looking to change things, not in the universities. As I have said, I am passionately committed to raising aspirations and spreading opportunities more widely in our society, but it would be far better to tackle the real cause of unfair access to higher education—too few poorer children achieving the right grades at school—than to bring the Government into conflict with the legal duty to protect university independence and academic freedom.

17:33

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the fact that the Minister admitted that these proposals have been driven by the need to cut the public sector deficit, rather than by any wider educational considerations. Borrowing to give grants to universities counts as public borrowing, whereas borrowing to make loans to students does not, because that is offset, at least in part, by an income stream. This is an accountancy smoke and mirrors exercise, on which the Minister has based one of the most seismic changes in educational funding imaginable. At the end of the day, if the figures are wrong, it will still be the taxpayer who foots the bill. If the loan obligation is higher than expected, that will present problems. If the income, in return, is lower than expected, that will present additional problems. On the basis of the evidence that we have seen so far, that is the situation that is emerging.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Was my hon. Friend struck, as I was, by the failure of the Minister, who declined to take my interventions on the point, to address the issue put to him by our right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham)—that at the Public Accounts Committee, his own permanent secretary had said that at the current level of fees, universities faced a cash funding gap, which could be plugged only by cutting the teaching grant further or by cutting numbers? Is not that the mess they have left us in?

[Mr Bailey]

Yes, my right hon. Friend anticipates one of my later points. Both the Higher Education Policy Institute and, by implication, the Office for Budget Responsibility have recognised that issue.

Let me make it quite clear that from my personal perspective I have always believed that graduates should make a contribution to their education. There is a legitimate debate—it should have been had before these proposals were introduced—about the appropriate balance of benefit between an individual and the country’s economy and about what the appropriate obligation for payment should be between the individual and the state. That has to take place, obviously, within the constraints of affordability.

[Andrew Bridgen]

The hon. Gentleman comments on the allocation of payments and the contribution that graduates should make to their education, but was that not the entire function and purpose of the Browne report, which has been taken into account?

[Mr Bailey]

Yes, it certainly was and I was just coming to that. We should have had a White Paper, followed by a full debate, which would have enabled the Government to put forward their proposals and the Opposition and others to probe them. A range of educational institutions —there are an enormous number of them—would have been able to contribute their expertise. What we have had, however, is this seismic shift in Government funding, carried out without adequate research and debate.

I spent 10 years on the Government Benches listening to lectures from Conservative Members about the dangers of hasty legislation and the unintended consequences that almost inevitably arise from it. If ever there was a case in point, I honestly think this is it. Hasty legislation, or hasty regulation in this case, is usually bad legislation, or regulation.

The lack of research and work done highlights a number of issues. The first is the setting of the fee levels. The Minister’s hopelessly optimistic estimates, on which the financial model was predicated, have been demonstrated as completely incorrect. The repayment implications are considerable. A whole range of expert research has been done to demonstrate that the income stream on which the Government predicated their financial model will not be met. There will therefore be a long-term financial liability, possibly an expanding one, that the Government will have to meet.

Another issue that could and should have been explored far more comprehensively if we had had a White Paper is of course the role of the Office for Fair Access. When Ministers were pressed on the setting of the level of tuition fees, they seemed to ascribe to OFFA powers that were completely beyond it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) said in his opening remarks. The fact remains that OFFA is an organisation of four people, to whom responsibility was attributed by the Deputy Prime Minister for setting the tuition fee levels of all universities. That is totally beyond their resources, and they could not do it anyway, because they do not have the legislative basis to do so. This could and would have been teased out in a full and open debate of a White Paper, but by virtue of the Government’s actions it has been precluded.

The outcome is that the figures in the financial model do not appear to stack up. I mentioned the potential long-term financial implications earlier. As the Minister has acknowledged, the options are to cut funding for universities further and to reduce student numbers. I believe that if tuition fees averaged £8,000 per annum, it would be necessary to reduce the number of students going to university by 17,000 in order to stay within the model. There is actually a third option: the Government could change graduates’ repayment conditions. I think that that would open another can of worms, and would provide the basis for further research to assess the possible outcome.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bailey]

No, I will not give way again.

A reduction in student numbers is inevitable, either because the Government decide to ration them or because of the deterrent effect of the higher fees on student recruitment. I should like the Government to make it clear whether, if the figures indeed do not stack up and the average fees exceed £7,500, they will limit student numbers. I do not know the answer and I am not sure that the Government do, but I should welcome their opinion none the less.

I should also welcome some sort of statement on when we will see the White Paper so that we can debate the issues further. It was originally to be published in January, we were then assured that it would be published in June, and I understand that in subsequent speeches to the civil service the Minister has referred to the summer. It is a bit like Billy Bunter’s postal order. I pressed the Secretary of State on the matter in the Select Committee this morning, and even then he would not give a commitment that the White Paper would be published in June. What I should like him to do today is tell us when it will be published, and whether it will deal with questions raised not just by me but by a range of Members about the funding implications of the current proposals.

Other countries recognise the value of higher education and the number of graduates who make an economic contribution. Other countries, even those that have suffered from the same sort of financial problems that we have experienced during the recession and are subject to the same sort of financial constraints, are investing more in higher education. The long-term implication of not getting this right and reducing the number of graduates is very serious indeed. On the basis of the picture that is emerging at the moment, I think that we are in danger of having fewer graduates, of damaging our economic growth, and of adopting a financial model that will make our public sector deficit far worse in the long term.

17:43

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in what is a timely debate, four and a half months or so after the House took a decision on the future financing structure for universities. As the House knows, it was not a decision with which I, or the majority of my parliamentary party colleagues, agreed. It was proposed by the Government after negotiation between the two coalition parties, and after they had read the Browne report commissioned by the last Labour Government. But the House made that decision, and I believe that the issues to be addressed now are, as the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said, the issues that are in the minds of the students whom she represents—indeed, those whom we all represent—in the minds of their families, and in the minds of future students.

I want to make four brief comments. I want to talk about the future as opposed to the past, about the cost to future students, about whether the fees being announced by universities are justified, and about what we and they should do in the months between now and the time when the system begins to operate. First, I ask Labour Members and other colleagues on the Opposition Benches to change their rhetoric from today onwards, after they have had this debate, because it is not the amount of the fee that is going to determine the cost to the student. The key question for young people and their families is: what will it cost me if I go to university? The new proposal has many improvements over the last and the present systems. First, as everybody has agreed, the monthly repayment will be less for everybody. Secondly, the starting point for repayment is higher: it is £21,000, not £15,000. Thirdly, for everybody who pays it will be a progressive system under which people pay more for the privilege of a university education according to their ability to pay more. It is therefore fundamentally different from a system—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

Labour Members should calm down for a second. It is fundamentally different from a system under which we pay the same irrespective of our earnings.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

I will of course give way in a moment, although I am trying to be brief as many colleagues still want to speak.

Under the new system, the cost for those who earn £22,000 a year—which is just above the threshold—will be £90 per year or £7.50 a month; that will be the cost of their university education.

[Mr Lammy]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall give way in a moment.

Those who earn £25,000, which is just above the average wage, will have to pay back £360 a year, or £30 a month. Those who earn £41,000 a year—which is much more than the average wage, let alone the average graduate wage—will have to pay £150 a month. These sums will be deducted from their salaries, in the same way tax is deducted. Those who earn £71,000, which is more than a Back-Bench MP earns, will pay £375 a month.

The first and most important step is to get the message across that there are no up-front fees—no fees when students are at university, and no fees for part-time students at university. They will pay only when they have the money to pay. In that respect, it is therefore not a debt in the normal sense; rather, it is a repayable sum contingent on income. I shall now give way to the former higher education Minister.

[Mr Lammy]

First, let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that £375 a month is a lot of money to our constituents. Secondly, he knows that not a single Member of this House would accept the new terms if their mortgage company were to ring them up and say, “I’ll treble your mortgage, but you’ll pay a lower monthly sum.” That is why students think it is patronising to suggest that this is a good deal.

[Simon Hughes]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have many concerns for the same sorts of people in our communities, and I respect what he has done in that regard, but most of our constituents do not earn £71,000 a year. They will not be earning that amount, and he and I do not earn that much as Back-Bench MPs.

[Mr Lammy]

They want to earn that much.

[Simon Hughes]

Yes, they may want to, and people in this country understand that if they earn more they will pay more to the state and pay more back into the system. That is fair Britain; it is not fair Britain if they pay the same amount for a service they have received irrespective of their earnings. Of course there are issues about perception—and they are big issues, which is why I did not vote for the policy—but I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees that we now need to concentrate on the cost to the individual who will graduate in 2015 and later. If we start getting that message across, we will be helping young people to go to university, not hindering them, and our prime obligation now is to encourage, not reduce, access.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine share a local university: London South Bank university. May I ask him two questions? First, does he accept that the concerns expressed on this side of the House about the new regime and its deterrent effect on students are not, as it were, crocodile tears, but, rather, reflect real concerns that are felt not least in both of our constituencies? The worries about what this proposal will mean for students and their families have been raised by my constituents, and I am sure they have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman’s too.

Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept or buy into the principle that higher education should be a partnership between government and the individual? If so, how does he explain the 92% cut in the teaching grant, the 60% cut in the capital grant and the 50% in the innovation grant for London South Bank university from the Government?

[Simon Hughes]

That was a lot of questions and I shall try to answer them briefly. Of course I share a concern about perception, which is why I took on this job. By the time I have carried it out and given my final report to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister at the end of June, I hope—I have been working with Ministers to make sure this happens—that we will have the right messages coming out about the real cost in the future in a way that encourages people to go to university rather than discourages them.

On the hon. Gentleman’s second issue, the Government have to take responsibility for the tough spending decisions, as they have done. There were other choices they could have made, but if the choice was reducing the money going from the state to universities or reducing the money going to fund apprenticeships for people who do not go to university, I, on behalf of my constituents and his, believe that it may well be better to fund those who go to further education college and have apprenticeships, rather than spend the money on people who will be earning £71,000 a year.

[Mr Thomas]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

If the shadow Minister will excuse me, I will not give way for a moment.

My second point is what now is the issue for universities that have submitted to OFFA their case for wanting to go above £6,000 with any fee. There is an issue as to whether the Government were justified in saying that £9,000 would be the fee only in exceptional circumstances, as that appears, on the basis of the incomplete evidence, not to have been an accurate prediction. Some questions need to be asked, not least about the advice that Ministers were given about what the prediction should be, but there is also clearly something wrong with the universities’ response. It is not just us saying that, because the principal of Queen Mary college, a part of the university of London in the east end, said:

“I think we could say, based on the brief press releases, the possible implication or inference could be that £9,000 fees have not been based on any calculation of cost but on perception of status.”

Universities should not be charging above what it costs them to deliver a course, but many appear to have forgotten that. They appear to be taking an opportunity which they should not be taking. The money is also there for one more thing, which is to make sure that access is improved as a part of widening participation, and universities will be watched to make sure that they are really delivering.

[Mr Thomas]

On that point—

[Simon Hughes]

I cannot give way at the moment, but let us see whether I can do so a little later.

I hope that next year when future OFFA guidance is given by the Secretary of State that fee waivers will not be allowed and indeed will be excluded. I do not think it is logical to state, “You don’t have to pay fees up front or when you are there” and then to say, “But actually we are going to give you a mechanism for you not paying the fees at all.” If we are really going to support students from poor families, the money should go towards the accommodation and living costs, which is where the real bill will apply and where the credit card debts will accrue. I hope that we will not be trying to pretend that reducing fees is the most useful thing for students who may not have to pay them or much of them at all.

Thirdly, I hope that Sir Martin Harris and OFFA will be extremely rigorous. The hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) made the point that powers are now in place and OFFA is able to make sure that each institution has to make sustained and meaningful progress, year on year, on its own benchmarks, measures and targets. OFFA is entitled to say to universities that they cannot have fees above £6,000 and I hope that it will be robust. If widening participation processes are not in place, I hope that OFFA will say so, and some universities may have to be told that they cannot go above the limit. I wish to make two final points and if I still have some time remaining, I will give way.

The Russell group, in particular, must do much better. It did not improve on widening participation under Labour and it must change its interview and recruitment process. At the moment, those universities are being far too subjective, particularly Oxbridge. Harvard does not have the people who are going to do the teaching doing the recruiting; it has selection on a needs-blind basis and it is one of the best universities in the world—other places are the same. The Russell group has no excuse now for not changing its process of recruitment, and if it does not do better I sincerely hope that the Government will make conditions that will require it to do so in future.

Finally, we need much better requirements on universities to give satisfaction to students. That should be written into the system in future and should be part of the preconditions for higher fees to be charged.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. In order to get greater participation, the time limit is now being reduced to six minutes.

17:55

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is illuminating to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). His transformation from critic to passionate advocate is part of the extraordinary nature of the road that the Government have been travelling along with this policy. It is almost surreal.

As a new Member almost a year ago, I expected that the Government would put forward policies with which I disagreed, but I had expected that they would at least be carefully considered, carefully evaluated, thoughtful and mindful of their impact. That was not so. The Minister for Universities and Science said earlier that the Government have a plan, but it seems that that plan is increasingly shaped not by Ministers but by events that they do not control and, at many levels, do not understand. Broken promises, conflicting statements and policy shifts: only when the dust settles will we find out the plan, with the publication of the repeatedly delayed White Paper.

Assurances were given to the House when we debated the Government’s plans back on 9 December, but those assurances have proved worthless. Indeed, had the House known then what we know now, who is to say, given the discomfort of some of those on the Government Benches at that time, what the outcome would have been? I recall the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, in particular, seeking reassurance that £9,000 fees would be exceptional. Let me remind him what the Business Secretary said. He gave the right hon. Gentleman a clear pledge—huh, a Liberal Democrat pledge—that he would not allow the

“migration of all universities to the top of the range.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 547.]

Consistently, the Prime Minister and other Ministers gave assurances that £9,000 fees would be exceptional. So where are we? We have seen precisely the migration that the Secretary of State said that he would not allow. Far from being the exception, £9,000 fees are the norm.

We were told at one stage that fees would average £7,000, then that they were calculated at £7,500, then that they might average £8,000. Now we find that the average fee is likely to be just £360 short of £9,000, at the very top end of the range. It did not have to be like this, however. The situation became inevitable because the Government decided to cut the undergraduate teaching grant by 80% without considering the impact or listening to those who knew what it was likely to be. From the outset, vice-chancellors were clear, including many of those who had been browbeaten into supporting the Government’s proposals, that fees of about £8,000 would be needed for their institutions simply to stand still.

[Mr Lammy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the 80% cut and effective withdrawal of the state from higher education and the funding of arts, humanities and social sciences—there is no other country in the developed world that has made that kind of departure in higher education—will have catastrophic effects in the future?

[Paul Blomfield]

I completely agree. Back in December, the Minister for Universities and Science made the point that this was not about deficit reduction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) reminded us earlier, but about changing the shape of our system. We stand only with Romania among OECD countries in cutting higher education, and we should be ashamed of that.

As universities have looked more closely at the figures, university councils and governing bodies have exercised the responsibility that they have a duty to exercise by setting the fees that their institutions need. It appears that many in government expected universities to fall into line with their picture of them, with Oxbridge setting fees at £9,000 and other universities ranking themselves where they fitted into the system. But those in government did not understand that university governing bodies would recognise their responsibilities to their students and the communities they serve and would set the fees that they need.

What about widening participation? I stress that this is not simply about Oxbridge. We should credit universities across the sector with the achievements on widening participation that my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has mentioned. Back in February the Deputy Prime Minister pledged in a BBC interview that Oxford and Cambridge would be given permission to charge £9,000 fees only

“if they can prove that they can dramatically increase the number of people from poorer and disadvantaged backgrounds”

who attend. In the past few days, it has become clear that Cambridge is not in a position, or is not intending, significantly to increase access for poorer students. What are the Government going to do about that? Will they tell Cambridge that it cannot have its £9,000 fees or will they tell the Deputy Prime Minister that he is going to have to confess to another broken promise?

What about the involvement of the private sector? The Minister for Universities and Science confirmed to The Times on Monday that, out of the crisis he is creating for the higher education sector, he expects there to be a bigger role for private sector providers. He has already prepared the ground by awarding university college status to BPP, which is part of the Apollo Group, which is currently being investigated by the United States Higher Learning Commission for deceiving prospective students. Where is the accountability for private sector higher education institutions? They do not face the same requirements on quality, access and numbers, and on the Government’s intentions in relation to the private sector we have had nothing but silence.

In December, the Business Secretary was quoted as saying of the Government:

“There is a kind of Maoist revolution happening in lots of areas like the health service, local government, reform, all this kind of stuff, which is in danger of getting out of control.”

What he failed to say was that the greatest chaos was unfolding in the area for which he is responsible.

18:03

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

The future funding of higher education was one of the immediate issues, like that of the budget deficit, that had to be addressed after the months and years of drift at what I can only describe as the fag end of the previous Labour Administration. If we had not addressed it we would have risked reaching a point of decline in further education from which we would have been unable to climb back. Hon. Members should have no doubt that doing nothing was certainly not an option. The previous Government recognised that, which is why they commissioned the Browne review in November 2009. The review’s remit was to investigate the balance of contributions to universities by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers and to consider how much students should be charged for attending university.

If our universities are to compete in the global economy, they need to be well funded. With a huge budget deficit, one cannot argue that when other Departments are facing cuts, the further education budget could be in any way immune. However, the increase in tuition fees proposed by the coalition Government does not, as the shadow Secretary of State has claimed, signal a wholesale withdrawal of state support for higher education. Under the current system, higher education is funded 40% by the student and 60% by the state, and under the new regime it will be funded 60% by the student and 40% by the state. That is far from the wholesale withdrawal of state funding. The fact that fees are to be capped means that there will be no up-front payments for students. No one will pay anything back until they are earning at least £21,000.

[Tristram Hunt]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that £21,000 figure is at 2016 money, so in current terms the figure is £15,900? Once someone earns more than £15,900, they begin to pay back.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I would need to check the hon. Gentleman’s figures, but the sum is considerably more than the current level. The bottom 20% of earners will pay back considerably less in total, and those earning less than £25,000 will pay back less than £1 per day for their university education. That is a progressive repayment system. The Government are working on ways to help students from the most economically disadvantaged backgrounds by reducing the fees that they will have to pay back.

In opposition to this, we have the puffed-up inaction of the Labour party and the support given by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor to the idea of a graduate tax, which is not a solution to higher education funding. It would provide no guarantee that universities would receive the additional funding raised. There is no mechanism for former students to repay early, and it would not allow any differentiation between a student from a lower income background and one from a higher income background.

[Margot James]

Does my hon. Friend think that is why so many senior members of the last Labour Government disagreed with a graduate tax, including Alan Johnson, Lord Adonis, the former Prime Minister, Mr Blair and Lord Mandelson, as quoted by the Secretary of State?

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Opposition are split on the matter for obvious reasons. A graduate tax is not the solution. A considerable number of graduates would pay substantially more than the cost of their course. In addition, there would be a large funding gap in the short term. The Browne review estimates that if all new students from 2012 paid a 3% graduate tax which would start at £8,000, not £21,0000, the tax would not provide sufficient revenue to fund higher education until 2041-42.

With the reckless spending habits displayed by the previous Government, universities would have much to fear if they had to rely on a graduate tax, which would inevitably fail to raise sufficient money, in contrast to the up-front and stable tuition fee income, which will allow universities to spend money as they see fit, rather than being subjected to constant Government interference.

The policies of the previous Government discouraged part-time students from studying, as they are expected to pay tuition fees up front and had no access to student loans. The fact that part-time students will have equal access to student loans will give more opportunity to those who may wish to study later in life, and will give universities a more balanced age range of students. Hon. Members should be aware that more than 250,000 students are studying at the Open university, and they will all be better off under the present Government’s policies. Given the need to retrain in a rapidly changing world, I welcome this.

The changes being bought in by the coalition Government will result in a higher standard of teaching being maintained, a higher completion rate of degree courses as a result of an informed and considered decision-making process, and students from poorer backgrounds being given a better opportunity to make the right decisions. This can only help universities by having students on the right courses.

We should also consider what the Opposition would call the ideological argument—whether universities should be dependent on the Government for their finance. The Browne review argues that a graduate tax would weaken the independence of universities, which would become entirely dependent on the Government for their funding. It argues that its own proposals would force universities to improve standards to compete for students. Under the coalition policies, the relationship of universities with students would rightly become more important than their relationship with Government.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I fought against a market system under our last Government. We agreed a reasonable compromise, but not without a fight. On the Opposition Benches there was no fight. We knew where the Liberals used to stand. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House where his party’s manifesto mentioned a trebling of tuition fees and an 80% cut to teaching grants to universities?

[Andrew Bridgen]

The policies are fair. There is increased fairness, increased opportunity and stability of income, and it is my firm belief that the coalition’s policies will allow our universities to prosper.

I am a graduate, and I had a full grant in my day, but in those days 4% of the school-leaving population went to university; last year, the figure was 43%. That is a considerably different proposition, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that in my constituency 84% of people are not graduates. An average graduate will over his lifetime earn in excess of £100,000 more than a non-graduate, so, if we are talking about fairness, is it fair that my non-graduate taxpayers should subsidise the earnings of those who have had the benefit of a university education? They will have that benefit not for the 30 years that they might pay back their student fees, but for all their working life, and I hope the hon. Gentleman remembers that.

To those who say that the system will not work, I say “Look at America”, where for decades the fees system has resulted in the country having eight of the world’s top 10 universities. If Oxford and Cambridge universities are to remain in the top 10 and other UK universities are to have any chance of breaking into the top 10, we need that stability of funding.

The increased tuition fees will create an expectation and demand for quality teaching among students, and with the proposed changes to A-level marking, which I support, students will apply with actual rather than predicted grades, helping state students to go to the best universities, reducing the drop-out rate and ensuring better results for students all round.

Fairness, opportunity, quality and stability are the hallmarks of this coalition policy on higher education funding, and these tough long-term decisions will secure the future of our nation’s universities, our graduates and our undergraduates.

16:58

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

The Government are purposefully and quite unprecedentedly shifting the burden of the costs of university tuition from the public purse on to the shoulders of individual graduates, moving away from the assumption that both society and the student should bear the costs of university education. It is notable that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who is not in his place, simply refused to engage with that point when he spoke earlier.

The Business Secretary announced to Members in Parliament that a fee cap of somewhere between £6,000 and £9,000 would be introduced, and that fees would be £9,000 only in exceptional circumstances—that £9,000 would be an exception, not the rule. The announcement was much repeated elsewhere, but we know that, of those universities that had made their plans public by last week, the average fees will be £8,678.36—so just marginally less than that £9,000 figure.

We also have to bury the myth that students will pay less under the Government’s proposals. It is true that monthly outgoings, in some circumstances and for some students, might be less, but graduates will pay back their loans for much longer and at an interest rate that has not been fully determined. This is despite the fact that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility said in November and reiterated more recently that increasing tuition fees and funding student loans in 2015-16 will require the Government to borrow £10.7 billion, compared with the £4.1 billion that they borrowed in 2010-11, a point that was excellently made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith).

In the context of such sharply rising fees, it is worth looking at some international comparisons. What is happening elsewhere in higher education? A recent article in The Economist on American fees reported that annual tuition and fees averaged £1,639 at two-year colleges, £4,595 at public four-year colleges for in-state students and £7,246 at public four-year schools for out-of-state students—all substantially less than the fees proposed for students in this country.

The situation gets worse if we look at Canada.

[Dr Whiteford]

I remind the hon. Lady that she does not have to look so far from home to find students who do not have to pay fees, because education is an investment in their future.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Indeed. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point; we should always refer to what is happening in the devolved Administrations as well.

In 2007-08, the fees in the Canadian system were £2,866 and in Australia they were £2,600. What has been proposed for this country is absolutely out of line with our competitor countries across the board. According to quite a conservative estimate, the debt that a student will accrue, if they have to pay the £9,000 maximum and then accommodation and living expenses, could amount to about £48,000. If they then went on to do a master’s and a PhD, the student could come out with a debt of £70,000-plus. That is extraordinary.

[Mr Lammy]

On that excellent point, is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that the plans will lead to catastrophically low levels of UK students deciding to go on to postgraduate study? Is she concerned that our university sector is actively recruiting abroad—notwithstanding the visa requirements imposed on it—and that we will therefore educate international students but deny that to students from this country?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

Indeed. My right hon. Friend has made a number of excellent points. It is interesting that we have heard nothing from the Government parties and nothing from the Minister about the impact of the proposals on postgraduate education in this country. The House will have to return to that issue in due course.

Graduates could be incurring extraordinarily high debts. The Government simply have no electoral mandate to do what they have done; it was not in any of the manifestos or in the coalition agreement. The costs are being pushed on to students because of the massive 80% cut being made to the university teaching grant. That does not fall uniformly across all universities; it hits hardest the universities with high numbers of students studying arts-based subjects. We simply do not know what the impact will be on the longer-term career aspirations of our students, but we need to continue to develop jobs in the creative industries. That is important for my region of the north-east, but it is also important across the board.

I am also really concerned that the Government do not seem to be paying any attention whatever to the possible deterrent effect of the proposals. There is an increasing constellation of evidence showing that an increase in tuition fees—particularly to the levels proposed —puts off people from applying to university. An Ipsos MORI survey last year of 2,700 11 to 16-year-olds showed that even marginal increases in tuition fees had a significant deterrent effect on participation among young people. Some 17% of the young people who responded said that they were unlikely to go to university if tuition fees increased to £5,000, with 46% saying that that they would not go if fees were increased to £10,000 a year. If the Government dispute those findings, they need to come up with alternative findings of their own. They have simply not commissioned research into the issue.

The Government say that they are remedying the situation with the national scholarship programme and tuition fee waivers, but we know from work that million+ has carried out on the national scholarship programme so far that it is over complex and that students simply do not know what will be available to them. The information about the programme is not available in an easily accessible format. That could lead to a postcode lottery.

We know, of course, that all these changes are part of a wider trend, with the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance and the future jobs fund, which helped to get young people into jobs. The Government are deliberately engineering a situation where the life opportunities of young people will be increasingly worse than those of their parents, and that is simply a disgrace.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The wind-ups are going to commence at 6.40 pm so we have only 20 minutes left. I still have 11 people on my list, so can we please show great time restraint in speeches and interventions?

18:20

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I have been listening carefully to the debate so far, and the remarks made by Opposition colleagues make me feel as though I have been transported into some sort of alternative reality. This is a reality where the Labour Government did not introduce up-front tuition fees in the first place, one year after Tony Blair had promised not to in 1997; where they did not introduce top-up fees two years after they had promised not to in the 2001 Labour manifesto; where they did not go into the last election having commissioned the Browne review; and where Lord Mandelson did not say, this very March, that had Labour still been in government it would have needed to double tuition fees, at least. So we will not be taking any lessons from Labour Members this afternoon.

Now I have got that off my chest, it is fair to say that the motion poses some important questions, and it is fair that they should be properly addressed. Let me start with the £9,000-a-year exceptional student tuition fees. At the moment, universities are publishing their maximum fee, not their average fee. Institutions with a “sticker” price of £9,000 will have a significantly lower average fee because of fee waivers. At Oxford, for example, some first-year students will pay only £3,500—about the same as now. At Cambridge, all students from households earning under £25,000 will pay £6,000. At Warwick, students whose family income falls below £25,000 will receive a package of up to £4,500, and their two-plus-two degrees and part-time degrees will have a fee of £6,000, which may be further reduced by an additional fee waiver.

[Paul Farrelly]

I do not want to make party political points about broken promises, and I shall not, even when those promises were being written while people were planning to break them, because that amounts to hypocrisy and the Deputy Speaker would rule me out of order. However, I have one question. If the Government’s policy is to allow universities to charge the top amount of fees only in exceptional circumstances, is it not incumbent on the Government, the Business Secretary, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats to define, in percentage terms, what counts as exceptional and therefore what percentage of applications charged the £9,000 fee will be refused?

[Lorely Burt]

I was trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman by explaining some of the examples of how average fees will be lower than that figure.

The motion tries to commit the Government to guaranteeing that there will be no fall in the number of university places. This is another bit of collective amnesia. Labour Members cut places; they promised additional places and then cut the numbers. In 2009, the shadow Secretary of State, who was then Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, put a 10,000 cap on the expansion of places, leaving 140,000 A-level students chasing just 10,000 unfilled places at the UK’s universities. That is 14 anxious students for every unfilled place available through clearing and 130,000 willing and able students without a place. They encouraged thousands of hopeful students to apply for university and then slammed the door in their face when they got there. In 2010, they did it again, leaving 150,000 people without a university place, some of whom had six A-levels at grade A. In 2009, they cut the budget of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills by £1.9 billion, and in 2010, they cut the universities budget by £500 million.

If I may, I will read a quotation from a debate in the other place:

“The Government have made it clear that higher education needs to shoulder its fair share of the burden of reductions in public spending”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2010; Vol. 716, c. 1101.]

Those were the words of Lord Mandelson in January 2010, when he was Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. In the same debate, he said that student numbers should be dictated by what is affordable with the resources available. The numbers should not be dictated by a central Government diktat, which says that 50% of young people should go to university. Labour set that target, but quickly realised that it did not know how to pay for it. It was left with a financial black hole and was forced to slash student places to fill it, leaving thousands of students in the lurch. Surely the right number is the number at which every student who has the desire and capability to benefit from university can go. Despite the previous Government’s undoubtedly strenuous efforts, the number of students from poorer backgrounds did not increase proportionately. That is Labour’s legacy on universities.

It is no secret that had the Liberal Democrats won the general election, we would have done things differently. However, I am proud of the coalition agreement, which incorporated two thirds of our manifesto pledges. Sadly, our tuition fees policy fell into the group of manifesto pledges that remain unfulfilled. Working in coalition has its challenges, believe me, but it also has its rewards. One of the rewards was negotiating with Conservative colleagues to make the system that we have ended up with more progressive than the Labour system we inherited. That is not only my view, but that of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. There are no up-front fees for students, graduates will start to pay only when they can afford to, and there will be lower lifetime contributions for the poorest quarter of students compared with the system that Labour left behind. There will also be more support for the Cinderellas of the HE and FE systems, part-time students, who had previously been shunned by a system geared towards full-time students.

In conclusion, it is hard to predict what will happen, given that universities are yet to announce many of the measures such as bursaries and waivers. I have concerns about the number of places and their uptake. As the Minister said earlier, that will be reviewed in autumn 2011 and I greatly hope that the steps we have taken will be vindicated.

18:27

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

First, I declare my interest as a part-time lecturer at Queen Mary, university of London. I therefore take a keen interest in universities and know slightly more about their workings than some Government Members who have contributed.

I am privileged to represent Stoke-on-Trent Central, in which Staffordshire university sits and many students from Keele university reside. In the university libraries of those great universities sits a book by Tony Travers and Andrew Adonis called “Failure in British Government: The Politics of the Poll Tax”. That wonderful text tells one how not to make Government policy from beginning to end. I am going to write to Andrew Adonis and Tony Travers to suggest a second volume on the introduction of the tuition fee fiasco that we see before us.

[Mr Gyimah]

When the hon. Gentleman speaks to Andrew Adonis, he should also discuss the graduate tax with him, which he looked at in detail and dismissed when Labour was in government, and which is now Labour policy.

[Tristram Hunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am happy to look at that. Personally, I am no fan of the graduate tax.

I, too, am new here, but as I understand it, what happens in this place and in government is that people come up with ideas and then there is a Green Paper, a White Paper, some debate, a decision, and then a policy enactment. What we have here is the imposition of an arbitrary fee level, followed by the scurrying around for a justification, which we have seen over recent months, to make the figures add up.

The Government’s policy is driven by ideology. It is the ghost of Keith Joseph coming back to life. It is neo-liberalism rather than Liberal Democrat politics. However, let us be generous for a minute and argue, as the confused Minister for Universities and Science tried to, that some of it is driven by a desire for deficit reduction. We will leave aside for a second the fact that for every £1 million invested in universities £2.5 million comes back, and we will leave aside the fact, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), that the only other country deciding to slash spending on universities and science during the recession is Romania. Clearly Ministers are using the Romanian model, when we thought they were interested in a knowledge-driven economy.

If deficit reduction is the strategy, why do the sums not add up? Why will the Government’s plans cost more, not less, over the coming years? Because the Government have got their sums wrong and do not understand how universities work. They thought fees would be £6,000 or £6,500, but why would universities charge that amount when it costs them £10,000, £11,000 or £12,000 to educate someone? At the university of Cambridge, it costs £14,000 to educate an undergraduate. Why on earth would it not charge £9,000 to recoup some of that cost? The incompetence of Ministers has been absolutely breathtaking, and the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that the problem was advice from civil servants was, I thought, rather grotesque.

And what fees they are! Nine thousand pounds. Every decent university will go for the top rate, so we will go from having some of the lowest fees to having some of the very highest. That represents an ideological decision to withdraw the state from higher education. Only that can explain the decision to cut 80% of the higher education teaching grant. The headline fees will put students off, and for all the guff that we heard about special provisions, when people see the figure of £9,000, it will be very hard to convince them.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend must be aware, as I and many others are, that the cuts are wholly disproportionate. We are destroying humanities, arts and language courses all over the country, and we are denying the opportunity of education to many working-class youngsters, because the cuts are in favour of vocational courses rather than pure academic ones. Does he believe that that is selling the whole country short?

[Tristram Hunt]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government’s attack on humanities has been grotesque from the beginning. Their intervention to try to make the Arts and Humanities Research Council fund big society research could not have been more laughable. There will be an effect on history, French and humanities courses.

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

Design, as well.

[Tristram Hunt]

And on design courses.

I will wrap up so that some of my colleagues can deliver the coup de grâce to these terrible proposals. I end with a point that Government Members clearly have not got their heads around. The figure that people will only pay when they earn more than £21,000 is based on 2016 values. At today’s values, the figure is £15,900. In future, let us have a debate about people beginning to pay back their fees when they are earning that much.

Universities always suffer under Tory Governments. They did in the 1980s and they are again now. The Minister for Universities and Science is like a recherché Keith Joseph, and we need to finish off these terrible proposals.

18:33

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

It is always an honour to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), even though his arithmetic and his assessment of inflation seem like those of the Labour party of the late 1970s.

Quite often during Opposition day debates, purely partisan posturing overtakes thoughtful and reasoned debate. People put partisan politics before making decisions for the right reasons, even if such decisions have to be taken with a heavy heart. I would not say that I am disappointed by the level of party politics that we have heard, particularly from the Opposition Benches, but I am more than disappointed by the way in which the Opposition have put their points.

Once again, the Opposition have given us no ideas and shown no vision on higher education. They have not acknowledged that Labour introduced tuition fees and increased them on more than one occasion when it was in government. They have also not acknowledged that they instigated the Browne review. Lord Mandelson, the former Business Secretary, now says that when the previous Government instigated the review in 2009, he assumed, as the Treasury did, that the outcome would have to include a significant further increase in tuition fees. Whether that was Labour party policy at the time, you have to acknowledge that the Labour party gave the Browne review its terms of reference—[Hon. Members: “You?”] Sorry, Mr Speaker.

The Labour party no longer acknowledges that it flirted with the graduate tax—Labour Members seem to be in denial. Only one thing is clear: they have no plan for higher education.

[Paul Farrelly]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will not because I want to give other hon. Members an opportunity.

The motion makes important points about fees and how they will be implemented, and I hope the Minister comments on the timetable and on how quickly students and their parents can find out what the true level of fees will be. That is important because a small number of parents and students go to their constituency MPs to ask for that information so that they can plan for the future. I understand why the Government want to get things right, but the uncertainty does not help.

However, Labour’s constant politics of fear helps no one. Rather than supporting our young people by engaging in the debate and trying to get things right, Labour Members maintain the party line—a misleading line that fills our young people with fear and dread, putting them on the back foot before they even learn the facts, crushing and stifling aspiration, and certainly not encouraging it.

Aspiration is important, but it needs to be realistic. The most capable, regardless of their background, should have the opportunity to attend university. Under the new system, the Government will help to achieve that for young people. There will be lower repayments for student debts than under the current system, and most of those from underprivileged backgrounds will have the opportunity to get into higher education.

Warwick university—one of my local universities—says that all students whose parents have an income of £25,000 or less will receive a package of up to £4,500 a year to assist with their studies. We must also acknowledge that the Government’s policy involves no up-front fees, and that students will not start paying until they are graduates earning £21,000 a year, rather than the £15,000 a year under the current system. As Labour Members know, monthly payments will also be lower.

That is not to say that the current system or the system that the Government propose are ideal. Young people will leave university with debt, and nobody in the House would wish that on a young person. However, we must be realistic. For many young people, taking on that debt is the path to a career—a good and proper career in which they make a substantial living. We know that young people who go to university earn on average £100,000 more over their career than young people who do not.

That is not to say that university is a success for all. It is not, and many come out of our universities unable to gain employment for many years. Many certainly do not enjoy the glittering careers that they thought they would have when they initially went to university. I know that because I used to work for a firm of lawyers that received hundreds of thousands of applications for training contracts every year—applications for jobs that just did not exist. That is not acknowledged by the Labour party.

To sum up, the proposed new system is not perfect or ideal, but it is a move in the right direction. Social mobility stalled under Labour, but it will begin to improve once again with the measures put in place by this coalition Government.

18:39

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As ever, we have had an interesting and fascinating debate, with many excellent contributions, although I fear that I will not be able to do justice to them all.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) said at the outset, the Prime Minister promised us that tuition fees of £9,000 would be the exception, not the rule. Not only Oxford and Cambridge, but Oxford Brookes, Lincoln, Leicester, the university of East London, Aston, Hull, Essex, Newcastle, Bradford and many, many more are set to charge the full £9,000 in tuition fees. Then there are all those that will charge close to—albeit not quite—the maximum. Kingston university, which the Secretary of State will know well, is charging £8,500. Northumbria, Teesside and Portsmouth are all set to charge £8,500 as well. As my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) underlined in their excellent contributions, the Prime Minister got it wrong. Fees of £9,000 are not the exception; they are the reality that a huge number of the brightest and best of the next generation will face.

Even before the tuition fees vote, however, independent experts such as the Higher Education Policy Institute were arguing that fees of £9,000 would soon become the norm, not the exception. So the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is wrong to say that Ministers were not warned what would happen. Surprisingly we had no explanation from the Government Front-Bench team of why £9,000 fees will not after all be the exception. Is not the truth that Ministers have lost control of higher education policy, and that instead of a clarity of vision and purpose for the future of our universities, there is confusion?

The Secretary of State has put off and put off and put off again the White Paper on the future of higher education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) made clear. That lack of clarity has left the Department responsible for business and universities being pushed around in Whitehall. We have had the overseas students debacle, as Ministers publicly argued across Whitehall, in the media and in the House about the level of new restrictions on overseas students. University vice-chancellor after vice-chancellor has pointed out the damage done already to Britain’s reputation as a result; and many are still worried about how having 80,000 fewer overseas students—a cut of 20%—will hit their institutions in the long run, given all the benefits that the extra income brings.

Then we have the Department for Education launching a major review of the future of teacher training—never mind the high Ofsted ratings for the quality of that teacher training! Is it not the truth that Ministers have been warned that up to 25% of income for some of Britain’s universities is now at risk as a result of this review? Is there any sign of Ministers from the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Education getting together to resolve the uncertainties that universities face in this area? No, none at all!

The Department of Health is all set to axe strategic health authorities. They are the very bodies that negotiate with universities over the number of nurses, midwives and radiographers—and all the other vital health professionals who need university training—who are to be trained. Some universities receive approximately 25% of their total income from NHS-funded health professional courses, and others are already expecting cuts in the number of funded student places in this area of about 10% to 15%. Is it any wonder, then, that there is considerable financial uncertainty facing universities in the short and long term in this area as well?

[Stella Creasy]

Does my hon. Friend also think that there is considerable uncertainty for students such as Nancy Quilliam, from Walthamstow, who has deferred entry? She is being asked to pick a university by next Thursday, but she cannot find out how much she will be charged—she has no certainty about the rate of fees—so risks incurring a further £9,000 of debt. Is that not another level of uncertainty that the system has created for students across the country?

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our students or would-be students face huge uncertainty about the fees that they will incur. Perhaps if the Government had published the White Paper that they promised to publish even early this year, her constituents might have had just a little bit of certainty. Is not the truth that Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have failed to stop other parts of Government creating huge uncertainty for Britain’s universities, thereby creating incentives for fees to be higher rather than lower?

[Paul Farrelly]

When the Government say that universities will be allowed to charge fees of £9,000 only in exceptional circumstances, is it not incumbent on them not only to say what control they will exert to turn down the 40% to 50% that will want to charge £9,000 anyway, but to tell the House how they will square the circle and make up the funding that universities will otherwise lose?

[Mr Thomas]

You would think that it was indeed incumbent on Ministers to do that, Mr Speaker, but so far they have not done so. Ministers need to publish the White Paper to give us some certainty. Thus far, it does not look as though they intend to do that any time soon.

There is also continuing uncertainty about how the remaining teaching grant will be allocated, if indeed some universities get any at all. As Opposition Members have made clear, it is the huge cut to university teaching funds and to capital that continues to drive fees higher. Surrey university’s vice-chancellor, Professor Christopher Snowden, has said that his university’s plans to charge £9,000 reflected the financial uncertainties for English universities and the substantial cuts that the Government have made to grants for teaching and building refurbishment. The university of Sheffield Hallam, which the Deputy Prime Minister may know something about, has said:

“The new fee will compensate for the government’s 80% cut in our teaching grant and the significant cuts in capital funding.”

The Government based their financial plans on average fees of £7,500. In the face of such uncertainty, it should come as no surprise that many expect average fees to be somewhat higher. Indeed, as I made clear in my interventions, the Secretary of State has confirmed that the Government are considering either a cut in student numbers or an even greater cut in the teaching grant as tools to plug the funding gap. Either he was scaremongering or the threat was real. Because the Government have lost control of higher education policy, if we take the Secretary of State at his word, then on top of an almost 80% cut in university teaching funds and a 20,000 cut in student places already, we face the prospect of our universities being starved of even more income, or more of the brightest and best of the next generation being denied the chance to better themselves through a place at university.

Frankly, watching Ministers on tuition fees has become increasingly like watching a bad episode of “Only Fools and Horses”, with Front Benchers desperately trying to sell any old line on tuition fees to people whom they clearly think are gullible punters. The right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts)? The Department’s very own Rodney Trotter. Grumpy old Uncle Albert, with his best years behind him? Who else but the Secretary of State? And Derek “Del Boy” Trotter? It has to be the Deputy Prime Minister: never selling the real McCoy, never telling the whole truth—inadvertently, of course—a dodgy promise here, there and everywhere, and all his best deals done down the Nag’s Head with Boycie the spiv. Talking of whom, where is the Prime Minister for this debate?

“I’m sorry, we rushed into this and we got it wrong”—I paraphrase the Secretary of State for forests. “We’re going to have a pause, listen to people’s concerns and make changes”—the Secretary of State for Health, never mind the fact that his mea culpa is just an advertising gimmick. Either his lines or those of the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) would have been a more appropriate starting point for the Minister this afternoon. He should have said, “I’m sorry, better access to university looks unlikely, despite our great promises.” He should have said, “I’m sorry, we thought OFFA could control fee levels. We were wrong.” And he certainly should have said, “I’m sorry that we were so spectacularly wrong when we claimed that only a few universities would charge the full £9,000.”

This is a policy in need of a radical overhaul. Trebling tuition fees was never fair. It was not necessary and neither is it sustainable. I commend our motion to the House.

18:49

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

The Labour Government’s unhappy, unwelcome bequest was an immense financial black hole. Then, as now, Labour was characterised by chaos. Better-informed Members will know that, according to some advocates of chaos theory, black holes are a portal to a parallel universe—an alternative reality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) described it. Perhaps there is a parallel universe in which Labour won the election. Does anyone here truly believe that if it had done so, it would be prosecuting the case it has been making today? After all, Labour was the party that introduced variable tuition fees, established the Browne review and laid down the criteria by which Browne considered these matters.

This is not science fiction; it is hard fact. When Labour was in office, it defended the very principles it has attacked today. As the Minister for Universities and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts) pointed out, Lord Mandelson hinted at a tuition fee rise five months before the Browne review was launched, telling vice-chancellors that excellence in higher education was “not cheap” and that the country had to

“face up to the challenge of paying for excellence”.

[Andrew Bridgen]

What are the Minister’s views on the viability or otherwise of a graduate tax as a solution to higher education funding, as proposed by the Opposition?

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend the Member for Havant referred to an interesting document that Labour has produced, “Why not a Pure Graduate Tax?”, which concludes:

“We have been unable to identify any other country with a graduate tax system along the lines described that could serve as an exemplar for how a pure graduate tax might work.”

I have good news! Experts in Labour central office have now found one. Ethiopia has a graduate tax, but it is thinking of ditching it, just as Labour has decided to take the idea on board.

As for the charge that variable fees will deter working-class students, we heard the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) speak with authority on the subject. I know that he is a close student of working-class culture—[Laughter.] I said merely that he was a student; he does study it. He and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) told us that fees would deter working-class students. When the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was a Minister, he introduced variable fees, saying:

“I reject the notion that working-class kids are more debt averse than youngsters from other backgrounds. I just reject it completely, absolutely completely.”

That was his view of the effect that variable fees would have on the participation of working-class students.

[Luciana Berger]

Has the Minister seen the research published today by High Fliers, which shows that 51% of existing final-year undergraduates said that they would not have gone to university if their tuition fees had been three times as high as they are now?

[Mr Hayes]

I would be the first to acknowledge that I have not seen that research, but I would be more than happy to look at it. I am a straightforward politician, as the hon. Lady knows, and I have to say to her that when fees were first introduced, I was one of the doubters. I wondered whether they would have the effect that has been articulated again today. However, the evidence is that they have not done so. They have not affected applications in the way that was predicted by some people, and she is on dangerous ground if she thinks that they will have that effect this time round.

It does not seem credible for the Opposition to prosecute the argument that students will be deterred from applying to university and that there will therefore not be enough of them, and simultaneously to argue that there will be too many applications and that the universities will be unable to fund sufficient places to meet the demand. The Opposition seem to be running two horses, neither of which is likely to reach the winning post.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a great expert on these matters.

[Nic Dakin]

The Minister says he was a doubter in the past. Is he surprised that so many universities are now setting fees of £8,500 and £9,000? If such fees create a gap, how will the problem be solved? Will it be solved by cutting student numbers or by cutting university income?

[Mr Hayes]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that the headline fees that are being published are not the same as the amount that students will pay in all cases; neither are they the same as the amount that the Government will fund. We know that fee waivers and bursaries, for example, have a real impact on the figures. The figures that are being published are maximum figures, not average figures. That point has been made by Members on this side of the House, although it does not seem to have been grasped, for the most part, by Opposition Members.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Paul Farrelly]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I will not give way again, as time is short.

The previous Government defended both the extra independence variable fees gives institutions and the principle that universities should justify the fees they charge. That is why this debate on the future of higher education is, above all, about three things. First, it is about securing a settlement to fund higher education that is sustainable. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is right: the deficit was not the context when Browne began, but it certainly was the context when Browne reported. The previous Government recognised that we had strategically to rethink university funding to give them sufficient funds to compete with the best. That was acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman when was the Minister and it is acknowledged by Conservative Members.

I think it would serve the Labour party if that was acknowledged once again. It was hesitatingly and falteringly acknowledged by the shadow Secretary of State, but he has to answer this question: if the reduction in BIS spending on higher education had been of the order he suggested—around 8% to 10%—where would the cuts have fallen? Would basic skills have taken the hit; would it have been adult and community learning; would it have been apprenticeships; or would it have been further education? Let us face it, we cannot have it all ways—yet too often the shadow Secretary of State tries to do just that.

[Mr Denham]

The answer is, of course, that the BIS team, including the hon. Gentleman, conceded this huge cut in higher education and offered it up to the Treasury. It is not a matter of choosing one cut or another. A BIS team of any credibility or influence would simply have said that an 80% cut in higher education teaching is unsustainable, unnecessary and unfair. It is the failure of the ministerial team to deliver that is at the centre of this debate.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, the noble Lord Mandelson, was first to the table when it came to volunteering to cut in his Departments. He took more hits when he was in BIS than any other Secretary of State. It is not credible for the right hon. Gentleman to claim that, had Labour been elected, it would not have faced exactly the same challenges or, indeed, not have employed exactly the same approach to deal with them.

The second big issue is whether this system is progressive. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) made the point very clearly: there are no up-front fees; no repayments until someone is earning £21,000; and debts are written off after 30 years. This is a more progressive, fairer system than the one we inherited. Frankly, no one can honestly deny that. Indeed, it has not been denied, even by Labour Members. A graduate on a starting salary of £25,000 will repay around £30 a month under the new system and we know that graduates typically earn about £100,000 more than non-graduates over an earning lifetime.

The third key point is access. No one is a greater champion of widening access to higher education than I am—with the possible exceptions of my right hon. Friends the Minister for Universities and Science and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Widening access, however, is not just about fees. It is about the patterns and rhythms of higher education study matching the patterns and rhythms of more kinds of lives. That is why the changes to part-time provision are so important and why the White Paper—for the record, it was published in June—explains how we will look to provide more higher education in further education colleges, look at more modular courses, more distance learning and more part-time provision. That is exactly the way to get more under-represented groups into higher education.

Today, we have heard from the Opposition a critique of a policy that is very close to what they might well have had to adopt in similar circumstances had they been in government. What we have not heard, however, is their alternative. I believe it ill befits an Opposition to table a motion when they have no real alternatives—

[Mr Alan Campbell]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

18:59

Division 260

Ayes: 197

---

Labour: 192
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 1
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 304

---

Conservative: 264
Liberal Democrat: 39

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

19:10

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

I beg to move,

That this House takes note with approval of the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which forms the basis of the UK’s Convergence Programme, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

As we look at the economic history of the past decade, we see clearly that economic imbalances create the conditions for recession, and even growth fuelled by imbalances can prove illusory. This Government’s economic programme tackles the imbalances built up under the previous Government, which triggered the deepest recession since the 1930s. As the Chancellor set out in his Budget and as is set out in the convergence programme document before us, growth in the United Kingdom under the previous Government was fuelled by debt. Imbalances arose from the UK’s overreliance on the south-east and the financial services sector, from high levels of Government debt and an over-inflated housing market. The OECD said of the UK that these imbalances

“exacerbated the downturn during the global recession and contributed to a more pronounced fall in GDP, a larger fiscal deficit and higher inflation than in most of the OECD”.

That is the legacy we inherited from the Labour party, which we need to tackle.

As we look across Europe and beyond, we see that we have had to learn the hard way that in an open, global marketplace, no economy exists in isolation: imbalances in individual countries can cause instability on a regional and global basis; the failures of economic policy in one country can be quickly exported to other nations; and unsustainable levels of debt, asset bubbles and uncontrolled deficits can destabilise whole regions through contagion, as we have seen in recent years. In the light of the global and economic crisis, there is increased emphasis on economic surveillance to identify imbalances and take action to deal with them.

Existing surveillance by the International Monetary Fund and the OECD has taken on renewed importance. The IMF has recognised the need to focus on multilateral surveillance and monitoring spill-over effects and systemic risks, and the OECD has recognised the importance of labour markets, housing markets and current account imbalances for strong and sustainable growth. Furthermore, the G20 is looking at countries with large and persistent imbalances to ensure that growth is strong, sustainable and balanced across the world.

In Europe, work to address this has been done through the stability and growth pact. The pact has been around for many years, but in more than a decade of monetary union the sanctions it contains have never been used. The recent proposals to strengthen the stability and growth pact aim to make it more effective. The changes recognise that maintaining economic stability is not just about deficits. Just as the OECD and the IMF are refreshing their approach to macro-economic surveillance, so too is the European Union as it considers a scoreboard of indicators such as labour market flexibility, current account balances and unemployment to ensure that we are alert to risks across Europe.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Minister talks about imbalances. We always talk about financial imbalances, but the real imbalances in the European Union are the massive imbalances in trade. Germany has looked after its manufacturing and we have neglected ours under several Governments over the past 30 years. We at least are able to depreciate our currency and to address that to an extent, but there has still been a complete failure by successive Governments to do anything to counter the collapse of manufacturing that began in 1979 when we lost a fifth of it following the election of a Conservative Government.

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Under the previous Government, we saw a further deterioration in manufacturing and an overreliance on the financial services sector, creating some of the imbalances that led to the deepest recession since the 1930s. Part of the challenge faced by the Government is how to tackle those imbalances and move to a more broadly based economy, and I shall touch on that later in my speech.

We must remember that sustainable economic growth across Europe is vital to the success of the British economy. Having the right warning mechanisms in place, underpinned by sound data, will help to identify future economic crises that could harm the UK economy. Even though we are not part of the single currency and will not be joining it in the lifetime of this Parliament, we cannot consign ourselves to be bystanders in the debate.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I noticed the Minister use the expression “we will not be joining the single currency in the lifetime of this Parliament”. I thought there was a clear commitment that we were never going to join the single currency.

[Mr Hoban]

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, I am following what is set out in the coalition agreement. Like him, I do not anticipate that we would seek to join the euro.

Tonight’s debate is a consequence of the stability and growth pact. Since 1999, as a result of the pact, the Government have reported to the Commission on the UK’s economic and budgetary position and our main economic policy measures. I want to reassure the House, however, that the UK is not subject to sanctions under the stability and growth pact—the Treaty is clear that they apply only to euro area countries. The EU can make recommendations as regards our budget, as can other international organisations such as the OECD and the IMF, but, crucially, we are under no obligation to take action and we are not subject to any sanctions by virtue of our opt-out. Any recommendations made will remain just that—recommendations.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very persuasive case, but on the question of sanctions, may I take it from what he has just said that he is ruling out Britain’s being subject to the economic imbalances procedure set out in the Van Rompuy report?

[Mr Hoban]

We are not subject to sanctions as a consequence of our opt-out from the single currency. I made that point when we had a debate last year on economic governance, and it continues to be the case now.

The information we are supplying to the Commission in the convergence programme document that we are debating tonight is the first to be provided under the new European semester arrangements. People were concerned that the Commission would receive information before Parliament, but the information provided to the Commission in the document is already public and much of it was provided when the Chancellor made his Budget statement in March.

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

Will the Minister confirm that all the information in the convergence programme document is in the public domain and available to anyone outside the House who wants to gain access to it without the document’s publication?

[Mr Hoban]

Indeed. If my hon. Friend has studied this carefully, as I am sure he has, he will recognise that large chunks of it are familiar from the Red Book. Of course, chapters 6 onwards are taken from the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook. This information is in the public domain and Parliament has had sight of it before its presentation to the European Commission.

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

Will the Minister remind me exactly why we have to produce all this information for the European Union? I have not read it in enormous detail but it seems that Parliament is telling teacher or the boss why we have done what has been done. That places the House of Commons very much in the position of being subordinate to the European Union.

[Mr Hoban]

I do not agree that Parliament has been placed in a subordinate position. We are passing this information to the European Union having already made it available to the House, particularly during my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s Budget speech, and there is no requirement on us to accept any recommendations that the Commission might make as a consequence of having read the information. We are in a very different situation to those member states that will provide their convergence programmes at the same time as the UK, but before their Budgets rather than after them.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that all European economies have a shared interest in there being proper economic governance in all other European economies? Britain therefore clearly has an interest in proper economic management within the eurozone. Indeed, will he go further and welcome the recommendations of the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, which pressed for even stronger sanctions against those countries that do not manage their public finances as well as this Government are doing?

[Mr Hoban]

Of course, sanctions are a matter for the eurozone countries. They do not apply to us, as we are outside the eurozone thanks to the opt-out secured under the Maastricht treaty and reiterated in the Lisbon treaty, so that point is not relevant to tonight’s debate. We have ensured, through our opt-outs and our commitment not to join the euro—this addresses the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson)—that Parliament remains sovereign.

The Commission has endorsed the UK’s domestic consolidation plan, which is laid out in the convergence programme. As a result of the measures the Government have taken, the path set for fiscal policy means that the UK is on course to meet the Commission’s recommendations and deadline for dealing with our excessive deficit. We are not doing this to get a gold star—to use the language of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West’s analogy—from Brussels; we are doing it for the UK’s economic health. The plan will tackle our record deficit, with expenditure falling as a share of income in every year of this Parliament and national debt falling as a proportion of gross domestic product by 2014-15.

For those in opposition who question this approach and who would condemn Britain to years of unaffordable and wasteful expenditure, let us look at the facts. In Britain we have a higher budget deficit than both Portugal and Greece. Last year, we also had a similar level of national debt to Ireland, but our market interest rates are a fraction of those countries’ rates. Greece’s currently stand at more than 14% and Portugal’s at more than 9%, while Ireland’s is approaching 10%. Britain’s market interest rates have fallen to 3.6%, our triple A credit rating has been secured and we have avoided the sovereign debt storm that has engulfed our continent. That is a direct result of the decisive action that we have taken.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that it is not only the absolute value of interest rates that is important but the spread over countries such as Germany? Indeed, the spread over German bunds for UK sovereigns has dropped by almost two thirds since the election, confirming the validation of this fiscal convergence programme.

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Interest rates are low and the spread is narrowing. That is a huge benefit to the British economy. It ensures that mortgage rates for families are kept low and it helps to encourage the economy by reducing the costs faced by businesses that borrow. There is a significant benefit to this country as a consequence of the firm action that we have taken. These actions have shown the world that Britain’s future is now in safe hands, and that this is a Government who know how to manage their finances and who have a credible plan that is delivering stability, certainty and growth.

The independent Office for Budgetary Responsibility has forecast growth in each and every year of this Parliament, with growth of 1.7% forecast for 2011. This is in spite of the rise in world commodity prices and higher than expected inflation. The OBR points out that this effect

“creates scope for slightly stronger growth in later years”

than previously forecast. So although it expects real GDP growth of 2.5% next year, it forecasts that it will then rise to 2.9% in 2013, 2.9% again in 2014 and 2.8% in 2015.

The European Commission last month published its own economic forecasts. These show that the UK will grow more strongly in the coming year than Spain, Italy, France, the average for the eurozone, and the average for the EU.

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

Can the Minister remind the House what the OBR predicted the growth rate would be for the first quarter of 2011? I think it is on page 54 of the convergence programme.

[Mr Hoban]

I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not congratulated the Government on taking the tough action that put the recovery on track and made sure that we have lower interest rates than Greece, Ireland and Portugal. That is a consequence of the actions that we have taken—actions that the Opposition would not take. We are tackling the legacy that they left. The problem is that the scale of the legacy is huge. That makes the recovery challenging. Today’s figures demonstrate that we are making good progress on that.

To support the economy and to continue the growth in the private sector, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out a new economic strategy as part of this year’s Budget. The strategy has four ambitions at its heart—that Britain will have the most competitive tax system in the G20; that it will be the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business; that it will be a more balanced economy, by encouraging exports and investment; and that it will have a more educated work force that is the most flexible in Europe. In pursuit of these objectives, we have announced further cuts to corporation tax, taking it down to 26% this year and 23% by the end of this Parliament.

This is alongside our decision to introduce a highly competitive tax rate on profits derived from patents and our fundamental reform of the complex rules for controlled foreign companies, making them much more territorial and making the UK a much more attractive place for businesses to locate, ensuring that we have a far more attractive tax system than either Germany or France.

This year’s Budget also deals directly with the challenge of education and youth unemployment, which has been rising steadily for the past seven years. Instead of 20,000 young people benefiting from our new work experience scheme, as we originally planned, we will increase that number fivefold to 100,000 places over the next two years. Although in Austria and Germany one in four employers offers apprenticeships, in England fewer than one in 10 does so. That must change.

That is why last year my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning published a skills strategy and confirmed the largest ever expansion in adult apprenticeships. At the Budget we committed to funding another 40,000 apprenticeships for young unemployed people. That brings a total of 250,000 more apprenticeships over the next four years, as a result of this Government’s policies. This will help to ensure that all parts of the country have access to a better educated work force.

This year’s Budget will help to create a more balanced economy, tackling the imbalances of the past that undermined the economy and led to the longest and deepest recession since the war. This year’s Budget gives support to the private sector and hope to those looking for work, and will stimulate job creation across Britain.

[Mr Cash]

One word that the Minister has not mentioned is “deregulation”. In view of the fact that 4% of GDP is lost as a result of European regulation, does he agree that we need to override European regulation, such as the working time directive, when it has the effect of increasing unemployment and preventing businesses from growing?

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the burden of regulation on business, and that is why in the Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out our plans for a moratorium on new regulations for micro-businesses and for start-ups, why the Prime Minister, along with several other European leaders, called for plans to cut the burden of European red tape, and why the Prime Minister has also required José Barroso, the President of the European Commission, to deliver on his commitment to reduce the cost of red tape for business by 25%.

We need to work on those issues to tackle regulation that hampers growth not just here in the UK but throughout Europe, because regulation is a Europe-wide issue. We need to tackle and reduce that burden if the eurozone is to grow at the levels that we expect to see in Asia and in the far east.

As I said to my hon. Friend, this Budget tackles regulation and introduces a moratorium, and that is why it stands firm on our plan for recovery. It is good for business, it is good for growth, and with the approval of the House it will form the basis of the information that we provide to the European Commission. I commend this motion to the House.

19:30

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

Many hon. Members might wonder why we are having this debate tonight. It is an incredibly important debate, but they might be forgiven for not having spotted the small print on, I think, page minus 2 under the ISBN number of the Red Book in probably seven or eight-point font, where it points out that the UK is required to submit to Brussels an annual convergence programme so that it can monitor our economic policy.

I am, however, grateful to the Financial Secretary for having written to me to draw attention to the debate this evening, the papers for which were published only at lunchtime yesterday. In fact, the motion appeared on the Order Paper only yesterday, too, and I am surprised about that, because in the parallel debate a year ago following the 2010 pre-Budget report, the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), now the Exchequer Secretary, then speaking from the Opposition Benches said:

“It was also very difficult to locate the report. I obtained a copy last week, but it was not available in the Vote Office yesterday. This is a point that has been made many times before”. —[Official Report, 10 February 2010; Vol. 505, c. 947.]

I am surprised that the Government have not really listened to their own Members when it comes to flagging up the importance of this particular debate, but, given that we have a motion asking the House to note “with approval” the Government’s assessment of the economy, and to conform with the requirements laid down in the various European Union treaties, I am sure that it is pure coincidence that Ministers did not flag it up or put bells and whistles around it to draw its attention to many hon. Members.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

But I am quite pleased that the hon. Gentleman keeps his eye on these developments.

[Mr Cash]

We certainly do our best on the European Scrutiny Committee, which included our making sure, by the way, that this debate took place on the Floor of the House by objecting to the motion to refer it to a Committee. I thought that we might just as well get it on the Order Paper.

[Chris Leslie]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s work on the European Scrutiny Committee. This is, as I say, an incredibly important debate, and more hon. Members ought to be aware of it.

[Martin Horwood]

I am not sure what greater publicity the hon. Gentleman wants other than a debate on the Floor of the House in the middle of a parliamentary week, but, if the implication behind his references to the obligation to report to the European Union is that we should not do so, is he suggesting that that shared obligation among all European economies should not apply to places such as Greece, Italy, Spain or Ireland? Would he be happy for those countries not to report the state of their economies?

[Chris Leslie]

I simply note at the outset that we are now engaging in a particular debate. Yes, I am glad that it is taking place on the Floor of the House, but we did not really know that it was going to be on the Floor of the House, in this particular form, with this set of papers and this particular motion, until 24 hours ago. It is curious that the Government, in their relationship with many hon. Members throughout the Chamber, have not made it clear that this is quite an important component of our obligations under European Union treaties. I know that Ministers are keen to abide by their obligations under such treaties, but I just point out that some Members might be less keen.

[Mr Davidson]

Given that this debate is so important, will my hon. Friend clarify whether the programme has already been sent to the European Union or if we will have to wait for the result of this debate before it is posted off second class?

[Chris Leslie]

I presume that the House has to agree the contents of the convergence programme before it can be posted to the European Commission. The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) implied that the Commission could probably glean all the information online, and there is a perfectly reasonable argument that the Commission should follow events in member state countries rather than expect these matters to be handed to it on a platter. I do not think that presenting the information is necessarily genuflecting in front of Brussels, but the obligation to do so is certainly a core component of the treaties. I simply point out that fact.

The point of the motion about which we need to be most wary is the noting “with approval” the Government’s assessment of the economy, particularly given the Chancellor’s and Treasury Ministers’ lamentable failure to understand the need for economic growth. Page 13 of the convergence programme, which was published just 24 hours ago, says that the recovery is in line with previous recoveries. That, of course, is not the case.

In the recessions of the early ’80s and ’90s the economy had clawed back economic strength by this stage in the economic cycle. However, since this Government took office, the trajectory of recovery has stalled. We are already seeing that the information in the document, published just 24 hours ago, is becoming out of date.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Is it not rather regrettable that we should have chosen to acquiesce in the Government’s decision rather than call for a Division? I would be happy to vote against the document if we had the chance.

[Chris Leslie]

We have the opportunity to divide the House on this matter, although I think that it would be a deferred Division; obviously, that is a matter for Mr Speaker.

As we go through the details of the document, we see that there are problems in it. Page 17 says that the economy is forecast to grow by 1.7% in 2011—lower than the forecast in the June Budget. Is that forecast sustainable? The Government and the Office for Budget Responsibility revised down their forecasts for growth in June and revised down expectations in November. The OBR then revised down expectations for a third time after the March Budget.

The answer to the question that I asked the Minister earlier—what was the OBR’s prediction for the first quarter of this calendar year—is 0.8%. Yet today the Office for National Statistics gave a rather comatose and limp growth rate of 0.5%. That comes on the heels of a growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2010 of minus 0.5%. Essentially, there has been a zero rate of growth—flat-lining—over the past six months.

As Stephanie Flanders, the BBC’s economics editor, said, it is

“depressing to think that the economy is treading water…in a normal recovery we would expect to see a lot of momentum at this point”.

Chris Giles, economics editor at the Financial Times, said that for there to have been any credible claim to a return of underlying growth, this quarter’s figure should have been 0.7%. He went on:

“Add in one quarter of the growth expected in 2011—about another 0.5 per cent—and the figure necessary to show the economy growing at an average pace in the first quarter is at least 1.2 per cent.

Arguably, it should be even higher, at somewhere about 1.7 per cent, if the underlying stagnation in the fourth quarter of 2010 has been recovered in the first quarter of this year.”

We are a long way from that, and that is a serious problem. Yet the Chancellor seems to think that we are on the right track; as somebody said today, if he thinks that, he needs to chuck away his satnav and get a new one.

The GDP growth figure of 0.5% for the first three months of this year merely replaces the loss of output in the snowbound fourth quarter of 2010 and suggests that the economy has no underlying momentum at all. The chief statistician at the ONS said today that we had been “on a plateau” for the past six months. Tony Dolphin, the chief economist at the Institute for Public Policy Research, says that a 0.5% fall followed by a 0.5% bounce-back is equivalent to two successive quarters of zero growth—

“as close as it is possible to come to a recession without actually being in one”.

Yet the Prime Minister says that this is “good news”—those were his words as he trumpeted this resounding success at Prime Minister’s Questions today. Even the Minister said, a matter of minutes ago, that it is good progress. I am afraid to say, however, that the document we are being asked to approve is already out of date, even though it was published only 24 hours ago. It is a bit of dead parrot. It is no more, it has ceased to be, it has expired; it is an ex-convergence programme.

It is not good enough if the Minister cannot even produce a document when he gets advance notice of ONS growth statistics that matches the realities of the economy rather than the forecasting ideas that are dreamed up in the Treasury. That is a sign that the Government do not understand the importance of growth in our economy, especially when today’s statistics showed that construction has fallen back by 7% over the past six months, with total production already falling back even from the last quarter before Christmas. Government cuts have not yet started in earnest, and the VAT increase is already biting hard.

What are the prospects for business growth? On page 14 of the document, the Treasury says:

“Credit conditions have shown signs of stabilisation”.

That is certainly not the experience of small and medium-sized enterprises: lending to businesses is in an atrocious state. It goes on to say in paragraph 2.43:

“however, credit conditions for smaller firms remain tight”.

That is an exceptional understatement. The Bank of England’s lending report shows that lending to SMEs fell by a further 3% in February. That is echoed by the British Bankers Association’s growth rate statistics on lending to small businesses, which cited a figure of minus 6% in December. So much for the much-vaunted Project Merlin. Yet the mark-ups that small businesses have to pay for loans are widening, and the banks are charging small businesses even more even though less and less lending is available. We have a serious systemic problem with our economy. Underpinning the difficulties with growth are the factors that businesses need in order to fire up the economy, and they are going wrong.

We also have to look at the Government’s failure on employment. Page 84 of the convergence programme document says:

“In line with a weaker outlook for output growth, we expect employment to be lower than forecast in November.”

The OBR predicts that unemployment will go up by 200,000 as a result of the Government’s policies. If each unemployed person costs the Exchequer about £7,800 in welfare costs and lost taxes, that could represent a loss to the Exchequer of more than £1 billion—money that the Exchequer should have coming in that is going the wrong way. In addition, inflation is undermining Government spending plans, as the document admits in terms of VAT fuelling inflation, and it is forecast that borrowing and debt will be higher than predicted in June. As a consequence, the interest that we will need to pay on our borrowing will be higher because of the inflationary costs of social security expenditure.

[Mr Cash]

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has looked at the comparison of unit labour costs throughout the whole of Europe. It shows that in the past 10 years Germany’s costs have increased by only 2% whereas almost every other country’s have increased by massive multiples of up to 35%. Does he accept that one of the real reasons Germany is predominating in the European economy includes, in particular, the fact that its labour costs are so low, which means that it can compete in the BRIC countries, including India, China and the rest?

[Chris Leslie]

There are several factors underpinning the German economy. The Germans do not pursue the same degree of hard and fast austerity that we are pursuing, they have a different approach to productivity, and they are achieving higher levels of growth. Our economy needs a pro-growth strategy. I do not say that as a whim—it is a hard-headed credible necessity for reducing the deficit and getting the economy moving again. Without growth, the Treasury will be losing revenue.

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

When the hon. Gentleman talks about a pro-growth strategy, does he mean spending? If so, where on earth is the money coming from?

[Chris Leslie]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the paradox of austerity and of an anti-growth strategy is that it costs more in the long run. I quite understand that many Government Members do not understand the causes of the deficit. It is therefore improbable that they are the right people to solve the deficit. If they understood its causes, perhaps I would accept their rationale on how to solve it, but they do not.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I hope to help my hon. Friend a little. If one makes unemployment go up, fewer people pay taxes, more people depend on benefits and the deficit gets worse, not better. That is precisely what will happen.

[Chris Leslie]

That is precisely the point that we need to make this evening: an austerity approach that cuts too far and too fast will cost more in the long run. That is not just in terms of the lost generation of young people who are now on the dole—one in five young people are now unemployed—and not just in terms of the higher welfare costs, which will mean higher borrowing. The House of Commons Library told me today that if the past six months of the economy had emulated the first six months since the general election, the Exchequer would have received an additional £6 billion in revenues. However, because growth is flat-lining, the Treasury is recouping less revenue. The Chancellor will therefore have to add £6 billion to borrowing and the deficit will be higher as a consequence of low growth in the years ahead.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman has expanded at length on the fragility of the economy and the recovery, which I do not think is in dispute, but we are still a little thin on the alternative from Labour. In recent months, it has talked rather admiringly of the American economy and its expansionist approach. However, that has earned America a credit warning from the rating agencies. If that had happened to us, it would undoubtedly have led to higher interest rates, which would have hit everyone with a mortgage, everyone with an overdraft, and all the people who are vulnerable to debt—people about whom the hon. Gentleman is supposed to be concerned. That, in turn, would have hit economic growth. What is Labour’s alternative?

[Chris Leslie]

I would regard the hon. Gentleman’s approach as credible, if it was not for the fact that in precisely the same debate a year ago, he would have argued precisely the opposite points. The Liberal Democrat party has made a volte-face away from supporting the economy and pursuing a pro-growth strategy, and has absolutely no credibility when talking about strategies for growth. They used to be a pro-growth party; they are now an anti-growth party that has joined and been assimilated into the Conservative party.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I wonder whether I can help the hon. Gentleman. Will he outline for the House whether his speech is based on Keynesian or Brownite economics?

[Chris Leslie]

It is actually based on common-sense economics. I regret that the Government cannot see that. Unfortunately, I think that they will rue the day that they neglected growth in the economy. As we know, there is anxiety in the Treasury at the flat-lining, almost comatose nature of the economy. We hope sincerely that it picks up through the next quarter, but many people predict choppy times in the second quarter of this calendar year. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the paradox that I spoke about: pursuing the austerity approach too hard and too fast undermines growth and pulls from under the economy some of the key drivers for future prosperity that support it. Cutting too far and too fast is bad not just for the economy, but for deficit reduction strategies.

The Government’s spending plans are already coming unstuck. I will wind up with this point because I know that a lot of hon. Members want to speak. On tuition fees, which we debated earlier, we know that the cuts to higher education budgets will mean that universities will charge the highest fees, which will result in the ballooning of student loan pressures and the creation of a funding shortfall. Where will that money come from? We know that the Government have U-turned on school sports and that, when it came to the crunch, even the Financial Secretary had to U-turn on the financial inclusion fund. We are glad that he did so, but it changed the spending trajectory. On forests and on any number of other spending plans, when the rubber has hit the road, the Government have been unable to fulfil many of the so-called spending cuts that they promised in their much-vaunted June Budget.

[Mr Cash]

Does the hon. Gentleman concede that, leaving aside the question of cuts for a moment, the motor for an economic revival comes from growth, which in turn can come only from private business and private enterprise generating the taxation to pay for public expenditure? Without that, there is no public sector.

[Chris Leslie]

I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s point. Of course we need a pro-growth policy, and of course the private sector has to be the engine of that. However, he suggests that the Government somehow have no role to play in encouraging and fostering growth, and that is where we differ. The Opposition believe in supporting firms in moving forward into prosperity. The laissez-faire attitude of the Conservative-Liberal alliance has moved us into wholly different terrain and proves that it does not have a credible fiscal stance.

Unfortunately, the convergence programme is a hollow document that is already out of date. Its predictions are not probable or plausible, and for those reasons I urge Members to reject the motion.

19:51

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I start by drawing on the last intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). He made an important point, and it was the one that I made last night. Government money is not our money, it is the public’s money generated by the private sector. We cannot simply say that we should carry on pouring in money, because it is not our money. We must think about where it comes from.

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said that if certain actions had not been taken, an extra £6 billion would have come in to the Exchequer, but in our emergency Budget we cut the deficit by £6 billion. If we had not done that, there would not have been any extra money, would there? We would have borrowed an extra £6 billion instead. We would have been borrowing money, churning it out, collecting it back in and saying, “What great money generation”. We would just have been turning money around. We can get money coming in to the Exchequer only through growth, and that can occur only if the private sector is in a credible position so that it can move forward.

The Opposition’s comments are interesting, because there is a paradox in that they paint a gloomy picture but meet it with glee and struggle to keep a straight face. Of course, we know that if we had followed the previous Chancellor’s spending plans, we would have been cutting £7 for every £8 that is being cut now. The margins are small. Let us not get into a discussion about the idea that if the Government’s actions had not been taken, a further £6 billion would have come in. We cut the deficit by that amount in the emergency Budget, so there would not have been any extra money. The money that we borrowed would just have been churned out and collected back in, which would have done nothing to stimulate the growth of the economy. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham East that the growth figures are small, but they are growth figures. He says that they may be flat, but we know that things can be choppy. The point is that we are growing and moving forward.

Let us come back to tonight’s debate and the history of the Council of the European Union. Back in July 2008, the Council of Ministers decided that the UK had an excessive deficit and asked it to correct that by the financial year 2009-10 at the latest. In April 2009, the Council concluded that the UK had failed to correct its excessive deficit within the time set. In December that year, it adopted a recommendation that the UK end its continuing excessive deficit by the financial year 2014-15, by bringing it below 3% of gross domestic product. In 2009-10 it was at 11.4% of GDP, but the convergence document now predicts it to be at 2.6% of GDP.

That is in stark contrast to the Opposition argument that it is unnecessary to make cuts and that we should continue as before. I shall tell the House later how I actually feel about the EU’s interference in such matters, but people outside this country were saying, “You are spending too much; you need to make those changes,” and we are now doing so. Whether we should have to do that for the EU is a slightly different debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) was right to say that we are using parliamentary time and publishing documents containing information that the EU could quite easily find out for itself. That adds to the already bloated EU system, and perhaps indicates why it asks us for a 5% increase in its budget, which is an absolute disgrace at times of austerity.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) spoke of the imbalance of trade with the German economy. The German manufacturing economy is a powerhouse of Europe, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone outlined, we have a very low manufacturing base. The picture that that paints is that economic integration in the EU is not possible with sovereign countries generating high GDP growth and trade imbalances. For integration, countries must move to one common taxation policy. That, if anything, is proof that the euro is leading to a common taxation policy and a loss of fiscal sovereignty.

[Mr Cash]

As my hon. Friend may have noted, I raised that question with the Prime Minister earlier today in relation to voting against the provisions for a corporate tax base for the whole of Europe. That decision will in fact be made unanimously, and we can get rid of it with our veto. I did not get an answer from the Prime Minister, and I hope my hon. Friend continues to urge against having a tax system imposed upon us by the rest of Europe.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a very pragmatic view on such things, and I am sure he took great note of my hon. Friend’s question. I am also sure that the Prime Minister will listen to the mood of the country and ensure that the EU does not move towards such a common economic base.

This is crux of the matter: we are publishing documents tonight to pass back to the EU that show that the UK is in compliance with the rules. Those rules mean that we could qualify for the euro. People have often asked, “With the pound so close to parity with the euro, why don’t we join?” but we will not join because we will not fudge the figures just to get into the euro—not that we want to join—[Interruption.] Please! I would not want anyone to leave the Chamber thinking that I am pro-euro, because I certainly am not—perish the thought.

To qualify for the euro, countries must have a budget deficit of 40% of GDP and they must borrow no more than 3% of GDP annually. We know that the Italians fudged that. That is one reason why the euro is in the mess that it is in, and why it is nowhere near competing with the US dollar, or indeed the Chinese currency, in the way that people thought it would. The fact is that if the EU wants to have a strong economic case, it must go for full monetary union, which is totally unacceptable for sovereign countries.

As we know from the treaty of Rome, the original European partnership of six nations was set up to try to prevent further wars in Europe, to bring peace to the European nations, and to get everybody trading together as one bloc. That was the vision. However, I do not think that the rise of far-right parties across Europe and the increasing moves down the federalist route are coincidental. People feel that they have lost their sovereignty and identity. If the EU moves forward to a full, integrated economic policy, that will be the end of the EU, because people around Europe will vote in extremist parties to try to reclaim their national identity. I say that as a warning, with no joy. I am probably one of the more dove-ish Government Members when it comes to violence or military matters, but I fear where those moves could lead.

The Opposition’s main argument this evening has been: “You’ve got your economic policy completely wrong. You could have had more money coming to the Exchequer.” However, they have forgotten that the money coming to the Exchequer was the money they printed, pumped out and brought back in before saying, “Oh, look at all the money we’ve generated!” I do not think so. This is about creating growth, and in the document before us, an independent body has said that the Government’s policy is correct and in line with what we want to achieve, which is what the previous Government singly failed to achieve despite the warnings in December 2009.

20:00

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I want to speak briefly on this document and to support my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who sits on the Opposition Front Bench. The Government’s economic policy will drive us into recession. The cuts have not really started yet, and when they do, unemployment will rise, and when unemployment rises, people will lose confidence and stop spending, and we will see a downward spiral into recession. I am convinced of that. I am not the only person saying it. As I have pointed out in the Chamber more than once, Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize-winning economist, has said that the Government are going in precisely the wrong direction. They should be trying to stimulate the economy through additional spending in labour-intensive areas, such as construction and the public sector—but that is the absolute opposite of what they are doing.

If we bring down unemployment, revenues will rise, benefit payments will reduce and the economy will grow, and that will reduce the deficit. I have used this example many times: after the second world war, under Conservative and Labour Governments, we had a gross debt two and a half times GDP—about four times what it is now—but we just maintained a policy of full employment, led by the magnificent Atlee Governments in 1945 and 1951. We had full employment, we created the national health service, living standards rose and we even ran a labour shortage such that people came from abroad to work here because the economy was growing so fast. We ran a growth economy led by public spending. That is what we should be doing now, but we are doing the absolute opposite. If other countries do the same, we will see the 1930s relived, but people have so much more to lose now it will be politically quite dangerous.

There is already a reaction in Europe to what is happening. In Finland, a Government have been elected who are baulking at the idea of bailing out some of the weaker members of the eurozone. I have no idea why we should be bailing out members of the eurozone. Ireland is a special case, because it is our nearest neighbour and effectively part of the sterling-zone economy, not the eurozone economy. We are its major trading partner and we have an exchange of population, so Ireland is a different case from the rest of the EU. For us to be bailing out other countries in the eurozone is complete and total nonsense. The sooner they leave the eurozone, recreate their own currencies and depreciate them, the sooner they will recover.

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

The hon. Gentleman puts a happy and cuddly aura around the old hard-left of the Labour party. Bearing in mind that for years we and other European countries have been reporting to the European Commission on these matters, does he think that the Commission has learned any lessons from the information it has been sent? If it has, why did it not try to help the economies of Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy and so on?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I think that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on this point. It has learned absolutely nothing. To try to squeeze the life out of an economy that is already almost wrecked is nonsense. The Commission should allow those economies to grow, and they can grow only if they can recreate and depreciate their own currencies, and start to compete again. Ireland is in a terrible state because it chose—foolishly, I think—to join the euro. I have said to Irish politicians—in as friendly and comradely a way as possible—that they should recreate and depreciate the punt to something like the level of sterling, and rejoin the sterling zone, which is where Ireland belongs. Its economy would then start to recover. Without that, it will not recover.

[Martin Horwood]

I am just curious: who does the hon. Gentleman think would lend those Governments the money to finance that public spending, given their credit ratings at present?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In the end Governments can print money if they wish to, but the idea that we can squeeze those economies into growth is complete nonsense. We could debate these matters at great length—I would be happy to do so on another occasion—but that is not what this debate is about. I want to focus on the Government’s economic policy, which I think is profoundly mistaken.

Another point in the document is the emphasis on fiscal neutrality. The Government do not seem to appreciate that fiscal neutrality can be achieved in various ways. If we cut public spending and taxation at the same time, that is, in a sense, fiscally neutral. If we raise public spending and taxation, that is also fiscally neutral. We can also achieve fiscal neutrality by raising taxes on the rich and reducing them on the poor. Fiscal neutrality can have all sorts of different effects. If we cut taxes on the rich and raise them on the less well-off, we will drive the economy into recession, because poor people will spend less money. The marginal propensity of the poor to consume is higher, so if we tax the rich and give more to the poor, they will spend. If we give pensioners a rise in their pensions, for example, they will spend more, but if we give a wealthy person a tax cut, they will not spend.

Those are marginal changes, but my general point is that fiscal neutrality can be achieved in various ways. In fact, it is nonsense to have fiscal neutrality when growth is flatlining. We ought to have an expansionary fiscal strategy, not a neutral fiscal strategy. I might add that this is my view, not necessarily the view of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. They are perhaps more cautious than me, but in the end I would like to think that I and others will be proved right. We have to generate growth, but it will not happen if the Government continue to operate in the way that they are at the moment.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have great admiration for him on many subjects, but does he realise that when Keynes was suggesting those fiscal stimulus packages, the state accounted for only about a quarter of GDP, whereas now the figure is up to 45% and getting on for 50%? The capacity is just not there. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that even Keynes would be horrified at the notion of Governments spending more from present levels?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The role of the state is much larger than it was even in Keynes’s day; therefore, the state has to generate more demand. The state has a bigger role in the economy—I think that is a good thing—but we cannot withdraw from the idea of managing economies in the way that we did after the second world war. Between 1945 and the 1970s, we had a world that actually worked. We had rising living standards and the highest rate of growth in our history. We had full employment, we developed a welfare state and the national health service, and we had free tuition at universities. Since then, the neo-liberals and the monetarists have got hold of economic policy again and we have gone back to something like the early 1930s, albeit with higher living standards, at the moment, but that could so easily be destroyed if the current mistakes continue to be made.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I really do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s rose-tinted view of the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1960s we had to devalue, and by the 1970s inflation and wage inflation were huge, to the point where teachers were given a 25% pay rise in the mid-1970s that was worthless the following year. As for the Keynesian arguments, the new deal in 1930s America failed until the second world war came along and the country could manufacture and lend money to support the war effort. That is what created the recovery. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we need another war to sort out the economy.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I would advise the hon. Gentleman to read an excellent book by J. K. Galbraith called “The World Economy Since the Wars”. He said that wartime investment in American manufacturing transformed the economy, which emerged as the strongest economy in the world.

We could go into those matters at great length; the point is that it is nonsense to try to deflate our way to growth, as has been said by a number of leading economists. Okay, so they happen to be Keynesians rather than monetarists, but do we want to go back to a world of high unemployment and greater inequality, or do we want to go forward to a world of full employment and greater equality? That is the choice. The Government’s proposed strategy, as set out in the document under discussion, will have a devastating effect on our economy and—they may not be prepared for this—will make them detested and massively unpopular. I remind them that, after the second world war, Labour took office with a massive majority as a result of the working people of Britain rejecting what had happened in the 1930s: the recession and the war. We are in danger of going in that direction again, and the end result would be the election of a Labour Government who would have to pick up the pieces of an economy that had been destroyed.

Even PricewaterhouseCoopers—not a noted left-wing organisation—has suggested that, for every job lost in the public sector, one would also be lost in the private sector, as opposed to the private sector picking up where the public sector left off. Much of the demand in the private sector comes from public sector spending and public investment. We have already seen construction levels falling, with the cancellation of many school building programmes. That will create unemployment in the private sector as well as the public sector, and it is conceivable that unemployment could rise by 1 million. If we had 1 million unemployed, in addition to the 2.5 million that we already have, we would be in very serious economic waters. It would be a terrible time, not just for young people but for the whole economy. We would see falling living standards, mass unemployment and a mass political reaction to what was happening.

I had a different view on this matter from those on my own Front Bench, particularly before the election, when I and a number of Labour comrades rejected the idea of cuts altogether. We believe that dealing with the deficit has to be done by generating growth. After the banking crisis, the Labour Government did exactly the right thing. They pushed demand into the economy by printing money, reducing interest rates almost to zero and recapitalising the banks, all of which had to be done. In fact, the Conservative Government, in their first six months, were living on the growth generated by Labour’s policies—[Interruption.] That is the reality. Now, Conservative policies are kicking in and we are starting to see the economy go down.

I could go on about this at greater length, but others want to speak and this is a short debate. I am happy to come back and talk about these issues time and again if hon. Members wish me to. Indeed, I am happy to discuss them in private as well as in public. I am convinced that the Government have got this wrong, and that Keynesian economists such as Krugman and Stiglitz have got it right. We need to generate growth through public spending and public investment; we do not need to cut.

20:12

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

It will be useful to remind the House of what section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 actually says. Some of us were here in 1993 during the Maastricht debates, and it was rather an interesting moment when the only piece of reality in the whole of that Session occurred. That was when an attempt was made to restrain the movement towards a European Government. Section 5 states:

“Her Majesty’s Government shall report to Parliament for its approval an assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals set out in Article 2”—

they are pretty extensive—

“which report shall form the basis of any submission to the Council and Commission in pursuit of their responsibilities under Articles 103 and 104c.”

What this really boils down to is that, in order for us to be able to continue—leaving aside the opt-out from the euro—we effectively have to comply with the convergence criteria and other criteria that are laid down by the European Union. Effectively, leaving aside the question of the European stability mechanism—my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) knows that I totally agree with the extremely important point that he made earlier—the bottom line is that we have been moving inexorably, regrettably and avoidably towards deeper and deeper European integration, with more and more requirements and obligations being imposed on us.

As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I and other colleagues here tonight—my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), a distinguished member of the Committee from the other side of the House—know the sheer, massive extent of the invasion and the vast range of impediments that are put in our way as a result of decisions taken not by this Parliament but by other countries, by the European Commission and by the European institutions. So this is an important debate, and the Minister will understand why I objected to the idea that it should be shunted off to some innocuous Committee, well controlled by the Whips, without having any real opportunity for the whole House to participate.

I can make my points briefly. Some have already been made and others I have made myself in the past, so I do not need to elaborate on them. First, I very much agree with the suggestion that this undemocratic process affects the daily lives of the people of this country and inhibits our ability to grow our economy, particularly when at least 4% of our gross domestic product is lost through excessive European regulation of small and medium-sized businesses. I find it utterly absurd—it is incomprehensible to me—that the Government cannot simply say, “Look, we’ve tried. We’ve gone ahead. We’ve tried to negotiate, but they are not listening. We are going to have to override the European legislation.” I think it negligent not to do so.

I received a letter from the Prime Minister only a few days ago, reminding us that the European Council

“agreed on the need for robust actions to support growth”.

He went on to refer to reducing

“the overall burden of regulation including exemptions for micro-enterprises from future regulations”.

In my right hon. Friend’s absence, I have to say—he will know that I would say it anyway—that “future” regulations are not the issue. The real question is about existing regulations. I do not need to go through them all again—I have written pamphlets about them, as have many others—and we know that there is a vast array of completely negative regulations that cause a vast amount of difficulty for small and medium-sized businesses. We are not going to achieve the private enterprise that will be needed to pay for the public sector that is needed unless we get out of that vicious circle. That is point No. 1.

Point No. 2 is that the consequences of not having sufficient growth and of having the deeply regrettable legacy of the deficit will mean that riots and protests—not only in other countries, but in our own—will grow as the pain bites into the economy and into people’s daily lives. This will lead to an increase in the potential for parties of the far right to gain traction. I do not think that the policy pursued on the stability and growth pact can be described as anything other than a disaster area because there has been no stability, no growth and no pact. I wrote an article about that in The Times five or more years ago, but it is exactly the same now. Nothing changes. That is terribly depressing, which is why we must have the political will to do something about it.

The Europe 2020 strategy is another re-run of the vast amount of verbiage that accompanied the Lisbon agenda, which those involved had to admit was a complete disaster. It is words, words and words; it is nothing to do with the practical question of generating growth. I mentioned Brazil, India and China earlier. The plain fact is that we have to compete with these other countries and it is impossible to do so when looking at the question of unit labour costs in those countries and then looking at the European Union and noticing that Germany had an increase of only 2% in the last 10 years, compared with 30% in most other EU countries. We are in a completely impossible situation. I say this with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, but I did not hear anything in his speech to respond to this situation except for the fact that he said we were getting close to achieving the parameters laid down by the EU for the excessive deficit procedure.

Let me ask a question that I asked before the general election and again during it. It is simply this: what is the true level of our debt? Suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had risen to make his Budget speech in the House the other day and said, “The first thing I must tell the House is that we will have to knock £6 billion off the figures that I am about to announce because we will be bailing out Portugal—and, by the way, our budget contribution to the European Union will rise to £10 billion, so we had better start factoring that in as well.”

Some Members may not know—I do not think many people do—that a spat is going on between the Office for National Statistics and Eurostat about the formulation of our figures in relation to the deficit. I am looking into it, but it is the sort of thing that really troubles me. If we do not get the figures right, and if the Eurostat figures are imposed in a way that makes it difficult for us to accord with the parameters of the rules, that will be another matter that should concern us.

There are many other issues that I could raise, but let me end by dealing with the question of looking to the future. The plain fact is that Germany has now taken pole position in the European Union. The European Central Bank—which has not been mentioned tonight, and to an extent I understand why—has been more or less working in a German environment, if I may put it in those general terms, and has become the owner of vast quantities of bad assets. Another problem is being stoked up there. As was pointed out in a very interesting article in The Economist a few weeks ago, all that is part and parcel of Germany’s pole position at the heart of Europe and also the heart of the problem itself. We cannot afford to work on the basis of a system—to which the Government have foolishly agreed—in which we would not be isolated, but would be engaged in the process of a two-tier Europe because we had agreed to a treaty that will have a serious adverse effect on us. We must renegotiate these treaties and return to a European Free Trade Association-type arrangement, so that we have independence and, with it, the ability to deliver an economy that the British people deserve.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Three Members are standing; I remind them that the debate must end at 8.43 pm. I call Mr Nuttall.

20:22

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

I will bear that in mind, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who speaks with such knowledge and who gives the House the benefit of his long experience of these matters. Let me say at the outset that I am 100% supportive of the economic policies that the Treasury and its Ministers have pursued since the general election. It cannot be the case that the way out of the financial mess created by the last Government, who were borrowing, borrowing, borrowing, is to borrow even more, and to continue to borrow at those levels.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Nuttall]

Briefly.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I will be brief. Is his view not confirmed by what the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said about inflation creeping into the system, and by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) that the way out of the problem was to print more money?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As everyone knows, printing money invariably leads to inflation. I am sure that that would be the case if we continued to print money today.

I want to address the issue of our dealings with Europe, but first let us consider our net borrowing figures. According to forecasts from the House of Commons Library produced just a few days ago—on 21 April—even if we take into account all the measures that the Treasury are taking, we will borrow £122 billion in the current financial year and £101 billion next year. We are not paying back our debts; we are simply reducing the scale of the debt.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I could raise a number of issues, but one in particular is that the Treasury is now predicting that the deficit at the end of this Parliament will be £11 billion higher than it thought a few months ago, simply because it expects the economy to grow less.

[Mr Nuttall]

I think there is always scope for margins of difference in predictions for five years ahead. I agree that on page 54 of the document in question a figure of 0.8% is referred to in respect of the quarterly growth figures, but what was not mentioned is that the previous line refers to erratic factors, and the very use of the word “erratic” implies there is some deal of scope for the figure not to be precisely bang on the nail. As we all know, the figures that have been released today are provisional, and it would be very surprising indeed if they are not revised one way or the other. [Interruption.] They may well go up, but it would be very surprising indeed if they were not to be revised.

Let me move on to my concern about this motion. I have said that I am entirely supportive of the Government’s economic policy, but I am not at all supportive of the idea of our supplying 201 pages of information, which I am grateful the Minister confirmed is all in the public domain, to Europe. Why cannot we send the Europeans one simple e-mail with a link to the Treasury website, where we say the following: “Here you are chaps; if you’re interested in what we’re doing, look at our website as it’s all on there, and you’ll be able to read what you want. We are a sovereign nation, and we are not going to produce 201 pages of bumf for you to no doubt translate into dozens of other languages. If you want to see what we’re doing, look at our website or read Hansard, as it’s all in there. We’ve got nothing to hide”? Frankly, I have to ask what on earth they do with these documents when they get them, as they obviously have not been keeping an eye on Greece, Ireland or Portugal, because look at the mess they are in! They obviously get these documents, file them under “Too difficult”, and let those countries get on their merry way.

That is not good enough, and that is why I do not support this motion. I do not think we should be sending any documents to the Europeans. We should be saying, “If you want to see what we’re doing, look at our documents, which are all in the public domain, and where it is all confirmed.” I am fully supportive of our economic policies. Let us stick at it, and let us say no to Europe.

20:27

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I shall try to confine my remarks to three points on the report. First, the report rightly talks about imbalances in the economy. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) talked about serious systemic problems in the economy, and I agree that there are such serious systemic problems, albeit not, perhaps, those that the hon. Gentleman thinks there are.

On the first page of section 2, the report talks about debt and unsustainable levels of private sector debt. It is estimated that the UK has become the most indebted country in the world, and one sentence stands out:

“the spending plans set out in the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review were based on unsustainable revenue streams from the property boom and the financial sector.”

The report also talks about geographical and sectoral imbalances. Given the limited time available, I will be very brief, but let me say that I feel that far too little effort has been made to explain some of these imbalances through monetary factors. Printing money has been mentioned. The problem with printing money is that it creates patterns of economic activity that can last only as long as that supply of new money. When the new money comes to an end—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) talks about the multiplier effect, and, again, he has appealed to Keynes. I have to say to him that one thing I have learned over the past few years in setting up a think-tank and talking to economists is that it is really no good at all appealing to the authority of economists. There are always several schools of thought, and one of the things they are no good at is making accurate predictions—or, indeed, agreeing with one another. I am therefore afraid that that leads us to thinking for ourselves.

One of the most important factors to do with money is something long known, called the Cantillon effect: the fact that when money is created, it always arrives in one place in the economy first. So when banks are lending money into existence and into the housing sector, of course house prices rise, the financial sector is better off and the economy reorients itself to the south-east, where the banking sector is based. Although the report diagnoses the problem very satisfactorily, I am disappointed that the monetary policy framework consists of one short paragraph. We have learned tonight that there is an appetite in this House for a serious debate about monetary policy, and the monetary framework and how it has an impact on the real economy.

Secondly, and further to my point about new money creating unsustainable patterns of economic activity, sustainable investment requires prior production and real saving. That involves individuals, families and businesses consuming less than they produce to make real savings and invest them. Easy money will not create sustainable development and sustainable growth.

I wish to allow other hon. Members to speak, so I shall make one final point. I must ask to what end we are making this report. The lexicon has suddenly developed the term “convergence programme” and I am not sure where it came from. We have talked about Maastricht, but the term has certainly only just emerged into the public debate today. Why are we converging? With whom? To what end? I would be grateful for an answer.

20:31

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

I do not know how long I have before we move on to the wind-ups, if indeed we are having them.

[Mr Hoban]

indicated dissent.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

We are not having them, so I have 11 minutes—this is very exciting. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker for calling me last—it does sometimes happen that the first will come last and the last first.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Like under AV.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is a good point.

I had not intended to speak until we heard so eloquently from the shadow Minister about the virtues of reckless spending—it is tremendously important to stop that view of the world. We have to get back to some of the debate we had yesterday, which is why it is worth supporting the Government’s financial outlook position and policy. The reason for that is that the situation will be increasingly difficult. The economy was left to us in a terrible mess, in terms of not only the public finances, but private sector debt. The idea that this will easily be recovered by getting people to borrow again or banks to lend again is simply wrong.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is an hon. Friend on European matters but an hon. Gentleman on other matters, talked about getting more people to spend and taking money off the rich so that it can be spent by poorer people, who have a greater propensity to spend. That might be fine when the banks have money to lend, but we need to get the loans-to-deposit ratio for the banks as a whole in the United Kingdom below 100%, so that the banks have the liquidity to lend. Until we are able to do that, the idea that we can have debt-fuelled re-growth is simply mistaken.

On Government debt, I wish to return to a point made yesterday by the shadow Chief Secretary on Ricardian equivalence. She does not believe in Ricardian equivalence and I do not think that many people do in exactly the terms that Ricardo spelt it out. None the less, his underlying point was completely sound: the debt of Governments will ultimately have to be paid back through tax income raised. Intelligent electors realise that and know that if the economy is growing on the basis of Government debt, that will eventually be a charge to them. It might not affect their behaviour over one or two months, but over one, two or five years it certainly does. Economies that run indefinitely on debt find that their growth levels are neutered, and anybody who doubts that should look at the Japanese economy.

If we look at what has been going on in Japan since 1990, we see that the Japanese have increased their public sector debt from next to nothing to 200% of their GDP and that in that period they have had absolutely no growth—their economy has been stagnant. Their tax revenues were lower in 2010 than in 1985, because the level of growth in the Japanese economy has been so low.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Would my hon. Friend like to bring things up to date and comment on the US economy and the fact that the Americans decided to pour a lot of money in, found that that did not work and are now considering very strong austerity measures?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is relevant to look at the United States economy and at the gold price, which is up at $1,500 and not because more people are getting married and want wedding rings—although I congratulate my hon. Friend on his forthcoming nuptials and I am sure he is buying a large piece of gold for his future wife. The gold price has been so strong because the financial markets have lost confidence in the US dollar and because the American political forces—the President and Congress—have not been willing to tackle the deficit in the way that Her Majesty’s Government have done. The gold price in sterling terms has not risen by anything like so much, because people have confidence in what the Government are doing.

Normally, I take the view that there are two people in this world who should be obeyed. One is the Holy Father and the other is my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). When my hon. Friend speaks on European matters, he does so with a degree of infallibility that belongs to only one other living person, although I hasten to add that the remit of the Holy Father does not cover European matters. My views diverge slightly from those of my hon. Friend on one point: I think we should be proud of the document that Her Majesty’s Government are sending because of what the Government have got right. The situation they faced a year ago was desperately serious, needed urgent attention and had to be brought under control by their taking measures that are not necessarily popular.

It is important to emphasise that point because all Governments, when they take tough decisions, face gentlemen such as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). Over the next year or two, as people see the cuts coming through, it will be very tempting to listen to such voices and to think that perhaps there is an easier way and a land flowing with milk and honey that we have not yet found where we can borrow more money, where the financial markets will turn a blind eye, where we can spend money we do not have and not worry about our children and our grandchildren and where the banks will suddenly miraculously lend to bankrupt people to keep inefficient systems going. That is when those on the Treasury Bench must stiffen their sinews and summon the blood and not give way to those voices. At the moment, that is still relatively easy, because there has not been much coming through in the way of cuts. We have not seen the pain that will come from those difficult decisions. Now, however, we are sending our plan abroad. We are telling people not just in this country but in foreign countries of what we are doing and we should be proud of it because it is right. If we do what is right, the economy will begin to recover.

We on the Back Benches, in particular, must support those on the Front Benches when they do such things and when the critics from the other side appear to be doing well in the opinion polls. That is the point of maximum difficulty. Let us think of the great lady in 1981, when 360-odd economists wrote to The Times—a great newspaper with very fine editors—to suggest that the economic policy was wrong. That was two years in and it was the hardest point and that Government stuck to their guns, which led to the recovery we then had.

[Mr Davidson]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken movingly about the need for cuts and indeed for pain—pain that I suspect will not be felt by him. Pain will be felt by poor people whereas bankers, who are rich people, will feel no pain whatsoever. It is the unfairness of what the Government are doing that is causing so much opposition and bad feeling in the country and that is why the Liberals will suffer so badly in the AV referendum and the election.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The fundamental flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument is to think that there is a painless way out of a major crisis. It is simply a question of whether we deal with it now and ensure that the problem is resolved and that the economy can grow again or whether we delay it and have a much worse crisis later. The pain I was talking about was political pain for the Government as people notice the cuts. Our approach will reduce the pain for individuals because it will ensure that the economy is rebalanced sooner rather than later. That is the way to minimise pain—not thinking that there is a never-never land with no pain after we have lived on debt and incompetent Government policies for the past 13 years.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

We hear about fairness from the Opposition, but which does my hon. Friend feel is more unfair: bringing in higher taxes to get us out of this problem or letting the economy run away and allowing interest rates to rocket, thereby leaving thousands of people’s homes to be repossessed?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. This is one of the great virtues of the Government’s policy, which is being welcomed by the gilt market.

It is also worth noting what the late John Maynard Keynes said on such matters. Everyone in opposition quotes him and says that we should follow his policies but one of his policies, to quote the Chancellor, was that Governments should mend the roof while the sun shines and should build up reserves in the good times. My godfather interviewed John Maynard Keynes late in life and asked him, “What happens if Governments do not do this? What happens if they spend money in the good times?” to which Keynes replied, “If they do that I shall make a speech in the House of Lords and that will put them off.” Sadly, he was not here between 1997 and 2010 to make a speech in the other House to tell the other side of the policy failures when the economy was booming, so there was no money when the economy went wrong.

Time is short and I have a point to make about the presentation of the document to Europe. I hope that we have a Division because it will be delayed until after the deadline for sending in the papers. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will show their independent-mindedness and ensure that the House’s approval comes before the requirements of a foreign international body. It would be a great discourtesy to the House if the document were presented to the European Commission before the deferred Division that we are likely to have on Wednesday.

Question put.

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 5 May (Standing Order No. 41A).

Business without Debate

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Civil Contingencies

That the draft Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Amendment of List of Responders) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 28 February, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)

Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

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

Sexual Exploitation of Children

That this House takes note of the proposed draft Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA; supports the Government in welcoming the objectives of the draft Directive in raising the standards of protection from sexual exploitation for children across Europe; and supports the Government’s view that national law or practice in England and Wales fulfils the obligations in the draft Directive.—(Mr Vara.)

Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation (Committees)

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That the draft Employment and Support Allowance (Limited Capability for Work and Limited Capability for Work-Related Activity) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (S.I., 2011, No. 228) be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Mr Vara.)

petition

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

20:43

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The petition is from the users of Pleck library, Walsall. The petitioners wish to prevent the closure of Pleck library and therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to protect Pleck library for the future. There are 1,108 signatories to the petition in similar terms.

The petition states:

The Petition of users of Pleck Library, Walsall,

Declares that the Petitioners wish to prevent the closure of Pleck Library. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to protect Pleck Library for the future.

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

[P000916]

Press Self-regulation

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

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

20:43

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

I thank those hon. Members who have remained behind for this Adjournment debate, which is rather later than expected. There has been some speculation on the internet today that the debate would be about super-injunctions, so I must apologise to hon. Members who have turned up to be titillated by stories of the exotic adventures of premier league football players as they will be sorely disappointed. It is not about that; it is about the self-regulation of the press—hon. Members are leaving immediately!—and particularly about the Press Complaints Commission and the editors code of practice.

Mahatma Ghandi said:

“I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers.”

On that point, I disagree with the great man. If anyone is attending this Adjournment debate expecting an all-out assault on the printed media in the Chamber tonight, they should leave now. That is not my intention.

The printed news media, which from now on I shall refer to simply as the press, have the right to publish anything they want, so long as they do so fairly and accurately. The press is free to be partisan, although it must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. I will fight to ensure that it continues to enjoy those freedoms. I value the freedom of the press, the right of journalists to criticise or praise and the right of photographers to do their job, because the freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy.

There has always been tension between those who argue for press freedom and those concerned with a range of other issues, including the invasion of privacy, the restriction that complaints can be made only ex post facto, and the practice of newspapers paying for stories. The case for the defence of the press is more often than not that a story is in the public interest, but who decides what is in the public interest and how do they arrive at that decision?

The stand-off between self-regulation and statutory controls has been around for decades. A 1947 royal commission recommended in 1949 that a General Council of the Press should be created as a governing body to regulate behaviour, but it was not until the threat of statutory regulation was mooted again in 1953 that the General Council was set up. The friction continued and by the time of a second royal commission in 1962 the General Council had been the subject of considerable criticism. The General Council became the Press Council. This organisation stumbled on ineffectively until the Calcutt report in 1990, which recommended the formation of the Press Complaints Commission.

The PCC was originally given 18 months to prove that self-regulation could work, with the threat that if it failed to do so, a statutory system would be introduced. It passed that first test and has continued to evolve. The code has changed 30 times since its formation, the last revision taking place in January 2011 on the question of the prominence of corrections, an issue that I will touch on shortly. It is right for the press to work within a voluntary code, but evidence is emerging of problems that need to be addressed.

The most disconcerting issue is that these challenges are not new. They have been around for some years but no solutions have been found, despite genuine attempts to look for them. These problems have been parked, but I believe the industry must get into gear, move on and find solutions, for it would be a major advantage to the industry if, as well as being seen as a champion of self-regulation, it were seen in the vanguard of promoting and introducing change. That, more than anything, would consign to the dustbin of history the period I spoke of earlier, when the stick had to be used more often than the carrot. If we can achieve that, those who feel compelled to complain to the PCC will have more confidence in the system.

Right now there is a serious lack of confidence in the system. My views are based on my  personal experience of dealing with the PCC editors code of practice which, sadly, I have had to do in my short spell as a Member of Parliament. It will come as no surprise to Members in the Chamber this evening that  my first dalliances with the PCC were in relation to the first batch of expenses published by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

The code states:

“The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.”

Paragraph 1(i) states that the press must also

“take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information”.

One of my local newspapers printed a story stating that I had claimed expenses for hotels in London, while at the same time claiming rent for a London property. The story was trailed on page 1 and appeared prominently on page 9. If it had been true, it would have been a sensational story and helpful to the paper’s dwindling circulation, but it was a complete and utter falsehood that had been fabricated in an attempt to mislead readers and to destroy my reputation.

The newspaper then refused to publish the truth or to apologise, and I was forced to complain to the Press Complaints Commission. The PCC carried out a full, thorough and professional investigation and found that the code had been breached, but the adjudication that was eventually printed was placed at the bottom of page 9, much less prominently than the original article, and there was no trail on the front page. It was said to have been given due prominence by the PCC; I contend that it was given less prominence.

The PCC further took the view that, as the misleading words had appeared on page 9 and not on the front page, the page 9 adjudication, less prominently placed, was sufficient.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument in favour of press freedoms as the cornerstone of our democracy, but I am sure he will agree that with press freedom there should equally be press responsibility. I cite the example of the worst sporting disaster in British history, when 96 football supporters were killed at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989. In the immediate aftermath of that human tragedy, press reporting hit an all-time low. Despite the huge loss of life, that most despicable of men, Kelvin MacKenzie, used the front page of The Sun newspaper to peddle lies about Liverpool supporters under the banner headline “The Truth”. When the scurrilous claims that it made were proven to be—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This is an intervention, not a speech. Please, could the hon. Gentleman make it briefly?

[Steve Rotheram]

When the scurrilous claims that the newspaper made were proven to be entirely fallacious and without foundation, Kelvin MacKenzie refused to print a banner headline of a similar size and font, with the same page prominence that my hon. Friend talks about, stating quite simply that they had lied, something for which he and his former newspaper will never be forgiven in Liverpool. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that if editors were forced to give equal prominence to retractions, they would be think carefully before fabricating stories and besmirching the reputations of individuals or of great cities such as Liverpool?

[Mr McCann]

I agree. My trials and tribulations with the press pale into insignificance when compared with the grievous claims that that publication made against the people of Liverpool. I agree wholeheartedly, and I am going to deal in some detail with the issue of prominence, because it has to be covered.

The issue of prominence has to be addressed by the PCC. It is currently parked, but it needs to be moved on, otherwise—and I do not say this lightly—it might have to be clamped by some sort of statutory mechanism. If newspapers get it wrong, ex post facto a complaint is made and that complaint is upheld, the correction must be given equal prominence to the original story. The very least that an individual or organisation can expect, if their integrity or actions have been inaccurately called into question, is that the apology should be of the same size, weight and prominence as the article that besmirched them. That is exactly the point that my hon. Friend makes. For those who argue that the same end result can be achieved by negotiation, let negotiation be the driving force of the settlement but let the persuader of “equal prominence” be available.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

When the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which I have the honour to chair, examined press standards, we certainly looked at the issue of due prominence. I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that, when an adverse ruling is reached by the PCC, it is vital that it appear with the same due prominence as the original article. The PCC in response suggested to us that the failure to do so would in itself constitute a potential breach of the code. If the hon. Gentleman felt that the adjudication did not receive the proper prominence that it should have, I should be interested to know whether he went back to the PCC and made a further complaint against the newspaper.

[Mr McCann]

The hon. Gentleman will not believe this, but the newspaper tried to editorialise the adjudication. It was forced to reprint it the following week because I immediately complained to the PCC that the words of its adjudication had been changed.

On the hon. Gentleman’s other points, I should say that, yes, I did contact the PCC and spoke to Stephen Abell, the chief executive. I made the very point to him. He said that because the misleading words were not on page 1, the adjudication could not be on page 1. I said, “Hold on a second. The page 1 trail took people to the misleading article. Why could there not have been a page 1 trail taking people to the PCC adjudication?” Surely that would be a fair and reasonable way to deal with my complaint and the subsequent adjudication.

Another feature that needs to be addressed is the letters pages of newspapers. I discovered that letters pages are also covered by the editors code of practice, so the same rules that cover articles in newspapers also cover letters; those letters, like everything else in the paper, are the editor’s responsibility. He or she is the sole arbiter.

In the normal chronology of events, newspapers print stories and, post-publication, they receive comments from readers. When I was the subject of the misleading article that I referred to earlier, the same edition of the newspaper contained a letter attacking me in the same way as the so-called news story. In my opinion, that was an unlikely coincidence.

To add insult to insult, the author was protected under the guise of anonymity; all I know about my so-called critic is “name and address withheld”. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a trusting fellow as you very well know. I have tried hard over the years to find the best in people wherever I go, but my sixth sense told me that that was a stitch-up. I made a complaint to the PCC about the veracity of the letter, only to be told that because the writer wanted to remain anonymous no investigation could take place.

If the PCC thinks that its position on this matter is justified in any way, it is seriously out of touch with reality. If I do not know who wrote the letter, how do I know that it was not a political opponent seeking to make mischief? How do I know that it was not a journalist pretending to be a member of the public? How do I know that the letter was genuine?

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has raised an incredibly interesting point about the letters pages of newspapers. However, there are also anonymous contributions to newspapers’ online presence; people can anonymise the comments that they make online. Very rarely do the newspapers have the resources or time to look at those in detail and deal with issues against an individual or organisation. Does my hon. Friend think that that aspect should come under a statutory code as well?

[Mr McCann]

Some might think that I am foolish to hold this debate, because they might think that taking on the press on any subject whatever is not a good idea. I think that it is better to take small steps rather than large ones. If we can deal with the first two issues of prominence and the letters pages, we can then move on to deal with some of the content on the internet.

For a code to work, it must operate in the unoccupied territory between the press and the consumer. The code must be able to interrogate complaints openly and fairly, yet this element of the system does not allow that to happen. The PCC administers the code; the editors code of practice committee is its keeper. That committee meets periodically to take account of public and—crucially—parliamentary comment, as well as reports from the PCC itself. The purpose of the committee is to allow the code to develop and respond quickly to changing practices and technology in the industry and to the concerns of readers.

The two issues that I have raised are not new; they have been around for some time, yet no solutions have been brought forward.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on this Adjournment debate. The greater public perhaps regard MPs talking about their experiences with the media as self-indulgent. I am one of the Members who can speak with authority as one who has been maligned time after time by page after page of pure lies, but I have never gone to the PCC, which I regard as a toothless tiger.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on this debate. The issue is not about MPs because we rarely feature in the local press, which is full from front to back cover with stories about individuals in our constituencies. They do not know how to go to the PCC or how to complain. They try to complain but do not have their complaints answered in any way. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what he is proposing tonight would benefit those people far more than it would us? We are, after all, here to represent our constituents, who suffer far more than we Members do. We can decide not to bother because we know that the PCC is a toothless tiger. Our constituents, however, may have expectations that will be thwarted.

[Mr McCann]

Let me say to the hon. Lady, in the words of Bill Clinton, that I feel her pain, because she and I have been in the same place. The code is meant to protect everyone—not only people like us in public positions, but our families. My daughter had problems at school because people were suggesting that her dad had acted inappropriately. That is wrong. My family is not in public life; I am, and I have broad shoulders and thick skin. We have to put in place a code that ensures that everyone is protected. What is wrong with people standing up when they make a mistake and saying, “I’ve got it wrong”, and the mistake being remedied in the same way that the original story and besmirchment took place?

These problems need to be resolved, and I hope that this short debate can at least put the issues into the public domain. The press have enormous power: they have the power to make the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent. With that great power, they have massive responsibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) said. For the PCC editors code of practice to be effective, it must be able properly to scrutinise the press. Fairness must run through the code like the lettering through a stick of rock. I found this quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt that I thought very appropriate:

“If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free.”

If this debate makes a pinprick of a contribution to that cause, it has served its purpose. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that I have made and join me in pressing the Press Complaints Commission to deal with these two big issues.

21:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), whom I congratulate on securing this Adjournment debate. I am also grateful to have heard the contributions made by other hon. Members in expressing their concerns about press reporting.

As the hon. Gentleman said from the outset, this debate is not an opportunity to attack the press or to lose sight of the importance of a free press. It is worth recalling that more than a third of the world’s people live in countries where there is no press freedom. It is therefore important to emphasise that however the press may transgress, a free press is fundamental to our democracy. The independence of the press from state intervention is also fundamental to our democracy, and that is why this Government and previous Governments have always fought shy of statutory regulation of the press. However, the press are not immune from criticism, as we have heard from several hon. Members, and this makes the work of the Press Complaints Commission as important today as it has ever been. It is worth remembering that, as the hon. Gentleman said, the PCC covers not only Fleet street but the 1,300 regional and local newspapers. As he informed the House, the PCC was set up in 1991 to replace the failing Press Council, so this debate gives us an opportunity to celebrate its 20th anniversary.

The PCC was designed to deal with complaints from members of the public based on the terms of an agreed code of practice. Since it was established, it has handled tens of thousands of complaints and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the code has been amended more than 30 times. The PCC has also sought to expand its remit to more than just the handling of complaints: for example, it now runs a training programme for journalists and journalism students. It advocates on behalf of individuals to prevent intrusive stories appearing in the press—it is worth recalling that it can help individuals before a story is actually printed—and deals with the problem of media scrums by communicating with the whole press and broadcast industry as a story is breaking. It is right that it has evolved as an organisation and that the process of evolution continues.

Public confidence in the PCC’s work is vital. To maintain that confidence, not only must it be effective and robust; it must be seen to be effective and robust.

[Nadine Dorries]

Will the Minister say how many times the PCC has been involved in a story before it has been printed and how many media scrums it has assisted in dealing with?

[Mr Vaizey]

I am afraid that I do not have those figures to hand, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend is informed of them tomorrow by e-mail or letter.

It is my experience that the PCC has a strong appreciation of the need to be seen to be effective and robust. It spreads the word on what it does and what it can do. It seeks to be transparent in how it works and is extremely helpful in providing advice. It is always willing to discuss decisions and the reasons behind them. Of course, that does not mean that it will always reach what the complainant sees as the right decision. We have to be realistic and understand that that would be the case with any system, whether statutory or self-regulatory.

The PCC can and should constantly scrutinise how it works. It should listen to what others have to say, respond to them and act on the feedback. It will certainly have received significant feedback from tonight’s debate. I know that it receives useful and constructive criticism from other sources.

[Mr McCann]

I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation, a lot of which I was aware of. Will he answer one point? I have had direct discussions with Stephen Abell and Scott Langham, and when I put these points to them, they do not say that they will look at the problem and try to resolve it, but argue for the status quo. It is surely wrong that they absorb the information that they get, but do not do anything about it. We have to get to a position where they do. As I mentioned in my speech, these problems have been around for a long time. When are we going to deal with them?

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. I will come on to how the PCC deals with criticism and recommendations of how it should change its ways.

As the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, the code has been changed more than 30 times. I will give one example, which may draw another intervention. One way in which the PCC is scrutinised in this House is by the excellent work of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It is good that the Chair of that Committee is in the Chamber tonight. I gather that the PCC places great weight on its recommendations and has adopted many of the recommendations from its last report, the thrust of which was about making the organisation a more public-facing body.

Before I come on to the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, it is important to say that although the press pays for the PCC, it should not be seen as a creature of the press. The Select Committee commented on that problem with self-regulation in 2003. As a result, the PCC changed the balance of the commission so that there is a two-thirds majority of lay people. The PCC has announced three appointments recently, who will take up their posts soon: Lord Grade, the former chairman of the BBC, Michael Smyth, the chairman of Public Concern at Work who retired recently from the law firm Clifford Chance, and Jeremy Roberts, who is soon to retire as a permanent judge at the central criminal court and the Court of Appeal.

There is no room for complacency, and that starts with the code itself. One benefit of a non-statutory approach is the flexibility that such a code offers. The PCC would tell me its code committee is able to move quickly to incorporate issues of public concern, and that anyone is free to contact the committee to ask that it includes coverage of any issue.

The PCC holds an annual consultation so that the public can suggest changes, and Members of Parliament, including the hon. Gentleman, are free to raise concerns about the coverage of the code. I am told by the PCC committee that all proposals are fully considered and answered, but he has said that he has advocated a change and been met in response with an argument against that change and for the status quo. I was obviously not privy to that conversation, but I suggest to him that he make a formal proposal to the PCC for a change to the code as part of the annual consultation, to get on the record from the PCC why it feels that a change from due prominence to equal prominence would not be the right way forward and that the code deals adequately with the provenance of readers’ letters.

[Mr McCann]

May I ask a direct question, then? Will the Government support the plea for those changes?

[Mr Vaizey]

I think it is very important that the Government do not take a view. That sounds mealy-mouthed, but I have been keen to stress that the system is self-regulatory, and no Government—not this Government, and not the previous Government—want statutory regulation of the press. It would be the thin end of the wedge if Ministers recommended specific changes to the code.

[Mr McCann]

rose—

[Mr Vaizey]

May I finish this point before the hon. Gentleman intervenes again?

It is open to hon. Members to raise the issue in the House, and of course it is open to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to examine the PCC and make recommendations. In a self-regulatory system, individuals should be able to put their case, whether they are Members of Parliament or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) pointed out, members of the public.

[Mr Whittingdale]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the revelations that have streamed out over the past six months have probably led to a greater loss of confidence in the self-regulation of the press than there has been at any previous time? I strongly support self-regulation, but if the public are to regain confidence in that self-regulation, the PCC will have to be seen to have stronger powers. My Committee strongly recommended that it was not sufficient for the PCC simply to require a newspaper to publish an adjudication. In cases of serious breaches of the code, there should be some sanction available to the PCC to demonstrate that the breach was unacceptable and to ensure that newspapers take seriously the requirement to abide by the code.

[Mr Vaizey]

I have run out of time, but I would say in conclusion that the PCC and the press will have heard hon. Members’ remarks in the debate. The Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will be aware that the PCC is conducting its own review following the phone hacking allegations. As well as being a criminal offence, phone hacking is of course a breach of the code. The PCC is reviewing the matter to see whether it can make its recommendations stronger, but it will have heard the important—

21:13

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Division 258

Ayes: 287

---

Conservative: 238
Liberal Democrat: 43
Labour: 3
Independent: 2

Noes: 20

---

Conservative: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Labour: 4
Plaid Cymru: 2
Scottish National Party: 2
Green Party: 1

Petitions

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Petitions

Wednesday 27 April 2011

Bus Service (Croyland, Wellingborough)

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Petitions

The Humble Petition of residents of the Croyland area of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, and the surrounding areas,

Sheweth,

That the proposed loss or reduction of public transport routes within the Croyland Ward of Wellingborough will significantly disadvantage local residents, in particular the elderly, disabled and young; and that the potential loss of the W3 bus service will leave many residents with no way of getting to the town centre.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Transport to liaise with Northamptonshire County Council and the Borough Council of Wellingborough to find a resolution that will lead to the maintenance of an acceptable level of public transport in Croyland.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.—[Presented by Mr Peter Bone, Official Report, 5 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 1016.]

[P000915]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:

The Government continue to provide significant funds for local bus services, in Wellingborough and elsewhere: through bus subsidy for operators, via the national concessionary travel entitlement, which was protected in the budget, and through general support for local authorities.

However, it is not the role of central Government to determine which non-commercial bus services should be supported by local transport authorities. These are decisions which must be made locally, in consultation with the public.

I recognise that local councils are making difficult decisions in the light of reductions in revenue support from central Government, but they have almost total discretion about which services to value when budgeting for the future. Certain councils, such as East Riding of Yorkshire Council, have taken the decision to protect bus services and to make efficiencies elsewhere instead.

In many areas, community transport can play a valuable role in preventing isolation amongst the young, elderly and disabled. I therefore strongly encourage local councils to work in partnership with operators and local communities to examine how more flexible services might be provided. To facilitate this, my Department recently announced a £10 million fund for community transport in rural areas. Northamptonshire County Council will receive a £209,995 share of this fund, as well as six days of consultancy resource from the Community Transport Association.

Isham Bypass (Wellingborough)

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Petitions

The Humble Petition of residents of the Isham area of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, and the surrounding areas,

Sheweth,

That for forty years there has been a need for a by-pass of the village of Isham; that the recent increase in housing and traffic has led to the environmental conditions for the residents of the main road in Isham being intolerable; and that the lack of a by-pass has caused unacceptable levels of noise and air pollution, safety issues for pedestrians and motorists and structural damage to properties.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Transport to liaise with Northamptonshire County Council and the Borough Council of Wellingborough to find a resolution that will lead to the reconsideration of the cancellation of the Isham By-Pass and a high priority given to its construction.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.—[Presented by Mr Peter Bone, Official Report, 5 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 1016.]

[P000914]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:

The proposed A509 Isham bypass, promoted by Northamptonshire county council, was identified as a priority for funding within the previous regional funding allocation funding process. The scheme is proposed to ease congestion on the A590 through Isham by construction of a 4.3km dual carriageway to the west of the village.

The Secretary of State for Transport announced on 10 June 2010 a suspension of activity on major schemes as part of the spending review process. On 26 October 2010 he announced the process for prioritising funding for inherited major schemes following the outcome of the spending review. The Isham bypass was placed in the “Pre-Qualification Pool” of schemes on which a preliminary assessment would be undertaken following receipt of a revised funding offer, which was subsequently received from Northamptonshire county council. On 4 February the Secretary of State for Transport announced his decision on the pre-qualification schemes. Eleven schemes, including Isham bypass, were not selected for inclusion in the further funding round. In the case of Isham bypass this was because the promoters had not proposed any reduction in the amount of funding they intended to request from the Department for Transport. This compared with an overall reduction on the call on departmental funds from other schemes amounting to a saving of 42%.

It will be for the promoter to decide the next steps on this scheme. The process for providing future funding for major local authority transport schemes has yet to be agreed. Promoters will therefore need to consider, in consultation with the business community and local residents, whether further investment in the development of this scheme would be in the best interests of local council tax payers. Further development costs would be at the promoters own risk.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 27 April 2011

[John Robertson in the Chair]

Zimbabwe

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this opportunity to discuss the political situation in Zimbabwe. The Minister will know that for many years I have been visiting Zimbabwe, and have done so during the current serious political crisis. I was there during the dark days of Operation Drive Out Rubbish, when hundreds of thousands of homes and small businesses were demolished, and many people, particularly trade union activists, were singled out for beating and arrest.

I visited Zimbabwe again last month, and I was pleased to be accompanied by two other members of the all-party group on Zimbabwe, of which I am pleased to be the chairman. We were there particularly to see what was happening with the parliamentary situation. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who will contribute to the debate, was returning to Zimbabwe for the first time since 1979. His background as a trained election agent was valuable when we looked at political processes in Zimbabwe.

Lord Joffe was the other member of the delegation, and has an eminent record in southern Africa. He was the defence lawyer for Nelson Mandela when he faced the death penalty at the Rivonia trial, and defended many other leaders in the struggle against apartheid. He also defended a very young Jacob Zuma, so he is no stranger to political oppression. He was chairman of Oxfam at one time, so he has seen development and aid close up in many parts of the world. The delegation was thus very strong.

We came away from our visit with many anxieties, particularly about harassment of parliamentarians, but I also felt hopeful about Zimbabwe’s future. Given the high-profile events connected with Parliament in Zimbabwe during our stay, it was appropriate that our visit was funded by the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. That was the first of my many visits during the past 10 years that was funded. I am grateful for that, and pay tribute to the CPA, particularly Andrew Tuggey, for continuing to engage with Zimbabwe, even though Mugabe withdrew from the Commonwealth in 2003. It is very much in line with the Commonwealth principles set out in Harare and Millbrook in New Zealand that such engagement continues. I hope that before long, Zimbabwe will be able to rejoin the Commonwealth family. I know that many Zimbabwean Members of Parliament are waiting for that to happen.

Despite the hope, there are huge difficulties to be overcome. When the inclusive Government was formed, and particularly now with events in other parts of the world, especially in north Africa, attention was and is being diverted from what is happening in southern Africa, and there is a risk that that will continue. Mugabe and his strategists in ZANU-PF have for decades relied on a combination of regional intransigence and international indifference to neutralise anyone who opposes their monopoly on power. I am glad that the UK Government have not allowed Zimbabwe to fall off their agenda, and I pay tribute to the tremendously hard work and commitment shown by the Minister with responsibility for Africa, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who, unfortunately, cannot be here today, but we are delighted to have the Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), here to respond to the debate. The Under-Secretary has followed in the footsteps of his predecessors in recent years.

We are also being well served by our ambassador to Zimbabwe, Mark Canning. He and his team could not have done more to make our visit useful and productive. The Minister will understand that because we have had conversations about Europe, and he knows how pleased I was to see our flag being proudly flown not just at the embassy well above the European Union flag, but from the ambassador’s car as it drove through Harare. That was an important symbol of the United Kingdom’s continuing engagement in trying to help that country.

I also pay tribute to Dave Fish, head of the Department for International Development in Zimbabwe. He has won huge admiration in the country for his understanding of the context in which our UK aid programme is delivered. It is not an easy job, and we saw at first hand his outstanding commitment to getting it right.

We witnessed a real unity of purpose binding together the courageous men and women who are at the forefront of the struggle to bring reform and progress to Zimbabwe, whether they are active in politics or in civil society. Above all, it is a tribute to the people of Zimbabwe and those who have led the struggle for democracy that the process of transition is still on track, and that the long march of reform is continuing. It is important to remember that despite appalling provocation, the Movement for Democratic Change has remained a peaceful political party, and has not reacted in the way that Mugabe presumably wanted it to react in the face of the tremendous violence and intimidation.

Of course, the vast majority of Zimbabweans would like the process to move more quickly, as would members of the all-party group. We are impatient, and we wish that reforms could be implemented much more speedily. It is frustrating to see opportunities being missed, and people’s lives passing by with promises unfulfilled. The process is fragile, and there are still powerful elements who want it to stall or be reversed. They are from the old political establishment, and have a vested interest in maintaining a system that makes them rich, and consigns the mass of the population to disease, destitution and dependency. It is a shameful irony that those who shouted loudest about independence and sovereignty and condemned the role of the British colonial Government have driven their once-proud country to hunger and handouts.

There is still massive resistance to political and economic reform from those in the political and military establishments. They see their personal position of wealth and privilege threatened. We were all angry to see the blatant dishonesty of those who are intent on protecting their own power. It was tragic to drive through Zimbabwe and see factories lying idle, farmland lying uncultivated, and the people who should be working them cast aside and unemployed.

During our visit last month we went to Chegutu, and I pay special tribute to two people from that area who have helped to show the world not just what has gone wrong in Zimbabwe, but what can be done to make things better. I am sure that many hon. Members saw the striking film “Mugabe and the White African”. The all-party Zimbabwe group arranged a screening at Westminster when the film was launched nearly two years ago. It features Ben Freeth and his father-in-law, Mike Campbell, and their attempts to keep farming at Mount Carmel in Chegutu. ZANU-PF bigwigs with their armed thugs were determined to take control of the farm, and to drive Ben and Mike off the land, even though it had been purchased legally in the relatively recent past, and with no expression of interest from the Zimbabwe Government.

Mike Campbell decided to challenge the seizure of his farm through the courts not only in Zimbabwe, but going right up to those of the region, and to the South African Development Community tribunal. Bringing a court case in Zimbabwe requires courage, and Mike Campbell, his wife Angela, and son-in-law Ben all suffered dreadful beatings and violence for daring to challenge ZANU-PF. Their farmhouse was ransacked and burned, and the police failed to take any action against the perpetrators. The SADC tribunal ruled that the actions of the Government of Zimbabwe were illegal. At that point the lawyers representing the Zimbabwe Government promptly walked out and declared that they did not recognise the tribunal, although for weeks they had appeared before it, argued their case and delayed the process by asking for adjournments.

The response to the SADC tribunal ruling showed up Mugabe and his ZANU-PF colleagues and demonstrated that their fight is not only with reformers in Zimbabwe, not only with the British Government, and not only with the Commonwealth and the EU, but with anyone who dares to stand up to their violent and destructive policies. ZANU-PF’s intransigent and dishonest response to the tribunal helped leaders of SADC Governments to recognise the true nature of what they are up against with the old guard in Zimbabwe. Sadly, Mike Campbell paid a high price for his battle, and just three weeks ago he died. He never really recovered from the beatings he suffered at the hands of Mugabe’s thugs, but I hope that his death will not be in vain.

We were also able to visit the constituency of Chegutu West, and its member of Parliament, Prince Matibe. He is the second person from that area to whom I want to pay tribute. He is an example of a promising young generation of Zimbabweans who are determined to play their full part in restoring Zimbabwe and making the country work again. They want a Zimbabwe that can stand proudly on its own two feet, feed its people and provide them with jobs. It was uplifting to travel around that constituency with the young MP, and hear not only what he wanted to achieve for the people of his home town, but to see some seeds of hope. Despite having slender resources, and in the face of constant harassment and violence, Prince Matibe and his colleagues in the MDC have worked on projects that are making a real difference to the people of Chegutu. We visited a newly built primary school for which funds have been raised, and we met the headmaster and some of the children. We also met the local councillor, a member of ZANU-PF who praised the project and, I am glad to say, was fully engaged with it. We visited a new market established by the MDC so that local people can buy and sell local produce. It was a small but confident beginning towards reviving a town where the biggest local employer, a cotton ginnery that a few years ago employed 5,000 people, now stands empty and derelict.

We had a full morning’s meeting with many Zimbabwean MPs, and we were struck by the fact that they described themselves as “engines for development” in their constituencies. As Lord Joffe pointed out, there are not many countries where MPs would describe themselves in that way. One thing that came to light during our discussions with MPs, particularly those from the MDC, was that they did not feel sufficiently engaged with or consulted by the implementing agencies of aid programmes that are funded by donor Governments, including the UK. Those responsible for aid programmes are of course anxious for their work not to be seen as interfering in any way with the internal politics of the places in which they operate. However, there can be dangers if local circumstances are not acknowledged.

Normally, aid agencies will consult local officials who are seen as being professional rather than political, but that is not the case in Zimbabwe. A deliberate ploy of ZANU-PF has been to politicise every level of life and government in Zimbabwe, meaning that district officers and officials in health care and education are apt to represent the views of ZANU-PF. To counter that, it is important that elected MPs and councillors who have a mandate from the people be consulted. Otherwise, there is always the risk that the views of ZANU-PF are fed into the consultation by the officials, and the alternative MDC view is excluded because it is regarded as political. That happens at the openings of new aid projects, for example, when the elected MPs would not be invited because they are seen as political. Those present are the officials, who are seen as not political, despite actually being even more political than the MPs but without a mandate. I know that Dave Fish took that on board as a result of some of our discussions with MPs.

The difference in the experiences of MDC MPs and ZANU-PF MPs was brought home to us very starkly. Although ZANU-PF representatives seem to be above the law, MDC MPs are frequently arrested and detained in custody. One of those was Shepherd Mushonga, who is an MDC MP for the Mazowe Central constituency and chair of the parliamentary legal committee. We met him just after his release on bail and he is a lovely, cheerful man. The charge against him was that he had stolen $700-worth of excess quarry stones donated for building a nurses home in his constituency, and used them to build a primary school. There is a widely held perception that the rise in arrests of MPs was part of the plan to change the voting strength of the parties in the House of Assembly and facilitate the election of a ZANU-PF Speaker.

The Zimbabwean Speaker currently holds the chairmanship of the Southern African Development Community Parliamentary Forum. ZANU-PF does not like the fact that the MDC Speaker chairs that body because it plays a crucial role on behalf of SADC in planning, deploying and reporting on election monitoring programmes for the whole region.

We arrived in Zimbabwe on 13 March. Three days earlier, the Supreme Court had ruled by a majority of three to two that the election of the MDC chairman, Lovemore Moyo, as Speaker of the House of Assembly in 2008—he has been Speaker since then—was null and void. That ruling overturned an earlier High Court decision that declared the election valid. The Supreme Court decided that, of the 208 MPs voting, six had displayed their marked papers before depositing them in the ballot box, and that the secrecy of the ballot had been compromised. That seems a peculiar decision. On that basis, a few voters in one of our general elections could display their marked voting papers before depositing them in the ballot box, and render the entire election null and void. The ballot box is secret to protect voters. If people choose to disclose how they are voting, that is their business.

The good news, however, is that after a period of having no Speaker and no Parliament, Lovemore Moyo was reinstated as Speaker of the House of Assembly— many hon. Members will have met him when he visited this country. The voting figures showed that he had been backed not only by colleagues in the mainstream MDC and the tiny breakaway faction, but by some MPs from ZANU-PF. That shows that the longing for reform and for a country that works is spreading to the ranks of Mugabe’s own party, and we came across that attitude in some ZANU-PF MPs whom we met. Although they were less robust in their support for democratic processes than their MDC counterparts, we gained the clear impression that they too are weary of living in a country that is paralysed by failed policies and an intransigent leadership. Whether he really believed it or whether he said it simply as part of the diktat that is continually put forward, it was depressing to hear one ZANU-PF MP state clearly that Zimbabwe is in such a mess because of sanctions, which are stopping even medical supplies entering the country. That is complete and utter nonsense, but that MP believed it with a fervour that could have come only from total indoctrination.

Another MDC MP under arrest while we were in Harare—again, someone known to many hon. Members—was Elton Mangoma. He is the Minister responsible for energy and power development and the co-negotiator with Tendai Biti in the talks on the implementation of the global political agreement, facilitated by President Zuma of South Africa under the auspices of SADC. His arrest and detention in custody not only had a serious impact on the working of the inclusive Government, but exacerbated the already protracted delays in making progress with Zuma’s facilitation team on a road map towards the full implementation of the GPA. While we were in Harare, Elton was granted bail, but he was then rearrested on another charge. When he was granted bail, the state prosecutors invoked section 121 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, which suspends bail orders for seven days, thus allowing him to be kept in detention. He was subsequently rearrested on a further charge, but that time the attempts of the state prosecutor to deny him bail were dismissed by the High Court.

There is an attempt by ZANU-PF and the establishment to smear MDC MPs, and it is continually suggested that they lack the capacity to be Ministers or form a Government. That line is less strong now, but over the years it has unfortunately been picked up and repeated far too easily by some of the eminent academics involved in commentary on Africa. That is dangerous. There are many capable and talented men and women in the MDC, and if we look at what ZANU-PF has done to the country over the past 31 years, it is ridiculous to say that the MDC could not do better. The economic progress that has been made since Tendai Biti became Minister of Finance is encouraging, and it was such a change from my previous visits to see well-stocked shops. However, until there is the rule of law, an end to violence and intimidation and free and fair elections under a new constitution, investment will be scarce.

It is amazing what can be achieved with scarce resources. Paul Madzore, another energetic and impressive MDC MP, showed us around his constituency of Glen View South, which is a high-density suburb on the south-eastern outskirts of Harare. We were warmly welcomed by the staff and pupils of Glen View high school, which has brilliant O-level and A-level results—the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport suggested that perhaps one of our Education Ministers might like to visit that school. Despite having hundreds of children and very few resources, that school’s results are fantastic, and I am sure we could learn something from it.

Unfortunately, the new textbooks paid for by taxpayers in the UK and donated to Zimbabwean schools via the Education Ministry had not yet arrived at either of the two schools that we visited. However, the good manners and smart uniforms were, despite all the poverty, a delight to see. What a shame that for many pupils, their hard work and dedication will not be rewarded by jobs when they finish their education.

I could list all the MPs who have been arrested, but I will not go into all the details. I will simply say that just a month before our visit, another MDC MP, Douglas Mwonzora, who is co-chairman of the constitutional parliamentary committee, or COPAC, was arrested outside Parliament. He had gone to the police to make a formal complaint after a meeting that he held in his constituency was disrupted by a gang sent by a ZANU-PF MP, but ended up being charged himself. His arrest clearly had a serious impact on the timetable for the COPAC consultation programme for a new constitution. That consultation is vital under the GPA and must be completed before new parliamentary or presidential elections can be held.

That fact was strongly reinforced shortly before our visit, following the claim by President Mugabe that he would call for elections whether or not a new constitution was ready. He was contradicted by Marius Fransman, South Africa’s Deputy Minister of International Relations and Co-operation, who said that

“any calls for elections without the finalisation of the constitution-making process are in breach of the GPA as well as the constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment number 19, which gives legitimacy to the inclusive government.”

A number of people were arrested, including Munyaradzi Gwisai and 45 other social and human rights activists, who had simply brought people together to watch some of the videos coming in about the uprising in Egypt and revolts in Tunisia. They were arrested because watching those videos was apparently a move to subvert a constitutionally elected Government. We can therefore see the difficulties that people have when they want to organise.

The fighting talk that we have heard from ZANU-PF about clamping down mercilessly on plotters of any revolts is entrenched in the thinking of the ZANU-PF old guard. Just this week, Stan Mudenge, who is a member of the ZANU-PF politburo and the Minister of Higher and Tertiary Education, vowed to search out all the people who vote against ZANU-PF and mete out retribution. Addressing Mugabe directly, he said:

“President, I want to tell you that some people in my constituency have rebelled and they voted against you in 2008. They are now supporting the puppet party MDC but I want to say that we will fish them out and deal with them until they come back to us and do things our way.”

He went on to threaten:

“We have a very forceful and vigorous youth wing and our members of the armed forces who will make sure that no one loses direction again like what happened three years ago.”

There is clearly a severe attempt to intimidate and frighten people in the lead-up to what eventually will be, we hope, free and fair elections.

That sort of talk and those threats show how important it is for international monitors to be in place well in advance of the next election. It underlines the fact that they should be widely deployed during polling and that they should remain on the ground afterwards to observe the aftermath and to deter any attempts at retribution.

It is good to see that South Africa also recognises that. Deputy President Motlanthe recently said:

“The conception is that these elections would be a watershed like the 1980 elections that happened when the old Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. There would be a need for an international presence of the same scale, to ensure a bridge with the past”.

He went on to say:

“The next elections are viewed by all parties as watershed elections, and therefore they have to prepare for them thoroughly to ensure that there will not be any more violence or intimidation during the course of the election campaign.”

I know that monitors and observers cannot simply be imposed on a country, but as British taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for much of the electoral infrastructure, I hope that the Minister will agree that, working with SADC, we should surely be setting some conditions now in the framing of the electoral road map. Can he tell us what exactly the current state of affairs is as far as election monitors from donor nations are concerned? UK taxpayers have very gladly given substantial amounts of money to provide ever increasing aid to Zimbabwe, but they cannot be expected to do that without some freedom of access to see how these important affairs inside the country are being run, so we do need to put conditions on some of our aid.

I am reassured that a new consensus is developing in SADC that the crisis in Zimbabwe is dragging down the region and compromising social stability and economic progress. As many hon. Members know, I was a great critic of the previous President of South Africa, Mbeki, because of how little he seemed to do or how little he seemed to care, but President Zuma has adopted a robust approach and the recent SADC troika meeting in Zambia seems to have made it clear to Mugabe finally that he can no longer get away with his old tricks of duplicity and reneging on undertakings. Indeed, Mugabe was very angry about what he was told. I hope that the Minister will give us his assessment of current attitudes in Governments throughout the SADC region and more widely in the African Union.

In his report to the summit, President Zuma said that it was time for SADC to “speak with one voice” in impressing on all the parties concerned the fact that the situation can no longer be tolerated. He said:

“The focus that Zimbabwean parties have placed on elections without creating the necessary climate for those elections is an unfortunate sidetrack.”

He referred to delays in reform of the mass media, saying that there was a “lack of political will” to implement reform.

I hope that Zuma and his SADC colleagues will pay equal attention to the need for security sector reform. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what we in the UK are doing to support SADC in that important area, because historically we played an important role in the integration of the Zimbabwean army after independence and I am sure that at more junior levels there is still a desire for the police and military to resume a professional rather than a political role.

The Joint Operations Command is composed of the high command of the military, the police and the Central Intelligence Organisation. Many regard it as a de facto ruling junta with the ability to overrule and countermand any decisions of Ministers that run counter to the vested political and business interests of the ZANU-PF political and military oligarchy.

During our visit, we were honoured to meet Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai shortly before he left on a tour to meet Heads of Government in the SADC region, including President Banda of Zambia, who chairs the SADC troika on politics, defence and security, as well as leaders of Botswana, Swaziland and Mozambique. On his return, Prime Minister Tsvangirai said:

“While I was away in the last four days, it appears the civilian authority is no longer in charge and dark and sinister forces have engaged in a hostile takeover of running the affairs of the country, with or without the blessing of some leaders of the civilian authority.”

That underlines the fragility of the situation and the real threat to progress, particularly in the light of the threats made just this week by ZANU-PF Ministers such as Mudenge. It shows why President Zuma is anxious about the threat of serious upheavals in the region following the trend that we have seen in north Africa.

We in the UK have close ties with Zimbabwe. There are social, political and diplomatic links. Despite all the talk of Africa’s new connections with China, India, Russia and other parts of the world, it is to the UK that Zimbabweans come for asylum. It is in the UK that Zimbabweans feel most at home if they need to live or work away from southern Africa. The diaspora have a crucial role to play in the new Zimbabwe, and I hope that we are giving the diaspora in the UK as much help and support as we gave those in exile from South Africa under apartheid.

I am very proud of the role that successive Administrations in the UK have played as advocates for change in Zimbabwe. The international response would have been far more feeble without resolute leadership from successive Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries. I think that the EU continued with its sanctions partly because the UK Government played a very important role in those discussions. I am glad that in this Parliament we have been able to play a part in keeping Zimbabwe in the spotlight and in giving a voice to the oppressed people of Zimbabwe. Many of those who lead the struggle for democracy and freedom there have given me their heartfelt thanks for the way in which their plight has been kept on the agenda in the House over recent years. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about our current engagement with our counterparts in the region.

North Africa and the middle east may be in the headlines, but the UK has a particular responsibility for Zimbabwe and our job as parliamentarians is to ensure that the Government continue to give support and help wherever they can to bring about a clear timetable for and a road map towards democracy, freedom and prosperity for the people of Zimbabwe and of southern Africa as a whole.

09:59

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

May I begin by thanking you, Mr Robertson, for calling me in the debate and giving me the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship? May I also congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for securing this debate on Zimbabwe, a part of the world with which I have had a long association since I was 19? I lived in southern Africa for several months in 1979, and I was there when, following the Lusaka Commonwealth conference, this country’s Conservative Government announced the setting up of the Lancaster House conference. In 1994, I spent nearly a month in neighbouring Malawi with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) observing the campaign that saw Hastings Banda lose the first presidential election he had ever contested. That experience taught me that fighting elections in Africa is very different from fighting elections in the United Kingdom, because the roles of the chief and the village leaders, as well as access to balanced radio, are vital if the Opposition are to triumph.

Having spent 13 years as a Conservative party agent in south London, I found the trip with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to strengthen parliamentary links most stimulating and rewarding, but it was also deeply worrying. Last month, while the eyes of the world were focused on Libya and the middle east, I, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Lord Joffe, who was Nelson Mandela’s and Jacob Zuma’s lawyer during the apartheid years, spent three days in meetings with the Prime Minister, MDC and ZANU-PF MPs, human rights lawyers and members of Zimbabwe’s civil society. I should say that at one stage during a dinner with some of the human rights lawyers I asked what they would do for a living should the whole situation be cleared up, and they did not have too much of a response. The trip also gave me an opportunity to have a refresher course in Zimbabwe’s politics, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady, Lord Joffe and David Banks, who is the all-party group’s convenor, for all their briefing and advice.

As many Members might be aware, the Chinese are investing heavily in Africa, particularly in Zimbabwe. They are financing the building of the Robert Mugabe national school of intelligence, a military academy just outside Harare, which is likely to contain communications equipment similar to that which one might find at GCHQ.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman raises a most interesting point about Chinese investment in Africa. Does he agree that our Government should do all they can to ensure that any Chinese investment overseas is used for good, not for bad?

[Oliver Colvile]

I thoroughly agree, and I will come to one or two points about that in the next few moments.

There is a real danger that Zimbabwe, sitting on South African borders, could become a Chinese-compliant nation. It should be noted that the Chinese are now South Africa’s largest trading partners. Unless we are careful, the Chinese could easily have access to the submarine base in Simon’s Town and therefore have an opportunity to control the all-important cape routes, which we need to send our trade to the far east. That is why what happens in Zimbabwe matters, and why it is important that there are free and fair elections.

Fairly soon after my colleagues and I arrived, we grasped the fact that two campaigns were going on in Zimbabwe: the air war to place pressure on SADC and President Zuma to encourage peaceful, free and fair elections; and a ground war to ensure that the MDC and other Opposition parties can campaign on a level playing field in the general election expected this autumn. The first process, which is intended to encourage SADC and the African Union to support the efforts of President Zuma and his facilitation team to plan and implement a road map towards credible and internationally recognised elections, will be much easier said than done.

It is part of African culture always to be deferential to leaders, who are seen as heroes and warriors. Whatever else we might feel and think, I am afraid that President Mugabe is seen as one such warrior and as someone who successfully fought for Zimbabwe’s independence after years of colonial rule. During his recent visit to a South African football stadium, he gained a standing ovation from the general public. Jacob Zuma’s desire to find ways of returning the 2 million Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa is being hindered by the fact that he faces local council elections in the summer and is likely to suffer some fairly heavy defeats, especially in some of the urban conurbations.

If we are serious about creating an environment for fair and peaceful elections, we must provide Mugabe and his supporters with a face-saving solution. Mugabe’s disappearance as President will not be the end of the matter, as too many people around him, especially those in the army, including senior army officials, have too much invested in his presidency. ZANU-PF sees him as its greatest asset in the forthcoming election. Whatever happens, the role of the army and the high command will be important, because they will be keen to hold on to their investment, especially their farms and other assets. They want to use Mugabe to secure their future for a few more years.

Within minutes of arriving in Harare, my colleagues and I were astonished to learn that 26 MDC MPs had been arrested, that the Speaker, Lovemore Moyo, was being forced to face re-election, and that beatings had started again in rural communities in the run-up to the general election expected later this year. Hon. Members can imagine what the outcry in this country would be if 27% of MPs from one political party were arrested, placed in prison and forced to raise funds to pay their bail. That would be the equivalent of 83 Conservative MPs or nearly 60 Labour MPs being arrested. I have no doubt that there would be an absolute outcry about that in this country and throughout the world—and rightly so.

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

It would depend on which MPs were arrested.

[Oliver Colvile]

I recognise that some in the Chamber might wish a number of those 83 Conservative MPs to be arrested, and that some of my hon. Friends might want some of those 60 Labour MPs to be arrested.

Little international attention is being paid to the plight of those Zimbabwean MPs, to the beatings or to how the proceeds from the Marange diamond fields, which are said to be the largest in the world, are being managed. Some 97% of those diamond fields are under the military’s direct control, and it is thought—I say it no more strongly than that—that the proceeds are being used to fund ZANU-PF’s political activities.

On preparing for the elections, many of those whom my colleagues and I met during our brief stay made it clear that there is a real need to allow outside observers into the country to follow the registration process at an early stage. The need for a new list of electors was underlined by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, which reckons that 27% of the names on the existing list are those of dead people.

Overseeing the elections will cost money, and the EU and the UK will be asked to make a significant contribution. I quite understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office feels that it cannot observe the elections unless it has received an invitation. However, the Mugabe Government have been keen to drive a wedge between themselves and the MDC so that the MDC will walk out and the Government can say, “There we go. They couldn’t stomach it.” We need to encourage SADC and President Zuma to place pressure on President Mugabe and ZANU-PF to begin registration soon and to allow our observers in. Observers must be allowed into the country at the start of the process, not in the last few weeks of the campaign. If European and British observers are allowed in only at the end of the election campaign, the damage and intimidation will already have taken place.

There are, however, other practical things that we in Britain can do through our established political parties or the highly respected Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter). During our visit, my colleagues and I talked to a number of MDC MPs and looked at the equipment in their constituency offices and at what they can spend on campaigning. We also met moderate ZANU-PF MPs, who may well be needed in a future MDC-led Government. When visiting Paul Madzore’s Glen View South constituency on the outskirts of Harare, we were struck by the lack of duplicators to produce leaflets and by the lack of access to broadband. During a visit to one of the markets, however, I was fortunate to be able to liberate one or two of the ZANU-PF leaflets lying around.

We need to impress on SADC that if it is serious about credible elections, something must be done to make sure that, during the campaign, ZANU-PF is not allowed to deploy state resources, as well as the proceeds of illegal diamond sales and illegally seized commercial assets, while the MDC is under-resourced and unable to produce leaflets and to inform the electorate of a country in which 97% of children can read and write. Is not that statistic a fantastic result? It is certainly something about which there should be great pride, and perhaps we can learn some lessons from it.

We need to ensure that there is balance in the electronic media and that the non-ZANU-PF Opposition have the opportunity to broadcast their message via radio. Although there has been some freedom in parts of the written press, there is no freedom on television or radio. Perhaps the Department for International Development could consider funding a transmitter in a neighbouring state, such as Botswana or Mozambique, to provide balance.

I hope that our useful debate has done much to raise the profile of some of the issues that face a country that was once the breadbasket of Africa. I urge the Minister to consider further ways to encourage SADC to bring about fair and free elections, and to ensure that there is a level playing field for all the political parties.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. We should be able to fit in all colleagues wishing to speak, but I intend to call the Front-Bench spokesmen no later than 10.40 am, so will Back Benchers please use the time as best they can?

10:11

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on bringing this topic to the Chamber today. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) on his speech. I shall make only a couple of quick points because I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak. My interest in Zimbabwe—or Rhodesia, which probably puts me an older age bracket—comes from my constituency and from those who left Rhodesia, as it was called when they were residents, because of persecution and discrimination and because they wanted a different life for their children and families.

Previous speakers have commented on the need for elections, about which I have some concerns. Will they be fair? Will they be called too soon? Worry has been expressed about holding the elections this year, because they could be construed as unfair because of the nature of the electoral list. I make that comment because perhaps a third of the 5.5 million people in Zimbabwe who are registered to vote are not even in the land of the living, which makes predicting how an election will go very interesting. If a third of those 5.5 million people have passed on to the next world but can reach from the grave to cast their vote, there must be suspicions about whether the elections will be fair and give the result that they should.

Some figures indicate that if someone wants a long life, they should live in Zimbabwe, because some people on the voting list are between 111 and 120 years old. In one area of Zimbabwe alone, 503 people on the voting list have passed on. Will the elections be fair? Will the Minister indicate how he, through his Department and his contacts with Zimbabwe, will ensure that fair elections take place? Only when there is a credible electoral list can we be sure that the elections will be fair and will give the result that they should.

I wish to comment on the views expressed about ZANU-PF and its treatment of the MDC. I am concerned about the trumped up charges and the spurious allegations, which undermine the democratic process that is being taken forward in Zimbabwe. I hope that the Minister will indicate how he sees change being brought about to secure the democratic process and ensure that the electorate in Zimbabwe has the chance to speak.

I commend MDC members for their contribution in their ministerial posts. They have been able to change a bankrupt economy into one that is showing growth. That is good news, and it shows what can happen in what was once the breadbasket of southern Africa, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said.

I have the same concerns as the hon. Gentleman about Chinese imperialism—I use that term honestly and factually, because that is exactly what it is. China has armed Zimbabwe with planes, weapons, artillery and everything that a modern army needs. It has ensured that Zimbabwe has modern communications equipment, as he indicated. China clearly has a strategy on Zimbabwe. Given our close relationship with Zimbabwe, I hope that we will use our political and diplomatic channels to ensure that we bring about change. Such change can happen only with the support of Zimbabwe’s neighbours, which I hope they will give.

I conclude with a comment made by Ian Smith when he was the Prime Minister of Rhodesia, as it was then, at a time of change. Looking back now, the change that he was looking at was never the change that we all would like. The change we need today is the same as the change that we needed in Ian Smith’s time. His statement was taken from Winston Churchill, who was a real hero of mine as a schoolboy:

“this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

We hope that Zimbabwe will reach that stage from which it can move forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that we can make the changes necessary in Zimbabwe.

10:17

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and all the members of the all-party group, including the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), on securing the debate and on keeping the issue high up the political agenda. The hon. Lady is right when she says that there is a risk of indifference at times, especially as more exciting political events on the international stage seem to take people’s attention, but it is important that Zimbabwe remains on the agenda.

We may take different views on which reforms we want and when we want them, but whatever our coalition’s disagreements over constitutional reform and its progress, at least my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has not ended up in chains in court, and at least my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities has not had to go into hiding, which is what their opposite numbers in the Zimbabwean Government have had to endure. Elton Mangoma and Theresa Makone deserve enormous credit for the courage with which they have faced appalling abuses not only of public freedom, but of parliamentary, political and even governmental and ministerial freedom. It is extraordinary, but they are of course only the tip of the iceberg. The hon. Member for Vauxhall and many others pointed out the level of abuse in Zimbabwe, which unfortunately seems to be increasing again as the elections draw closer after it had seemed to subside.

The situation in north Africa, particularly Libya, holds lessons for various people, but sadly the lesson for some dictators might be that if they treat rebellion and dissent with sufficient violence and determination, they might have a chance of surviving and succeeding. That is obviously a lesson that we do not want ZANU-PF to be able to draw, so there is an interest in this for the international community, and the same lesson could be drawn from the situations in Yemen and Syria as we speak. We need to make it clear to the international community that that must not be the lesson drawn, and it must act with resolution in all those situations.

Luckily or unluckily, any thought of military intervention in Zimbabwe, despite what some constituents might occasionally call for, is absolutely out of the question, as I am sure the Minister will confirm. The important thing is that we should work not only with the international community but with regional organisations. Others have referred to the lead role of the Southern African Development Community, but the African Union is a co-guarantor of the global political agreement. I would be interested to hear from the Minister the latest intelligence from the African Union and others, and what position they are taking to guarantee that the constitutional process is going forward.

Of course, one country has an absolutely key role: South Africa is the leading political and economic force in the region. It is interesting that President Zuma has taken a robust line on the constitutional process. In gratitude, he is coming under attack from the state media in Zimbabwe, which recently described him as a “dishonest broker”. The language is becoming quite fierce, but in a funny sort of way that is an encouraging development. It is a sign that the southern African political community as a whole is becoming more realistic in its treatment of Robert Mugabe’s regime, and that it is prepared to make enemies within the ZANU-PF movement. South Africa’s historic position in the region is inevitably one of moral and political leadership. We should give President Zuma all possible support in that role, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on his latest contacts with the president.

With the onset of elections in Zimbabwe, we are in a sense putting the cart before the horse. The constitutional reform process was supposed, ideally, to precede the next round of elections, but that now seems to be in doubt. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s latest take on that aspect.

We are in a difficult situation with all countries where violent and dictatorial forces are in play. In many countries around the world—I look at East Timor, the former Yugoslavia and, I hope, Côte d'Ivoire—these dictatorial and violent forces have ultimately been defeated. We see clear defeat there, rather than compromise, yet our urge to avoid confrontation obviously leads us to suggest political solutions, with compromises and deals. Indeed, that was the source of the global political agreement in Zimbabwe, but it has not served the purposes that we hoped. Perhaps we should encourage the regional community to take a more robust political approach in Zimbabwe.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport was right to mention China. It is clearly investing a great deal of money in Africa. It is not generally clear where that money is going, but some of it is certainly going in less than helpful directions, such as armaments and intelligence and communications capacity. China’s hand is being seen in some of the least savoury regimes around the world—we can add Sudan and North Korea and various other countries to the list—and that has the potential to do China’s international reputation a great deal of harm. Commercial logic alone should show the Chinese that investing in regimes that are inherently unstable because they rely on violence and coercion will not be a good long-term strategy for China.

[Oliver Colvile]

One reason that the Chinese are interested in Africa is that it is wealthy in mineral rights and such things. If the Chinese can have some control over that, they will be very happy. They are not particularly interested, as I understand it, in what takes place in the country; they tend to bring in their own workers, who do everything that they have to do and then leave. That is a big problem. Some may say that they are acting in an imperious manner—they most certainly are, and in a very big way—and we in the UK have to be most concerned about that as it could be another sparking point. We may have trouble at the moment in the middle east, but it could be significantly worse elsewhere.

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be short.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The risk is that the Chinese will not leave once the resources have been exploited but that China’s interests will continue in many of these countries. It is imperialism on the model of the East India Company, I suppose.

“Imperialism” is a strong word to use, but there is certainly a risk of Chinese political and commercial dominance in some of these countries, and exploitation of the political vulnerability of these unsavoury and undemocratic regimes. That of course raises uncomfortable political questions for China itself, but the democratic international community needs to make a stand on that question. There certainly seems to be potential for an alliance between the UK, the European Union and the democratic west and the democratic nations of southern Africa.

I turn briefly to Mozambique. It is a democracy and a member of the Commonwealth. However, the exploitation of the Marange diamond fields is allowing diamonds to be smuggled or illegally exported to avoid Zimbabwean taxation. Revenue clearly passes back to the military and the coffers of ZANU-PF. It seems to me that the Government could make representations to the Mozambique Government to take a stronger attitude to controlling the Zimbabwean border, as it is a vital financial link in the chain that supports the regime.

I shall be encouraged if the Minister has good news for us, but I realise that it is a difficult situation. However, I believe that our instinct to take a robust line on human rights and democracy and to seek internationally based co-operation as a solution to problems of dictatorship and violence will serve us well.

10:26

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

I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for securing this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and others for their contributions. I believe that Zimbabwe has a place in all our hearts. I am a former farmer. I visited Zimbabwe as an election observer for the European Union in 2000 and fell in love with the country. Its politics are a disaster. It is not about race or creed; it is about politics—and the man, basically a madman, who is destroying the country. I find it amazing that over the years the people of Zimbabwe have been able to stand the pressure, yet there is still some semblance of what is right and wrong, of what is law, despite all that ZANU-PF and Mugabe have done.

I emphasise the need for election observers to be in Zimbabwe quite early in the process. I was in Zimbabwe in 2000, when MDC first came to the fore; it would have won the election, no two ways about it, had it not been for the fear and intimidation. We should not forget the re-education camps out in the countryside; basically, they get hold of a population and re-educate them to ensure that they vote for ZANU-PF. They dig trenches and put coffins in them, and then make the people walk across them saying, “If you don’t vote for ZANU-PF, that’s where you’ll land up—in that coffin.” The guys that have been doing all this beating up and intimidation are then found sitting in the polling stations on election day, watching people come in to vote. I cannot believe what the people of Zimbabwe have to go through.

I remember that one of the returning officers in Harare in 2000 was a school headmistress. She went along to the polling station and hoiked out all the ZANU-PF polling agents. In those days she would have had the power and audacity to do that, but ever since, of course, it is being broken down. That is why we have to get election observers in there, and we have to get them in reasonably early so that we can see what is going on.

The electoral roll will be completely manipulated, as it was back in 2000. Then it had been worked out that most of those who would vote for the MDC were more educated and moved around Zimbabwe a lot, so no one was allowed to re-register. In that way, they managed to exclude an awful lot of the population. Not only were 25% or 30% unable to vote, but they found reasons to exclude anyone that they thought would vote for the MDC.

We are rightly giving aid to Zimbabwe, but we must put some conditions on that aid. There must be some form of governance. We in the UK are in a coalition, are we not; but how on earth would a coalition work in Zimbabwe? We in the Conservative party might think, “Right, we don’t like what the Liberal Democrats are doing, so we’ll arrest them all and put them in jail, especially if there’s a vote and we think we’re likely to lose it in Parliament. Let’s lock ’em all up. It’s a very good form of democracy, isn’t it? You make sure you win the vote by arresting the opposition.” It is not any form of coalition or democratic Government as we know it. That is where things are going horribly wrong in Zimbabwe.

Then there are all the farms in Zimbabwe that are being given to the so-called “war veterans”. Some of them look remarkably young if they are war veterans from the 1970s. Most of them are probably in their 30s or 40s—there is no way that they are war veterans. I will be quite blunt: they are a bunch of thugs, basically, hired by Mugabe to go round and destroy these farms. Of course, once they get the farms, there is another problem. They drive off not only the farmers themselves but the farm workers, and we should not forget that these farms are homesteads that include a school and a medical centre. These farms are communities in themselves and everyone is driven off them, leaving nobody to farm them. The machinery is destroyed and the cattle are killed, and the whole process just brings about a degradation of agriculture. Instead of Zimbabwe being the bread basket of Africa, it is now receiving food aid. That is just impossible to believe.

I know the Minister will say how difficult the situation is, and it is very difficult. I am fairly hawkish about these matters. Let me be blunt: if we had enough armed forces I would be quite happy to see some of them sent to Zimbabwe, but that is not going to happen and I am a realist in that respect. Nevertheless, we must face up to the fact that the Chinese are going into Zimbabwe with their own work force. If they want to take out minerals, they take away the hill that the minerals are in and it just disappears from Zimbabwe and goes back to China. That is what the Chinese are about. They are not investing in Zimbabwe for the right reasons and we must be clear about that, because what we need is investment—good international investment—in Zimbabwe. However, who will provide that investment while the farms are being repossessed? In fact, the thugs are now fed up because there is not enough wealth to find on the farms, so they go into the cities, such as Harare and Bulawayo, and that is the problem. They are destroying the businesses that people should be investing in.

I say to the Minister with all sincerity that, however difficult it is to do so, when we give support to Zimbabwe let us actually try to bring about a democratic change, because when we can get some form of reasonable governance in Zimbabwe the people of Zimbabwe will be more than ready for it. They will work together. That country, which is a highly educated country, will prosper. Perhaps in some way, that is where Mugabe went wrong: he educated people in Zimbabwe, and they could then find out that there was a better way to run and rule their country. I urge the Minister to bring about genuine change in Zimbabwe, and we will give him all the help we can.

10:33

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

Thank you very much, Mr Robertson, for calling me to speak. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on securing this important and timely debate. I pay tribute to her tenacity and long-standing involvement in this cause, in her role as chair of the all-party group on Zimbabwe. She and other Members have spoken eloquently today about the tragedy of what has happened in recent years in Zimbabwe, and about the courage of those in the country who have stood up to Mugabe. She mentioned the Movement for Democratic Change, the trade union movement in Zimbabwe and Zimbabwean civil society.

Debates such as this are an important opportunity for Parliament to demonstrate on a cross-party basis our commitment to and solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe in these difficult times. On 10 March there was a debate in the other place, secured by Lord Avebury, in which a number of important contributions were made, again on a cross-party basis. One was from Lord Chidgey, who placed great emphasis on the importance of security sector reform in Zimbabwe, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall this morning. In that debate, Baroness Kinnock, a former Minister with responsibility for Africa, placed great emphasis on the important role that the European Union can play, a point echoed in a number of this morning’s speeches.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall referred to the tendency of ZANU-PF to smear the MDC and other critics and opponents. In February, I had the opportunity to meet Zimbabwe’s Deputy Prime Minister, Thokozani Khupe, and the Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office, Jameson Timba, here in London. Both are members of the MDC and, like my hon. Friend, I was very impressed by their dedication and professionalism, which give the lie to the smears against them that she described.

I also want to put on the record my appreciation for the work of a number of organisations in and around Zimbabwe, such as the Open Society Foundation. Here in the UK there is Action for Southern Africa, which arose out of the former Anti-Apartheid Movement, and the British Trades Union Congress. I also echo the thanks and appreciation that my hon. Friend expressed to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I support her in saying that we look forward to the eventual return of Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth.

I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who is the Minister with responsibility for Africa, is in Africa today, and I welcome the Minister for Europe to his place in Westminster Hall to respond to the debate. Last month, I tabled a question to the Under-Secretary asking him what recent discussions he had had on the role of the Southern African Development Community in monitoring progress towards the 24 goals in the global political agreement. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his response and to put on the record on the Opposition’s behalf that we absolutely share the Government’s concerns about the situation in Zimbabwe, and that we appreciate the strong and real personal commitment to Africa that he has demonstrated since he took office almost a year ago.

I also want to put on the record that we welcome the statement in February by the Foreign Secretary supporting the European Union’s rolling over of restrictive measures—travel restrictions and asset freezes—for those who have perpetuated human rights abuses and political oppression in Zimbabwe, and of course the continuation of the arms embargo on Zimbabwe. These measures from the EU offer an important bargaining tool with which we can apply pressure on Mugabe’s regime. As a number of hon. Members have said during the debate, we cannot and must not leave unchallenged ZANU-PF’s claims that the EU’s targeted measures are in any way undermining the humanitarian aid that is needed to assist the people of Zimbabwe. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) said, those measures are only needed because of the policies of Mugabe.

As the hon. Gentleman also said, Zimbabwe was formerly the bread basket of Africa, but in recent years we have seen a very significant increase in the UK’s bilateral aid to Zimbabwe. I am pleased that the previous Labour Government increased that aid to £67 million in the last financial year—2009-10—and I very much welcome the fact that this Government have decided to maintain that bilateral aid. However, I agree with hon. Members, from all parties, who have said that that aid should be an opportunity for us to exert more leverage on Zimbabwe in this crucial period. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall made the very important point that, in the case of Zimbabwe, consulting officials rather than elected politicians is perhaps not the best route, and certainly should not be the only route in terms of the implementation of aid; and that we should also consider consulting elected members of Parliament and councillors in Zimbabwe on a cross-party basis.

[Martin Horwood]

We need to treat the conditionality of aid very cautiously. The hon. Gentleman’s Government —the last Labour Government—were right to grant aid to Zimbabwe through the UN and NGOs exclusively, rather than giving aid from Government to Government, and we have been right to follow that policy. It is important to understand that point.

[Stephen Twigg]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. What I sought to do was to echo an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall about the specific circumstances right now in Zimbabwe. An approach that relies on officials, which may well make sense in the vast majority of countries, does not make sense in the case of Zimbabwe, for the reasons my hon. Friend set out earlier.

I echo what a number of hon. Members have said about the robust approach of President Zuma, which, as my hon. Friend has said, stands in stark contrast to the lamentable record of his predecessor. I also agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I happened to be in South Africa in 2003 when Walter Sisulu had just died, and I saw the pictures of Mugabe at Sisulu’s funeral. Mugabe got exactly the sort of response then that the hon. Gentleman described in his speech today, and we need to remember that public opinion in Africa, particularly southern Africa, is a challenge, and that we should give whatever support we can to President Zuma and to other Governments in the region who are now prepared to stand up to Mugabe’s thuggery.

We have seen some progress in recent years towards economic improvements in Zimbabwe—my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall referred to visiting shops that were full of produce—but clearly, as this debate has demonstrated, political developments have fallen well short of what we would expect. Targeted measures remain an essential lever at our disposal, but we also need to press a number of issues that require immediate and intensive political and diplomatic pressure.

First, there is the need for a new constitution that is endorsed by the people of Zimbabwe, and I press the Minister to respond to the points made by almost all this morning’s speakers about the vital importance of getting election monitors on the ground as soon as possible. Secondly, there is the importance of opening space for a free media to publish. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport spoke about access to balanced radio and the possibility of securing Department for International Development funding for that. Thirdly, there is the crucial importance of an independently verified electoral register. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about people who are on the register but are no longer with us, and about fairness in the electoral register being important in there being a free and fair election. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) spoke about the experience of manipulation of the register in Zimbabwean elections. Fourthly, there is the crucial role that we can play in securing the root-and-branch reform of the security sector.

Progress, as this debate has demonstrated, has been painfully slow. I welcome the establishment of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, Human Rights Commission and Media Commission, but it is demonstrable that those bodies do not have sufficient resources to operate effectively, and there is a real danger that what should be independent bodies might serve no purpose other than the objectives of Mugabe and his supporters. Any election that is held ahead of an agreement to a new constitution, the opening of space for free media, an independently verified electoral register and security sector reforms will not be acceptable, and it is vital to restate that throughout this debate.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) spoke about the escalation of abuse in the run-up to elections, and I want to highlight the very concerning recent escalation of violence in Zimbabwe, and to refer to an excellent but disturbing report from Human Rights Watch, “Perpetual Fear: Impunity and Cycles of Violence in Zimbabwe”, which documents the context of impunity within which ZANU-PF activists have perpetrated systematic violence against other Zimbabweans, whose only aspirations are for a free and democratic Zimbabwe. Human Rights Watch has observed the active and passive forms of impunity that are fostered by the democratic deficit in Zimbabwe, and as long as fear and intimidation are either encouraged or ignored by the state apparatus, democratic developments will not be achieved.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said, SADC has an increasingly important role to play. She said that there are reasons to be hopeful, but the situation is fragile. What today’s debate has demonstrated once again is the very real cross-party agreement in this House in standing up for the people of Zimbabwe. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talked about the important role that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy could play, and I echo those words.

A number of hon. Members have referred to events elsewhere in Africa and the middle east, and there is clearly a danger that the world, and the UK in particular, will take its eye off the ball. We have a unique influence and we need to use it, as has been said, both directly with South Africa and with the other SADC countries, the wider African Union, which has its own responsibilities, and our European Union partners. I am keen to hear the Minister’s current assessment, as the Minister for Europe, of the perspective at a European level, and also at an African level, with the role that SADC and the African Union have to play.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall paid tribute to Mike Campbell, and said that we must hope that his death was not in vain. Too many lives have been lost in Zimbabwe; too many people have suffered through the tyranny and thuggishness of the Mugabe regime. We must not take our eye off the ball. I again congratulate my hon. Friend and the other members of the all-party group, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, which I am sure will demonstrate that the Government maintain their absolute commitment to the people of Zimbabwe, and the absolute commitment of the British people to securing a democratic future for the country.

10:46

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for initiating the debate and for giving the House the opportunity to express views upon Zimbabwe this morning, and I also thank all those who have taken part: the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). All their contributions spoke from a mixture of heart and head. What came through to me was the profound commitment, and love—I do not think that too strong a word—on the part of those Members for Zimbabwe and its people, coupled with an appreciation of the complexity and difficulty of the challenges that the country faces, and of the efforts by successive United Kingdom Governments to do what is best to try to make it possible for the people of Zimbabwe to decide upon the destiny of their own country. I thank the hon. Lady also for her kind words about the Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), and about our ambassador to Zimbabwe and the head of the DFID team in that country.

In discussing Zimbabwe, it is right to focus on not only the deep-rooted and abiding problems that afflict the country, but, as the hon. Lady did in her opening speech, on the progress that has been made in the face of difficult odds, since the formation of the inclusive Government in 2008. There has been a marked economic recovery, illustrated by a robust 8% growth rate in 2010, although it is also fair to remind ourselves, as has been said, that some sectors, most notably agriculture, are failing to perform at anything like their full potential because of the disastrous economic policies pursued by Zimbabwean leaders.

Reports of human rights abuses since the formation of the inclusive Government have fallen well below the peak, but there has been a worrying trend in the early months of this year of a reverse in those promising signals. There has been greater freedom for the print media, and the constitutional review process, despite its frailties, has helped to open up democratic space. The important point to note is that those achievements, both economic and political, are a tribute to the courage, dedication and persistence of reformers of all stripes in Zimbabwe. I pay tribute to all the reformist politicians, civil society groups, free trade unionists, churches and others in Zimbabwe who express their hopes for and work their utmost towards a better future for their country. Those people and organisations are not the creatures of any foreign power; they are the authentic expressions and voices of the people of Zimbabwe.

However, those efforts by many in Zimbabwe risk being undermined by a few who wish to sacrifice their own country’s prosperity and political development in order to hang on to power and the opportunity for plunder. Resisting those efforts and reinforcing Zimbabwe’s progress with a process for free, fair and credible elections will demand still greater courage and commitment from reformers in Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe’s neighbours in the region and those members of the wider international community in Africa and elsewhere, including the United Kingdom, that support Zimbabwe’s transition to full democratic freedom.

Rightly, much of this debate has focused on the great concerns about the increase in reports of politically motivated violence since the new year. The Government share that concern. The high-profile arrests and threatened arrests of senior members of the inclusive Government in March and April signalled a stepping up of the partisan politicisation of the legal process. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham was right to pay tribute to the courage and endurance of leading democratic politicians in Zimbabwe in the face of such treatment. We remain equally concerned by ongoing reports of rising intimidation targeting civil society groups and political activists.

Several hon. Members asked about the Government’s view of the regional approach to the political challenges facing Zimbabwe. South Africa and the Southern African Development Community more generally act as the facilitators and guarantors of the global political agreement and play the lead role in brokering an agreement on a road map to free and fair elections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham pointed out, it is somewhat ironic that the global political agreement should have been fully implemented by now, yet Zimbabweans and SADC are trying to agree on a path to the next round of elections before the GPA has been implemented anywhere near fully.

President Zuma of South Africa has shown in the creation of the elections road map that he is prepared to demonstrate strong and active leadership in the region. We hope that that critical document will address the many individual points raised by hon. Members during this debate, including the quality of the electoral register, the reform of the electoral commission, access to media and provision for the presence of international observers at the elections. The United Kingdom is certainly ready to support international observers in any way possible, yet it remains the case that we can send observers only in response to an invitation from the Government of Zimbabwe.

On the points made about this country’s programme of bilateral aid, following the bilateral aid review, our programme of aid to Zimbabwe has been increased further to £80 million for 2011-12, the largest amount yet. That is crucial. Our aid provides vital support, in particular for primary education and basic health treatment inside Zimbabwe. For example, last year we provided essential medicines to 1,300 primary care clinics and rural hospitals. The nature of that aid and the fact that it is distributed via the United Nations and non-governmental organisations rather than through the Zimbabwean Government means that I am cautious, to put it lightly, about calls for greater conditionality in the provision of aid, although I guarantee to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that I will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on the points they made about conditionality.

[Kate Hoey]

I thank the Minister. I think we are all conscious of the issues involved in aid. Our point is that it is not necessarily the Department for International Development but the agencies themselves—the big charities working in countries such as Zimbabwe—that need to be much more aware. They try so hard not to be political that they end up being political in how they operate on the ground.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Lady has made her point well. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is made fully aware of the case that she makes.

The EU targeted measures on Zimbabwe remain in force. This Government remain committed to them, and the European Union has made clear its commitment to the continuation of those measures. We remain willing to revisit them within the year, but only if further concrete developments take place on the ground. We will not be shifted by coerced signatures on a partisan petition. On behalf of the Government, I make it clear again that we need to lay to rest the delusional nonsense that the EU targeted measures, which apply to 163 individuals and 31 entities in Zimbabwe, are somehow responsible for the widespread deprivation and suffering endured by the people of Zimbabwe. The right way to help with the economic plight of the people in Zimbabwe is for Zimbabwe’s leaders to pursue the kinds of economic policy and give the commitments to good governance that will attract investment and add to Zimbabwe’s trade relationships with the region and the rest of the world.

In view of the time, I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about the Kimberley diamond process and Marange, and I will copy the letter to other Members who have taken part in this debate. As my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for Africa has made clear on numerous occasions, we continue to take a firm line within the EU, which acts on our behalf in the Kimberley process, insisting that Zimbabwe should comply fully with the rules laid down in the process before diamond exports are permitted.

China has an important role in the growth and development of Africa, and considerable progress has been made in areas such as infrastructure as a result of Chinese financing. Like China, we see trade as vital to helping African economies to grow and escape poverty, but one lesson of the developing world is that as countries grow and develop, they require not just physical infrastructure but skills, improved health services and, critically, better governance, better public institutions and a clear commitment to the rule of law rather than arbitrary government. We believe that it is vital that donors, including China, be open about their investments and make clear what they are spending and what results they achieve. That enables people to hold Governments to account and ensure that donors co-ordinate their work effectively.

Interestingly, some of China’s recent experience, for example in Zambia or Libya, might give pause for thought to those who have assumed that China can maintain an economic relationship with African nations without regard to issues of governance and the rule of law. Where those prove lacking, investment and the safety of expatriate workers can sometimes turn out to be at considerable risk.

I express once again my gratitude to all those who have taken part in this debate. The Government remain determined to pursue the course on which we are set, and we hope to see Zimbabwe reach a more prosperous and democratic future.

Irish Communities in Britain

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Westminster Hall

11:00

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

First, I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on the Irish in Britain, which seeks to raise awareness and to represent within Parliament the interests and concerns of the Irish community in Britain. The group works closely with the Federation of Irish Societies, which is an umbrella organisation serving the community in England and Wales. The federation also provides the able secretariat for the group. The all-party group is a genuine cross-party enterprise, reflecting the rich and diverse Irish community in the UK. Indeed, I would hope that you would be a member of the group, Mr Robertson, because you represent a Scottish community with Irish connections.

I am immensely proud of my Welsh heritage. My children were born in Rhyl, the same town where their father, grandfather, great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather were born. They are fluent Welsh speakers. In 1997, I set up the first Welsh language lessons in Parliament for MPs, their staff and journalists. I was also informed by the Eisteddfod committee that I helped to raise more private sector funding for the Eisteddfod than any other MP when it met in Denbigh in my constituency 10 years ago.

I am, however, a Welshman of half Irish descent. My father, Michael Ruane, was from a little village called Carnmore, near Oranmore in the County Galway, as the song goes. He was one of the hundreds of thousands of Irishmen and women who crossed the Irish sea to Britain in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s to help to rebuild Britain after the devastation of the blitz and a six-year-long war in which 700,000 young British people—mainly males—lost their lives. He helped to build the roads, dig the tunnels and lay the telephone wires. More than half his siblings followed him. His sisters Mary and Norah worked as nurses in the NHS in Birmingham, and his other sister Sally, a Carmelite nun—Sister Columbanus —taught children with special educational needs in Worcester. They were not alone. The emigration in the 1940s was almost as great as that of the 1840s after the famine.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In Newcastle, which is where my Irish ancestors settled, that combined pride in Irish heritage and regional identity is very strong, as is exemplified by the Tyneside Irish centre, which is in my constituency and which campaigns and raises money for our local charities.

[Chris Ruane]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I pay tribute to her work for our all-party group. Indeed, I believe she was present on the night we re-founded it last year.

I am proud of my Irish roots. I helped to set up the North Wales Irish Society more than 20 years ago, along with Tom Noone, Patsy Scahill, Tom Wilkie, Angela and Stuart McDonald, and many others. I joined the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly more than 10 years ago, and last year I re-established, along with Lord Dubs, the all-party group on the Irish in Britain. As a mark of my joint loyalties to Wales and Ireland, I named my first daughter Seren, which is Welsh for a star in the heavens, and my second daughter Mairead, which is Irish for Margaret.

Turning from my personal past to the political present, we pray that the contemptible murder of the Police Service of Northern Ireland constable, Ronan Kerr, earlier this month will not turn back the clock, that the light of peace and political progress is undimmed, and that war is over. We share a weighty responsibility to ensure that the process continues to offer hope, and to resist any move to untangle the intricate latticework of political agreement that has emerged over the past 20 years. Strong British-Irish links are essential to build on the peace in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), not only for the role that he played in the peace process as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but for his role as co-chair of BIPA and as a founder member of the all-party group on the Irish in Britain.

Looking around, I see a new generation of Irish, and a new generation of Irish in Britain. In the absence of fear and the consequences of the troubles, the community is less isolated, more diverse and more optimistic than ever. People are proud of their Irishness like never before, and I include in their number the many MPs of Irish origin, a number of whom are present today.

The coalition Government’s response to the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday set a strong moral tone that was welcomed by the Irish community here. We are all stronger as a result and more able to deal with the past and to move on. I give particular credit to the Prime Minister for his role in replying to the Saville inquiry. His response convinced many sceptics that he was serious about continuing the good work of the peace process in a positive, non-sectarian and non-party political way, and about building the bonds between the UK and Ireland.

Times are not easy, however. There are few left to brag about the invincible rise of the Celtic tiger. The effects of the global economic crisis that is wreaking havoc on this country are also devastating Ireland. The Irish in Britain share a sense of uncertainty for the future. For too many there is real fear. The so-called forgotten Irish—the elderly, the poor, the homeless and Irish Travellers threatened with eviction—benefited from the generosity of the Irish Government during the boom years, but their situation remains vulnerable.

The all-party group is working to encourage recognition of the Irish in Britain, to support the Federation of Irish Societies, to stimulate dialogue and co-operation on Irish affairs, to promote Irish culture and sports and, importantly, to raise awareness of the needs of the vulnerable Irish and those at risk. Again, I give full credit to the Prime Minister—I am giving him a lot of credit today—for his big society initiative, which I support fully if it is about inclusivity and if it includes the most vulnerable, in which group I include Irish Travellers and Gypsies. Of all ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, Irish Travellers in Britain face the worst prejudice and experience the worst rates of infant mortality and lowest life expectancy. It is a community on the edge. It is a community with a real fear that Government policies may fuel worsened social exclusion and deterioration in community relations, compounded by a dramatic new accommodation crisis and a situation in which education and health needs go unaddressed. Government at all levels—the UK Government, devolved Administrations and local government—should ensure that there is ongoing dialogue and consultation with the Traveller community on issues that affect it.

A few worrying signs are coming from elements in the new coalition. I am concerned about other vulnerable groups, such as the unemployed, those with drug and alcohol problems, single mothers and—this is an old-fashioned term that is being given new credence—the “undeserving poor”. A truly big society would recognise that all members deserve to be included and helped. To vilify those groups, as was done in the past with Lilley’s famous list, will not result in a big society and a better Britain, but in a beg society and a bitter Britain.

I want to say a few words about the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. It was set up more than 20 years ago to help improve east-west relationships between politicians in Ireland and the UK. Its membership extends to the devolved Governments of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, as well as to the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. It has achieved its aim of improving relationships between the political classes. Politicians as diverse as Arthur Morgan from Sinn Fein—a former Teachda Dala—and the former Conservative MP Michael Mates have been listened to with respect by all sides of the assembly, which meets once a year in the UK and once a year in Ireland.

The assembly has four committees that look at various aspects of UK-Ireland issues. Committee D, which is ably chaired by my friend Lord Dubs has twice looked at the issue of the Irish in Britain, including at our most recent report last year. One of its strongest recommendations to both the Irish and British Governments was not to see the Irish community in Britain as an option for easy cuts. Those cautionary words were immediately welcomed by the Irish community. The Federation of Irish Societies chief executive, Jennie McShannon, said:

“If the better off are uncertain for the future; the less well off have cause to be fearful. I am certain that recovery will not be accelerated by ignoring the needs of those most in need of help. Even in a tough climate, hard-won progress on equalities cannot be lost.”

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this extremely important debate at a timely period in our Parliament. Unfortunately, I cannot claim to have any Irish ancestry. Does he agree that the Irish experience in Britain has sometimes equalled the Jewish experience? Secondly, and more importantly, will he pay tribute to those organisations that make such a contribution to the welfare of Irish people in Britain, such as Leeds Irish Health and Homes, the Leeds Irish community and Irish centre, and many other organisations of a similar ilk up and down the country?

[Chris Ruane]

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about how the Irish were treated in the UK many years ago. Over the past 20 or 30 years, that has been put right. I pay tribute to the work of the organisations he mentioned in Leeds and across the UK to bring the Irish together and protect Irish communities.

What assurance can the Government offer to vulnerable groups that the axe will not fall unfairly on their heads and that the dignity of minorities will continue to be recognised and respected? The reports I have mentioned highlighted the specific health needs of the elderly Irish. My father’s generation, which helped to rebuild this country out of the ruins of war, helped to staff the hospitals and the NHS. That generation is now elderly and in need of help themselves. Does the Minister agree that elders in our big society should be valued and protected, that all available means should be employed to identify and measure the disadvantage faced by specific groups, and that steps should be taken to provide a remedy?

Our recent report also recognised the role played by Irish centres in the cultural and social care needs of local communities. Given the importance of the flagship Irish cultural centre in Hammersmith, the assembly accepted our recommendations and considered that the threat of closure that has resulted from the council’s decision to terminate the lease and put the premises on the market represents a tragic blow to the Irish community not just in Hammersmith, but across the whole of the UK.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend not only for securing the debate and his comments about the Irish cultural centre, but for everything that the all-party group—along with the embassy, the Irish Government and the Irish community—is doing to try to save that centre, because it is valued internationally and nationally. It is a terrible shame that the Conservative council is holding the centre to ransom and demanding £2 million. If it does not get that money, it will sell the centre to a property developer. I ask all hon. Members who are here, including the Minister, to join the “Wear your hearts for Irish arts” campaign and save the Irish cultural centre in Hammersmith, which is doing something for our country, not just for my constituency.

[Chris Ruane]

I concur entirely with my hon. Friend. Hammersmith is known for promoting Irish talent and encouraging Irish philanthropy throughout the whole of the UK.

The fact that cross-generational talents have been harnessed and closer relations with local business developed shows the potential of the community as a long-term investment in the development of community and community values. We are talking about the big society in action. Does the Minister agree that local councils have a responsibility to the community in all its diversity, and that all parties should in good faith work together to find a viable solution for Hammersmith and all other centres under threat?

Our report on the Irish in Britain recognised the need to make sure that there is a full and accurate count of the number of Irish in Britain through the national census. We campaigned for a national tick box for the Irish, and I give full credit to the Federation of Irish Societies, which launched a public awareness campaign in the build-up to the 2011 national census to tackle persistent undercounting of the Irish community. It did so with the full co-operation of parliamentarians from all parties in both Houses. In fact, the launch of the campaign took place just 20 yards away from here in the Jubilee Room last year. The ethnicity box on the 2011 census attempts to make clear that it is about Irish roots and identity, not about someone’s passport or place of birth.

Irish community groups campaigned to make the census inclusive and to try to prevent anyone from being excluded. Census statistics inform millions of decisions made by public authorities and businesses that are trying to meet demand for goods and services, and to distribute resources fairly. An underestimation means that the needs of the weak and vulnerable in our community are overlooked. The assembly agreed that the problems facing the Irish community could not be properly addressed unless they were assessed on the basis of full, reliable data. It called on public authorities in Britain to make it standard practice to keep and monitor data on the Irish as an ethnic community, and for them to use those data to inform policy. What assurances can the Minister offer that the data collected in the course of the census will be analysed thoroughly and that information on all ethnic groups, specifically including the Irish, will be used to inform and direct public policy in the years ahead?

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Ruane]

I give way to the co-chair of the all-party group.

[Simon Hughes]

Obviously I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said, but may I make a plea through him? I gather that one in 10 census forms have not yet been returned and that people were told that they could return them in six weeks. I make a final plea to the Irish community to do just what he and the campaign called for: ensure that the forms get in. The number of Irish in Britain is currently recorded as around 900,000, but some of us believe that the realistic figure is more like 2 million than just under 1 million.

[Chris Ruane]

I concur entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. The 10% of people who have not registered are likely to be the most poor and vulnerable, many of whom are illiterate or semi-literate. It is incumbent on the Government to find out exactly who those people are and to make sure that they are registered so that they receive the services that they deserve.

I shall conclude so that the Minister has time to respond. We of Irish heritage are proud of our community and believe in pulling our weight—I have lots of it. The recognition of the Irish in Britain extends beyond the collection and use of census data. A strong and confident community organisation has benefits for all. Groups such as the Federation of Irish Societies are already working in partnership with the Irish Government on their global emigrant strategy.

The term “the forgotten Irish” has great resonance within the Irish community in the UK. I feel that their contribution to the rebuilding of the UK after the war and to the successful establishment of the NHS has been unsung and under-recognised. Their story has largely been untold. Perhaps that was because of their reticence within the community and a natural rural shyness, or perhaps it is because there was not a willing audience to listen. My father had only one picture taken in his time over here, which was at his wedding, and he was not too happy with that.

[Simon Hughes]

With the picture or the wedding?

[Chris Ruane]

With the picture—cheeky!

Many of the memories of the forgotten Irish were not committed to film, or to video or audio recording. The chance to capture their memories is fast fading as many die off. The Irish TV station RTE has produced the fascinating series “The Forgotten Irish”. What can the Government do to help to promote similar interest on this side of the Irish sea? The BBC and others have taken initiatives to capture the thoughts and memories of the ex-soldiers and key workers of the two world wars, as well as the peacetime triumphs of other key groups within society. Will the Minister consult his colleagues to see whether greater recognition can be given to the contribution of that post-war Irish cohort who did so much to improve this country? As Sir Alfred McAlpine said,

“the contribution of the Irish to the construction industry in the UK was immeasurable”.

Where are the statues and plaques to these people who did so much?

A great deal of effort has gone into the report on the Irish in Britain. What assurance can the Minister give that his Government value the contribution of the Irish in Britain? Will he undertake to study the recommendations of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and address its concerns, and will he agree to meet a small delegation representing the Irish in Britain to take this agenda forward?

11:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Robertson, and to have the opportunity to respond to what is an important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on giving me the opportunity to do that and, on the way, to establish why some of the questions he has asked are rather difficult to answer. He very properly drew attention to his own mixed heritage and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and others spoke in the same vein. Until somebody tests my DNA, I do not think I have any Irish in me, but it would be surprising if there were not some somewhere in there. One of the realities of Britain—which we should glory in rather than be embarrassed about—is that we are all mongrels in our heritage and culture, and we rightly value and treasure that. I thank the all-party group for the work it does in ensuring that the two Houses of Parliament and the Government are kept fully apprised of the concerns and the needs of the Irish community. We welcome the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly report and the work of the all-party group in Westminster on behalf of the Irish community.

The report makes some interesting observations. I want to pick up three themes, each of which the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd also brought into his discourse. Time will be short: if I leave out points, I hope that he will remind me afterwards. I will be happy to respond more fully to some of his more arcane points.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in acknowledging that the coalition Government have continued to invest energy in securing a full, comprehensive and successful resolution of the difficulties in Northern Ireland. I share his condemnation of the incidents and the murder, which are obviously designed to disrupt that process. I am sure that all parties share an utter determination to ensure that attempts at disruption are unsuccessful.

The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the importance of delivering services to the Irish Traveller community, which is one of my personal ministerial responsibilities. Both I and the Secretary of State have made it clear that this problem must be dealt with. The indicators for Gypsies and Travellers—including Irish Travellers—are not good. With regard to education, there are currently 4,000 Travellers of Irish heritage registered in English primary, secondary and special schools. They are, unfortunately, among the lowest-achieving pupil groups at every key stage of education. At key stage 2, just over 26% of Travellers of Irish heritage achieve level 4, compared to the 73.5% of all pupils. At key stage 4, 21.8% of Travellers of Irish heritage achieve five or more A* to C GCSE grades, compared to the national average of 54.8%—less than half the level of achievement.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, there is a strong link between deprivation and under-achievement. Some 43% of all pupils registered as Gypsy, Roma or Irish Traveller are eligible for free school meals—an indication of the deprivation that so many of those households suffer.

[Mr Slaughter]

With other members of the all-party group for Gypsy Roma Travellers, I had the opportunity to visit Dale Farm last Thursday. The Minister will be aware, because of his responsibility, of the particular problems of Dale Farm. Ignoring the legal and other history, will he acknowledge that in relation to Dale Farm, mass eviction is not the answer? Will he meet members of the all-party group to discuss other ways to resolve the issues there, without contemplating perhaps the largest ever eviction of a Gypsy and Traveller community, most of whom are Irish Travellers?

[Andrew Stunell]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to use my remaining six minutes on an issue that is not at the core of this debate. Of course, I would be happy to meet the group to discuss matters of mutual interest, whenever it is appropriate.

I spoke about the educational disadvantages facing Irish Travellers. Health indicators are also bad: 22% of Gypsies and 34% of Travellers report asthma or chest pain, compared to 5% and 22% of the general population. There is a national health inclusion programme designed to reach those people. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) made the point about accommodation. Of course, there is a statutory requirement for local authorities to assess Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs. The Government have secured £60 million of funding, for the comprehensive spending review period, for the provision of new Traveller pitches and the refurbishment of existing ones. Under the new homes bonus scheme, local authorities will be given cash incentives to deliver new homes, which does include new Traveller sites.

I could elaborate on other matters, but I should press on. The Secretary of State has set up a cross-Government ministerial working group to address the inequalities faced by Gypsies and Travellers. I am a member of that group, which has met a number of times. We are looking at addressing the range of issues: educational attainment, health outcomes, employment, access to financial products, and unlawful denial of access to commercial premises. The group’s agenda has been set in consultation with members of the Gypsy and Traveller community. We are moving ahead with that, and further information and progress will be reported to the House in due course.

Turning to data collection, I heard the plea from the chairman and the deputy chairman of the all-party group for the census forms to be filled in, with the Irish tickbox used. I am not sure that describing it as the Irish tickbox does it justice. I understand the plea, but I ask the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd—bearing in mind his introductory remarks—whether he ticked the Irish box, the Welsh box or the British box. The alleged or stated under-recording of the Irish is part of the much broader question of what it means to be British and to be a member of society here. How people self-identify is surely the way to go. The hon. Gentleman can perhaps tell me later whether he ticked the Irish box.

[Simon Hughes]

The Minister is well known for his support for minority communities and for the disadvantaged. Following the invitation from the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), is the Minister willing some time in the summer to meet not just the all-party group, but the Irish ambassador, if willing, and the Federation of Irish Societies? It would be very significant for the communities Minister to have a meeting with representatives of the Irish community in Britain.

[Andrew Stunell]

I am strongly inclined to say yes. However, the Foreign Secretary might have a point of view about that. The Government are willing to meet at the appropriate level; if that is me, I am happy to be that person. I do not want to pre-empt the whole of Government on to my shoulders.

I would like to squeeze one point into my last 90 seconds. In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd raised fears that the Government were not focusing properly on ensuring that discrimination was eliminated in our society. I remind him that the public sector equality duty came into force on 5 April. That places a duty on public bodies to consider the needs of all the individuals they serve when they are developing policy, in delivering services and in relation to their employees. The Government believe that local providers are best placed to decide which data are needed to inform their local priorities and monitoring. If they choose to do so, they are in a good position.

With regard to the centre in Hammersmith, the Government hope that the parties involved can work together to achieve a satisfactory outcome. However, it is not the job of the Government to intervene in that discussion.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Railway Expansion

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Westminster Hall

14:30

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I want to talk about a number of schemes associated with such places as Colne, Skipton, Bidston, Halton, Burscough, Todmorden, Fleetwood and so on—places that I know flummox Hansard reporters, so I will give some clarification on those at a later stage.

I would like to start with a largely unquestioned truth that I think most people will buy into, which is that connectivity between centres of economic activity further stimulates whatever economic growth and activity one gets there. I am also happy to agree with anybody who suggests that growth cannot be stimulated simply through connectivity—by building a railway line or a road. A classic example in the north-west is Skelmersdale, which has an excellent motorway joining it to the rest of the world, but which still has a very poor economic performance.

In the past, in bolder days, it is true that Governments built roads to nowhere and built rail tracks that are not used. Private developers also have a sharper eye for what needs to be done. Normally, however, one connects areas on the assured assumption that people or goods will want to travel along the line of connection. In the beginning of rail, the assumptions that were made were very bold indeed. People built trains out into the wild west in the United States. They built trains through the south American jungle. I have even been on a train through a mountain in Switzerland. I am not sure that the Department for Transport would consider such a project in these days, but certainly people were very bold and imaginative. They even built train services—very good train services, at one stage—to the English coast, although they have curtailed some of those in recent years.

They were all, by and large, high-risk ventures with potentially high returns. Increasingly, as time went on, private developers got less of an appetite for that and the state was expected to shell out more to fund, subsidise and back whatever rail infrastructure was put in place. Of course, with state involvement came a gradual sense of entitlement. People feel entitled to connections, whether by road or by rail. In many parts of the country, where the rail connections have gone, they grumble and have grumbled for many decades since they departed. There is, however, an acceptance by most people that the quality of the connections, whether by rail or road, have something to do with the size of the place and how isolated it is.

In the early days of rail it soon became apparent that they had one very big competitor—roads. Roads are an obvious substitute. Certainly, in the 1940s and 1950s roads were seen as an almost lethal competitor, and so we got what we call, or might be regarded as, a managed contraction—an ill-managed contraction—under the much-defamed Dr Beeching. I say it was ill-managed because all sorts of peculiar things were done. For example, Blackpool was deprived of a railway line simply because not enough people bought tickets in Blackpool. The fact that thousands and thousands of people bought tickets in Glasgow to go to Blackpool and then return did not seem to affect the planning they engaged in then.

We have inherited that structure, which did not necessarily occur for the right reasons and not necessarily on a wholly rational basis. In turn, we have had to pick up the economic consequences that that structure gives us. Since then, clearly, there have been changes. Some changes are favourable to rail development, some not so. Recently we have seen oil prices rise and road congestion become an increasing worry to Governments of whatever persuasion, and we have seen environmental concerns move to the front of the stage. Counter to expectations—it was assumed that rail was in decline—we have seen that, despite prices, an element of overcrowding and occasional poor reliability, rail use has increased dramatically. I saw the first transport plan during the course of the previous Government, and even that predicted a decline in train use that was never fulfilled. People were genuinely surprised—I was on the Transport Committee at the time—to see that trend reverse. It did not just reverse as far as passenger traffic was concerned, but for freight traffic as well.

What has not changed significantly, or has not increased, is what I would call the rail reach—the speed with which trains move around the place and the overall capacity of the system. That is despite lobbying from groups and communities across the country. Normally, such lobbying has not been for anorak-based nostalgia schemes, but for quite modest, sensible, rationally argued enhancements—restoration of linkages, replacement of curves that had been taken out by Beeching—and in places where there is clearly some sort of demand, and where a demand case can be made. Those are not demand cases based on nostalgia, but on what people consider to be hard economic realities.

We have to ask the question why. Why, despite the increase in ridership—if I can put it like that—and despite the fact that the rail service has survived relatively intact since the days of Beeching, have we not extended anywhere at all to any great extent? That is something of a puzzle and I have tried to explain why. Several different explanations can be given. One is a belief among hard-edged planners at the Department for Transport that all schemes are necessarily based on sentiment and nostalgia, and not on a dispassionate review of the economic facts. Another explanation—this is clearly a major consideration—is the fact that in rail terms capital works are very expensive so far as signalling is concerned, particularly since privatisation. Signalling has almost become a private monopoly, and it is very hard to get the price down. If there is any kind of plan that involves alteration of signalling, we can expect the figures to increase dramatically beyond expectation.

Another reason why schemes are hard to progress is that unlike roads, the rail planning process is fairly opaque. The fragmented character of the rail industry—with Network Rail providing the track, and train operating companies with relatively short-term leases providing the railway carriages—means that people often work to short-term considerations with limited horizons. The fact that there are a number of players involved—including planning authorities, transport authorities and whoever supports the scheme locally in business terms—means that progressing a rail scheme is no easy matter. Anybody who has been associated with any campaigns of the kind I described at the start of this peroration will know how difficult it is to get all the ducks lined up. One good reason—or one bad reason—why we do not seem to get anything to happen is that we have not actually done anything. All those schemes have remained in the pending tray for as long as I can remember, so all the fear, bias, anxiety and expectation that people have about such schemes remain exactly in place.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who represents a neighbouring constituency. He talked about the difficulties of developing new railway schemes. Does he think that it is easier to make more use of the existing network, and what the opportunities are there? There is a scheme in my constituency that he is familiar with—the plan to build a new station in north Maghull. I think that he will go on to talk about the same railway line. That would be a much easier scheme, because that is a development on the existing network. The economic benefits of that should be relatively easy to attain. I wonder what his thoughts are on the cuts that the Government have pushed through, which mean that that scheme and many others on the existing network have gone.

[John Pugh]

Strangely enough, and I hate to be parochial, I am not completely familiar with the scheme the hon. Gentleman mentions, even though it is close to my constituency. I will say that Governments, and Network Rail in particular, have found it quite easy simply to develop what we have, rather than extend beyond that. Certainly, in discussions I had with Network Rail in the previous Parliament, it was fairly clear that that was the mandate it was being given by Government—to sweat the assets it had, rather than do anything as venturesome as actually building a new track, or putting a new line down anywhere. What the hon. Gentleman suggests is certainly complementary to what I am suggesting, rather than the opposite.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

After 13 years in which the Labour Government did not invest properly in infrastructure, I welcome and celebrate the Government delivering £45 million to redouble the Swindon to Kemble line. That is exactly the right kind of decision that will develop our infrastructure for an effective, rebalanced and powerful economy.

[John Pugh]

I certainly endorse that point, which is similar to that made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), about getting more value and use from the assets that we have.

I would like the Government to be bold just once in a while and to put down a piece of rail that had not previously been there—as happens in other countries—or even to restore a piece of rail. I will talk later about huge schemes such as Crossrail, which are the exception, but all I am pressing for is that the Government advance a small railway scheme—anywhere. At the moment, we have no such practice or history to look at. We know about bypasses and what happens as a result of them, but we have no idea whether restoring the Todmorden, Halton or Burscough curves will involve either the impact that the promoters believe, or some of the costs that the Government fear. We simply have not done anything.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting case and might be getting to the point that I want to make. Is the real reason why there has been little investment in new lines over the past 30 years or so because of the methodology used for new investment? A terrific amount of investment is going into the railways at the moment, but nearly all of it is for the south-east, because the criteria used are about capacity and overcrowding, not about economic development, which is the point he was making. Does he agree that a rebalancing of the criteria of economic development and of overcrowding is needed because otherwise all the money will go to the south-east?

[John Pugh]

I heartily endorse that sentiment, as well as the hon. Gentleman’s point about methodology. He makes a very good case. However, the Government are in favour of rebalancing the economy, and they accept that one of the ways of doing so is through infrastructure capital projects, particularly on something such as rail. It is sad that really big rail schemes are being progressed in the south yet very little is happening up north, apart from such necessary developments as the Manchester hub.

It is fair presumption that if we want to move people around the country, laying down metal track and then shifting people around in large, uncomfortable iron boxes need not automatically be seen as the best approach. However, if we took that presumption to its logical conclusion, it would debar any tram schemes, although in places such as Manchester they have been extraordinarily successful. Even if that presumption is in place, it has to be tested, although that rarely happens. It is contested, however, when we come to the really large schemes such as Crossrail, high-speed rail and the Thames Gateway, on which the Government seem to be prepared to proceed—most hon. Members would support that.

To be fair, the Government have looked at the area I am speaking about: restoring curves. During the passage of railways legislation under the previous Government, Tony McNulty, the then Transport Minister, let it slip that the Department for Transport was looking closely at some of the schemes to see if they had any value. The Government were taking the folders out of the cupboard, dusting them down and seeing what worked and what did not. However, since that inadvertent confession of what the Government were up to, none of the research has seen the light of day, as far as I know. There is a presumption against such development, and that presumption is not argued but insidious. It was actually contested just before the general election by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who is now Under-Secretary of State for Transport. He expressed his support for a range of smaller schemes, some of which I have mentioned already.

Being completely fair, there is evidence that rail travel is more expensive than it looks, given that it has a hidden public subsidy, as the Minister will no doubt say at some point. However, there is rather less evidence than there used to be that empty carriages are being carried around unnecessarily. I remember the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), during his short spell as Secretary of State for Transport, calming things down by suggesting that he was going to contract the network further because parts of it were full of carriages of fresh air. No one is saying that any more. However, a man would never lose money by betting against the Department for Transport’s dismal projections on rail use. I recently looked at some statistics that demonstrated that even branch lines, which are one of the archaic aspects of our structure, are showing increased use.

There is a case that needs to be answered. Many hon. Members during their time in Parliament make cases for specific schemes, but what happens when we question the institutional inertia on the topic and when rational people bring forward considerations? Whether or not it is because of the methodology used, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) mentioned, hurdles get put in place.

In the past, the Department for Transport has asked me for a business case. Sensibly, I have asked what needs to go into a business case, but the Department is completely incapable of telling me, so I do not know what a good business case should look like. There simply has never been a good business case for a project such as I am suggesting that has been accepted by the Department. Demand studies have been carried out, but they are not so much optimised as—if this is a word—pessimised. People always assume the worst-case scenario, and that if the track is laid and the trains are built, no one will use them. Prices, however, are always maximised, without any indication of how competitive they are by international standards. I point out again that if we had adopted the same approach for trams that we have for small-scale railway infrastructure development, we would never have got a tram scheme off the ground.

If the Department for Transport puts in place the demand and the business case hurdles yet enthusiasm is still not dimmed, it is normally then suggested that the obvious way to promote the scheme would be under some local funding solution. However, there is always an underestimate of what a hard ask that is. Promoters of any substantial scheme would certainly have to talk to local councils to get them lined up, as well as dealing with passenger transport authorities and regional development authorities, when there were such organisations. All such organisations, by and large, have erratic, on-off funding streams. Their strategies have been revised over recent years and then changed again. The demands made of them have also changed, and even the labels of the organisations have changed, given that PTAs became integrated transport authorities. They are subject to changing mandates and central directives, some of which come from the Department for Transport. The promoters are then expected to pull all those organisations together and to work with national bodies such as Network Rail, which are also subject to prescriptions from the Government and the Office of Rail Regulation. Granted, Network Rail is more approachable than the disaster that was Railtrack, but it is still hard to deal with it. Had doing so been easier, we would have got to the yes-or-no stage for a scheme before now. What actually happens is that most schemes exist in limbo—they are simply around; neither in nor out, and neither done nor not done. Periodically, there are outbursts of activity in connection with them, but nothing that would represent substantial progress.

We can ask whether that is a problem, because no progress means that no money is spent, which means that no money is lost. People have a horror of losing money on railway schemes—of spending money futilely. We can look with equanimity on an unused road, but an unused railway is a different proposition. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton that this does matter. If any such schemes represent economic opportunities missed, they are largely economic opportunities missed in areas that need them: in the north, and outside the south-east and the London area.

Not to progress such schemes leaves in place a transport structure that, post-Beeching, does not make much sense, would never have been designed like that, and has been vandalised. Investigation of such schemes and why some people are keen advocates of them shows that they were often attempts to deal with a huge transport anomaly in their area. The third reason for requiring clarity is that while schemes remain in limbo, the land is preserved, the track bed is kept, and the aspiration and hope is retained—but for what, if there is no case for implementing them?

Many post-Beeching schemes that are still alive and kicking today are not based on pure nostalgia, and there is normally not a case for never implementing them, but there is also no clarity about when all the boxes for implementing them will be ticked. The situation is strange and Kafka-like, and we cannot get out of it. The Government have been honourable and clear in saying that such schemes are off the books for four years, although I understand that some are an exception, but while they are in that strange transport limbo we may be missing serious economic opportunities that we should investigate to a conclusion.

I want to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton about the London parallel. The Chair of the Select Committee on Transport constantly recites figures—they elude me for the moment—on how much is spent on transport in London compared with elsewhere.

[Graham Stringer]

Nearly all.

[John Pugh]

I suggest that the ratio is 10:1, and perhaps an hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong. I speak with some bitterness, because I spent two years discussing the Crossrail Bill. Its Committee stage was one of the longest in the past 50 years, and it was pure endurance, but one could not help being impressed by the scale of what was being attempted, although there were days when one thought there were better uses for one’s time. It is an engineering marvel, and will link the bankers of Canary Wharf with their planes at Heathrow. I am not against that, but London is already probably the best connected capital in the world, and it already has a tube and bus network that is the envy of every other city in the UK. I genuinely doubt whether London’s contribution to UK plc will be massively affected whether or not we build Crossrail on the most expensive real estate on the planet, with all that is involved. If the bankers of Canary Wharf, like their Venetian counterparts, are forced to take a vaporetto along the Thames, life would not be greatly worse for the nation or the economy.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I cannot help intervening. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the coalition has embarked on the biggest programme of rail capacity expansion in modern history, which includes significant projects in the north of England, not just electrification, but most recently the announcement that the Ordsall chord scheme has had the go-ahead? That will provide significant benefits for people living in cities throughout the north of England.

[John Pugh]

I am not saying that the Government have done nothing. I am saying that, like all Governments previously, they have in the pending tray schemes on which they have reached no rational conclusion or that have not been investigated thoroughly, and many of them are in the north-west. Even taking into account the investment in the north, which I welcome, applaud and wholly support, the proportion of that investment—the Minister may contradict my figures later—compared with the proportion anticipated for London, including Crossrail and the Thames Gateway, does not chime with the general drive to rebalance the economy.

I accept that there is a problem with overcrowding in London. Anyone who travels on the Northern line at certain times of day will testify to that. However, that is largely because London’s population is always swelled by the enormous number of people coming here every day by train, not because they cannot do business elsewhere, but because getting into and around London is already quite easy for business purposes. It is not easy absolutely, but it is easy compared with many other places.

Anyone who takes a few cross-country journeys by rail, such as from Reading to Liverpool or somewhere that is not on the London axis, knows how difficult they are. Although there has been investment in the north, we often have regurgitated rolling stock that the south-east does not want or has finished using. The bulk of the new rolling stock is coming to the Thames Gateway and the London area, but in Lancashire—the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton will agree—we have the most appalling, aged rolling stock rolling up and down the northern line with no immediate improvement in sight. We have not gone as far as I would like in doing something about regional inequality in transport investment. If I transpose in my mind any of the schemes to which I have alluded and imagine them happening in London and the south-east, I conclude that they would take less time.

The Burscough curve is my scheme of first preference. There are two stations, half a mile apart, in a growing, substantial dormitory town. Trains of two major franchises cover two city regions: Merseyside and Preston, as well as central Lancashire. Those two conurbations have been identified as being poorly linked by transport, but linking those two city regions requires only half a mile of track. If that were the case in Southwark, Kensington, Walthamstow, Richmond or the Thames Gateway, I have no doubt that it would have been funded and done years ago. Colleagues may play the game for themselves with their own pet schemes. What is a no-brainer in London is often a half-century campaign elsewhere.

A simple example with which some hon. Members will be familiar is the snarl-up between freight traffic from the docks and passenger transport trains from Liverpool Lime Street station. That went on for a long time, and arose simply because of the failure to put in the Olive Mount chord. It was wholly supported by all the economic interests in the area, and it has now been done, but I genuinely believe that it would not have taken the same length of time had it occurred at Felixstowe, near Tilbury or elsewhere in the south-east.

I am encouraged by the pre-election support of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes for smaller schemes. I am heartened by the Secretary of State’s view that even in times of austerity it is sensible to sustain capital investment in transport, and that is what the Government are doing. I am restrained by due and proper caution with regard to some of the schemes, their costs and so on, but we can all travel in hope and never arrive. The Department can set out clearly what it can achieve, or it can simply wash its hands of the matter and put it down to local decision making. I have given reasons why that is not the best outcome.

I want to address the real problem of institutional inertia. We would never have found out that passengers do not suffocate in railway tunnels had we not sent passengers through them—that should not be done in an uncontrolled way, but we certainly managed to find out what happens. We do not know what happens if a scheme such as that at Todmorden progresses, because such schemes do not progress; they remain static. We will never find out whether restoring curves make sense, unless we restore them. That should not be done randomly, and I suggest that the Department rescues its paperwork on curves and their restoration, and prioritises its projects using criteria that can be understood. We must learn lessons by actually carrying out a project and make something happen.

We must also consider other alternatives. There is a long historic link between housing development, which the country sorely needs, and rail development. Housing development often provides a subsidy for rail development. A few years ago I attended a reception—other hon. Members may also have been there—at which the Kilbride Group promoted what it was doing for railway development in the south-west. That was linked to a major housing development, and a similar aspect of housing subsidy could creep into a project such as the Burscough curves. I am aware of the role played by that group and of the possibilities elsewhere. Given that so many people have banged on about this issue for so long, it would not harm the Department for Transport to invite those with such schemes in mind to some sort of seminar, at which problems and prospects on both sides could be aired.

It would also help enormously for the Department to point to an extra mile of track somewhere, and say why it had or had not worked, and to explain why it appears to be neither physically nor financially possible to put back track in England. That would be one way forward. It does not commit the Government to a single penny but it means that we can discuss the various schemes. A while ago I asked to speak personally to the Minister about the Burscough curves, but I understand that she had other priorities at the time and I lay no blame at her door for that. However, I am not comfortable with the strange, Kafkaesque world in which nothing really happens except that the odd consultant gets paid from time to time. The bizarre anomalies that lead to people supporting various schemes continue, but no final decisions are made. I suggest that there is a more intelligent way to do things.

15:02

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

I came to this debate to listen, rather than to participate, but that was such an interesting speech and I would like to make three simple points. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing this important debate. He made an excellent speech with many important points.

My first point is a bit of a boast. It might come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman to know that, when I was chair of Manchester airport, I was responsible for creating two new railway lines in the north of England. One was to the south of Manchester airport, and one to the north, and they connected the airport to the main rail network. It was tough getting those lines. At the time there was Railtrack—there is much to say about Railtrack and some of the current problems that we have in the railway system of too much money going in and not enough coming out. Turning the railways into a property company was one of the worst mistakes of the 1990s. Having first created a link to the rail network to the north of Manchester airport, we agreed with Railtrack to create a link to the south and the west coast main line. As we reached an agreement, Railtrack withdrew all the funding and Manchester airport had to put in the money. That was a difficult problem.

My second point is to expand on my intervention. If looked at over a period of 10 or 15 years, the amount of money that enters the transport system in the south-east of England and London is unjustifiable on a national basis, given that we are one country with huge regional disparities. Some statistics are worth quoting. The overrun of costs on the Jubilee line extension came to more than the total investment in rail and transport in the rest of England over the 18 months that it took to finish that extension. I am not talking about the cost of the Jubilee line extension itself, which was built partly to connect south-east London and partly to justify the money spent on the enterprise zone in the docklands. That statistic is an outrageous imbalance, and if we take that example, it is not surprising that we have such regional disparities.

If we add up the public-private partnership, which is sometimes left out of the equation, Thameslink, Crossrail and the investment going into the Olympics and transport into east London, the rest of England is left with only about 4% or 5% of that investment—the figure varies depending on how the sums are done. It is interesting to note that whatever area is looked at, such as education or health, London receives more per capita than the rest of the country, probably for good reasons. Nevertheless, the one block of expenditure where the gap between London and the south-east and the rest of the country has been growing is in transport. Ministers have never been able to justify such disparities—I am not talking specifically about the current Minister; I am referring to those in the previous Government—and to explain why that change took place when the London economy was doing better. That comes back to the methodology used for investment in the capacity of the system in terms of carriages, and for new investment in signalling and tracks.

The arguments based on capacity and overcrowding are not stupid. If people have to sit on top of each other there is a case for making platforms longer and putting on extra coaches. However, if that is the main—or only—criterion, we end up with a final result that means that 90% of investment goes to the south-east. Because that investment is put into transport, which is economically vital and important and helps the economy to grow, more congestion is created. The best way to put that argument is to say that investment is provided to support congestion. As the hon. Member for Southport said, we should not get rid of criteria on overcrowding, but we should balance them up so that investment is also made in places where it will have an economic benefit. That will probably involve a lower cost-benefit ratio than one would get in the south-east, but if we do otherwise, we will create more congestion. As the hon. Gentleman said, London probably has one of the best transport systems of any capital city in the world. It can certainly compare with most, but there is still a lot of congestion because there is an imbalance in the country.

My third point was to compliment the Government—not something I do regularly—on their commitment to High Speed 2. That is a generational project for rail expansion, but it will happen only if all three parties are committed to it. Not long ago, along with other members of the Transport Committee, I questioned Minister after Minister about High Speed 2, and they all gave good reasons for why it was not going to happen. To be fair, the Liberal Democrats have always been in favour of it. The Conservatives came out in favour of it because they thought it was a way of answering the question about capacity in the London airport system and winning the London mayoralty, which was a bad reason, although the outcome was good. The Labour party also came to support High Speed 2, partly because we eventually had a Secretary of State who understood something about transport before he took up his post, which has been unusual over the past 50 years or so. He was committed to High Speed 2, and the Labour party came to support it.

High Speed 2 is vital for the country’s future. It is one of the key measures that will rebalance the economy in the way I described. If it does not happen, the economy will become unbalanced in the opposite direction. At some point in the next 10 or 15 years—I cannot give the exact date, and the projections are never that accurate anyway—the west coast main line, even though it is much improved and has extra capacity, will reach full capacity. That is the best case that can be made to doubters in the Conservative and Labour parties. There will have to be extra capacity on the west coast main line at some time, and it might as well come in the form of High Speed 2, which would link this country to the continent and make us feel like the rest of Europe, with excellent train services. That is the basic case for High Speed 2, and it has nothing to do with the environment or getting people off aeroplanes; it is an economic case and it relates to the north of England.

There are two other things I would like to say. If we are going to build extra capacity down the west coast main line, we also have to build extra capacity into the ordinary rail system in the north of England. It is a shame that we have to wait for control period 5 for that increase in capacity to take place, but I hope that it will be there before High Speed 2 happens. The rail system in the north of England—this is another great statistic that I often use—runs on schedules that are slower than they were 130 years ago. The schedules for the trains running between Blackburn and Manchester, between Bolton and Manchester and in the rest of the north-west would have shamed Gladstone; they are quite shameful. It takes as long to get from Doncaster to Manchester in round terms—there are a few minutes difference—as it does to get from Doncaster to London, and that illustrates the imbalance in the transport system. By and large, someone can get to London very quickly, but it will take them quite a long time to get anywhere else, and that is true not just in the north of England. We therefore need extra capacity, whether or not that involves electrification. I welcome the commitment to the Ordsall chord. I also hope that we can have the northern hub as soon as possible in control period 5 and that we can really improve the capacity and speed of trains.

I have one final point about high-speed rail. As I said, the case for it is economic. The case for the connection between Birmingham and London is based on capacity. However, High Speed 2 will be a failure if it goes only between London and Birmingham. What is the point of that? It really must go to Manchester and Leeds, and I hope that it will go beyond, to Edinburgh and Glasgow. That will really bring the country together and bring economic benefits to the west and east sides of the country. Although I do not expect this to happen—things have probably gone too far—I would have started building the lines from the north to the south. That is partly because we would have had support for that. I understand why Conservative MPs have done what they have, and they have every right, and the responsibility, to represent their constituents’ interests and to oppose what is going on, but I suspect that it would have been much easier politically to start high-speed lines in the north, given the enthusiasm and support for them in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Manchester and Merseyside. I have tilted at many windmills in my political life, however, and that is not one that I will tilt at too much.

If High Speed 2 cannot be started in the north of England, however, there must be a solid commitment as the hybrid Bill dealing with this issue goes through the House that the lines will go at least to Manchester and Leeds, if not further. Those of us who are long enough in the tooth to have been talking about regional disparities in transport for 25 or 30 years remember the commitments given regarding the Channel Tunnel Bill. There were commitments that trains would come through the tunnel and go to cities in the north of England, including Manchester. Those trains were built, and they were in sheds outside Manchester for years before they were scrapped; indeed, every time anyone got on the west coast main line in Manchester, they would have gone past those sheds.

I will support High Speed 2, and I want the Labour party to stay committed to it. However, in keeping the three parties together, which will be a national project that might take 25 or 30 years, there must be an absolutely solid, unbreakable legal commitment to build the line to the north of England and beyond, if possible. I hope that the Minister can respond to those points.

15:16

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who gave us a macro appreciation of these rail systems, and he obviously speaks with great experience and a degree of frustration. I want to deal with a micro issue that affects my constituency, but I hope that it illustrates some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made about people’s frustrations.

First, however, I want to make a couple of general points, prompted by the comments of the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). I served on a development agency for four years and I was a councillor for 17 years in what was then quoted as Britain’s poorest borough. If we had spent the money that we subsequently spent year in, year out on system-built council estates and projects to upskill people on getting the transport link right, the rest would have followed, and we would have saved an immense amount. I want to discuss that in the context of regeneration.

Secondly, I congratulate the Minister and the coalition Government on doing the unexpected. Many of us did not expect what happened in the capital budget round, when so much was made available, particularly to the north-west. I am talking about the electrification of the lines between Liverpool and Manchester and between Preston and Blackpool and about the extra coaches on the west coast main line, which will help to relieve some of the pressure. I know full well that the Minister is determined to get the new contracts right and to have longer contracts so that we can deal with the explosion in the number of customers on the west coast main line. As the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, the Government’s support for High Speed 2 is also important.

I should put on the record my total support for the hon. Gentleman’s concept that we start from the north and go south. While the home counties have their little difficulties, let us get on with building High Speed 2 from the north. I would start from Glasgow and Edinburgh and prove that we are going to reunite this nation. If we see this project actually happening, that will, of itself, provide the psychological boost that we want in the north and in Scotland. I totally support that concept.

I hope that the Minister does not see this as a north-west conspiracy, although I sometimes wonder what would be wrong with one. However, I want to focus on the town of Fleetwood in my constituency, which has the unenviable record of being one of the largest towns—it has a population of 58,000—without a railway connection. Funnily enough, it was the original end of the west coast main line in the 19th century. We have a Euston hotel because the line ran from Euston station to Fleetwood, where, before the railway managed to get over the Lake district, people got off the railway and got on the boats to get to Scotland. That rail line disappeared with the Beeching axe, as it was known. The four and a half miles of track between Fleetwood and the nearest railway station, Poulton-Le-Fylde, still lie unused. Fleetwood suffered recently when Stena Line pulled the ferry service to Northern Ireland, and the ferry service to the Isle of Man has also gone. To be fair, Fleetwood is at the end of the line for the tram upgrade from Blackpool. That in itself possibly offers some future improvement through getting bigger and faster trams on the line, but in the interim, overruns in the contract have nearly devastated a lot of small family business in Fleetwood; however, at least we are getting near to its end.

The key to Fleetwood’s regeneration is the railway line. The Fleetwood master plan states:

“The reinstatement of the line is physically and operationally feasible.”

That takes us back to what the hon. Member for Southport said. As other hon. Members have said, some of these schemes are small-scale when compared with what happens in London. The plan continues:

“It would create significant economic and social benefits and a positive impact on the local economy supporting further sustainable growth that is hard to envisage without a rail link.”

At the moment, Fleetwood has a tremendous fish processing industry. The bulk of that fish no longer comes from the fishing fleet, which I think is down to two and a half boats, but comes in at night by truck from every other fishing port in Britain down a narrow A road. Even with the freight possibilities, rail could provide momentum to the expansion of an indigenous industry.

I want to illustrate that such a project could be seen as an example of the big society. The Poulton and Wyre Railway Society trust has operated for five years, and I hope the Minister can come and see at some point what it has done to restore Thornton station. It estimates that to reopen the line now would cost £5.5 million, and it hopes to apply for grant funding. I am asking the Minister for support. The trust is negotiating to get the lease for the remaining bit of the line, from Poulton to Fleetwood, to be assigned to it by Network Rail. That would save money, but the dealings with Network Rail have now gone on for more than two years. These are enthusiasts and volunteers, but I must say that the local council, Wyre borough council, supports them. I pay tribute to Councillor Don MacNaughton, who has been remorseless in trying to get this moving, but we seem to have hit an impasse in dealing with all the strands of Network Rail. I would be extremely grateful for any support the Minister could give. She stood beside that track before the general election, so she understands where it goes and the possibilities therein.

I am also interested in hearing from the Minister about the tram-train concept—I have met with a group to discuss that—which operates in Germany and which I understand might be tested in Rotherham. To be fair, that scheme was started under the previous Government. Particularly as Fleetwood is now getting the upgrade of a tram system, such a scheme could provide another solution, albeit a long-term one, for an area that badly needs uplift. I talked about the uplift to the psychology of the north-west from High Speed 2. If work on such a line were started in Fleetwood, that would in itself motivate the people there to realise that they can stay there, bring up their children and run a business, and that they can expect their children to get jobs there. That is the critical nature of the scheme.

In the Association of Train Operating Companies 2009 report, the Fleetwood-Poulton line was fourth from top in terms of cost-benefit when compared with other lines. Such schemes are possible; they do not need the mega-millions and billions that London has. One could argue about that and the justifications for it in different ways. However, we need ministerial support to unlock the connections among Network Rail, the Poulton and Wyre Railway Society and the council, to see if we can provide one more link in the chain that we need across the north-west—I accept what other hon. Members have said—and provide the lift and regeneration we need.

[John Pugh]

It would seem to anybody listening to the hon. Gentleman expand on his scheme that a very small amount of money is needed to make a very important change. We could almost call it a social experiment, which, if it comes off, we could learn from and apply elsewhere. Does he agree?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I am grateful for that intervention, because the hon. Gentleman puts the possibilities into words better than I can.

The scheme and the enthusiasts are there, and, as the Minister has seen, the track is there bar one mile of it, but I am sure that we can easily borrow a mile of track from some other disused railway. I am asking for some ministerial support for the scheme, particularly in respect of Network Rail, and for another demonstration from the coalition Government that they are committed to the north and to the north-west in particular.

15:25

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I add my compliments to those already paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing the debate, and I apologise for missing the early part of his speech. Judging from the part that I caught, however, I am sure that reading his speech in the Official Report tomorrow will be instructive.

Given that the debate is about railway expansion and smaller schemes, the Minister will not be surprised that I wish to talk about several smaller schemes in my constituency about which I have spoken before. Although I support investment in the railway and some of the larger schemes that we have heard about this afternoon, part of the point I wish to make is that there are some very small schemes that do not require new infrastructure, nor even a mile of track, that would benefit the rail network. Decisions taken in previous decades have meant that the network has had to do without such schemes. My concern, and I think the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport, is that in the old plans to which we still turn for our railways, we do not have a decision-making structure that is open to embracing such ideas.

The scheme in my constituency and county that I am keen to advocate first and foremost is the TransWilts project. I have been most encouraged for its prospects in the light of the Government’s announcement late last year on additional rolling stock. Given the correspondence and meetings that I have had with the Department, however, I have been on something of a rollercoaster about how optimistic I should be. On the day that the statement was made, I asked the Secretary of State if the determination on where the additional rolling stock would go would be entirely dependent on the commercial strength of the operator on any part of the network, or on wider economic benefits. I was told that it would not be exclusively about the commercial strength of the franchisee, but following further scrutiny, it has become apparent that getting additional rolling stock is a very competitive process, not least because of the strained public finances and concerns about the viability of the subsidy to what are termed the regional railways. The rolling stock will have to be paid for somehow, and without a source of support or the willingness to contemplate including these operations within existing franchise and support arrangements, it could prove very difficult to get additional rolling stock on to certain services without a franchisee in strong commercial health.

In my case, I am somewhat confident that there will be additional rolling stock on the Cardiff-Portsmouth line, which would address the congested trains on routes in and out of Bath and Bristol. However, it might be rather harder to make the argument—it is probably a much stronger argument from an economic point of view, but it is one that requires time for its case to be proved—for connecting the towns in western Wiltshire with Chippenham and Swindon through a TransWilts service. Given the excellent support that we have from the community rail partnership in Wiltshire and the enthusiasm of at least some of the councillors on Wiltshire council, however, I remain hopeful that between us we will be able to persuade decision makers in the industry about that.

Another long-standing campaign for a small but significant improvement to the railway in my constituency is for the reopening of Corsham station. That seemed very close at hand until around the time of the Hatfield train crash, when something of a retrenchment on the railways led to the withdrawal of plans for services that would have been able to serve Corsham station in a way that current high-speed services cannot. As we no longer have an Oxford-Bristol service passing over that piece of track, the campaign has been very hard to fight. However, moneys have been set aside—through section 106 agreements in relation to the substantial residential development that there has been—for redeveloping that station. We need a more joined-up approach between local government and the funds that it has available in this case, and decision making in the transport sector.

My final example is an extreme case that makes the point about the value that smaller schemes can provide. I am referring to the northern curve at Bradford junction, north of Trowbridge. That is an area where, essentially, tracks heading in three directions meet. At the moment, there is an east-to-south curve and a west-to-south curve. We have a railway line that forks in a Y shape, but traditionally there was a northern curve, which in effect created a triangle at that point. It does not take long to realise the flexibility that that would provide for the diversion of trains. People will know, especially if they travel on a Sunday, as I often do, that there are a lot of engineering works on the Great Western main line, which often mean that trains are not able to travel the full route, such as the one that I take into London from Wiltshire. We might be much better able to deal with that in our rail network if we had the option to divert trains in the way that we could if they were able to travel from Bath and then back up to Chippenham having taken that curve, even if work was being done on the intervening track.

The amount of track that we are talking about is very small. The land is still available for the railway—it has not been developed. I believe that that piece of track was not maintained because of the costs of improving the reliability of the electricity supply to the signalling infrastructure. Now that residential development goes right the way up to the railway line on the eastern side, the costs of improving the electricity infrastructure for that piece of track and the signalling used there would be rather less than they were at the time it was abandoned. I offer that scheme as an example of something that is very small and simple that would not make an enormous difference, but could prove to be of wider benefit to the resilience and flexibility of our rail infrastructure, especially if we are looking to the future following the Government’s decisions on electrifying the Great Western line, given the likely need to divert trains during the engineering works that will be required.

Time and again when I sought to make the case for many of these improvements, I found that if they did not make it into the Great Western route utilisation strategy produced under the previous Government, my hopes of being able to make the case for them were much diminished. However, the current Government have made some very enlightened decisions about the railways in the past 12 months that were not envisaged at the time of that strategy, whether we are talking about the decision that has already been made about the high-speed fleet for the Great Western line, the decision about electrifying the route from London beyond Bristol into Wales, and the decision that I referred to earlier about additional rolling stock that could be available for my part of the country. I hope that those hon. Members representing northern constituencies will forgive me for saying that my area is not part of the blessed London network that they have described and we have struggled to secure additional rolling stock under previous decisions. The fact that those recent decisions have been made calls into question some of the assumptions in that strategy, but they still exist and underpin the problems that campaigners encounter when trying to have decisions revisited.

I shall conclude shortly because I want to leave sufficient time for the Front Benchers to respond to the debate. If we really want to support and embrace smaller rail schemes, which can provide excellent value for money if we have a little confidence in the potential of our railways, we will need to loosen the straitjacket that I have described. We need a little more joined-up thinking between local government and the rail sector, more enlightened allocations of funding streams—be they from parking or from economic development—and perhaps even the ability for local authorities to take more of an equity stake so that it is not simply a matter of responding to a begging bowl.

I hope that some of these ideas will give us the ability to break the current cycle. Those of us who are campaigners in Wiltshire find that if we want to make an improvement to our railways, the Department says that local government should be able to promote those schemes, but local government says that operators need to be able to pay for them themselves, and operators then say that they will need support from the Department—a subsidy—if they are to be able to support a scheme. We therefore all go round in circles and progress cannot be made on our railways. I hope that we can build on the early decisions that the Government have taken and take full advantage of all opportunities, and not just those presented by the big projects of which we hear so much.

15:35

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing the debate, which has been excellent. Clearly, it raises important matters about smaller rail schemes and how, in many instances, they could benefit local areas by increasing economic prosperity and improving access to the rail network for local communities. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that smaller rail schemes clearly should be considered as we consider how best to deal with expansion on our railway network.

We need to consider all ways of making our railways work in the most economically efficient way. Given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) rightly said, there will be serious capacity issues all over the rail network in the years to come, we need to think about the best ways of expanding the railways for the best value for money, which clearly involves looking at the types of scheme that have been discussed today.

With more and more people wanting to travel by rail, continued investment in increasing rail capacity and expanding the network are vital. With passenger growth expected to increase by up to 50% by 2020, and rail freight expected to grow by 30% during the next decade, substantial changes to the rail network will be needed.

Clearly there has been a great deal of debate in the House and media coverage about larger rail expansion projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink, the electrification schemes in Wales and the north-west, and the ongoing discussions about high-speed rail. Those projects will clearly attract the lion’s share of transport funding in the future. However, growing demand on the rail network can sometimes be satisfied, as we have heard today, by smaller enhancements, such as lengthening platforms to allow for longer trains or doubling single tracks. The former approach has been taken on some London commuter routes, and the latter is appropriate in rural areas that have become bottlenecks.

Of course, local rail expansion has been made more difficult—particularly given the expectation that these schemes and their business cases will be primarily led by local authorities, integrated transport authorities where they exist, local enterprise partnerships where they exist, and so on—following the comprehensive spending review, which left a 28% cut in local government transport spending. That has implications for the immediate future. Sometimes smaller rail projects will not be the best solution all over the rail network. As we see on an increasing number of routes, peak trains are already at maximum length and no further trains can realistically be added.

I welcome the campaigning work of the hon. Member for Southport and particularly the work that he has done to make the case for the Burscough curve, which will help to revive the disused electric track between Ormskirk and Burscough, thus bringing links to Southport. He must have found it a bit disheartening that the present Government in effect slapped a four-year ban on funding such projects, as he discussed in his speech. However, he is to be congratulated on showing the determination to find alternative sources of funding for the scheme, which will certainly benefit his constituents. I wish him well with that.

As many of us in the room are north-west MPs—the exceptions are the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), the Minister and her parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke)—I agree with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) that people could mistakenly think that this is a north-west conspiracy. However, he knows that there is a great deal of rail congestion in the whole of our region, and many commentators have said that smaller schemes, many of which make up elements of what is called the northern hub, are key components in improving rail services across the north of England.

One ambition of the northern hub project is to increase train services in the north by 40% during the next 20 years, including for cities such as Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. That would mean 700 more trains a day, which would make it possible for 3.5 million more passengers to travel by train each year. The estimated wider economic impact of the project is significant as it involves the creation of 23,000 jobs and a return of £4 for every £1 that is spent.

Although I welcome the recent announcement on the Ordsall curve, it has been frustrating for those of us who believe in the northern hub project that the Government have not yet made a firm commitment about when work on that worthwhile and economically beneficial project will begin. That would be a good starting point. I hope that any approval will not be piecemeal, however, because we need to take the northern hub project as a whole. I welcome the fact that the Ordsall curve will link Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Victoria stations by the end of 2016, but that is only one aspect of the northern hub scheme. There is no Government commitment to the entire programme, so I ask the Minister to give a firm commitment that the project will be included in the next Network Rail control period.

Labour clearly remains committed to dealing with overcrowding and capacity problems on the network, and to considering how best to use further rail expansion to do so in the most cost-effective way. However, rail expansion and investment decisions can have a real impact on regional growth, and may help to perpetuate a cycle of increasing disparity of wealth between regions. Such decisions will be all the more important in the light of the abolition of the regional development agencies.

Smaller rail schemes obviously have beneficial effects in all areas of the country. In a previous debate, I played a parliamentary version of rail Top Trumps with the hon. Member for Chippenham over who had the worst rail service in the country—I think that I won with my example of one train a week in one direction only. However, the hon. Gentleman made a powerful case for extra investment in his constituency. I was disappointed that the Government sneaked out their decision to end all funding for local rail schemes developed by local authorities and integrated transport authorities on the same day that they announced the public consultation on High Speed 2.

[Mrs Villiers]

Does the hon. Gentleman know of any local authorities or local promoters that complained about that announcement? The fact is that none of those schemes is ready to kick off before April 2012, so they will still be subject to the same three-year consideration for national funding as under the system that we inherited from the Labour Government.

[Andrew Gwynne]

If that was the case, putting a block on the schemes was a pointless exercise.

The Government’s decision means that no central funding will be available for new schemes until April 2015, which will obviously affect schemes such as that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southport. Why was that decision not included in the announcement about the comprehensive spending review? Such an important decision should have been announced on its own, rather than being overshadowed by an announcement on the same day about the public consultation on high-speed rail. That is a blow to further passenger choice and to economic regeneration.

The Eddington review outlined the significant returns that can result from smaller projects that unblock pinch points, saying that variable infrastructure schemes to support public transport in urban areas are likely to offer the highest returns. A recent report by the Transport Committee clearly identified the way in which the south, and particularly London, has benefited from rail investment, which was a point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton and others. The report also noted that transport investment per head in London and the south-east was three times as much as in other regions of the country. I do not wish to be misrepresented, so I point out that Labour certainly supports investment in London and the south-east, but similar interest should be shown in the needs of the rest of the country, and my hon. Friend made a valid and powerful point in that respect. Some smaller rail projects might be a way to redress the balance, but we will have to wait to see what is included in the next Network Rail control period.

I wonder whether there is a greater role for tram-train, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. Such services could vastly improve local passenger services—and the passenger experience—by utilising existing infrastructure. It will be interesting to see the success or otherwise of the south Yorkshire trial and to note whether that can be adopted elsewhere.

Hon. Members will know that Labour is undertaking a fundamental review of all its policies, exactly as the Conservatives did when the Prime Minister became leader of his party. We are looking at all areas of policy, and I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton that that includes the question of High Speed 2. I urge him to take part in that because his serious points about capacity on the west coast main line and regional economic disparities should be fed into the process. Whatever the outcome of the policy review, the party will remain committed to assisting the Government to secure the legal powers for High Speed 2 in the hybrid Bill. Like my hon. Friend, I urge the Government to do so for the whole of the Y-shape network, not only the route from London to Birmingham.

Local rail schemes can make an important contribution to solving transport challenges. Many of the points raised today will help to inform the debate. However, as we heard from a number of hon. Members, many local rail projects may be suspended until funding is identified. What the hon. Member for Southport said about building a viable business case was extremely valid, and it is difficult to pursue the process through a vast array of bureaucracy. How will the Government cut through that maze of bureaucracy to bring forward schemes promoted by local partnerships, as described by the hon. Gentleman?

Will the McNulty review make suggestions, and if so what is the Government’s view? What further advice does the Minister have for local authorities to get funding for their projects? Will she make a statement about smaller rail schemes such as the Todmorden curve? What work has the Department done to examine the benefits of reopening other disused rail lines? What will happen to the schemes that were in line for funding before the Government’s announcement earlier this year? The Southport scheme and others represent a small proportion of the schemes on our rail network, and we hope that those and many others will be given due consideration by the Government for the next control period.

15:48

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing the debate and on his eloquent and articulate speech. All contributions to this good debate have given us an insight into what approach to take on rail expansion, particularly with regard to local schemes. I highlight the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) is in the room because he also takes a keen interest in local rail services in his constituency and campaigns to improve them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southport acknowledged that there has been a problem in recent years due to a failure to address the increase in passenger numbers by increasing capacity. To be fair to the previous Government, they started to wake up to the problem, but rather late in the day. However, a significant programme of rail investment is now under way. That is a response to the sort of points that my hon. Friend made about the success of the railways in increasing passenger numbers, as well as about the significant economic and wider regeneration benefits that can be produced by the better connectivity that comes with the railways.

I assure my hon. Friend that there is no presumption against local rail schemes, as he indicated that there might be. He and other hon. Members have highlighted the benefits of local rail expansion, whether by reopening disused lines or providing better or more frequent services on existing track. The Government fully recognise the possible benefit of such schemes. I shall set out what assistance we can give on those and the sources of funding that local authorities might look to. However, it is also important to talk about some of the bigger capacity expansion programmes, because my hon. Friend is right that they are much needed.

Despite the deficit that we inherited, the coalition has placed a priority on capital spending on rail programmes for exactly the sort of reasons that my hon. Friend outlined. We have heard about the major electrification programme in the north-west, including for routes between Liverpool and Manchester, Liverpool and Wigan, and Manchester and Blackpool. As well as benefiting long-distance services, that enables local services to be operated by electric trains, thus providing faster journeys for passengers and releasing diesel carriages for use elsewhere on the network.

New Pendolinos will be added to the west coast main line in the months to come. We have announced plans for the electrification of the Great Western line between London, Newbury, Oxford, Bristol and Cardiff. Long-distance services on both Great Western and the east coast will benefit from the new fleet of intercity express programme trains. Line improvements are also going on for the east coast. A major redevelopment at Reading station will benefit railway users right across the south-west of England and south Wales. The long-awaited upgrade of the London underground has been secured. Crossrail and Thameslink are under way and will provide a major boost for public transport capacity in London and the south-east. Funding has been secured for the whole of the CP4 programme of capacity enhancements. More than 2,000 new carriages will be introduced on to the network across the country by May 2019, around 1,800 of which will be additional capacity. That will include 650 extra carriages by May 2014.

We are also consulting on our plans to deliver a Y-shaped high-speed rail network connecting London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. I am grateful for the graciously expressed support of the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). I assure him of our absolute commitment that the line will go to Manchester and Leeds, because we believe that will not only provide the vital uplift in capacity that he rightly highlights is needed on the west coast and east coast routes, but help to meet the ambition to rebalance the economy and close the prosperity gap between north and south. Our programme of rail and transport improvements includes significant investment in the north. When taking decisions about which investments to make, we of course take on board the wider regeneration issues and our ambition to rebalance the economy, not just the straightforward business case.

Further investment was announced in the Budget, including for the Ordsall curve, which is another important benefit for the whole of the north of England. A second project was the Swindon and Kemble redoubling, which will help to improve local services and resilience on the route to south Wales. The next high level output specification is in preparation, and we will give full consideration to the northern hub. The shadow Minister asked for the Government’s commitment to that, but I would be interested to know whether such a commitment is now official Labour party policy—I noticed that he did not specify that.

I welcome the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport about the Burscough curves. I know that he has campaigned for that project for a long time. I emphasise that the key first step to make progress on that is to get support from Lancashire county council and Merseytravel. It is important for local authorities to set priorities on a direct rail link between Ormskirk and Southport, and Southport and Preston. It is for local transport authorities to decide the best way to meet a local transport need.

[John Pugh]

Several hon. Members have voiced concern —the Minister is helping us a little with it at the moment—about the opaqueness of the procedure for getting these schemes to fruition. It would be helpful if the Department for Transport would give guidance to the campaign groups across the country about the stages through which they must go, the hurdles they must get over, who the groups need to get buy-in from, and who is necessary and who is incidental.

[Mrs Villiers]

Guidance is published on the Department’s website, but officials are always happy to engage with campaign groups and local authorities to help them to navigate something that is not an easy process. When one is talking about significant amounts of taxpayers’ money, we need to ensure that care is taken when judging how to deploy it. The Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office analyse very astutely whether we are making the right decisions on how money is spent, and that means that business cases have to be considered. My officials will be happy to engage with my hon. Friend on the issue. I will be happy to meet him to discuss the Burscough curves. My officials are heavily engaged with local authorities in the area about the Todmorden curve, which another scheme with considerable local support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) spoke eloquently about the potential for reopening the Poulton to Fleetwood line. I much enjoyed my visit there. If he is having problems engaging with Network Rail, I will be happy to take that up and to encourage Network Rail to work with the group mentioned by hon. Friend.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) on the TransWilts rail project, I know that the Secretary of State has looked at that recently. Again, if progress is to be made, the first step is to get the support of the local authorities. We want local authorities to be more heavily involved in decisions about rail and we are actively considering how best to bring down the cost of such rail schemes so that it is more viable to deliver the kind of improvements that hon. Members have asked for. We hope that the McNulty review will generate ideas on that point. In addition, we hope that projects such as the Rotherham tram train and the Abbey line tram project will give us an insight into whether light rail can provide a lower-cost alternative for some of the schemes mentioned today.

Sources of funding for such local schemes might include the private sector, if developer contributions are available. The local sustainable transport fund or the regional growth fund are also available. The spending review has provided significant funds for major local transport schemes—£1.5 billion up to 2015. A number of schemes have already been given the go-ahead, including improvements to Leeds station and the extension of the Midland metro. Projects such as Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge are under consideration.

A further funding source is available after a certain period. For projects that are primarily local in nature, we think that it is fair to ask the local authorities to take initial responsibility for getting the scheme up and running, and funding it. We recognise, however, that the railway network needs to adapt to population growth, and we are always prepared to consider the case for reopening disused local lines or the enhancement of local services on existing lines. When a local authority has chosen a rail solution to meet its transport needs, it is appropriate for it to demonstrate its commitment to that solution by taking initial responsibility for revenue funding. Once the service has run for a few years and demonstrated its success, we will then assess it on the same basis as existing franchised services. If the scheme has a good business case, and if the ongoing subsidy required is affordable and can be accommodated within available budgets, we are prepared to consider providing funding at a national level from the departmental rail budget. Schemes would normally be considered for such central funding after three years, but because of the constraints on the budget, we have made it clear that new schemes will not be considered for central funding on that basis until after 2015, although we do not believe that that will have an impact on any existing schemes.

Brown Signs

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Westminster Hall

15:59

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. It is also a pleasure to have secured this debate. I am grateful to the Minister, who I have been corresponding regularly with on the topic of brown signs, for responding to it.

Brown signs, or more specifically white-on-brown signs, might not sound the sexiest or most modern topic for debate in this House, unlike high-speed rail or superfast broadband. Economically, however, brown signs are vital to attract tourists to our key destinations throughout the country. In the UK, 200,000 businesses are dedicated to tourism—

16:00

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:14

On resuming—

[Julian Smith]

Before the Division, I was speaking about the importance of the tourism industry to Britain. It represents £52 billion of our GDP and more than 4% of our jobs, and is one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy. For rural areas, such as the one I represent in north Yorkshire—Skipton and Ripon—tourism is a vital part of the economy, as it is for areas that colleagues here represent.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for having secured this debate. In my constituency, we are very proud to host Warwick castle. It is a fantastic tourist attraction, but we have many other, smaller attractions that similarly lack exposure. Does my hon. Friend not agree that, although it is important to have rules that prevent too many signs from being put up, we should be prepared to relax those rules to allow other attractions the necessary promotion—such as brown signs—to boost tourism and support local economies?

[Julian Smith]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I will come on to that recommendation later. I requested this debate as a result of the many representations that I have received, first as a candidate and then as an MP, largely because of the upgrading of the A1 just north of Ripon. The upgrading has opened up a Pandora’s box of brown sign issues. People who had them under the guidance that was in place in the early 2000s are fighting to retain them under the new guidance that came in a few years ago. Newby hall, which is thought to be the real-life Downton abbey, got a big shock a couple of years ago when its sign was removed during an upgrade, and it has had to fight hard for a replacement. It has been waiting several months now for confirmation that it will get a permanent new brown sign. The hall is one of the north of England’s most successful visitor attractions and stately homes.

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

I urge my hon. Friend to urge the Minister not to fall into the trap in which we seem to find ourselves in Wales, where this issue is devolved. There, McDonald’s has a brown sign in Haverford West, but the wonderful Slebech park in my constituency cannot, for some reason, obtain one.

[Julian Smith]

That is another excellent point, from a colleague who also represents a rural area.

Ripon cathedral, in my constituency, had a brown sign with the old A1, but with the new A1(M) it has to disaggregate its visitors into religious and tourist ones and no longer qualifies for a sign. Lightwater Valley, a theme park near Ripon, has been told that it cannot have a brown sign on an A road directing travellers up the A1(M), just in case cyclists get confused and start to travel up the motorway.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

I have written to the Minister on this point. He might know that Lincoln is not a million miles from the A1 either, but it is yet to have any brown signs pointing from that road to the city’s plethora of attractions, including its cathedral, the castle, various galleries and the Magna Carta, of which there are not many copies in this country.

[Julian Smith]

I am sure that travellers down the A1 would visit Yorkshire first, before Lincoln, but my hon. Friend makes a very good point.

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

I rise to express my concern that this problem exists not just in rural areas but in coastal towns. If someone were travelling along the A380, they would not know that Newton Abbot, my constituency, existed. Brown signs to highlight the cattle market in St Leonard’s tower would be welcome, but they are notable by their absence.

[Julian Smith]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and again, as long as tourists come through Yorkshire first, I am sure that the Minister will encourage them towards the coasts.

The town of Masham in my constituency has lost six directional signs off the A1(M) and is desperately trying to get a brown sign to replace them. This is a stunning part of the world, with Wallace and Gromit, Wensleydale cheese, James Herriot and the Black Sheep and Theakston’s breweries, together with many small inns, hotels and bed and breakfasts.

Local tourism relies largely on the traffic coming from the A1—the soon to be A1(M). Flo Grainger, who leads the “Keep Masham on the Map” campaign and runs the Old Station café, has described the double whammy that businesses in the area have received from both the recession and the Highways Agency policy on brown signs. We have been told time and again that it is just not possible to have a sign for a market town without that town having a specific tourism site that will attract 200,000 visitors a year or 40,000 in a given month. It is not even possible to have a brown sign denoting a well-known area—a generic label—such as the Yorkshire dales or Wensleydale, and yet recent visitor surveys by Welcome to Yorkshire have shown that the top concern of visitors to my constituency, and to north Yorkshire as a whole, is the lack of good signage.

My first question to the Minister is a specific one. Why has the upgrade of the A1(M) forced so many businesses to chase the Highways Agency for clarity on such a vital aspect of their business? Why am I, as their MP, having to hassle the Highways Agency to support the micro-businesses creating the jobs and wealth that we desperately need? The machinery of the Highways Agency and the regulations under which it operates do not seem to be on the same wavelength as the reality on the ground. The A1 upgrade has raised lots of questions about Whitehall’s responsiveness to small business and the Government’s policy on brown signs.

There are some positive indicators. A recent Department for Culture, Media and Sport tourism policy paper stated that brown signs had come in for a lot of criticism and that the Highways Agency would be asked to work much more closely with the Minister with responsibility for tourism to consider how they can be improved. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that he works closely with the Tourism Minister on the issue.

Fundamental issues are at stake. Yet again, Labour’s decade of disrespect for the countryside is being demonstrated. Why are rural areas—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) said, coastal areas—subject to the same visitor number rules as our country’s major towns and cities? Many tourism attractions in north Yorkshire and the other English rural areas represented by my colleagues here cannot attract a footfall of 200,000 a year or 40,000 in a given month. We must relax the rules and make special exemptions for rural areas. Why cannot our major market towns or areas such as the Yorkshire dales be given signs if they can attract good aggregate visitor numbers? Why can they not be recognised as areas of note? Not every pub or village should get a brown sign, but more judgment should be used for our rural areas. Rural England has lots of quirky, small visitor attractions that will never draw enough visitors for a brown sign, whatever the rules are, but if we could help them with brown signs to the general destination, it would make a major difference.

Brown signs should be seen as an opportunity to draw visitors to an area. A recent letter to me from a Liberal Democrat Minister in the Department for Transport said that brown signs

“should only be used where they will benefit road users, particularly those seeking a pre-selected destination that might require additional guidance in the latter stages of their journey.”

I believe that we should change the raison d’être of brown signs. Between 11% and 16% of visitors to rural areas decide what to do based on chance rather than deciding before they leave home. Seducing people to our major tourist areas should surely be part of the review of how and why we use brown signs. Brown signs should be the passionate signposts to England’s green and pleasant land.

The question of how the Highways Agency treats businesses needs addressing. I urge the Minister to set up a much clearer structure within the Highways Agency that involves individuals who understand business and will ensure that applications for brown signs are much shorter, sharper and swifter. The Treasury should also be involved. Tourist businesses are open about the fact that brown signs have value. Relaxing the rules a bit would provide an opportunity for a little income. While our economy remains in intensive care, we need to work with every industry to take immediate action to help. Better brown sign policy would make a difference to the tourist industry.

Will the Minister ask the Highways Agency to address the concerns of my constituents in Ripon, Masham and beyond? Will he ensure that visitor number targets for brown signs are lowered in rural areas? Will he consider relaxing the regulations, opening them up to include general areas of note and taking a more discretionary approach to the rules on brown signs? Brown signs are a practical and low-cost way for the Department for Transport to assist the Government’s growth agenda. I hope that the Minister can assure me that brown signs will be at the top of his in-tray before the summer recess, and that soon thereafter he will join me in Masham for a pint of Theakston or Black Sheep bitter.

16:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to speak in this debate, which affects nearly every constituency in the country. That is why so many hon. Members are here for a half-hour debate. I am conscious that I need to take up my time. I should be okay.

I am a Minister at the Department for Transport, but I have been corresponding with Ministers about this issue since I came here in 2005. I have the wonderful Ashridge management college in my constituency, in the fantastic Ashridge forest. I highlight that because everybody else seems to have highlighted something in their constituency, and it seems apt for me to do so as well. By the way, it is possible to get to Yorkshire, especially north Yorkshire, by going through Hertfordshire, although that is not a sensible thing to do. The reason I corresponded with Ministers about this issue is that brown signs involve a bureaucratic mess. Previous Ministers from various parties have wrestled with the conundrum of how best to inform the public and motorists without causing a hindrance on the road network. I am responsible for strategic road networks, so that is what I will be discussing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) mentioned the correspondence that he received from my coalition colleague, the Minister with responsibility for local transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The Minister was obviously referring to the policy agreed by Ministers in 2003 and inherited by us; the problem has been going on for a considerable time. The letter to my hon. Friend was factually correct when it described the role of a sign. We see the role of a sign in more common-sense terms.

The Department has been engaged for some time in a traffic signs policy review. Believe it or not, it has been going on for years, but it will come to fruition soon, and a report will come to Transport Ministers in May. That is not really what we are discussing today, though; it has more to do with clutter on the roadside and ensuring that our beautiful countryside is not scattered with poles and signs, some of which are completely irrelevant. Some were probably fine post-war, but are not useful at all these days. Different agencies also put up signs on different poles instead of on the same one.

I have been the Minister responsible for the strategic road network for nearly a year now, and during that time I have considered whether the Department for Transport and I as the Minister could issue common-sense guidance to the Highways Agency that could be replicated around the country so that local authorities and businesses could understand exactly what we want from a road sign. If we stick rigidly to the guidance from 2003, we will not get that. We know that to be the case.

Since becoming a Minister, I have had interesting debates with officials, particularly at the Highways Agency, involving the word “why”. Why cannot Warwick castle have a sign indicating that it is off the A1? Why, when a huge investment was made in the M1 in Bedfordshire, was no sign for Centre Parcs allowed, when that development was a multi-million-pound project to which people from all over the country will go? I hope that it is successful, but there is no sign for it.

Motorway services companies came to me asking, “Why can’t we say what’s in our services instead of just saying ‘Motorway service station’? Why can’t we say, for instance, ‘Costa Coffee’ or ‘McDonald’s’ or point out the different choices?”

What we have done in the past couple of months is deregulate that. As the Minister with responsibility for deregulation in the Department for Transport, I have started to use, I hope, a common-sense approach. For instance, if someone now drives down a motorway, they should be able to know whether a service station has a—I will get into trouble with all the companies that I do not name—Costa Coffee, Starbucks, Pret a Manger or Marks and Spencer. I have tried very hard to make sure that it is not a case of why we cannot do it; it should be a case of how we can do it, particularly with brown signs.

Colleagues touched on an issue when they said that they have a plethora of different historic places, monuments and facilities in their constituencies. Lincoln is a classic example. I know Lincoln fairly well from my military days. How many brown signs should be put on the road side and the strategic road network to indicate what is in Lincoln? I think that the answer is to have a sign indicating that Lincoln is an historic city. That is the way in which it needs to be done. There is, however, a tradition within the Department, based on previous legislation—civil servants do what they are told based on the legislation and the rules that they are given—which means that the issue is difficult for them, unless we review it carefully and work together.

Colleagues have touched on tourism. I was pleased to receive yesterday a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who is responsible for tourism and heritage, reminding me of a meeting we had and of our agreement that the

“Highways Agency will work with DCMS and other interested parties to ensure its approach best reflects the needs of drivers and gives the industry a helping hand at the same time.”

That pragmatic approach is brand new and cross-departmental, and we are working on it. The working group of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Highways Agency and VisitEngland officials is due to meet for the first time on 16 May. We will discuss not how we can restrict, but how we can best promote safe roads, informative signs and tourism throughout the United Kingdom.

I know that I do not speak for the whole nation, because a lot of the powers are devolved, particularly in Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) has mentioned. If people are not careful, they will miss what they are looking to do and advertise something that is not a tourism site, but a straightforward business. There is sometimes a grey area between the two. What constitutes tourism? Is it an area of outstanding natural beauty, a world heritage site, or are we talking about a business that employs lots of people locally and that would like to be promoted by a brown sign? I think that what we will get from the meetings is a definitive position on what the brown sign is. Will it be where we started with the 2003 legislation? No, it will not. It will be a relatively new and pragmatic approach for England, and I hope that the devolved Assemblies and other parts of the country will look carefully at how they opened Pandora’s box without thinking through carefully how it could be done.

It is important that we do not just stick to a mantra. I shall quote something that was going to be in my speech. I am not being derogatory in any way to my officials. The speech asked me to mention “TA 93/04 Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and Facilities in England—General Introduction”. If colleagues want to read that, it is available on the Department website, but it will make them none the wiser—to touch on what has been said—about how we will work better with local businesses and local authorities in particular, so that we do not dictate to them, but work with them.

It will be difficult to balance what should and should not be advertised. I use the word “advertising,” but my officials and I are not technically supposed to do that. The legislation needs to be tweaked, so that we can carefully work through what constitutes promoting road safety—in other words, giving people an option to get off nice and early, so that they know where they are going—and what constitutes impulse tourism, which is something that I have done for most of my life, especially since my kids came along. I want to go somewhere and they see somewhere else, but we end up going somewhere completely different. That is what impulse tourism is about. If someone is in one of the beautiful parts of the country represented by colleagues present, that is part and parcel of what goes on.

I was in Cornwall the other day, and for the first time in many years, I was being driven. I went to Cornwall many times on holiday as a young man and when I was in the military and always drove. It is a completely different county if one is being driven, because one can see some completely different things. I saw signs, advertisements and tourist attractions that I did not even know existed when I had visited previously. I had an excellent time. It is about how we manage this. It is a big change, after years of a review of road signage to look at how we make sure that strategic road network signage works.

Colleagues have talked about specific areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon was worried about certain aspects of what happened after the road improvement on the A1. That was based on new guidance that was introduced after the initial signs were put in, so when the new road improvements went through, the new criteria were met. I am sure that my hon. Friend was pleased with the road improvements on the A1. If not, I could mention other parts of the A1 north of Newcastle where people are screaming for me to address their part of the world, as is the case in other parts of the country. I accept that, sometimes, if things have been there for several years—many years in some cases—and new road improvements are made, all of a sudden the question is, “Where are my signs?”

I accept that there have been delays, but I hope that issues about particular road signs have been addressed. I am informed that several road signs were removed after the Dishforth to Leeming works were done. In accordance with TD52/04—that is what officials are still working to—the tourist attractions affected were invited to re-apply, apart from Ripon cathedral, which was accepted without re-applying. If there was a delay for Ripon cathedral, I do not understand how that was the case and perhaps my hon. Friend and I can correspond on that again. The cost of re-signing was part of the actual project cost.

I apologise—I have misread. We may need to correspond on what happened with Ripon, because it says here that the Ripon sign had insufficient justification, which is probably what my hon. Friend was alluding to earlier. That does not make any sense to me.

I argue that, if we are talking about tourism and historic sites, a sign on the A64 that reads “Farmer’s Cart/York Golf Range” would probably not, these days, fit the criteria of an area of outstanding natural beauty, a world heritage site, or a site such as Ripon cathedral. That is the sort of thing where we have to be careful with the balance.

The numbers game that the Department plays with the legislation is another grey area. If a certain number of people go to Newton Abbot for the races or for the beautiful coastline, why should it be designated as a problem if the numbers are taken from a particularly bad summer? I hope that that does not happen and that the tourism industry does fantastically well, as it has over the Easter weekend. I do not understand why, if we have fixed criteria, one area of outstanding natural beauty is not as great as another simply because the numbers do not go there. A lot of that is to do with the weather and our wonderful climate in this country.

I think that we can work together and that the Highways Agency is learning fast, with the new Administration under a coalition Government, that it is not about why we cannot do something, but about how we can do it. I met my officials this morning to discuss several brown signs that are not in areas represented by any colleagues present, but those issues need to be resolved quickly. There is no logic as to why those signs could not be used.

To sum up, are things being done? Yes, they are. Do I accept that the Highways Agency needs to work more efficiently and be more responsive to local authorities and businesses? Yes, but there are myriad different communication routes to the Highways Agency. I ask colleagues, particularly in local authorities, to try to channel their applications through a single route, if possible. That would make it much easier for the local authority to be supportive of the brown sign of a local business or tourism attraction. Singing from one hymn sheet tends to achieve a more cohesive approach.

Over the next couple of months, I will keep a very close eye on exactly how the Highways Agency responds and how the new working relationship with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Tourism Minister works. If the two Ministers have agreed to work closely together to promote tourism in the United Kingdom, it is absolutely crucial that the civil servants behind that mechanism listen to what Ministers have been saying and take action.

At the same time—I am going to make a rod for my own back here—if there are individual attractions, areas of outstanding natural beauty, world heritage sites or anything else that colleagues think should have a brown sign, I will be more than happy to listen to delegations of colleagues from across the House to discuss how we can promote the UK. We are coming out of a difficult financial situation that we have inherited. No matter what the Government do with cuts and how careful we are with taxpayers’ money, growth is the way forward. Tourism has to be part of that growth and anything that my Department and my officials can do to help to promote growth in tourism will get my backing.

Coroners (Recording of Suicides)

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Westminster Hall

16:41

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I look forward to taking part in the debate this afternoon under your excellent, impartial and always fair chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I must admit that I have already had a certain amount of generous time offered to me by the Minister and his team to discuss some of the issues that I wish to raise. However, these matters are of such importance that I want to rehearse them again here, so that the Minister can hear them outside the meeting that he had with me in his Department with Professor Keith Hawton from Oxford university and Professor David Gunnell from Bristol university, both of whom are from departments of suicide studies.

This is a very serious issue. Every suicide is a tragedy for the individual who takes their own life and for their friends, family and community. More than 4,000 people take their lives in this country every year. Only heart disease and lung cancer are responsible for the loss of more years of life. Suicide is the leading cause of death among young men. The figures are shocking, but it is vital that statistics about suicide are recorded accurately in our effort to ensure that fewer people feel that they have to take their own life and fewer people lose a loved one in such a tragic way.

Accurate statistics help academics to understand the causes of suicides and the key groups at risk. They help local and national Government and health care professionals to decide what prevention strategies will work best and where to target resources. Statistics about causes of death including suicide are collected by the Office for National Statistics based on reports submitted by coroners following inquests. As I will explain, the increasing use of narrative verdicts by coroners and the variation of practice between coroners risk undermining the reliability of the statistics that we have and our ability to combat suicide.

Like any cause of death, suicide rates vary by age, gender, background and geographic area. More than any cause of death, the way in which the suicide rate varies across those demographic groups changes over time. Twenty years ago, men aged over 75 had the highest risk of any group, but they now have the lowest. Men aged between 15 and 44 have the highest rate of suicide of any group, but women within that same cohort have the lowest.

External factors can have a dramatic effect on the rate of suicide and can affect different demographics. Economic recession and high unemployment have a particularly striking effect on the suicide rate of working-age men. Different areas have different profiles of suicide victims, and those demographic profiles change over time. A paper by Bristol university’s Professor David Gunnell and others published in December concluded that in the past 25 years

“there has been a marked change in the spatial epidemiology of suicide”.

Such changes must be accurately recorded if our work to prevent suicide is to be effective. I will return to geographic recording in a moment.

There is also the question of the occurrence of so-called suicide hotspots and suicide clusters, where suicides occur more often than would be expected. Those areas of research can help to have an impact on suicide prevention in specific geographic areas.

University researchers have been able to use statistics to identify trends in suicide methods and increases in the use of a particular method. Professor Keith Hawton of Oxford university has produced work on the use of smaller packets of paracetamol and co-codamol, which reduces the use of those medications in suicides. The fitting of catalytic converters to cars reduced the number of suicides from car exhaust fumes, and the move from coal gas to North sea gas reduced the number of incidents of suicide by gassing. Such an approach does not just reduce the number of suicides by a particular method; it reduces the number of suicides overall because people do not tend to simply move to another method. Tackling and understanding the methods used is very important.

Information about geographic regions and suicide informs Government interventions and where resources need to be targeted to have the best effect. They also help us to understand the nature of suicide itself. However, the reliability of suicide statistics is being undermined by a significant rise in the use of narrative verdicts by coroners. In 2001, 111 deaths were recorded by narrative verdict. By 2009, the number had increased to 3,012.

Narrative verdicts were introduced to the UK as a requirement of article 2 of the European convention on human rights, which includes a duty to investigate and prevent deaths and a duty for the Government to take action to prevent further deaths. Narrative verdicts were intended for fairly limited use. Although they can provide more details about the circumstances of a death, they do not use a standard verdict to express the conclusions. That presents a challenge for coders at the Office for National Statistics, which is responsible for collating coroners’ verdicts into usable data. Many deaths given a narrative verdict are likely to have been suicides, but they might not be identified as such by coroners.

The ONS uses international classification of disease rules, so it is not permitted to infer anything from the coroner’s narrative verdict. Coroners must use certain key words in their narrative verdicts for them to be properly categorised. Unless there is a clear reference to an intention to cause self-harm, the death must be recorded as accidental by the ONS, regardless of any other information given. Even a narrative verdict that gives a number of details surrounding a death could fail to specify the intention of the deceased.

Let us consider the following hypothetical example, which is used by the ONS to illustrate the problem. I apologise if this description causes distress to anyone, but it is hypothetical. Mr X, after being found hanging in his cell at X youth offenders institution on date X, died on date X at X infirmary. It was a serious omission by X young offenders institution not to have informed X’s parents on each occasion that X had self-harmed. The jury’s verdict was that X died from hanging, which caused his death. In that example, there is evidence of intent to self-harm because previous instances of self-harm are mentioned in the narrative. However, there is no mention of intent surrounding the initiating act that caused the death. Therefore, the death is classified as “accidental”.

The ONS has estimated that such examples could have resulted in the suicide rate being underestimated by at least 6%, which is a third of the target for reducing deaths by suicide established by the last suicide prevention strategy. If the use of narrative verdicts increases, the gap between actual suicides and those reported will rise further, thus making it difficult to estimate any progress that is being made in reducing deaths by suicide.

The Ministry of Justice was unable to provide me with information about the number of narrative verdicts given by each coroner’s district. However, narrative verdicts made up around 81% of the verdicts classified as “other verdicts” in MOJ figures in 2009. In one very large district, Birmingham and Solihull, more than 48% of the 962 verdicts were classified as “other”, compared to a national average of 13%. In contrast, there were four districts, each one recording dozens of deaths, in which no narrative verdicts were given. Almost a third of coroners’ districts used “other verdicts” less than 5% of the time. That is not a criticism of the way that any coroner practises. However, there is clearly a lack of consistency in the way that narrative verdicts are used and therefore in the records that can be collected.

At the root of the problem is the coroner system itself. In 2003, a review of the system concluded that

“the coroner is a law unto himself.”

Inquest, which operates a free advice service for bereaved people, has described coroners as operating

“as a fragmented, non-professional assortment of individual coroners who operate with no compulsory training and little accountability.”

The system, or the lack thereof, creates a lottery in how deaths are recorded. There is no consistency and no guidance on how narrative verdicts could be presented, so that they could include the information that is required by the ONS. Narrative verdicts vary from a couple of lines to a couple of pages.

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 contained a provision to create the office of chief coroner. Under that Act, the chief coroner would have responsibility for driving up standards in the system through training, and they would issue guidance and set national standards of service. The performance of the system would be monitored and there would be a consistent way of operating, which is the point most relevant to the debate today. In addition, differences between coroner areas would be kept under review.

The Government have determined that the function of the chief coroner can be carried out by others. I served on the Public Bill Committee for the 2009 Act, and I must say that we need a senior legal officer who oversees the coroner operation and ensures consistency in coroners’ courts. That is my preferred option, but a second option is to issue regulations and clear guidance to ensure that all narrative verdicts contain all the necessary information, with clear direction that any narrative verdict must include a statement on the intention, if any, of the person who has died. That would allow the accurate recording of the information that we need.

I want to mention briefly a third option, which is discussed in a paper by Lucy Biddle, a researcher at Bristol university. It is to remove suicides from the coronial system altogether. I will quote briefly from her paper:

“Indeed, suicide requests seem to be more to do with tradition than functional necessity, since their origins relate to when suicide was a crime and the property of those committing the offence was forfeited to the state. The suicide case is a misfit that presents today’s coroner with something of a contradiction in practice, since it still hinges around establishing intent and attaching a moral classification to the cause of death.”

The primary recommendation of the British Isles suicide research group’s report on good practice and changes to court procedure in 2006 was that in non-complex cases, where the facts are not disputed and the family agrees, coroners should be allowed the discretion to process suicides without a public hearing. I hope that the Minister will at least agree to consider that option.

Finally, coroners’ offices are part of the judicial system, but they also play a vital role in assisting health services and researchers, so they should be considered as part of our health system, as well as part of our legal system. In the past, the MOJ has perhaps focused too narrowly on the judicial aspect of the coroner system. It has failed to recognise the importance of coroners’ work in the health care system and thus failed to ensure that coroners are provided with guidance and training that reflects that role. I hope that we can have a commitment to take a more proactive approach to the issuing of guidance and regulation. Anything that we can do to prevent further tragic deaths from suicide is vital.

16:56

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

Thank you, Mr Robertson, and good afternoon.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on securing this debate. I am certainly aware that coroners’ use of narrative verdicts at inquests is a subject in which she has taken a keen interest. Indeed, as she mentioned, we have met before to discuss this topic, in her capacity as chairman of the all-party group for suicide and self-harm prevention. I welcome the opportunity that this debate provides to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to improving the coroner system for all those who come into contact with it.

The hon. Lady set out the statistics about the number of suicides in the UK. I know that last October she held an Adjournment debate in the main Chamber on suicide, discussing the subject more broadly, when the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), responded and discussed the Government’s new suicide prevention strategy.

I want to begin today by setting out the background to the use of narrative verdicts by coroners. Coroners are independent judicial office holders, who are appointed and paid for by local authorities. Except for a few technical areas, the Ministry of Justice has no operational responsibility for coroners and is responsible for coroner law and policy only.

Coroners are required by law to inquire into violent, unnatural or sudden deaths of unknown cause, and into deaths that occur in prison or police custody. When investigating a death, it is the coroner’s duty to establish, first, who the deceased was, and secondly, how, when and where they died. At the close of an inquest, coroners are required to return a verdict covering those questions and to certify the verdict in an inquisition.

A suggested list of verdicts that may be returned, commonly referred to as “short-form” verdicts, is contained in the Coroners Rules 1984. These are: natural causes; accident or misadventure; suicide; unlawful killing; lawful killing; industrial disease, or open verdict. An open verdict, of course, is where there is insufficient evidence for any other verdict. I should point out that the standard of proof that needs to be satisfied if the coroner is to return a verdict of suicide is the criminal standard, that is “beyond reasonable doubt”. Therefore, suicide can never be presumed and a suicide verdict cannot be based on ambiguous evidence. A verdict of suicide can only be returned if the coroner is satisfied that the death occurred as a result of a deliberate act by the deceased and that in doing so they intended that the consequence would be their own death.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the list of verdicts provided by the Coroners Rules 1984 is not mandatory for coroners to use in all cases. Indeed, the list is only supplied as a suggestion. That is particularly important as inquests are detailed fact-finding exercises that involve the careful discovery and interrogation of facts. It follows that it is sometimes difficult to achieve a tidy reduction of a lengthy consideration of facts into a one-word or two-word verdict.

Before 2004, coroners sometimes found cause to return verdicts that were narrative based. Those were used in cases in which it was not possible to return a short-form verdict because of a series of findings that was not conducive to a single, short-form verdict. That approach was approved in case law. However, in 2004, the House of Lords handed down its judgment in Middleton v. Coroner for the Western District of Somerset.

Inquests are the principal way in which we discharge our obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights and the judgment in Middleton held that short-form verdicts might not always be adequate to satisfy the requirements of that article. The House of Lords went on to clarify that, in some cases, coroners might need to interpret more broadly the requirements of the Coroners Act 1988 and determine not simply “how”, meaning “by what means”, a person came by their death, but rather “how”, meaning “by what means and in what circumstances.” In the light of the Middleton judgment, therefore, coroners are at times bound by case law to return a narrative verdict. That is the reason for such a substantial increase in the use of narrative verdicts since 2004.

I realise, however, that hon. Lady’s primary concern is not to suggest that there should be any limit placed on coroners’ discretion to return narrative verdicts. Such a suggestion would impede their judicial independence and would be wholly inappropriate. Additionally, I would not like to suggest that the hon. Lady is concerned about the standard of proof that needs to be applied when considering the verdict of suicide.

It is clearly inappropriate to suggest that coroners apply the civil standard of proof to a verdict as serious as suicide. Indeed, it is understandable that coroners might return narrative verdicts for cases where suicide is suspected but cannot be proved. That might be because the deceased was intoxicated at the time of death, or was suffering from depression, and it cannot be proved that they were fully aware of their actions. A coroner would have to consider such issues in the hon. Lady’s example of death by hanging in a cell. It is fair to say, therefore, that, arguably, such deaths include some suicidal elements, even if they cannot be deemed as “suicide” at the close of an inquest.

A key concern of the hon. Lady, as I see it, is the effect that the increased use of narrative verdicts might have on the accuracy of mortality statistics, in particular in deaths that could involve some elements of suicidal intent. That is because, it is argued, some narrative verdicts do not give statisticians enough clear information to indicate whether the event leading to the death was carried out intentionally or accidentally. Statisticians are, understandably, not permitted ever to infer what happened and must use the information provided by the coroner. However, if they cannot derive any intention from the action of the deceased, they must record the death as an accident. I appreciate that that might lead to inaccuracies in national mortality statistics, the associated risk being that local authorities might not be able to identify, procure and provide adequate preventive measures against, for example, suicidal intent.

The hon. Lady went on to say that some coroners are seen as a law unto themselves. I must repeat that they are independent judicial appointments and, as such, they cannot be forced into doing the same thing. It is important to realise that a chief coroner would not have had any powers of coercion in any event. To address such issues, however, I will outline the work on the issue that is currently underway in my Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, the Office for National Statistics and the Coroners’ Society of England and Wales.

My Department has issued guidance to coroners on narrative verdicts in the past. We are currently considering revising that guidance, with a view to highlighting some of the concerns discussed in the debate and elsewhere. In addition, my officials will consider exploring whether any further training can be given to coroners on the use of narrative verdicts. I understand that such training has been given in recent years, but we can certainly look to repeat it. We have no plan for private hearings for suicide inquests—that was a new idea, which I will look at, and I will come back to the hon. Lady on her suggestion.

The Government plan to launch shortly for formal consultation a new strategy for suicide prevention. The plan builds on some of the successful measures of the previous suicide prevention strategy and takes into account the changing demographics within our society and the current economic climate. Development of the new strategy has been supported by leading experts in suicide prevention, including members of the national suicide prevention strategy advisory group under the chairmanship of Professor Louis Appleby. The strategy will set out its high-level objective to deliver a reduced rate of suicide among the general population and improved support to those bereaved or affected by suicide, through a series of shared areas for action and working with other key partners in the public, private and voluntary sectors.

In relation to that, the Office for National Statistics published the latest edition of “Health Statistics Quarterly” in February, which included a short paper, “Narrative verdicts and their impact on mortality statistics in England and Wales”. It is interesting to note that, while the paper confirmed that the use of narrative verdicts has increased in recent years, it concluded that that increase has not had a detrimental effect on the Office for National Statistics’ mortality statistics. At the same time, however, the paper also cautioned that a continued rise in the use of narrative verdicts could start to affect the accuracy of those statistics.

As I explained when I met the hon. Lady, the Office for National Statistics is reviewing its coding practices, in conjunction with the Coroners’ Society, and I will take an interest in that matter. The work has been ongoing and will also feed into any work that might be taken forward on the possible implementation of part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. In particular, the Ministry of Justice will look to liaise with the Office for National Statistics on the development of any new coroners’ rules and regulations.

I hope that the hon. Lady is therefore somewhat reassured that such an important matter is receiving proper consideration. Finally, I caution that, as the work is taken forward, we must be careful not to impinge on coroners’ judicial independence, or to do anything that might prevent them from following established case law.

Question put and agreed to.

17:07

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Written Statements

Wednesday 27 April 2011

United Kingdom Space Agency

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

I have tasked the UK Space Agency to provide policy support to Ministers on civil space issues and to lead a civil space programme which delivers maximum economic, scientific, and policy benefits for the UK.

I have set the UK Space Agency the following targets for 2011-12:

1. Improve performance of the agency programme over the period 2011-12 to 2014-15.

2. To ensure the ESA programme brings benefit to UK industry, and the research base.

3. To initiate a national technology programme, jointly funded with industry as a means of accelerating the development of the International Space Innovation Centre.

4. Undertake an impact assessment of the Outer Space Act 1986 to develop reforms which will remove restrictions which put UK operators at a competitive disadvantage, and prepare proposals for new regulation for space vehicles to promote space tourism in the UK.

5. Work with Ofcom to support international reform at the world radio conference of the processes used to gain access to orbit satellite slots to ensure that British industry has full and fair access to them.

6. Promote wider international co-operation and have a clear export support policy, including guidance on export controls and assistance for industry.

Target measurement techniques:

Target 1: Efficiency gains in administration costs will be reflected in the budget profiles when agreed. The use of a scorecard technique across all programmes is being developed for use in 2011-12.

Target 2: Measured by the industrial return figures of ESA that reflect the work won by UK organisations against an ideal of return co-efficient of 1.

Target 3: A report showing the placement of the first tranche of contracts to the value of £10 million in 2011-12 on key technology activities in the national technology road map will be produced.

Target 4: A report showing how the changes produce a level playing field will be prepared.

Target 5: Agreement at the WRC conference in February 2012 on the way forward.

Target 6: Clear guidance available to industry by December 2012. On co-operation a report on the status of implementation of agreements with other agencies will be prepared.

The corporate plan period referred to is the financial years 2011-12 to 2014-15.

Costing Parliamentary Questions

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

The Treasury has conducted its annual indexation exercise of the cost of oral and written parliamentary questions so as to ensure that these costs are increased in line with increases in underlying costs. The revised costs, which will apply from today, are:

Oral Questions £437

Written Questions £159

The disproportionate cost threshold (DCT) will remain at £800.

Departmental Work (Easter Recess 2011)

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I would like to update hon. Members on the main items of business undertaken by my Department since the House rose on 5 April 2011.

Transparency

The Department continues to reinforce the importance of local transparency, audit openness and accountability. On 13 April, I announced new transparency rules which will require councils to publicise to the press and public, on their website, the little-known rights to inspect their detailed financial accounts, ledgers and records.

In a deregulatory move, changes will also reduce the financial bureaucracy and burdens imposed on the smallest local authorities. Increasing the budget threshold to £6.5 million means that up to 100 smaller local bodies (assorted parish councils, drainage boards and joint committees) will immediately benefit from less burdensome audit requirements, reducing costs on reporting duties imposed by Whitehall and making it easier for authorities to be accountable to their community.

Council tax

On 13 April, I published new figures showing who pays what for local government services. The new analysis makes it possible to compare how much residents contribute in council tax and conversely how much their area receives in formula grant. It marks another step towards demystifying the local government finance system for taxpayers.

Community Celebrations

With Easter, St George’s day and the impending royal wedding, there are great opportunities for communities across the nation to come together and celebrate. Alongside my Cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister, we urged councils to adopt a common-sense approach to street parties and to help local residents from all backgrounds to come together and reinforce our shared identity and sense of Britishness. This included publishing an updated version of the deregulatory guidance on organising street parties, shooting down myths and misconceptions around them.

In addition to this, the Department flew the flag of St George above its headquarters and I encouraged public bodies to fly the English flag as a unifying symbol for the English nation, to be followed by flying the Union flag come the royal wedding.

Homes and tenants

Millions of social housing tenants take real pride in their homes and my Department believes they should have the power and incentive to take control of the maintenance of their own homes. On 7 April the Minister for Housing and Local Government launched tenant cashback. Tenant cashback will allow residents to take more control of their repairs budget for their homes, taking on their own repairs and keeping any cash savings they have made.

Tenants will also be able to pool their resources to create a “community cashback” account, which could be used to fund improvements to the local area for the benefit of all their residents. The plan will give tenants more power over their homes and neighbourhoods; allow poorer households to build up savings, strengthen bonds between neighbours; and provide work for small traders.

Decentralisation

Ending the culture of top-down Whitehall management and putting the focus on local accountability and local communities is a key priority for the Department.

On 12 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), set out how local decision making and restoring focus on local communities will be central to fire and rescue service policy, as the Department published its response to the Fire Futures reports.

The voluntary and community sector are relied upon by communities across the nation and we believe they should be given the freedom from excessive burdens and red tape that can impede their work. On 13 April, I announced a new fair deal for the voluntary and community sector which calls on councils to give greater support to local community and voluntary groups. The social responsibility deal will seek to avoid disproportionate reductions in funding and encourage a more collaborative approach involving councils working with organisations to shape the future of their service. We are also giving councils the freedoms to serve the local community and work more flexibly with the sector by scrapping the 56 pages of statutory guidance on local priorities which spelled out exactly how councils should engage with the people in their area.

Increasing housing supply

We believe that a key barrier to increasing the much-needed housing supply is the lack of land and buildings available for residential development or conversion. Many towns and cities have office blocks, warehouses and business parks needlessly lying empty. By unshackling developers from a legacy of bureaucratic planning we can help them turn thousands of vacant commercial properties into enough new homes to jump start housing supply and help get the economy back on track

On 8 April, my Department published a consultation proposing to abolish the planning approval requirement for changing use from a commercial property to a residential property; deregulating the planning system to increase housing supply. This is part of a wider review of use classes orders and its interaction with permitted development rights, which will further unlock unnecessary planning restrictions and help stimulate sustainable development.

Neighbourhood Planning

We believe that local people should have greater power and support to shape planning and development in their local area. On 13 April, the Minister with responsibility for decentralisation, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), announced that four organisations with expertise in planning will share a £3.2 million fund to provide assistance to local groups developing neighbourhood plans.

Communities can choose to take up free advice and guidance depending on their needs through The Prince’s Foundation, Locality, The Royal Town Planning Institute, and the National Association of Local Councils in partnership with the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Each organisation will use its expertise, skills and track record advising on development to empower communities to reach the full potential of their neighbourhood plan from start to finish.

Planning and Travellers

On 13 April, I announced proposals for a more localist and fair way of providing Traveller sites. New proposed planning policy will give the green belt and countryside more robust protection, give local councils more discretion and local planning authorities a stronger hand in supporting appropriate development. The proposals will also remove the central guidance to councils on compulsory purchasing of land for Traveller sites. In consultation with local communities, councils will have the freedom and responsibility to determine the right level of Traveller site provision in their area, while ensuring fairness in the planning system.

The proposed planning policy is capable of being regarded as a material consideration in planning decisions. I would encourage local councils, elected representatives and community groups to respond to the consultation.

Written Parliamentary Question (Correction)

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

In answering a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Worthing West, (Sir Peter Bottomley), 1 March 2011, Official Report, column 379W, I provided details of the protection afforded by the two HPV vaccines licensed for use in the United Kingdom. These are Cervarix manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline and Gardasil manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur MSD.

However, my answer also referred to the cross-protection afforded by Cervarix, but I omitted to provide equivalent information on Gardasil and in doing so may have presented an incomplete view to the House.

In the case of Gardasil, the “Summary of Product Characteristics” states that

“statistically significant efficacy against disease was demonstrated against HPV types…related to HPV 16 (primarily HPV31) whereas no statistically significant efficacy was observed for HPV types ... related to HPV 18 (including HPV 45). For the 10 individual HPV types, statistical significance was only reached for HPV 31”.

To ensure clarity and completeness of information about the efficacy of both vaccines, I have placed copies of their “Summary of Product Characteristics” in the Library. Copies of the SPCs for Cervarix and for Gardasil are available for hon. Members from the Vote Office and for noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. They can also be seen at:

www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/20204/SPC/Cervarix/

www.medicines.org.uk/EMC/medicine/19016/SPC/GARDASIL/

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2011

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy to the opening speeches made in each House during the debates on the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2011. The debates took place in the Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee on Monday 28 March, column 4, and in the House of Lords Grand Committee on Tuesday 29 March 2011, column GC 155:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmgeneral/deleg4/110328/110328s01.htm.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110329-gc0001.htm#11032963000180

Both speeches made reference to the introduction of a new fee for providing certain stateless persons the ability to acquire the status of British protected person. The status means they can receive consular protection, a British passport and are eligible to register as a British citizen if they meet the appropriate criteria. The volumes under this route are minimal. However, it is a cost to the agency to process these applications and we believe that the rights associated with this status are valuable and therefore these applications should be charged for.

I can confirm that this fee was erroneously omitted from the regulations and as such will not be introduced as planned. A very small number of people are estimated to have been affected by this—there have been only two such applications in the past 12 years. I am now announcing a correction to the speech made during the debates. My officials will ensure that this is made clear to any applicants applying under this route, on the UK Border Agency website, www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk. However, I will also take the opportunity to introduce this fee when I next make an amendment to the existing regulations.

Department for Transport (Decision Making)

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Written Statements

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

I am announcing today reforms to the way decisions are made on which transport projects to prioritise. My Department’s business plan states we will

“reform the way transport projects are assessed and funding prioritisation decisions are made so that the benefits of low-carbon proposals are fully recognised”.

It specifies that in order to achieve this we will:

(a) review and revise DfT guidance on appraising transport projects, and

(b) review and revise DfT processes for assessing schemes and supporting ministerial decisions.

The rest of this statement explains how we have met these commitments.

DfT guidance on appraising transport projects

The evidence supporting decisions needs to be robust. Updates and changes that I am making to my Department’s guidance on appraising transport projects will recognise the benefits of low-carbon proposals more accurately.

Spending review decisions were informed by a value-for-money measure, used across Government. This measure incorporated the latest monetary values of carbon, published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which are higher than previous values. It also treated indirect tax revenues (such as fuel duty) in a way consistent with the Department for Transport’s “in-draft” benefit-cost ratio (BCR) formula. These changes tend to improve the BCRs of schemes that reduce carbon emissions and weaken the BCRs of schemes that result in higher carbon emissions.

Stakeholder groups have made representations that the Department should consider amending the value of time to reflect regional variations in earnings. We have considered these representations and have decided not to make any change at this stage, but we will keep the issue under review.

Over the coming days, my officials will update the appraisal guidance to incorporate the higher carbon values and new BCR formula that were used in the spending review. In addition, the Department will also release further changes to the appraisal guidance that reflect Government’s priorities and recent updates to values and methodologies. A full list of these changes can be found on the Department’s website (www.dft. gov.uk/webtag).

DfT processes for assessing schemes and supporting ministerial decisions

Today, my Department is publishing “The Transport Business Case” which sets out the Department’s approach to producing business cases that support ministerial decisions. This approach ensures decisions are made by taking account of all the relevant information set out in five cases, consistent with the Treasury Green Book, specifically, to show whether schemes:

are supported by a robust case for change that fits with wider public policy objectives—the “strategic case”;

demonstrate value-for-money—the “economic case”;

are commercially viable—the “commercial case”;

are financially affordable—the “financial case”; and

are achievable—the “management case”.

This means that there will no longer be a separate process called NATA.

Option development and presentation

My Department will revise the formats used to present information to support decision-making so that all the five cases receive appropriate consideration from an early stage in a clear and transparent way. Forthcoming changes to the guidance will set out to scheme promoters how to develop a range of innovative solutions to transport problems in the early stages of option development and a clear process for option selection that aligns with the subsequent appraisal process. Today, I am also publishing the “Early Assessment and Sifting Tool”, which will aid scheme promoters in comparing and refining options in those early stages.

Grand Committee

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Grand Committee

Wednesday, 27 April 2011.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)]

My Lords, before the Minister moves that the first statutory instrument be considered, I remind noble Lords that in the case of each statutory instrument the Motion before the Committee is that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. I should perhaps make it clear that the Motions to approve the statutory instruments will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. I remind the Committee that if there is a Division in the House the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell.

Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Amendment of List of Responders) Order 2011

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:46

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Amendment of List of Responders) Order 2011.

Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am pleased to introduce these new arrangements for civil contingency planning in Greater London. Perhaps it will assist the Grand Committee if I give it an overview of emergency and current planning in London and of where, why and how the Greater London Authority will fit into this.

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and its accompanying regulations and statutory guidance deliver a single framework for civil protection in the United Kingdom that is designed to provide a framework to meet the resilience challenges of the 21st century. The Act sets out clear responsibilities for front-line responders and other organisations that need to be involved in the preparation for, response to and recovery from serious emergencies. The Act divides England and Wales into local resilience areas, and each of these areas has a local resilience forum at which planning and preparation for emergencies is co-ordinated among emergency responders. Outside London, there are 37 local resilience areas in England and four in Wales based on police force boundaries.

Arrangements for emergency planning in London have, since the introduction of the Act in 2005, functioned slightly differently from those in place in the rest of the country, due mainly to London’s size and its unique position as a capital city. Rather than a single local resilience area based on police force boundaries, there have been six local resilience areas for London, each with a local resilience forum, based on multi-borough groupings. This reflected London’s particular patterns of public service provision and the different local planning needs of the London boroughs.

When the Civil Contingencies Act enhancement programme was established to review the Act and its accompanying regulations in the light of five years’ experience, it identified that while the Act was, on the whole, working well, it did not properly reflect how emergency planning was actually functioning in the capital and the level at which strategic decisions were being made. While the six multi-borough local resilience forums provided a useful tier of emergency planning, the strategic role which a local resilience forum should normally take was actually being performed at the pan-London level through the London regional resilience forum. This was a non-statutory body at which key responders, central government and the Mayor of London co-operated to give strategic direction to emergency planning in London.

Therefore, better to reflect actual emergency planning arrangements in London, the local resilience area has been redefined as a single pan-London local resilience area that is based on the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police areas rather than on the previous six multi-borough groupings. As a result, the former London regional resilience forum has been redefined as the London local resilience forum. This change came into force from 1 April and means that emergency planning in London now runs in much the same way as in the rest of the country.

The change that we now bring before the Committee is necessary following last year’s closure of the Government Office for London, which played an important role in emergency planning led by the London resilience team. Its duties, which included providing secretariat support for the former London regional resilience forum, taking the lead in non police-led emergencies and ensuring that resilience plans are in place for the Olympic Games, now need to be delivered elsewhere by other parties. It is a function that we cannot afford to lose and is a cornerstone of the structure of resilience in London.

The office of the Mayor of London has long been engaged in emergency planning; the Mayor was the deputy chair of the London regional resilience forum. He is a figurehead in the event of a major emergency in the capital. We have therefore agreed with the mayor that those local planning and response functions previously undertaken by the Government Office for London that no longer need to remain with central government should pass to the Greater London Authority as the strategic non-political authority that supports both the mayor and the Assembly, and that this should be properly reflected in legislation.

The GLA’s new role involves working closely with London’s emergency responders and being involved at the heart of strategic emergency planning for the capital. The GLA should therefore take on the same legal status and duties as other responders in London, including the duties to co-operate and to share information and helping to build a strong relationship through which the GLA can best carry out its new role. The GLA assumed many of its new responsibilities following the closure of the Government Office for London in December last year. We now have an opportunity to formalise its role in legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, I welcome this measure and thank my noble friend Lord Taylor for his clear description of the purposes and the changes that are to take place under the Civil Contingencies Act to reflect the new structure of local government in London more appropriately by involving the Greater London Authority. The timeliness of the measure seems particularly clear in the light of the imminent international descent on London at the time of the Olympic Games. It is very much to be hoped that this structural change will give rise to discussions about potential risk and about the continuing responsibility for eliminating dangers.

I believe that the Government have also received a publication, in response to the consultation on the second phase, on 14 March. Although that response goes wider than this order, I hope that the Minister in replying to the debate might be able to say something about how that report reveals what has been considered and, in particular, the extent of the review of emergency preparedness.

This measure is entirely welcome. I hope that your Lordships’ Committee and the House will enact it as soon as possible.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his clear explanation. However, I wonder whether the order comes back to the much heralded bonfire of the quangos and the abolition of government offices throughout the UK. Thanks to the tremendous changes following the Minister’s work on the Public Bodies Bill, we know that the vast sums that the Government initially planned to secure as a result of a bonfire of the quangos that will get rid of government offices throughout the UK will not be realised. I make no criticism of that, as I believe that that is in many ways the difference between the rhetoric of opposition and the realism of government. However, it is clear that, even if a body such as the Government Office for London has been abolished, the functions still have to be maintained. That is why this order is so important, because it will ensure the continuity of these very important duties.

The order does not raise any problems as far as I can see. As the Minister said, it will bring London more into line with what is happening in the rest of the country, which is of course to be welcomed. I also note that the costs will all be for the GLA, so central government will not face any increased burden. The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”,

and,

“on the public sector is minimal”.

However, I would be grateful for one assurance from the Minister. As a consequence of these structural changes, can he assure us that all the services that are mentioned in paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum will be safeguarded? Of course, pandemics and severe weather are both of the utmost importance. As the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said, in these unstable times when we have the Olympics upon us in the very near future, I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that resistance plans for the Olympic Games will be safeguarded and enhanced by this legislation.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for their welcoming of this draft order and for their support for what I think is widely seen as a logical development.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, sought perhaps to broaden the debate into the wider issue of public bodies. I will resist that temptation except to say that clearly there will be opportunities for a more streamlined management of London’s affairs through the Greater London Authority. That is one of the strategic advantages that this move will provide for. There will indeed be financial demands on the Greater London Authority, but the comprehensive spending review incorporated that responsibility in forward funding for the authority from central government—this process is being seen as driven not by economy but by efficiency and by the need for London to be properly co-ordinated. While the six key borough groupings provided the function, in the end the reality is that London is a whole and has to be dealt with as a whole. The support that can be given by the GLA and by its resilience team is of paramount importance.

I can say that the actual priorities in setting out a resilience plan are of course a matter for the local resilience authorities and, indeed, the forum that gives advice on such matters. These things are not immutable, but the risk assessment for the Olympics has been in place for a number of years and is regularly updated. I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no suggestion that the comprehensive focus of the London resilience forum and the resilience team in addressing the needs of London will in any way be compromised by this legislation.

I thank my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart for his broad welcome, too. He made the powerful point that, with the Olympics being so imminent, we are very much focused on security. Indeed, we have events this week as well that show how important it is that all aspects of security are taken care of. He asked about the response to the report. I am not in a position to help him on that, but perhaps there might be an opportunity to write to him subsequent to our discussions today.

I hope that the Committee will be able to commend these draft proposals.

Motion agreed.

Charities (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Order 2011

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:00

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Charities (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Order 2011.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the draft order before us today is a technical order that makes minor amendments to charity law. It will be made in preparation for the consolidation of charity legislation via the Charities Bill 2011, which was introduced to this House on 3 March.

The aim of this order is merely to tidy up some minor points in the existing legislation before charities legislation is consolidated. It might help if I first give a little background to the Charities Bill itself before explaining the purpose of this order. The purpose of the Charities Bill is: to bring together provisions of the main legislation on charities in England and Wales into a single piece of legislation; to simplify the structure of the existing legislation, making it more accessible to the lay person; and to replace provisions in the Recreational Charities Act 1958, the Charities Acts 1993 and relevant provisions of the Charities Act 2006.

Due to the fragmentation of charity legislation, it has become increasingly difficult to navigate the law in this area, not least as the Charities Act 2006 made extensive amendments to the Charities Act 1993. The Bill will fulfil a commitment given during the passage of the Charities Act 2006 in response to noble Lords who requested that charity legislation should be consolidated to make it easier to follow, particularly for non-expert charity trustees. The Law Commission, which is responsible for consolidation Bills, responded favourably to a request from the Cabinet Office, and the result is the Charities Bill, which was introduced last month.

Neither the order nor the Bill itself makes any substantive changes to charity law. The types of amendments that the order makes fall into the following categories: correcting minor mistakes in the existing legislation or remedying missed consequential amendments; removing inconsistencies in the existing legislation; modernising the language of the existing legislation; repealing provisions in the existing legislation that are now considered obsolete; clarifying the effect of the existing legislation; and consequential provisions relating to other provisions of this order.

I will give a couple of examples to assist the Committee. One example of correcting a minor mistake is in paragraph 4 of the schedule to the order relating to the Charities Act 1993, which provided that,

“In the exercise of its functions the commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any Minister of the Crown or other government department”.

The use of the words “or other” in this context gives the impression that a Minister of the Crown is a government department. Clearly this is not the case, as while a Minister of the Crown may be in charge of a government department, he or she is not a department per se. The amendment in this order avoids this misinterpretation while retaining the allusion to the fact that the Charity Commission is a government department.

Paragraph 31 deals with various inconsistencies relating to rights of appeal to the Charity Tribunal. For example, a right of appeal exists where the Charity Commission requires a charity’s accounts to be audited, but does not currently exist for certain charity group accounts. The amendment in paragraph 31(g) removes that inconsistency.

An example of how the language used has been updated is in paragraph 7 of the schedule, which now uses the word “provide” instead of the original word “furnish”, as in providing documents instead of furnishing them. Paragraph 15 of the schedule removes an obsolete reference to the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers, which merged with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in January 2000.

An example of how the order clarifies legislation is contained in paragraph 18 of the schedule. In the context of a section that refers to both the Audit Commission and the Charity Commission, the reference to “the Commission” is changed to the “Charity Commission” to avoid any potential confusion. The structure of the legislation has also been improved to make it easier to follow. However, this has led to the need for some pre-consolidation amendments. For example, paragraph 11 of the schedule facilitates the splitting of Section 18 of the 1993 Act into a number of separate sections in the consolidation Bill. Section 18, which provides the Charity Commission with various powers to act for the protection of charities, is long and complex, so splitting it up should make the text easier to navigate.

The order also makes consequential amendments, in particular changing various cross-references, that will result from splitting up Section 18. The draft order was consulted on in 2009 as part of the wider consultation on the draft Charities Bill, and we received positive responses. I hope noble Lords will agree that the order is a useful tool for clearing up some outstanding issues in charity law before the Charities Bill completes its passage through Parliament. There will be a review of the Charities Act 2006, starting later this year. This will provide an opportunity to look again at the legal framework for charities in England and Wales, and to consider whether the policies that lie behind the legislation are working in practice.

As a consolidation Bill, the Charities Bill represents a small but useful step forward in simplifying the legislative framework for charities and supports the Government’s aim of making it easier to set up and run a charity, as it will make charity law more accessible to the lay charity trustee. We have a window of opportunity to tidy up what has become a confusing and messy legislative landscape, and it would be a shame to lose this chance. This order will pave the way for the consolidation of charity law. I beg to move.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the way in which she gave a tour d’horizon of this statutory instrument. As she rightly says, this is a prelude to the consolidation Bill, which starts in this House next Thursday, although I do not think that anyone will be there—I notice that the Commons is not sitting on that day.

A very important aspect of the debates on the Charities Bill that led to the Charities Act 2006 was that we were to have a consolidation measure. I was, I think, foremost in urging that and in getting the Government to put it into the Bill so that we could be quite sure that it would happen. As my noble friend again so rightly says, the danger with our efforts here is that, while they might be just about comprehensible to the specialist lawyer, the Charity Commission, the parliamentary draftsmen and the civil servants involved, they are a closed book to everyone else. Given that 95 per cent of our charities have no paid staff, and that all trustees are volunteers, it is a very serious predicament. Although the consolidation measure is more than 300 pages, it will go some little way to making life a tad easier for those who are doing the job on the ground.

I should like to refer to two aspects of this statutory instrument. Noble Lords may agree that there can be few pieces of legislation more sleep inducing than the Charities (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Order 2011. Indeed, so arcane is most of the language that you have to be a bit of an egg-head to plunge into its depths.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

Oh!

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I beg the noble Lord’s pardon. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, had uttered a witticism.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I was merely expressing approval of the fact that it is the noble Lord who is displaying his egg-head qualities.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I should like the Minister to give a little explanation of paragraph 10 of the schedule to the order, and I have given her notice of that. The paragraph goes to the heart of the relationship between this order, the consolidation Bill and the Houses of Parliament. To be frank, try as I did, I could not perfectly understand where things were left by paragraph 10. My understanding is that, if in Section 17(2) of the 2006 Act the Minister is given the power to make an order, it is superfluous then to go on to say,

“and a draft of the order shall be laid before Parliament”.

That follows. However, I became a little lost with the omissions and additions later in paragraph 10, and if the Minister is able to cast enlightenment on that I shall be most grateful.

My only other point is more substantial and concerns paragraph 24 of the schedule to the order, which relates to Section 79(2) of the 1993 Act. This is an important provision in the Act. At the start, paragraph 24 says that in Section 79(2) the word “ratepayers” is to be omitted. This provision is designed to ensure that parochial charities have a governing body or a group of trustees that is fit for purpose in the 21st century. Section 79(2) of the 1993 Act, as amended by the 2006 Act, says that the Charity Commission may allow the appointment of trustees to parochial charities in the circumstances described in Section 79(2). Paragraph 24(1) says that “ratepayers” shall be deleted from the description of those persons who shall have power in future to appoint trustees, or at least it does not eliminate their powers to appoint but it affects the right of the commission to make an order appointing additional charity trustees. My problem with paragraph 24—and I read it many times—is that sub-paragraph (2) seems to be wholly superfluous. It says:

“Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) affects any appointment of a charity trustee made before the commencement of that sub-paragraph”—

that is, before the consolidation Act comes into effect. As I said, that is wholly superfluous because one cannot make retrospective legislation other than in rare circumstances and with the greatest possible clarity and want of ambiguity. That is my first point.

16:15

More importantly, one can put up with superfluity but paragraph 24(3) seems to make substantive changes to the effect of Section 79(2), as amended, of the Charities Act 1993—substantive changes which can only be made in the manner plainly intended here if drafted differently from the way they have been drafted here. Their drafting here may appeal to the layman but if, as I contend, the change will substantively alter the effect of Section 79(2), it has to be couched in language which achieves that. That means saying that in Section 79(2) the words “whatever” shall be removed and the words “whatever” shall be introduced instead. In effect, one would be putting most of sub-paragraph (3) in inverted commas with words preceding the inverted commas making it clear just where those new provisions are to be inserted in Section 79(2).

I apologise for that explanation—if anyone has managed to follow me, I am both surprised and grateful—but for the sake of the record one has to explain what one is up to and I have done my best. Again, I have given notice, although not long notice, of this to the Minister. We will be able to do something about it because we can make an amendment to the consolidation Bill and, as that will be at the Committee stage, we shall have a bit of time to do so. I shall shut up at this point.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her explanation of the order and for the background information that she provided. She is of course correct when she says that the previous Government—my Government—made a commitment to seek a consolidation of the charities legislation subject to support from the Law Commission, which the commission has now given. I am very glad that we heeded the wise advice of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. We look forward to discussing the consolidation Bill, although it will not be I who does that next week as I shall be otherwise engaged.

I note that the amendments made by the order are not considered to make substantive changes to the law or to introduce new policy, and I rely on the incisiveness and expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, because I do not have the talent of an egg-head. I further note that in a consultation about the consolidation, there were only two responses about the draft order, so clearly not a lot of people out there have deep, if any, concerns.

I have one rather simple question. The noble Baroness mentioned the review which will take place later this year. I wonder when we can expect the results of the review and also how the Government will act on those results. I realise that the report of the review will be debated in Parliament but I wonder whether this might lead to further legislation, further simplification or what. I do not know how these things work and I should be grateful for some clarification from the Minister.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the warm welcome for the order from my noble friend and the noble Baroness. This has been a very short debate but it has been very informed, and I am glad that I have an egg-head in my noble friend on my side. Although I tried very hard to follow and navigate my way through what he was saying, at times I got slightly lost and tried to refer back to the order. I am also grateful to my noble friend for giving me prior notice of the two questions which he has put. I will try my level best to respond. If I fail still to allay any of his concerns, I shall write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library.

My noble friend asked, first, about the amendments made by paragraph 10 of the schedule, which gives effect to the recommendations of the Brooke committee of 1972-73 to rationalise statutory instrument procedure. The committee recommended that the procedure in the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, whereby a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure had to be laid in draft before both Houses, should be avoided. The amendment removes that aspect of the statutory instrument process for orders made under Section 17 of the Charities Act 1993, which provides a mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny of a Charity Commission scheme that alters the constitution of a charity governed by statute. Such orders will still be laid before Parliament and can be prayed against.

My noble friend also asked a valid question about paragraph 24 of the schedule. It is not our intention to make a substantive change to Section 79. We shall look carefully at the point that my noble friend has raised and refer it to the drafters of the Bill. If necessary, we will confirm that the appropriate amendments will be made before the Bill goes to the Joint Committee for consideration. We will write with further details once the drafter has considered my noble friend’s question. I hope that my noble friend feels a little more satisfied by my responses.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked about the review. There is no firm timetable as yet, but the review must begin before 8 November and its report be laid before Parliament. We anticipate the review concluding some time in 2012, but it is too early to say how long it will take to take forward any recommendations.

I hope that I have answered the questions of my noble friend and the noble Baroness. It has been a very short debate, but I hope that I have been able to satisfy noble Lords. I hope that my noble friend will be in the Chamber next Thursday, or I shall feel very lonely debating the Charities Bill all on my own.

Motion agreed.

Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Order 201

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:23

Moved By

[Lord De Mauley]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Order 2011.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, perhaps I may explain by way of background to the order that the Companies Act 2006 provided for a single consolidated company law regime to apply across the whole of the United Kingdom. It repealed most of the Companies Act 1985, the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and the Open-Ended Investment Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 2002.

Before I go into the details of this order, which makes various amendments that, as its name implies, are consequential on the commencement of the 2006 Act, I shall touch briefly on some of the background to that Act. It was commenced in stages between Royal Assent in November of that year and the final commencement order which came into force in October 2009. Indeed, there have already been eight orders commencing various provisions of the Act, and five orders making amendments required as a consequence of its passing. This order is designed to complete and consolidate that lengthy process. The legislation that is amended by this order comprises the Companies Act 2006 and various instruments that contain references to the Companies Act 1985 as well as other legislation that has been superseded, repealed or revoked by the 2006 Act.

I turn to the specifics of today’s order. Most of the articles make amendments to regulations in the area of financial services by updating them so as to refer to the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act rather than the old, superseded provisions of, for instance, the Companies Act 1985.

Among the pieces of legislation to which such amendments are made is the Open-Ended Investment Companies Regulations 2001, which are amended so that they apply to any open-ended investment companies incorporated in Northern Ireland. The order also contains transitional provisions to ensure a smooth changeover for such companies to the requirements of the 2001 regulations. The order also formally revokes two pieces of secondary legislation which were effectively superseded by the Companies Act 2006; namely, the Companies (Single Member Private Limited Companies) Regulations 1992 and the equivalent Northern Ireland regulations of that year.

The order also makes a small number of correcting measures to address some minor errors in certain companies-related legislation. The amendments will ensure that that legislation is clear and easily applied. With your Lordships’ permission, I do not propose to go through them in detail, although I should like to draw attention to two changes.

The first arises because the Companies Act 2006 allows a public limited company to have a single member whereas the Insolvency Act 1986 stipulates that having only one member is a ground for winding up a plc. For this reason, Article 6 of today’s order repeals this provision of the Insolvency Act to ensure consistency and avoid any confusion.

Secondly, the order amends the power in Section 766 of the 2006 Act which, among other things, enables regulations to be made for determining whether a public company which reduces its share capital and has shares denominated in more than one currency continues to satisfy the statutory requirement to have share capital at or above a minimum aggregate value in sterling or euros. The current drafting of Section 766 means that regulations cannot be made dealing with the situation where a public company reduces its share capital and is left with all its capital denominated in one currency other than sterling or euros, such as Swiss francs or US dollars. Article 28 of the order corrects Section 766 so that regulations can be made dealing with this situation. There will now be a mechanism for establishing clearly whether such a company continues to meet the minimum capital requirement.

The rationale behind all the amendments made by the order is to ensure that companies legislation is clear, consistent and coherent. I think that the order is uncontroversial. It is simple; it ensures greater consistency; and it removes contradiction. As such, it is good for business and I commend it to the Committee.

[Lord Razzall]

My Lords, before we approve the order, as we clearly should, we should look at what has happened since 2006. Noble Lords who lived through the various stages of the Companies Bill of that year, which was probably the longest Bill in the history of this House, will remember that we on these Benches argued from an early stage that it should be a consolidation Bill. Its first draft did not constitute a consolidation Bill but was a huge Bill with different clauses. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, who was the relevant Labour Minister at the time, eventually came to us and said that he had won his argument internally and now thought that it should be a consolidation Bill. However, he asked whether, if he was prepared to concede that point to those of us who were arguing for it, we would agree that we would not go back for another 25 days in Committee going through, clause by clause, the consolidation procedures. I responded that I was certainly happy to give that undertaking provided there was not some obvious omission or howler in the process of consolidation. Looking at this order, I have to congratulate the drafters of that Bill because we require only these few, very minor, changes of things that were missed at the time of the Bill. I am glad that we had a consolidation Bill of that nature, although whether the Butterworths the publishers are so happy remains to be seen. I certainly support the order.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am grateful that I waited for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, because as a veteran of the discussions on that very long Bill—while I was idly occupied, or underoccupied, elsewhere—he is to be congratulated on the work that he did on it. Of course, that Bill was such a massive measure that it led to anxieties about whether it was sufficiently comprehensive in ironing out aspects that affected previous legislation. That was a cause of concern, which he expressed at the time and which I recall my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville being concerned to respond to. I agree with him that it hurts a little bit for the Official Opposition to congratulate the Government even in minor ways, but we are relieved to see that there are only minor emendations in the draft order. We also note that the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee found no reason to express anxiety about it.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for clearly and accurately expressing the salient aspects of this really rather complex issue while sparing us the considerable detail with which he could have belaboured the Committee if he had cared to do so. However, one aspect on which I had a little anxiety, although this is probably more concerned with language than with substance, is that the Explanatory Memorandum from the Treasury—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, was half-reflecting this—uses that wonderful word “impliedly”. As I have never used that word nor heard it used on any occasion, although I could not doubt that the Treasury had used the term accurately, I looked it up. Indeed, the Treasury has used the term accurately, as there is such an adverb, used somewhat infrequently in this context, which means,

“hinted at or suggested; not directly expressed”.

Well, I understand the point that is being made, as we are clarifying the issue and making explicit what is in the legislation. However, I would just say that the word has a slightly weasel quality, as if it is covering certain anxieties about the past. Therefore, I will say that I am grateful that it is now being made clear that what was impliedly in the legislation is now there explicitly and properly as a result of this instrument. For that reason, we welcome the order.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments and to the Committee for considering this draft order. As I said earlier, the draft order is uncontroversial. Most of its articles make amendments to regulations by updating them so as to refer to the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 2006 rather than, for instance, to the superseded provisions of the 1985 Act.

My noble friend Lord Razzall referred to the lengthy process of the 2006 Act. I congratulate him and those other stalwart noble Lords who had the stamina to sustain them through that process. I thank him for his support today. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his helpful comments. I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 (Time Limit for Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:35

Moved by

[Lord Astor of Hever]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 (Time Limit for Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2011.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. They deserve our admiration but, more than that, they deserve to be treated with respect, and they rightly expect the nation to honour their commitment. We have a duty to those injured due to service to provide a just and fair compensation scheme for them.

The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme came into force on 6 April 2005 to pay compensation for injury, illness or death caused by service. This provides lump-sum payments and, for the more seriously injured, a guaranteed income for life. It replaced the previous compensation arrangements provided by the War Pensions Scheme and the attributable elements of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme.

The new scheme is a significant improvement on the previous arrangements. Injured service men and women are now able to claim compensation while they are still in service. The previous Government should be commended for introducing the scheme in 2005, as well as for initiating a review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in 2009 to ensure that it continues to support the needs of the Armed Forces.

On 10 February 2010, the then Secretary of State announced the outcome of the review conducted under the independent chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. I am very grateful to him for the thorough way in which he conducted the review and for producing such a meticulous report. The Ministry of Defence committed to implementing all his recommendations within a year. The more straightforward changes were put in revised legislation in July 2010. The more detailed recommendations were laid in new legislation on 28 February 2011. The two affirmative instruments for debate today complete the legislative changes required to implement the full package of changes.

The first statutory instrument relates to time limits for appeals if an individual is not happy with the decision made on a compensation claim. The intent is to extend the time limit for appealing decisions made under the AFCS from six to 12 months. This recognises that the nature of service life may prevent claimants picking up their mail and making an appeal within the current time limit of six months. For appeals heard in Scotland and Northern Ireland, this requires Section 8 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal Act 1943 to be amended. The first affirmative statutory instrument that we are discussing today makes the required amendments to this Act. The time limits governing appeals about AFCS awards heard in England and Wales are provided in the Tribunal Procedure Rules. These rules have been amended to increase the time limit for appealing to 12 months, with the changes coming into force from 9 May. To ensure consistency and fairness, this affirmative instrument also increases the time limit for bringing appeals in respect of all other types of decisions capable of appeal under the Pensions Appeal Tribunal Act 1943, including decisions made in relation to the War Pensions Scheme.

The second statutory instrument is on the subject of rights of appeal. The intent is to make it clear that two types of new decision under the scheme do not carry appeal rights. The first relates to claims for a fast payment. This is a new provision introduced to enable those who have a serious injury due to service to receive an early payment before going through the full compensation claim process. This helps to provide them and their families with some early financial support and reassurance during what can be a very difficult time. If the final award is less than the value of the fast payment, no money will be recovered. Where additional money is payable, the balance is transferred to the claimant. The decision on the final award carries appeal rights. As the fast payment decision is not a final decision, the instrument being debated today excludes fast payment decisions from the list of decisions capable of being appealed. Not to make this change would result in a rather confusing system for claimants.

The second new type of payment is for medical expenses incurred abroad by seriously injured personnel who decide to live permanently outside the UK within a year of leaving the Armed Forces. This power broadens the scope of the scheme. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, recognised in his report, this new power is discretionary, so it would not be appropriate for it to have external appeal rights but rather an individual would be able to request the MoD to reconsider its decision. This remains open to individuals if they are not content with the decision made on their behalf.

These two statutory instruments are the next step in ensuring that the AFCS remains fit for purpose for our service personnel. I beg to move.

[Lord Grantchester]

I join the Minister in paying tribute to all the brave men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. They deserve our respect and admiration and rightly expect society, through government, to honour commitments to them, especially to those injured in service.

I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations. These Benches endorse his remarks and support enactment. We agree that the new scheme is a significant improvement on previous arrangements. As the Minister explained, the two instruments complete the legislative changes required to implement the full package following the review undertaken by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. I understand that the review team spoke to and received comments from over 200 individuals and groups, including serving members of the Armed Forces, their families, reservists, veterans and the general public. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, and his team visited serving Royal Navy, Army and RAF personnel in their bases as well as at Headley Court. The noble and gallant Lord also spoke to Ministers, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the heads of the three services and the judiciary. The review concluded that the basic principles of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme were correct. However, it found areas where further improvements needed to be made. The review findings have been well received. Ministers have agreed to implement all the recommendations. The Minister has today outlined the key areas regarding compensation and appeals.

However, there are other key recommendations that were also agreed to be taken forward, and I shall ask the Minister about two of them. First, there was a recommendation to set up a new expert medical body to advise on compensation for particular illnesses and injuries, such as hearing loss and mental illness. Will the Minister update us on the latest position regarding this new body? How many people will sit on it? Who will lead it? How will it operate and how extensive will its role be?

Secondly, the review recommended that there should be improvements in communication to service personnel and their families to promote a better understanding of how the scheme works, including entitlements, and how the calculations behind those entitlements are made. This should not only increase awareness but raise confidence among our armed service personnel that their welfare is important. I ask the noble Lord to assure us that this matter is also being attended to.

16:45

The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, introduced by the previous Labour Administration and subsequently reviewed and improved here today, is agreed to be fit for purpose and is not in dispute. However, I ask for the noble Lord’s assessment of how it compares with other compensation schemes in the UK and overseas.

Although I recognise that the AFCS goes some way to compensate the injured and the families of those who have died, there are one or two discrepancies that can occur around the fringes of the scheme—often with regard to dates. Our Armed Forces have served in operations in Afghanistan since 2001, as well as in Iraq in 2003. Is the Minister content that those injured after 6 April 2005 receive awards under the AFCS scheme, whereas those who were injured merely one day before do not? Perhaps he can explain. A fair and respected compensation scheme must be a given for our Armed Forces, and I am content to endorse these provisions today.

[Lord Addington]

I am sorry to delay the Committee but I wish to say only a couple of things. This scheme—as the previous Government brought it in, I think we can pass on our congratulations to them—seems to be an improvement on what went before it, and it certainly seems to be much more fit for purpose than what it replaced. When you are dealing with the Armed Forces and anyone who has been injured, there is always a part of you that wants to say, “Give them more”. However, I appreciate that there are limits.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has already touched on the specifics of the ongoing process of reviewing the scheme. Is there an inbuilt structure which means that we will constantly keep an eye on it as changes take place? If there is, I think that many people will be reassured. We will never get it right for all time with changes in medical technology, survival rates and so on, but if we were to have a look at the thinking here, that would help those of us who take an interest in this matter.

Perhaps we could also have a little more information on the body that has been set up. Knowing where it started from would be a help. As I said, the scheme may not be the most generous in the world but it seems to be a vast improvement on what preceded it and it provides a point from which to develop. An understanding of the logical basis and development of the process will help those outside and in the forces to have an idea of how they are viewed and how development will occur. That is something that we could usefully do today: we could put down a basis for future developments for as long as we will unfortunately need a scheme such as this.

[Lord Boyce]

I support the Motion to implement the two instruments, which very much fall within the recommendations from the AFCS review report. I think that some of the questions that noble Lords have asked were addressed in the report, and I am sure that the Minister will have adequate answers for them.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords for their support for the regulations. As I said in my opening remarks, the previous Government should be commended for introducing the scheme, as well as for initiating a review of the AFCS.

I shall try to answer the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. First, he asked how the scheme compares with other schemes in the UK and internationally. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, and his independent scrutiny group undertook comparisons with other schemes and compensation arrangements, and acknowledged that some adverse comparisons had been made in the media. The guaranteed income payment of an award can be the most financially beneficial part of a compensation package. This tax repayment over a lifetime is worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds and is not capped, whereas other compensation schemes may be subject to limits.

The noble Lord’s last question related to Afghanistan and Iraq and to compensation payments.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, considered carefully whether improvements should be made available to those who were injured before the start of the scheme in April 2005. The conclusion was that the improvements should not be backdated before that date. Those injured due to service prior to 6 April 2005 qualify for compensation from the War Pensions Scheme. Although the War Pensions Scheme was first designed over 90 years ago, it still provides valuable benefits for those who rely on it for compensation for their service-related injuries. Backdating improvements for a particular group would create new distinctions between that group and others who had suffered injury due to service all the way back to when the War Pensions Scheme was introduced in 1917. That would be a significant financial undertaking.

My noble friend Lord Addington asked about the new financial group, the Independent Medical Expert Group, and in answering I hope that I will address all his questions. The Independent Medical Expert Group of leading medical experts is undertaking its work on behalf of the MoD. It is chaired by Professor Sir Anthony Newman Taylor of Imperial College London’s faculty of medicine, and it comprises six medical experts, two service representatives and Colonel Jerome Church, who is the chief executive of BLESMA. They are appointed by Ministers.

This group was set up in March 2010 on the recommendations made by the review of the AFCS, led by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, to advise Ministers on certain complex injuries that had been raised during the review as requiring further detailed medical consideration. These were, specifically, injury to genitalia, non-freezing cold injury, paired injuries, brain injury, spinal cord injury, loss of the use of a limb, mental illness and hearing loss. The group has examined each of these types of injury and has formulated recommendations to ensure that the AFCS appropriately compensates for them. IMEG’s initial recommendations will be published in the next few weeks, and the group will continue its work through to 2012 in order to consider fully the issues raised by the noble and gallant Lord.

My noble friend asked who will provide a constant eye on the progress of the AFCS. The Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation will continue to provide an ongoing overview of the AFCS post the implementation of the noble and gallant Lord’s recommendations.

I think that I have covered all noble Lords’ questions, although there was also a question about how we communicate with service personnel. The Independent Medical Expert Group is about to publish a report that identifies its initial findings and recommendations and that will address the very important issue raised by my noble friend about how service personnel will be communicated with.

I thank noble Lords and the noble and gallant Lord for their support. Our Armed Forces are indeed a special group of people and should be properly compensated for injury or illness arising from what we ask them to do on our behalf. I commend both sets of regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 (Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme) (Rights of Appeal) Regulations 2011

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:54

Moved by

[Lord Astor of Hever]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 (Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme) (Rights of Appeal) Regulations 2011.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 4.55 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 27 April 2011.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Lord Turner of Ecchinswell took the oath.

Higher Education: ERASMUS Scheme

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:06

Asked By

[Baroness Coussins]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will maintain the fee waiver after 2012 for students spending a year of their university degree courses abroad through the ERASMUS scheme; and what plans they have to extend the waiver to students going outside the European Union.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, the Higher Education Funding Council for England has made the ERASMUS fee waiver available for the 2011-12 academic year for students at English institutions which participate in the ERASMUS programme. No decisions have been made on the fee waiver for future years. An announcement will be made in due course. The ERASMUS programme is limited to exchanges within the European Union and five other countries so the question of extending the fee waiver to students going outside these countries does not arise.

[Baroness Coussins]

I thank the Minister for that reply and declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Languages. Will the Minister accept that there needs to be more long-term certainty about the fee waiver because the quality and even the survival of modern languages degrees will be threatened if universities cannot afford to offer a year abroad or if only well-off students can afford to take one, even though the experience and skill that they acquire is what employers say they want? Would the Government be prepared to consider a package of measures to encourage linguists and others by increasing the proportion of the fees covered by the waiver by freezing the loan interest during the year abroad and offering financial incentives to universities to run programmes in Europe and world wide?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that there is a need for long-term certainty and I say that as the parent of a child who is about to make decisions about universities as he completes his AS year. Obviously that is something that the Government will do and I hope that colleagues will be able to make a decision as soon as is appropriate. We also understand the point underlying the noble Baroness’s Question about the importance of improving and encouraging the teaching of foreign languages. We are glad that there has been an increase over previous years. Although there has not been an increase in the proportion of the cohort going in, there has been an increase in overall numbers. We will certainly make a decision as soon as possible.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s support for ERASMUS, but although we have spent £3.1 billion on that programme over six years few of our students take part in it. A significant number of students with disabilities do not get places at all and apprentices in advanced apprenticeships cannot operate there either. Only one in four students who come from a STEM background can get a place on an ERASMUS course. Is it not time that the Minister, in negotiating the new ERASMUS programme, renegotiated the terms of this very useful but ill-focused programme?

[Lord Henley]

My noble friend is right to highlight the importance of the ERASMUS programme. I can give him an assurance that my right honourable friend David Willetts has written recently to the appropriate Commissioner about where ERASMUS should go in the next seven-year cycle. His more detailed points about dealing with disabled students and others is another matter, but we will certainly do what we can to encourage ERASMUS and its development. That is why my right honourable friend has written to the appropriate Commissioner.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that since the start of this programme in 1987 more than 2 million young people have benefited and for many of them it was the first time they had lived abroad and studied, so it is a cultural phenomenon. If this programme is stopped or curtailed it will be a shattering blow to the Government’s social mobility agenda. Will the noble Lord keep that in mind when making that decision?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I agree with virtually everything that the noble Lord said. No one is talking about stopping ERASMUS; we are talking about encouraging the Union to make changes to ERASMUS as it develops. The specific Question about fee waivers is a detailed Question for Her Majesty's Government and one that colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will consider and make the appropriate decision in due course.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the limiting of fee remission to those aged up to 25 studying for a first full level 2 and specified level 3 qualification will negatively impact on disabled people seeking apprenticeships, because they can take rather longer? Will he agree to look at the matter again?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again, that would be a matter for the European Union to look at. Again, I will pass that question on to my right honourable friend and I am sure that it is one that he will want to take up with the Commissioner in his further consultations about the future development of ERASMUS.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, ERASMUS is an important scheme to gain valuable work experience and language skills. Applicants to that scheme are not the only group who would like a fee waiver from 2012, as more than 70 per cent of universities will be charging the maximum fees of £9,000 per year. Has the Minister seen the outcome of the High Fliers Research study published today, which finds that more than half of current final year students would not have gone to university if they had faced fees of £9,000? Given those findings and the consequences to the Exchequer of higher than budgeted fees, how will the Government square extending access with deficit reduction? Is it time for another pause to go to listen to the public?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord takes us slightly beyond the Question on the Order Paper. We have on a number of occasions debated the whole question of the reforms that we are bringing in; we will have further debates on them in due course, and I look forward to taking part in those debates. This Question is about ERASMUS, which is a much narrower point than the one that the noble Lord is asking about.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, can my noble friend tell me where the ERASMUS project is physically based, because the European Union Commission, with uncommon felicity, managed to put the EUREKA programme in the Rue Archimède?

[Lord Henley]

Oh dear. I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble friend's question as to where it is physically based. The best answer would probably be that I think that it is based in Brussels, but if it is not I will write to my noble friend to let him know.

Oak Processionary Moth

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:13

Asked by

[Baroness Kramer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to eradicate oak processionary moth.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, Forest Research has moved from a strategy of eradication to one of containment in the west London outbreak area. Outside this, a protected zone has been declared, within which regular surveys will be conducted to ensure that any new infestations are eradicated.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I must declare an interest as a patron of the Friends of Richmond Park. Richmond Park will spend £50,000 or more this year to remove nests of that moth in order that the public can continue to use the park.

The Minister will be aware that the health hazards of the oak processionary moth caterpillar are such that to remove the nests people have to be in full chemical contamination gear, including breathing apparatus. Therefore, he will understand that I am very distressed that the eradication programme has now been set aside. Can he tell us how containment is going to work; and can he give assurances that areas of oak woodland will not have to be closed to the public, as they have been in Holland and Germany, because of the impact of this moth?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for all she has said. She is quite right in, first, underlining the public health issues and, secondly, underlining the fact that some oak woodland areas might have to be removed from public access, as has happened in other parts of the EU, although we hope that it will not happen here.

The reason we have moved from eradication to containment is based on scientific advice that eradication within the five boroughs in south-west London that the noble Baroness is aware of is not possible. We managed to eradicate the outbreaks in Leeds and Sheffield but we got on to those much earlier. We did not get on to this outbreak, which started in the summer of 2006, early enough and therefore it will be very difficult to get rid of it. However, we are very grateful for all the work being done by Forest Research, Fera and by Kew Gardens, which also has an interest as it is right in the middle of the area.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this moth affects other trees as well as oak? In view of the fact that Defra has required the Forestry Commission and Forest Research to reduce their budgets by 25 per cent, with a similar reduction in their staff, is the noble Lord absolutely confident that we have the resources available to tackle this tree-related disease plus the many others that are coming in from overseas at this time?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the first point to make is that we do not know that this disease has come from overseas; we do not know where it has come from. Secondly, my advice is that it affects oaks, but I will write to the noble Lord if it affects other trees as well. Thirdly, there is no question of budgetary constraints affecting the fight against this particular menace. I have spoken to the Forestry Commission today and it was perfectly happy to assure me that they had all the resources it needed to fight the problems of the processionary moth. The simple problem is that there are an awful lot of them in a confined area and there are an awful lot of oaks around, and finding all the eggs, larvae and so on is very difficult indeed. Money is not in question.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, my noble friend in his last supplementary answer said that the Government do not know where this moth originated from. Does he know whether the moth affects oaks in other countries more seriously than it does here?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, there are bad outbreaks in other countries. My noble friend Lady Kramer referred to the problems in the Netherlands. As I said, we cannot be certain as to how it got into the country. It is as likely as not that it came in from imports via the plant trade, but we simply do not know. We will do what we can to continue the fight, but, as I said, it will be one of containment rather than eradication.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, the Minister seemed to imply that the moth had not been found because of a lack of surveyance and that it had been in the woods in south London since 2006. Can he assure the House that there will be enough feet on the ground to survey trees generally in the country to ensure that we do not have outbreaks of disease that are so devastating?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, however many feet we have on the ground, I do not think it would be possible for any government agency to cover the entire country in terms of the number of oaks there are and the number of oak processionary moths that might be processing around the country. All I am saying is that that particular outbreak was discovered in the summer of 2006. The Government moved as quickly as they could, but obviously they could not get on top of it. They managed to get on top of the outbreaks in Leeds and Sheffield and we have found no more two years after the attempt to eradicate them.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, would my noble friend take note of very recent research which indicates that there is a green health element not just in oak woods but in all our hardwoods? They are uniquely beneficial to many people suffering from psychological and mental ill health. Might this not therefore be an urgent issue that should be addressed more specifically than may be the case at present?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, that is another question, but I agree that trees are good for us. That is why we want, if possible, to eradicate or contain the oak processionary moth so that our oaks can flourish.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, at the moment the problem has largely been limited to London, although I echo the concerns of the noble Baroness and the way in which she raised them. I understand that there has also been an outbreak in Pangbourne in Berkshire, which is worrying because of the number of oak trees found in the wider rural area of that part of the country. Can the Minister give us some reassurance that everything is being done to tackle that outbreak? Furthermore, on resources, given that the end of April and the beginning of May is the crucial time of year for effective spraying, can I again ask the Minister to assure us that the resources are available to undertake such spraying work at the present time?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, of course I am aware of the outbreak in Pangbourne, which took place in 2010. It is too early to say whether we have eradicated the oak processionary moth because we cannot really talk about eradication until we have seen two years without any eggs or larvae around. We will report back in 2012 with the good news on that, if we have it. I shall repeat again what I said before: there are no problems with budgetary constraints in terms of fighting this problem.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords—

[Lord Walpole]

My Lords, I doubt if the Minister knows the answer, but I would like to know what we are actually looking out for.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, one is looking out for a moth. It is called the oak processionary moth that exists on oak trees. It is called the oak processionary moth because it processes up oak trees in a processionary manner, whereupon it does what moths want to do. Being more serious, I should make it clear that Forest Research at the Forestry Commission is offering advice, particularly in the south-west London area, on identification. It is not just our officials and those from the Forestry Commission who will be identifying the moth—we want the public to be able to report on outbreaks as well.

Schools: Curriculum and PSHE Reviews

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:22

Asked By

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made with their reviews of the school curriculum and of personal, social and health education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, since we launched our review of the national curriculum in January, we have undertaken a call for evidence and are currently analysing the responses. We will announce our proposals on the issues covered by the first phase of the review by early next year. So far as PSHE is concerned, we have been considering the scope and timing of the review announced in the schools White Paper, and we will announce further details shortly.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

I thank the Minister for that response and for holding a meeting with me yesterday, which was very useful. Given that parents and children have called for personal, social and health education in the curriculum as part of their life skills education, does the Minister agree that we already have a body of knowledge about this subject and a lot of skills? Is it not time to stop reviewing and to do some implementation?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the time she gave yesterday to discussing PSHE with me and for the advice she gave to my officials. I hope that she will carry on doing that as the review continues. I know from our meeting how impatient the noble Baroness is to make progress and I agree with her that a lot of information is available. However, we want to hold a proper review and to co-ordinate it with the separate review into the national curriculum that is also going on. But her admonition to get a move on is ringing in my ears.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, in relation to the co-ordination just mentioned by the Minister, will the Government bear in mind the beneficial effects on children’s achievement in other subjects across the curriculum of high-quality PSHE courses? It gives them the skills with which to learn, as well as the self-confidence, the ability to undertake teamwork and all the other qualities needed in order to become effective learners across the whole of the rest of the curriculum. That is why it is so important that these two reviews are properly linked together.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree with my noble friend. I know how knowledgeable and passionate she is in this area, like the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. I will continue to look to my noble friend’s advice as we go forward on this.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, are the Government considering including financial literacy as an obligatory element of the national curriculum? It seems to me that it is an essential skill for citizens going forward in this country.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, generally we are keen to ensure that the national curriculum is as little overloaded as possible because we believe that one should make space in the school day for important subjects such as financial literacy. PSHE would be another good example. That is why we are trying to simplify and reduce the burden of the national curriculum, to leave schools more discretion and time to decide on the subjects they want to teach and the best and most appropriate way to do so, knowing their children.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

How much consideration has been given to helping teachers and, therefore, children understand their emotional responses in bereavement, given that we know that 10 per cent of school children are bereaved of either a parent, sibling or close friend and that those who do not have support become victims of bullying and have a higher instance of depression, suicide, alcoholism, teenage pregnancy, and so on?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Again, my Lords, I agree with those points. Part of what one would want to look at in the review is what support children need and therefore what support teachers need to make sure those children have the appropriate knowledge and skills.

[Baroness Tonge]

My Lords, have the Government considered what effect their policies to introduce free schools and particularly schools of different religious denominations will have on personal and social education, particularly education on sexual and reproductive health?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am not sure that any of those developments would have an impact in the way that my noble friend implies. The requirements on schools, whether they are free schools, academies or maintained schools, are not changed in any regard by any of the reviews that are currently being carried out.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that once again Michael Gove has jumped the gun by changing the school league tables to reflect the new English Baccalaureate subjects before the curriculum review, which might have recognised the vital importance of PSHE, has been completed?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I do not, my Lords. There are two separate processes at work. The national curriculum review is rightly a process that we are working through to look at which subjects should be in the national curriculum. The English Baccalaureate review was to provide us with a snapshot of what is already going on in schools. The English Baccalaureate is not compulsory in the way that some elements of the national curriculum will be, and they demonstrate different things.

The desire to introduce the English Baccalaureate quickly was driven by our concern that too many children, particularly children from poor backgrounds, are being denied the opportunity to study academically rigorous subjects. I am sure the noble Baroness will know how wide the discrepancy is between children on free school meals and children not on free school meals in terms of their current study of what some people would call rigorous academic subjects. Four per cent of children on free school meals study the English Baccalaureate subjects as opposed to 17 per cent on non-free school meals. I do not think that is acceptable. Highlighting the issue and making people realise that there are these discrepancies will help give children from poor backgrounds, in particular, the opportunity to have academic subjects taught to them, which in turn will help them get into universities, which I know is a goal we all share.

Iraq: Camp Ashraf

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:30

Asked By

[Lord Eden of Winton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking in the light of recent developments in Camp Ashraf.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, following the unfortunate events on 8 April at Camp Ashraf, Foreign Office Minister Burt released a statement calling on the Government of Iraq to cease violent operations in Camp Ashraf immediately. British embassy officials, including our ambassador in Baghdad, have raised concerns about the incident with the Iraqi President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Minister of Human Rights. We have made it clear to the Iraqi authorities that we deplore any loss of life and have urged them to set up an independent investigation into the incident.

[Lord Eden of Winton]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer, but will he acknowledge that for many years noble Lords in all parts of this House have warned of an impending disaster at Camp Ashraf? Tragically, and in the most brutal way, that has now happened. In the light of the recent slaughter of unarmed civilians by Iraqi forces, is it not clear that Maliki’s word counts for nothing, that he is in hock to Iran and that he is intent on eliminating Ashraf by whatever means? In those circumstances, is it not wholly reprehensible that the Americans have virtually walked by on the other side? Surely there is only one solution remaining: for an international force or UN-mandated body to intervene immediately in Ashraf to provide essential security and much-needed medical assistance.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, those are some very ambitious demands. Perhaps I should explain to the House that on 8 April Iraqi police and armed forces entered Camp Ashraf, which is an extensive camp in an area that was given to the MEK, or the PMOI—whatever you wish to call it—by Saddam Hussein some 25 years ago, and in the course of that confrontation some 30-plus people were killed and 70-plus people injured. Since then the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq has visited the camp, as has a US medical team. We are continuing to discuss with UNAMI and the Iraqi Government what else can be done to assist in this situation.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

Is the Minister aware that the Iraqis’ claims that some of the 35 Ashraf residents massacred by Iraqi troops and some of the 350 wounded were shot by the PMOI leadership are totally untrue, and that the interior ministry conducted a search for weapons and explosives at the camp in April last year but found nothing more than 23 decaying empty packets of firecrackers? In the light of this further assault on these defenceless refugees, will the Minister urge the Prime Minister to make a personal phone call to Mr Maliki to demand the immediate withdrawal of his offensive forces, and to ask the UN to take over responsibility for the safety and security of residents and to restore proper access to medical treatment and supplies to those injured in this recent attack?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I was not aware of allegations that some of the casualties had been shot by their own side—I simply had not heard that. We recognise that this is a very complicated situation. The Iraqi Government are now the Government of a sovereign state.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

They have responsibilities, though.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Of course they have responsibilities, but this is in effect an extraterritorial enclave in Iraq and there are some very large issues. We accept as a Government that, in time, Camp Ashraf should close. The question is how that is negotiated with all sides.

[Lord Avebury]

My noble friend will be aware that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has called for a full, impartial and independent inquiry, which you are not going to get from the Iraqi Government. Will my noble friend therefore urge the Foreign Secretary to initiate a resolution in the UN Security Council calling on the Secretary-General to appoint such an inquiry and also demanding that the 1,000 Iraqi troops occupying a third of Camp Ashraf be immediately withdrawn?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the fact that Iraqi troops are occupying a third of Camp Ashraf is itself evidence that Camp Ashraf is a very extensive area. As I understand it, that is part of the issue that the Iraqi Government are concerned with—they wish to reduce the area currently occupied by Camp Ashraf. The UN is actively engaged in this. I am told that UN mission members visit Camp Ashraf virtually every week.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

My Lords, will the Minister accept that the term “unfortunate circumstance” misleadingly and euphemistically represents what has happened in Camp Ashraf? Does he accept that what happened there was a massacre—wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter? Will the Government consider the need to send a delegation from this House, or from Parliament in general, to Camp Ashraf? Furthermore, will they consider sending Nouri al-Maliki and his Camp Ashraf dispersal committee to court at The Hague?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, there is a good deal of violence all the way across the Middle East at present, with which the United Nations is actively engaged. I have to reiterate that Iraq is now a sovereign state; that the United Kingdom Government are doing their best to investigate what has happened; that this is a long-standing confrontation going back to the change of government in 2003 in Iraq; and that it is not as simple to resolve as the noble Lord suggests.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:38

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, later today we will have the Second Reading of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. There are 50 speakers signed up to take part in that Second Reading. Subject to progress on the first business today, Third Reading of the Pensions Bill, if Back-Bench contributions on the police Bill were to be kept to approximately six minutes, the House should then be able to rise this evening at around the target rising time of 10 o’clock. This advisory time for Back-Benchers excludes the Minister’s opening of 20 minutes and the Opposition’s opening and winding-up of 15 minutes.

Postal Services Bill

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:38

Moved By

[Lord De Mauley]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clauses 9 and 10, Schedule 2, Clauses 11 to 37, Schedule 3, Clauses 38 to 41, Schedule 4, Clauses 42 to 50, Schedule 5, Clause 51, Schedule 6, Clause 52, Schedule 7, Clause 53, Schedule 8, Clauses 54 to 64, Schedule 9, Clauses 65 to 71, Schedules 10 and 11, Clauses 72 to 89, Schedule 12, Clauses 90 and 91.

Motion agreed.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:39

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Pensions Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

1: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Single tier or universal state pensions
(1) Before the end of June 2016, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the consequences of its provisions on any proposals for the introduction of a single tier or universal state pension.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, this section shall come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, the amendment in my name would require the Secretary of State to introduce a report on the single state pension by June 2016, before Part 1 of the Bill, which refers to the delay in the state pension age for women, is commenced. I would also ask the House to ignore the word “universal” on this amendment—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I ask that colleagues carry out the normal courteous procedure. Those who are remaining in the Chamber wish to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Could those who are leaving do so rather quietly?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I thank the Chief Whip. The delay in women’s retirement age so that, for the most unfortunate, retirement is delayed by two years, was discussed and determined, narrowly, on Report. No one, I think, was happy about the bunching effect, including the Minister. It is the consequence of insisting, despite the coalition agreeing to the contrary, that the state pension age for women would rise to 66 by 2020. I remind the House that the coalition agreement that women’s state pension age would not begin to rise to 66 until after 2020 was not an election pledge that was broken in the name of coalition dealings and agreement but was part of the post-election coalition agreement from both government parties in the full knowledge of the costs and circumstances. To break that joint, agreed, published, post-election pledge within the year is, in my view, pretty disreputable. However, that is where we now are, regrettably. I hope very much that the other place will try to smooth out the bunching effect, which narrowly this House allowed to continue.

Since Report—I think on the day after—we have had the long-awaited Green Paper on the new single state pension. I am sure that noble Lords greatly welcome it, as I certainly do. It proposes bringing the basic state pension, the state second pension and pension credit into one pool, allowing the payment of a single pension based on national insurance contributions a few pounds above pension credit level. This would both tackle pensioner poverty, especially among women, and encourage saving. Existing accrued rights would be honoured, but possible future accrued rights would be capped in much the same way as when this House decided—rightly, in my view—to replace SERPS with S2P. That mostly capped men’s higher earnings-related pension entitlement with a scheme of more generous redistribution to lower wage earners, mainly women. To me, the Green Paper is very good news, and I congratulate the Minister and his right honourable friend in the other place, Mr Steve Webb, on achieving it in the face of, I suspect, the agnosticism of HMT at best, the scepticism of HMT at least, and the hostility of HMT at worst.

The new single pension is important in a couple of ways. I am raising it now because we did not have the opportunity to raise it on Report, given that the Green Paper just happened to be published the day after Report. There is agreement around the House about the desirability of NEST. It will effectively reintroduce an earnings-related pension, so to speak, to top up the new single pension, performing the same function but in a very different way from the old SERPS. However, as we all know, NEST is risky, particularly for low-earning women. If they do not have a partner at retirement whose pension income lifts them both off pension credit, they find that their savings in NEST are severely depleted by the operation of the pension credit taper. There is no way that someone at 30 can predict whether it is worth saving in NEST if it depends on what partnership and household arrangements they have 30 or 40 years down the line.

Pension credit has done a superb job of tackling the poverty of existing pensioners. It means that pensioners are no more or no less likely to be poor than any other group in society. However, it has added to the risk of future pensioners who seek to avoid poverty by building savings. The single state pension cuts through all of that. It means that your pension income from NEST will depend not on your household but on your own income, which is a far safer, clearer and cleaner path for savers. With a new pension, every penny you normally save in NEST will return to you as your pension. It has built out the risk from saving; it pays to save. That is why, on all sides of the House, we welcome NEST, and I am sure will welcome the new single pension. Hence this amendment.

15:45

This amendment seeks to ensure that the new single pension is locked into the pension structure of the future so that NEST in particular is safe. It in no way seeks to reopen an issue that this House has already decided—although I wish we could—on the indecent bunching of women’s state pension age so that some women have to wait two years longer than they could reasonably expect for a state pension to be paid to them. Instead, what the amendment tries to do is to build into the Bill a commitment on the new single pension before the commencement of the accelerated raising of the state pension age, which so many of us in this House deplored on Report. It also seeks to ensure that, at a time when NEST is completing its transitional stage in 2016 and with the 2017 review of NEST in sight, it is securely underpinned by the state platform. Hence, the amendment contains the words “June 2016”. I cannot, even if I wanted to, make the one conditional on the other. In any case, I do not wish to suggest that it is acceptable to delay women’s state pension age because those recipients will get a higher pension from the state. I do not accept any such trade-off. I believe that the Minister is probably unhappy about the bunching as proposed by the Government on the grounds of equity, as a majority in this House probably are. That bunching is simply wrong and unfair, and I hope that the other place will have another go at sorting it out. It is over to them now.

What would be even worse is for women to have their pension age postponed as the Bill currently proposes and then to find that they were still drawing only the existing state pension, with possible vague rights to a state second pension and pension credit very unclear. Under the Companion’s rules, I cannot fully introduce new material, even though this pivotal Green Paper was produced one day after Report so that we could not take it into discussion then. I have had to produce this very mild amendment, which states that the Secretary of State should lay a report on the new state pension before June 2016 changes to state pension retirement age come into effect. It is an attempt, in other words, to ensure that the new single pension does not get kicked into the long grass some time down the line, as I suspect HMT wishes it to be, while the cost-cutting delays to women’s pensions continue on their merry, savage, way, and while saving in the NEST auto-enrolment scheme continues to seem precarious.

I am well aware that a consultation exercise is currently under way and is to be completed in June, and no Government can give a full commitment before that exercise has been completed. However, from my knowledge of those who have been campaigning for such a single state pension over the years, criticism will come primarily from one group and one group only—those who will find themselves excluded from it because they are already pensioners. However, we all hope that, as the economic situation improves, that too may be revisited, perhaps with the older pensioners—those over 80 and 85—enjoying the new single pension along with newcomers into pensions. The two groups over time may meet; I very much hope so.

This is a tidying-up, Third Reading, probing amendment, by which we can take note of the Government’s intentions in this respect, but it is really a chance for the Minister to ensure that the single state pension is locked into the new pensions structure. It will to some extent mitigate the worst effects of bunching, but that still needs to be sorted out in the other place, and it would ensure the safety of NEST. In the hope that the Minister can confirm that, subject to the results of the consultation exercise, it is the secure intention of the Government to proceed down this path, I beg to move.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, on her ingenuity in inserting this into the delicate business of amendments at Third Reading, of which I have, with modesty, rather less experience than her. I also associate myself with the spirit of her intentions in this matter at least in two respects.

First, many of us across the House felt some dissatisfaction or sadness that we were not able to resolve some of the issues of rough justice connected with the bunching of women's pensions. While I appreciate that we cannot reopen that in this House now, that area might repay further consideration. I have seen some correspondence subsequent to our debates on Report which would have suggested, for example, that a minor adjustment in the entitlement for the male pension above the age of 65 might be a way to finance a smoother progression for women without a net cost to the Treasury. I hope that Ministers have not shut their minds to this area, although I appreciate that it is difficult and that there will always be losers as well as gainers. However, it would be inappropriate to go further into that.

Perhaps I would be on more confident and more positive ground in saying, secondly, that I share the noble Baroness's enthusiasm for the single state pension, which I believe would be a considerable social advance. It would help to make pensions and saving for them, including private pensions and NEST, worth while. That must be an objective for us all. It would also be an important advance in simplifying the system. We could not discuss this previously because of the timings of government proposals and I appreciate that pensions' evolution and development is an incremental business. However, I would like to share with the House some considerations which the Minister, even if he does not consent to a formal review—I know that those things are not easy for Ministers to do—may at least wish to ponder in moving through the consultation process on the state second pension and in looking at the interaction with NEST.

With due respect to the noble Baroness, I will not confine my remarks specifically to women's issues because some wider issues are also appropriate to consider. First, it is in the nature of pensions, particularly where they are guaranteed or organised by the state, to reflect long-term commitments. Any mid-term corrective action, even if benignly intended—and this is so—may therefore inevitably subvert arrangements which have already been made. I cite as an example that when we reduced the qualifying years to 30, with a view to trying to do something about women's pensions in the past, it had the converse disadvantage of nullifying the benefits of some individuals who had made contributions above that period in order to safeguard their entitlement, on the rules as they stood and in good faith.

At the same time, if we moved to a single state pension, I would find it personally important to retain an element of the contributory principle. Again, a post-Bill development, as it were, has been the issue of whether there should be some association either of administration or even of coverage between the tax and national insurance systems. Paying for something and getting something back is both morally and prudentially wise, although there is a huge amount of further work to do on that area. There are also potential differential impacts, as the noble Baroness has already touched on, from the change not just on women but for those with interrupted or overlapping working patterns. For example, there are people who have spent time abroad or who may have saved for a private second pension at different times. All that is complicated and requires a good deal of careful thinking through.

At some stage—the Minister can help us by giving some indication of this—we need therefore to take a dispassionate and careful look at all aspects of the proposed changes as they now come out. This should be designed to minimise any retrospective unfairness and to look prospectively to minimise any moral hazard, where people may feel that they lose when they have acted in good faith; but remembering at all times as we do that—and pursue the hard cases, which we must—that there is a grand prize to follow in simplicity and in providing a good platform for additional, personal private saving. That must be our overriding objective.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her amendment, which shows us that there are very few people who know as much about pensions as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis; we recognise her ingenuity, certainly, but above all her knowledge and her belief in getting the right and honourable thing for all pensioners. I too am extremely sad that we were not able to convince this House to amend the proposals affecting those women turning 57 in March and April this year who were going to be required to work an extra two years, a group of women who had far fewer opportunities for flexible working than women have today. I believe that an attempt in the other place will be made to return a more equitable answer to this problem, and I hope that it would be well received in this House. I too support the idea of the single state pension. It would go quite a long way towards a more equitable set-up for both men and women into the future. I would like to end by very much hoping that we will see a better outcome in many respects than we had first thought when looking at this Bill.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hollis has been an initiator of thinking about, and a passionate advocate of, a single state pension for a number of years. She is truly a leader of the pack on this issue. As she explained, the nature of her amendment this afternoon is simply that it makes a request that the Secretary of State be required to lay a report before Parliament before the end of June 2016, which of course is the start of the timeframe for the acceleration of equalisation of the state pension age under the Bill. That would assess the consequences of the Bill on any proposals for the introduction of such a pension. This does not seem an unreasonable request.

From time to time during our consideration of this Bill, there have been references to proposals for a single-tier pension and the Minister acknowledged this himself at Report, when he referred to being challenged by his noble friend Lord German to say more about the single-tier pension. The Minister duly obliged by referring to a Green Paper, which was due to be published a few days later.

The Green Paper effectively consults on two propositions. One is accelerating the existing reforms so that the state pension evolves into a two-tier flat-rate structure more quickly; and the second, as my noble friend advocates, is a single-tier flat-rate pension set above the level of the pension credit standard minimum guarantee. The Green Paper, incidentally, also consults on proposals for automatically uprating the state pension age, but we are not focusing on that this afternoon. The consultation is just under way and not due to be completed until 24 June 2011. Which option, if any, the current Government wish to pursue may not emerge for a little while, but like all noble Lords who have spoken I will be interested to hear today’s thinking. Indeed, we as a party need to consider the outcome of this consultation, but see the thrust of the benefit of a single-tier flat-rate pension. A number of considerations will doubtless be brought to bear, particularly the voice of the Treasury. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, who made the point that we need to reflect on these in terms of long-term issues—pensions are about long-term issues—and, I suggest, of the need to drive consensus where we can. The Minister also referred to the contributory principle, and that is very much the same position that my noble friend is in, which is why she prefers the single state pension to a universal pension that would not rely on such provision.

16:00

If the proposition emerges that a single-tier pension is to be introduced, it would clearly need primary legislation, and this process would cover the ramifications of existing pension legislation and, doubtless, much else. If legislation does not emerge by 2016, however, notwithstanding the proposal for such a pension, then my noble friend’s amendment would come into play.

How might the Bill have consequences for single-tier pensions? It would be difficult to argue that there will be cost ramifications, because the Green Paper makes it clear that any proposals for a single-tier pension must be cost-neutral—that is, for all the fanfare, there is to be no new money beyond existing allocations. Conversely, it would seem perverse to argue that the manifest unfairness in the changes to the state pension age can be justified as necessary for the introduction of a new state pension system, as no additional funding is to be allowed. The state pension age changes are funding the triple lock but you can spend that money only once.

One of the ramifications of a single-tier pension—this was touched on by my noble friend—is that there could be a significant reduction in means-tested benefits for pensioners, and the demise of the pension credit in particular. This would undermine some of the Government’s argument in the pays-to-save debate. Even though we do not accept the rationale for the trigger in auto-enrolment, the Government’s main justification for the trigger would fall away.

Like my noble friend, I am supportive of the single-tier pension but as things stand we need to understand its full ramifications, the long-term implications and the distribution effect if it is going to be cost-neutral overall. This will doubtless emerge over the next three months in particular.

At points during our debates on the Bill I wondered if some noble Lords were looking for cover or justification for the state pension age changes in the single-tier pension. Whatever the benefits of such a pension—they could be considerable—I doubt whether those noble Lords can get the comfort that they seek for supporting the state pension ages as provided in the Bill at the moment.

I support my noble friend’s amendment. It seeks to achieve something important. In particular, it keeps a focus on the progress of the single state pension, which, if achievable, would be a considerable gain.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the opportunity to spend a little time today on our proposals for reforming the state pension. She has been instrumental, as other noble Lords have pointed out, in the move for better pension provision for those left out of the benefits of the heyday of the occupational pension and the earnings-related state counterpart. The Pensions Act 2007, with its enormous boost for women through the reduction in qualifying years for basic state pension and the increasing coverage of the state second pension, could have been the final push for equal treatment in state provision.

Even that was not good enough, though. In March last year, a week before the 2007 Act started to deliver for women, the noble Baroness launched the pamphlet The New State Pension: A Call to All Parties, which pushed for further radical change. Very skilfully, she got my honourable friend, the Minister responsible, to contribute a chapter to that. It proposed a new type of state pension with a near-universal amount, set above the level of the means test and made affordable by paying the pension to new pensioners only. Her main motivation, as ever, was to deliver an adequate state pension for women who, because of low pay and career breaks, have historically lost out in pension provision.

Just over a year later, the Government published their proposals for improving state provision, A State Pension for the 21st Century. That Green Paper confronts the big issue of how to respond to a decline in private saving at a time of increasing life expectancy. It describes how means-testing, with all the damage that it can do to private saving, pervades the state system. It describes the great complexity of the state system. Bluntly, for most people the system is simply impenetrable. Crucially, it fails to answer the most obvious of all questions from potential private savers: is it worth it? How much will I get from the state when I retire anyway? As importantly, it describes the extent of inequality in the state system—how women, on average, get £40 a week less state pension than men and how they are more likely to live in poverty as pensioners.

The Green Paper describes two options for reform to respond to the challenges that the pension system faces. The first option would simplify the state second pension. It would strip out the earnings-related part of the second pension, leaving just a flat-rate amount—the same pension for all workers and people who are credited into the system for caring and other good reasons. The second, more radical, option would effectively fold the basic and second pensions into one to create a simple single-tier pension, set above the level of the guarantee credit. This option, which is clearly similar to the one that the noble Baroness proposed a little more than a year ago, would mean that by 2020 no less than 90 per cent of pensioners—men and women—would retire on a pension above the guarantee credit.

The Green Paper, as I said, was published earlier this month and the consultation is currently under way. As the noble Baroness appreciates, changes of the magnitude proposed in the Green Paper can be progressed only by listening to the views of all those with an interest. It is far too early in the process for the Government to come to a view on the way ahead, so I cannot give a conclusion to the consultation. I assure the noble Baroness that, should the Government decide to bring forward proposals to reform the state pension system, we would as a matter of course publish a full assessment of impacts, including those on women, alongside any reform proposals.

I remind the House that we published an impact assessment, including a gender, race and disability impact assessment, of our proposals to increase the state pension age first as part of the White Paper setting out our response to the call for evidence and again alongside the publication of the Bill when it first entered Parliament. Those assessments will be further amended and revised as necessary for republication when the Bill enters the Commons and yet again once the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. I can therefore assure the House that, were the Government to publish a White Paper on reform, we would be no less diligent in providing detailed information on the impacts of any policy changes by gender, ethnicity and a range of other factors. In short, there will be plenty of opportunity for noble Lords, as well as Members of another place, to scrutinise any proposals for reform and their likely impacts, should the Government decide to proceed with reform.

I emphasise that the proposals that we have set out in the Green Paper do not depend on increasing the state pension age. As I said in our debates on Clause 1, the rise in the state pension age must be brought forward because the sharp upward revision in life expectancy projections has overtaken the legislated timetable. The revised timetable would be necessary with or without the reforms on which we are consulting. We have already discussed at some length the impact of our proposed changes to the pension age timetable, in particular on those cohorts of women who face an increase in their pension age of up to two years. A number of noble Lords have emphasised that point and I do not propose to rerun that debate. However, I draw attention to the fact that a key objective of the reforms, alongside simplifying the system and rewarding those who save, is to look at how the state pension could be made fairer for groups, including women.

The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to ensure that we consider the impact of the state pension age changes in conjunction with our proposals for reforming the state pension scheme. As I said, we are only at the consultation stage on our reform proposals but I can assure the House that although, as I hope I have made clear, these are not interdependent changes, we would undertake such an assessment if these reforms are taken forward. I trust that I have been able to assure noble Lords that the statutory duty that the noble Baroness’s amendment would impose is not necessary and, furthermore, is somewhat premature. We will have many opportunities to debate what to do with any reform proposals as they go through the whole process. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part around the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and my noble friend for their warm support for the principle of the amendment. If the comments in this House are anything to go by, the Minister can be assured of the reception that his Green Paper will receive outside the House. I am confident that it will be greeted with warm support.

I very much take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, that we have to see pensions as part of a structure. However, such a new single state pension is the keystone for any reform not just of state pensions but of occupational pensions that do not generate a savings trap for those on lower earnings. That is why noble Lords all round the House are so delighted to see the possibility of that keystone finally coming into place. The noble Lord said that we should minimise retrospective unfairness and avoid future moral hazard. Those words are well taken; they are wise words for us to absorb.

My noble friend Lord McKenzie is absolutely right that, with the advent of a new single state pension, the issue of the threshold of enrolment into NEST disappears. It does not matter whether you end up with £3,000, £30,000 or £300,000 of savings; you keep the lot if the new single state pension is in place. Therefore, you do not have to legislate to avoid the moral hazard of low-paid women earning less than £7,500 a year going into NEST because their savings may not be worth having, given the effect of pension credit. As NEST will be reviewed in 2017, which many of us are already looking forward to, I very much hope that we shall be able to revisit this issue then as, with the new single pension in place, a threshold of enrolment will simply not be necessary. However modest the savings, they will be worth having and worth encouraging, so that even the poorest of people can go into retirement with a cushion against the adversities of old age.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for his generous comments on the background to the single pension and to his officials for their work in bringing the Green Paper forward. My only regret is that the Green Paper came too late for Report and that Third Reading has come too early for the results of the consultation. None the less, we are trying to wedge this in between the two. I believe that the new single pension will transform the pension landscape and should receive huge support. I was delighted to hear from the Minister that there was no interdependence between the deferring of the state pension age—in other words, the raising of the state pension age to 66—and the funding or costing of the Green Paper. That is key. It gives me hope that he and his honourable friend Steve Webb will be seeking to smooth the bunching effect whereby some women have a much rougher deal than others. Some wait nearly an extra year for their pensions and some wait for nearly two years. We all recognise that that is—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell—rough justice. I would go further than that: it is unacceptable. I and, I am sure, the Minister hope that a decent solution can be found to that in the other place.

However, I am, in a way, using the amendment to do what we would have done had the Green Paper been introduced by a Statement, which was not the case. We are delighted to have the Green Paper in place. We wish the consultation good speed. We hope that the results will come through in such a way that the Government are encouraged to go down the path that they should. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Freud, that if he comes forward with such legislation in this House or the other place he will have wide and enthusiastic support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

16:15

Clause 10 : Certification that alternative to quality requirement is satisfied

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Freud]

2: Clause 10, page 9, leave out lines 2 to 13 and insert—
““(2A) Alternative requirements must be such that, assuming all jobholders to be active members of schemes to which this section applies, for at least 90% of jobholders—
(a) employer contributions, and(b) total contributions,would be likely to be no less if every scheme satisfied an alternative requirement applicable to it than if every scheme satisfied the relevant quality requirement.(2B) In subsection (2A)—
“alternative requirement” means a requirement prescribed under subsection (2)(b);
“employer contributions”, in relation to an active member of a scheme, means the amount of contributions that have to be paid under the scheme in respect of the member by the employer;
“total contributions”, in relation to an active member of a scheme, means the total amount of contributions that have to be paid under the scheme in respect of the member by the employer and by the member.
(2C) The Secretary of State—
(a) must apply the test in subsection (2A) when regulations under subsection (2)(b) are first made, and(b) must carry out subsequent reviews of whether the test continues to be satisfied.A review under paragraph (b) must be carried out during 2017, and after that each review must be completed no more than three years after the completion of the previous one.””

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am pleased to be returning to the topic of certification and even more so to be moving a government amendment that I believe will address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. I understand those concerns to be twofold: first, on the scope of the Secretary of State’s powers and, secondly, on the risk of unscrupulous employers manipulating the certification test.

The aims of this amendment are: first, to strengthen the regulatory framework in which the alternative certification model will operate by imposing tougher preconditions before regulations can be introduced; and, secondly, to introduce an ongoing requirement for the Secretary of State to keep the test under review.

At the outset, before publishing any regulations, the Secretary of State must be confident that at least 90 per cent of jobholders will receive the same level of contributions under the certification test that they would have received if their scheme had satisfied the relevant quality requirement. This is more demanding than the previous requirement, which referred to,

“a majority of the individual relevant jobholders”.

In addition, the Secretary of State must periodically review the evidence base of the test. This is expected to involve analysing the dataset from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, known as ASHE. These are the data that underpinned the development of the certification model and other relevant data on the rate of pension contributions required by schemes. This is tougher than the previous test, which relied on a snapshot of the data at the point of publishing regulations. If, as a result of review, we detect undesirable trends in pay and reward packages that suggest that more individuals than expected are receiving lower than minimum contributions, the Secretary of State can intervene to strengthen or repeal the test.

After the publication of the regulations, the review will take place first in 2017 and subsequently at least every three years. The review will form part of our ongoing evaluation strategy. Its publication will be considered in the context of the evaluation of the reforms. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will note that we have pared back the Secretary of State’s power as far as we reasonably can, based on the available evidence. In view of this, I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that the Secretary of State’s powers are proportionate to the task in hand. For clarity, I should add that the requirements fall to the Secretary of State and not to employers using the test.

The reconfigured regulation-making power aligns more closely with our dataset from the annual survey from ASHE, which we believe to be robust, representative and reliable. Thus, the Secretary of State will be able to deliver the certification model welcomed by employers and key stakeholders at the same time as affording scheme members the appropriate level of protection. A supplementary delegated powers memorandum has been sent to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to reflect the tighter constraints on the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power.

I say in conclusion that we have ended up with the outcome broadly envisaged by the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, tabled on Report. I thank both noble Lords for the expertise that they brought to bear on the issue. The Bill has been improved by their intervention and I am grateful for it. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for his introduction and explanation of the amendment, and for his generous attribution. As he explained, when making regulations about the alternative certification test, the Secretary of State is required now to be satisfied that 90 per cent of individuals eligible for automatic enrolment will receive contributions to the level they would have received had the scheme satisfied the relevant quality requirement. The Secretary of State is required to be so satisfied when regulations are first made and at subsequent reviews. We support the amendments because they represent a significant tightening of the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers.

As we detailed, we support a certification process which gives employers an incentive to retain existing good-quality schemes, provided that it does not undermine the opportunity for relevant employees to benefit from auto-enrolment. We acknowledge that the certification scheme on which the Government are consulting appears already to be drawn within the parameters of the amendment. Perhaps the Minister will update us on that, and in particular on the phasing of employer contributions. Presumably such phasing now will have to be consistent with the amendment. Notwithstanding the constraining of the Secretary of State's powers, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Bill still allows the prospect of up to 10 per cent of jobholders missing out on contributions to which they would otherwise have been entitled.

We stated from the outset that we support the Government and congratulate them on their decision to proceed with auto-enrolment and with NEST. I do so again today. However, we do not do this with unconstrained joy, because a number of provisions in the Bill erode the intended coverage of the arrangements. Some employees might miss out because of the certification process under Clause 10; the three-month waiting period in Clause 6 could reduce an individual's accumulated years of savings by nearly three years; the introduction of the earnings trigger in Clause 5, as currently set, would exclude some 600,000 individuals; and the broad uprating powers in Clause 8 would allow the Government to achieve their aspiration of a trigger of £10,190. As my noble friend Lady Drake pointed out on Report, this would exclude a further 800,000 workers each year, three-quarters of whom would be women.

Collectively, the measures hit the low paid and those working part-time, especially women. They run counter to the overarching objective of auto-enrolment, which is to enable low and moderate earners to save. Should the trigger reach the level of £10,000, the reforms would begin seriously to undermine their original intent. All of this compounds the central unfairness in the Bill, which is the disproportionate way in which women are affected by the raising of the state pension age. As we have had no further comfort from the Minister on this issue today, the parliamentary campaign now moves to the other place.

I conclude by thanking the Minister for the concession that is embodied in the amendment, and his team for their efforts in enabling the matter to be dealt with at Third Reading. They have removed the potential for severe diminution of coverage via the certification process, which is to be welcomed. We look forward to the reviews of how the alternative requirement is working in practice. As this is the last time I will speak on the Bill, I will take the opportunity to thank the Minister for his open approach to handling this important piece of legislation, and the Bill team for the way that they have stepped up to the mark and been helpful to the Opposition as well as to the Minister.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for that response. He had, as ever, a couple of questions—that is rather a low number for him. I shall do my best to summarise my answers.

On phasing and parameters, I can assure the noble Lord that it does work. Phasing will be consistent with the amendment, which probably does not surprise him. At the moment the figures are comfortably within the parameters, so there is a safety margin. Clearly, if they fall out of those parameters, it will be due to changes that we need to look at. The certification model will be reviewed in 2017 when the phasing of the contributions has ended.

As a result of this amendment the preconditions before the Secretary of State to make regulations will be a better check and balance on his powers due to two factors—that the percentage of job holders that must potentially receive at least minimum contributions is high, at least 90 per cent; and that the strength of the alternative certification requirements will be periodically reviewed. As there might be concern that this will add to the burden on employers, I should repeat for absolute clarity that the requirements fall to the Secretary of State, not to employers, using the test.

Although the government proposal will be more demanding for the Secretary of State, it should maintain the right balance between flexibility for employers and safeguards for individuals. I am very pleased that we have been able to reach common ground on this issue. In my turn, I must commend the close scrutiny to which the Bill as a whole has been subject in your Lordships’ House. The quality of the debate has demonstrated noble Lords’ accomplishment and high level of expertise. Once again, this House has performed its role with the distinction and spirit that are expected from it.

While I have the Floor I must take the opportunity to thank in particular those noble Lords who have made a significant contribution to the Bill’s journey through this House, notably, of course, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in his role as opposition spokesman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her accomplished performance at the Dispatch Box. I also thank my noble friends Lord German, Lord Stoneham and Lord Boswell, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross, Lady Hollis and Lady Turner, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for their participation in an active and often challenging debate. Finally, I thank my noble friend Lady Garden for her proficiency in covering a number of clauses in the Bill. I also thank the Bill team, who have supported the Bill throughout this process with the right material at the right time. I am very grateful to them.

The Bill now passes over to the other place, and a number of noble Lords have presaged a little of the activity that they expect to see there on particular matters. I am just grateful to get rid of any prospect of having to look at PUCODIs again.

Let me reiterate the principles of the Bill which I set out on Second Reading, as they are still absolutely applicable. We need a fair, sustainable and balanced system that adequately and accurately reflects the society we live in. Saving for retirement should not be a thought which occurs only when you first spot that grey hair. It should be a process that begins when you enter the labour market as an adult and continues over the years. The Bill does just that while not losing sight of the key tenet of providing a decent income for the individual in retirement.

Amendment 2 agreed.

A privilege amendment was made.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

16:30

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, at its heart, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill reflects the coalition's determination to transfer power away from Whitehall and return it to communities and professionals. Both parties of this coalition Government support the democratic reform of police authorities. Our chosen model of reform—to make the police more accountable through oversight by a directly elected individual who will be subject to strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives—was expressly set out in the coalition agreement. In taking forward this reform, we will swap bureaucratic control for democratic accountability, replacing police authorities with directly elected commissioners in all forces in England and Wales, save for the City of London, which is an exception.

Some have argued that there is a need to delay these reforms. We do not agree. These reforms cannot wait. We do not have the luxury of delaying change when HMIC, the inspectorate, concluded in its policing in austerity report that only four police authorities inspected by it were judged to have performed well in both setting strategic direction and ensuring value for money for their police force. Effective performance in both these functions is essential. Given the state of public finances in this country, it is also urgent. Moreover, the accountability of the police should be to the people and not, as it has increasingly become, towards Whitehall. I shall return to that later in my remarks.

The second fundamental principle to policing in this country is operational independence: freedom from political interference. I am aware that some in this House have been concerned that in altering the arrangements for the governance of the police, this principle, which the Government regard as sacrosanct, might be impaired. There is no necessary connection, but as this is a matter of such importance to us all in this House, I intend to deal with it straight away.

It is important to note that under the Police Act 1996, chief constables had direction and control over their forces and that they continue to do so under Clause 2. Moreover, under the Bill, they will be constituted as corporations sole and will have greater powers than now to appoint their immediate subordinates. To reassure those who remain anxious about the issue of operational independence, the Policing Minister undertook during debate in the other place to develop a protocol in consultation with ACPO, the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives, setting out the distinct roles and powers of Ministers, chief constables, PCCs and other bodies in the new policing landscape. That work is well under way and the aim is to have the draft available for this House at Committee stage.

As noble Lords will be well aware, our reforms of the ways in which the police are held to account are the most comprehensive for 50 years. We have not made the changes lightly; nor, as I indicated, have we ignored feedback on ways in which our proposals could be improved. We are grateful for the input from ACPO, the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives, as well as individual forces and all those who submitted evidence to the Bill Committee.

Our discussions with stakeholders have helped us better to ensure that the Bill achieves the commitment in the coalition agreement to have proper checks and balances in place. I should like to say a word on this aspect.

An argument has been put forward that police and crime panels do not offer real checks and balances in relation to police and crime commissioners and that they are toothless, but this is far from the case. We expect the relationship between the PCC and the PCP to be as constructive and cooperative as possible. However, we are giving the PCPs the means to ensure, in the event of disagreement, that police and crime commissioners exercise their democratic mandates in ways that are proportionate, effective and reasonable. Their scrutiny powers include a veto, by a three-quarters majority, over the police and crime commissioner’s proposed precept and his proposed candidate for chief constable; the ability to ask HMIC for a professional view when the police and crime commissioner intends to dismiss a chief constable; the right to review the draft police and crime plan and make reports and/or recommendations to the police and crime commissioner who must have regard to them; the ability to require the police and crime commissioners to attend the panel to answer questions; the duty to appoint an acting police and crime commissioner where the police and crime commissioner is incapacitated, resigns or is disqualified; and responsibility for all complaints about a police and crime commissioner, although serious issues must be passed to the IPCC.

Those are teeth, and they will be strong safeguards against the fears of some in the House that police and crime commissioners will act irresponsibly in office. The Government believe that the people of this country can be trusted to use the power of the ballot box wisely but we are nevertheless putting backstops in place. I should mention here that, elections apart, the running costs of police and crime commissioners will be cost-neutral. The elections themselves will cost no more than £50 million—not £100 million, and not £200 million, as has been put about. We have put all our costings on the web so that all can see how we have arrived at these figures.

I should like to spend a few minutes discussing each of the five areas in the Bill. The first is police and crime commissioners, about which there is little more to be said. Their introduction will focus policing on what local people want, not what national Governments think they want. Work has already begun to enhance accountability across communities in England and Wales through providing access to detailed street-level crime and antisocial behaviour data. This has generated extraordinary interest in the public and counters the argument that through PCCs we are assuming a level of public interest that is not there to drive the model. On the contrary, this shows that the interest is present and requires stimulation.

At the same time, there are key national and international responsibilities in policing to which the PCCs must make strong contributions. To ensure this the national Government, who will refocus their role away from micromanaging local policing towards exercising a better grip on key national issues, have a proper role to play.

The Bill provides for the Home Secretary to issue a strategic policing requirement that will inform the way in which police and crime commissioners work with their chief officers to deliver their forces’ national and international responsibilities. There will be strong duties on them to manage national threats, including through collaboration.

We are determined that when these reforms begin, the transition from the existing system to the new regime is as smooth and as painless as possible for police forces and communities. To this end the Policing Minister is personally chairing a transition board made up of all the relevant partners and charged with delivering a programme of 12 projects to ensure that there is an effective and seamless transition to the regime of police and crime commissioners.

Finally, I want to clarify the position in Wales. The Government have respected the will of the Assembly and amended the Bill to remove the police and crime panels from local government structures and establish them as free-standing bodies, but we have done so without sacrificing the public scrutiny powers and using locally elected representatives. In the Government’s view, it is not in the interests of the people of Wales to have a different governance and scrutiny structure for their forces when policing is reserved to Westminster and to the Home Secretary. There cannot be two tiers of governance for a police service whose officers and assets so regularly cross the regional boundary between England and Wales in pursuit of making our communities safer and tackling crime.

I turn now to alcohol licensing. As I have already said, the Bill will give power back to local communities in policing, and it will do the same for licensing decisions. Alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder is estimated to cost the taxpayer over £8 billion per year, and last year there were nearly 1 million alcohol-related violent crimes. That is a good deal too many. The Bill will address these issues. Last summer, we consulted on plans to overhaul the Licensing Act 2003. We received over 1,000 responses, which are reflected in these clauses of the Bill.

The Bill will allow early morning restriction orders to be extended to any time between midnight and 6 am. It will give licensing authorities the power to take swift action to tackle problem premises without having to wait for a relevant representation from a responsible authority, and it will lower the evidential hurdle for licensing authorities to make it easier for them to refuse or revoke licences held by irresponsible retailers. It will allow anyone, anywhere to make representations concerning a licensing decision, regardless of vicinity to a premises. It will double the maximum fine for underage sales of alcohol to £20,000. It will allow local councils to charge a late night levy on licensed premises that remain open after midnight to help pay for late night policing and other services such as taxi marshals and street wardens. But let me make it clear that premises that close before the levy takes effect will not have to pay.

Following an amendment in the other place, the Bill includes a provision to introduce locally set licensing fees so that the costs of licensing authorities, in discharging their duties under the Licensing Act, can be fully recovered. All of these measures show that we are committed to tackling alcohol-related crime and disorder by giving more powers to local areas.

The Government are clear that no one person or group of persons should take over Parliament Square to the detriment of others. The Bill contains a tough but proportionate package of measures to prevent encampments, to deal with disruptive activity and to give the police the necessary powers so that the space can be enjoyed by all. It will also restore the right to peaceful protest around Parliament by repealing Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. It will thus deal with encampments not by restricting protest, but by prohibiting the erection and use of tents, structures, sleeping equipment and the unauthorised use of loudhailers in Parliament Square.

I turn now to drug abuse. The Bill provides powers to crack down on the damage caused by so-called “legal highs”. Many of us will be aware of the growing concern about the availability, use and potential harm that they pose. The existing arrangements for bringing a drug under control using the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 remain our preferred approach. The power in the Bill to make year-long temporary class drug orders will allow us to take swift action temporarily to ban harmful substances which have been specifically developed to get round existing drugs legislation. There will be no possession offence for a temporary-class drug. We do not wish to criminalise anyone, particularly young people, while the harms of a drug are being fully assessed. We have listened to the representations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and those made in the other place and we have made an amendment to the Bill to consult the ACMD before invoking a temporary order on a statutory footing. The Bill also allows the Home Secretary to make an order on the recommendation of the advisory council since the council is able to provide advice of its own volition. This underlines the Government’s continued commitment to independent, expert, evidence-based advice.

Finally, the Bill makes reasonable changes to the procedures for obtaining an arrest warrant for universal jurisdiction offences. Universal jurisdiction is a key principle of international justice. It enables some of the gravest offences to be prosecuted in the UK, regardless of where they have been committed. The Government believe that the requirement to seek the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions that a case has a realistic chance of success is a fair and proportionate measure to ensure that arrest warrants are issued in a responsible fashion. The Bill is a package of measures, carefully balanced to tackle problems in our society through restoring power to communities and professionals where it belongs. I beg to move.

16:46

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill. I warmly anticipate the maiden speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

The police in this country play a vital role in underpinning our democracy. We have a long and proud tradition of tolerant policing which is by consent of the British people and which is free of political partisanship. That has always characterised the tripartite arrangement between the Home Secretary, the police authority and the chief constable of every force—a balance between operational independence, local accountability and national strategic direction.

I believe that all this is at risk through the Bill, which will lead to the politicisation of our police forces, conflict and confusion between the respective roles of the elected police commissioner and the police constable, a marginalisation of local government and a loss of public confidence. The Government have in no way sought to mitigate these risks by the publication of a Green Paper, by pre-legislative scrutiny or even in a modest way through risk assessment by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. Indeed, the Government have no mandate for this proposal, no evidence base and precious little support from either the police or the public.

I find little to convince in what the noble Baroness has said to us this afternoon. She argues that the police reform was needed because the current governance arrangements were not working and police forces looked too much upwards to the Home Office. I agree with her that police authorities do not exactly make front-page news all the time, but why should they? When the public think about policing and about how crime is to be tackled, their focus is not on glossy leaflets or grandstanding by the chairman of the police authority but on the force and the chief constable, as it rightly ought to be.

Of course we should always be working to improve the relationship between the police and the local community. The way to do it, surely, is to enhance the arrangements through neighbourhood policing, which the last Government introduced so successfully. We did it in a way that respected the independence of the police from direct political interference and ensured broad-based accountability to the police authority across the whole of a police area.

As for Home Office targets, which, by implication, the noble Baroness is criticising, targets can be intrusive but the House should be in no doubt that they had a hugely positive impact on efforts to reduce crime. That was surely graphically illustrated by the BCS figures on violent crime of a 50 per cent reduction from its peak in 1995 to 2009-10. The noble Baroness was rather silent on that.

The noble Baroness talked about the transfer of powers to local government, but I hope that this is not a signal of the Government’s intention to absolve themselves of responsibility for the crime figures and from the draconian cuts now taking place in police budgets. She said that the cost of these elections would be only £50 million, but I think that the public would rather that that money was spent on front-line policing.

What does the noble Baroness have to say to Jessica de Grazia, New York’s former chief assistant district attorney, who came over here and said that elected police commissioners in England and Wales would damage public faith in the legal system? She added:

“There is always a risk of police corruption, but there is both a higher risk and incidence when you place the police directly under the control of an elected politician”.

Does the noble Baroness understand that putting in the place of a low-profile group of members of a police authority a full-time politician with a party label seeking to justify a well-paid position is a fundamental change that risks overturning a 170-year tradition of independence? Does she really suggest that, under the current provisions of the Bill, the police commissioner will not seek to involve himself or herself in operational matters? How can that be denied when the elected police commissioner can direct police priorities, hire and fire chief constables and take on political advisers to do his or her bidding? I fear for the operational independence of chief constables and I fear for the consequences of national policing requirements. What does the noble Baroness have to say to Assistant Commissioner Yates, who in a speech only five days ago to a counterterrorism conference said that elected police chiefs would face difficulties in trying to reconcile national counterterrorism demands with,

“local and more immediately obvious crime priorities”?

We have been promised a memorandum of understanding on the relationship between the elected commissioner and the chief constable. I hope that we can see that soon, but I doubt its effectiveness given the levers that the elected commissioners will have over the chief constables. Nothing short of statutory guidelines will do.

I would have more confidence if the proposed police and crime panels had more teeth. The noble Baroness talked about strong checks and balances and said that the panels were not toothless, but the Bill contains a power of veto in only two circumstances—the precept and the appointment of chief constables. For such a veto to operate, 75 per cent of the panel have to vote in favour. Noble Lords should remember that the elected police commissioner will carry a political banner into that role. Seventy-five per cent is a higher threshold than Her Majesty’s Government propose for the Dissolution of Parliament. Indeed, the hurdle is so high that it may never be used. In itself, that gives rise to grave doubts about the influence that the panels will have. As we go into Committee, we shall certainly propose to strengthen the powers of these panels to hold the elected commissioner to account.

I make it clear that we are resolutely opposed to the principle of the Bill as it relates to the police commissioners. I believe that at the very least we should ensure that the Government have to satisfy three tests before the Bill is enacted. First, her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary should undertake an assessment of the impact of these proposals and the Act should not be commenced until that has been considered. Secondly, the proposals should have support among the local community. We propose that a referendum should be held in each police area before a police commissioner can be introduced. We are, after all, in the middle of a rather riveting—at least on this side of the House—referendum and we will shortly debate the Localism Bill, which promises referenda up and down the country. If the Government think that a referendum is important in relation to mayors of cities, why on earth is it not important in relation to the police service and local police forces? If you ask the public which they thought was more important, I suspect that many would say the effectiveness of our police forces. I do not understand why the public are not being given a say in that matter. The third test that I would apply is for the scheme to be piloted. Why not pilot this in two or three areas for, say, three years, evaluate it and then consider the scheme’s general introduction? I certainly hope that these tests will find favour in your Lordships’ House.

There are of course other items in the Bill. The Opposition support extra licensing powers to enable local communities and the police to keep public order. We are sympathetic to temporary banning orders for drugs offences, as proposed in the Bill, but we will probe strongly the future role and membership of the advisory committee. We believe that the law on universal jurisdiction should be changed to address the problem where private citizens can secure an arrest warrant even when there is no evidence for, or prospect of, a prosecution. However, I also reiterate the Opposition’s strong belief in the importance of universal jurisdiction. We will certainly scrutinise the details effectively.

In conclusion, I return to the proposals on the police. The political independence of the police is, I believe, as important to us and our democracy as the independence of the courts. I have no doubt that a single politically motivated police and crime commissioner will make it increasingly difficult to ensure that that political independence is maintained. I strongly urge the Government to think again.

16:58

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I do not know whether being bathed in sunshine is some sort of endorsement of what I am about to say. Not for the first time in my 20 years in this House, I would not have chosen to start from here. “Here” is a Bill that has passed through the Commons—we are not the House with the democratic mandate—that will provide a new injection of democracy into how England and Wales do policing. Who are we to deny democracy? It is, as regards police and crime commissioners, part of an agreed coalition programme for government, and, in my book, agreements are things that you honour. I will try to uphold the best traditions of this House: constructive criticism and amendments, not to wreck but to improve what comes before us.

I have to say that I have never been much of a fan of personality politics or the transfer of celebrity culture into complex holistic subjects such as government and the governance of complex organisations. We will all have our concerns about who may want to become police and crime commissioners: undoubtedly party politicians and also candidates with simplistic—or I could say, extreme—views. Many of us will have been guilty, at least by association, of arguing that putting a police officer on every street corner will solve every problem. Will we get commissioners and candidates prepared to convince the electorate that policing and budgeting for policing needs to be far more sophisticated, and to say that, for instance, it is not a good idea to divert resources disproportionately from what is less visible to groups who shout louder than others?

The debate around the new model started from accountability and the question of who was responsible for what. Knowing what is operational when you see it is not a substitute for trying to define it. I look forward to the protocol. It is important that both the players and Parliament see a resolution to this issue before the Bill progresses.

The underlying philosophy of the new governance model is accountability. The police and crime panels have the statutory task of reviewing and scrutinising commissioners. That means bringing information into the public domain, exploring it and sometimes checking it. The Minister tells us that the panels will have teeth; clearly we have to explore this. I do not believe that the powers, as drafted, are adequate to provide the checks and balances required by the new framework. The term “veto” seems a misnomer. The threshold for a vote against the precept is high, and it relates only to the precept, not to the budget as a whole, nor to its component parts. The powers to secure the appearance of individuals to answer questions in public and to secure information are limited. Moreover, I am concerned that the panels will not be as representative as we would like. A small number of people would cover some large and very diverse areas; and then, of course, there is Wales.

My noble friend Lady Doocey I am sure will talk about London. Having lived through the legislation creating the GLA and having spent some years as an Assembly member and chair, I am quite clear that London should not be regarded as a testing ground for the rest of England and Wales. It is not an exemplar. The arrangements have been good in part but not perfect, and it is very different from other areas. London is also very different from New York, which is often cited, even if you disagree with Jessica de Grazia. Just one difference is the city council in New York, which is a very powerful check on the mayor. So let us judge the plans for England and Wales on their own merits.

Part 1 of the Bill is largely about governance, but I will apply the “Social Responsibility” of the Bill’s Title to it as well. Policing is within a structural framework but it is about people. I hope that we can build on the welcome references to victims, to extending the input of victims, survivors and the voluntary organisations that support them. They have a lot to contribute in addressing the need, for instance, for co-ordinated child protection, as well as in helping victims of human trafficking, rape and the other appalling things that go on in our not always very nice society.

I will not take up more of the House’s time today on the policing part of the Bill, except to say that this Bill is about public service reform and constitutional experiment. Is it not sensible to make sure that we—I stress “we”—get it right? I believe that we are most likely to do that if we pilot the model, evaluate it, assess what aspects of it require review, learn and produce the best, even if it takes a little longer. No doubt it will be a relief to us all when we reach Part 2 of the Bill.

I welcome reducing the burden on local authorities with respect to licensing. The changes in 2003 giving local authorities a new role seemed appropriate then. However, I recall concerns about their operation. We will have to see whether this Bill, as I think it does, gets closer to the right balance of interests between those who want to enjoy various events and activities and those who may be adversely affected. Local authorities are responsible towards both. I do not dismiss the concerns of the trade about, for instance, needing stability and certainty. The late-night levy seems to me to be overly bureaucratic and insufficiently targeted, I question the 70/30 split, and I do not think the balance is quite right as regards conditions on temporary event notices. To those who argue against having some restrictions and that individual licensees are responsible, I say that they may be responsible, their premises may be well run, but they cannot control behaviour outside. I live quite near a pub, and my vocabulary has been increased by what I hear under my bedroom window some nights.

I share the concern of many of your Lordships that drugs misuse needs to be regarded as a broad social and public health issue. We must not let tinkering with the existing legal framework distract us from the need for clear new thinking.

The last pages of the Bill pack in a lot of content. On arrest warrants, my noble friend Lord Alderdice made what I think was a very wise observation from his experience. Does this country not want to be thought of as somewhere people from opposing—indeed, warring—sides can meet to seek progress in resolving their differences?

There is a good deal to say on the subject of Parliament Square. I would prefer as far as possible to rely on the public order provisions, which are of general application. Parliament Square is never going to be the best place for sandwiches and sunbathing while it is simply a medium-sized traffic island, and it does us no harm to be faced with protests every day.

That is enough from me now. In a constructive spirit—because truly I mean that it will be—I and my colleagues will, I am afraid, take quite a lot of the time of the House at the next stage.

17:06

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. In common with a small number of noble Lords speaking today, I served as a police officer for a long period—in my case, 35 years, with 10 as a chief officer. I shall have some other interests to declare later on.

I rise to my feet with a heavy heart. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just said, the main measures in the Bill are seen by both parties in the coalition as manifesto commitments in principle. They have been passed by major majorities in the other place and seem likely, whatever happens in this House, to become law in their essentials. I am concerned with only one part of this Bill—the election of police and crime commissioners and what will flow from that change. This idea is quite simply the most lamentable provision about policing that I have ever encountered. The idea is an unintended changeling—a potential cuckoo in the nest of policing. It will set back 60 years of progress towards the establishment of the operational independence of the police, which is the jewel in the crown of British policing and its most important contribution to the rule of law in this country, with unforeseeable consequences.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary, to the noble Baroness and the policing Minister for recently taking the trouble to see me. However, while they listened, their speeches as reported in the other place and as heard today indicate that they did not agree with the concerns that I expressed. I told them that the Government had the right diagnosis but completely the wrong remedy. Despite the honourable service of those noble Lords here who served on them, it is true that police authorities are little known by the public. However, the cure proposed by this lack of public profile is worse than the disease. To replace police authorities with a single, directly elected person is to introduce a foreign species into an indigenous environment without knowing what the impact will be.

Some 20 years ago, after the Bookbinder case in the early 1990s in Derbyshire, a Conservative Government introduced independent members to police authorities in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, precisely to limit improper political interference in policing. I believe that that independence is crucial, which is why I told the previous Labour Administration while commissioner that I could not support fully elected police authorities. It seems strange to me that a Government 20 years later should completely reverse their position.

The proposal is based largely on the American model of police governance. There are a reputed 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States. I recently visited Martha’s Vineyard, which is about half the size of the Isle of Wight. There are six police forces on that island, the largest of which in Edgartown has 26 officers. The chief holds office at the pleasure of the town mayor; the people of the town know him, know the officers and love the arrangements—but they also know that these officers serve only their small community and that if anything happens beyond the force’s capability, which it quite regularly does, in will step the Massachusetts state police, then the FBI, then the Department of Homeland Security and then one of the many other federal organisations. If, after a suitable inquiry of some sort, the Government had proposed breaking back policing to local towns and communities in this community, that would have been logical, but there is little logic in replicating the arrangements for Edgartown with one person representing the interests of electors in all of Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire.

Neither of those points are my main objection, which lies in the relationship between the elected commissioner and the chief constable. Here, I must declare my second interest as the only former police chief in your Lordships’ House who knows what it is to serve under a person who is acting like an American mayor. For that reason, I hope that your Lordships will excuse me if I exceed the advisory limit by a minute—that is all it will be.

The Government have laid much emphasis on a proposed protocol concerning the relationship between the chief constable and the elected commissioner, which may or may not be statutory. The Greater London Authority Act currently contains specific statutory provisions for the processes which should be followed in the removal or the suspension of the Commissioner of Scotland Yard. However, the present mayor of London, acting as chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority—he having assumed that office the day before, after a change in legislation—did not choose to use those processes. He merely told me that he would arrange a public vote of no confidence at the next authority meeting, which I would lose. I could have said, in terms, “So what?”, as the commissioner is appointed by the Home Secretary. However, I could see that that would have put my force at war with its own authority and damage the service of which I was a steward. When I saw her, the then Home Secretary could see that as well. We were also aware by the next day that news media had already been enquiring about my resignation. There was no time for recourse to the processes laid out in the legislation because the stable door had been thrown open and the horse had bolted. A pretty similar situation arose in the subsequent case of Assistant Commissioner Robert Quick.

This Bill contains similar, detailed clauses and schedules on the removal of a chief officer. There may indeed be an additional semi-statutory protocol in future, but neither will help a chief officer in the face of an elected commissioner determined to get rid of him or her or, as sometimes happens in the United States—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, will acknowledge this—of a proposed mayor who campaigns on getting rid of the current chief constable or bringing in another named individual. Politicians appoint and dismiss for political reasons, as they do everything else. How many times will a chief constable go on arguing with a man or woman who can replace him or her for reasons other than proven incompetence or misconduct? How often will the police chief insist on his or her operational duty to deal with national and regional crime, rather than the local issues on which the commissioner has been elected? How robust will the police chief be in examining allegations concerning a friend of the commissioner? Finally, what bright young man or woman will put their pension at risk of such capricious termination by becoming a chief constable? This, as one American police chief put it to me, will introduce into Britain the weakest link in US policing. No protocol or clauses in legislation will stop this possibility.

I said that I have a heavy heart. I have been approached by Members on different sides of the House to support or suggest amendments to the Bill. With the deepest regret, I do not expect to be doing so. That probable decision is because I believe that this provision is simply wrong in principle. No amendment to the powers of the police and crime panel, to the protocol or to any other provision, however wisely suggested by Members of your Lordships’ House, will prevent the significant damage that this measure will do to British policing, probably irrevocably.

In closing, I must declare another interest: the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who was my history teacher at school. Of course, I bow to his knowledge of politics as well as of history. I accept that many elected commissioners will be men and women of integrity, although some may not, yet they will all be politicians. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said in the other place in a debate in November 2008 on a Private Member’s Bill seeking to introduce elected police commissioners:

“To politicise the police in the way that has been suggested”—

then there was an interruption. He continued:

“Of course it would politicise the police; people would stand for election on party tickets and for populist policies. Frankly, the Bill is a prescription for anarchy and disaster, and I cannot support it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/08; col. 640.]

Neither can I.

17:15

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government are rightly concerned about the level of public confidence in policing, which is part of the general crisis of disillusionment with political life and public institutions. Clearly it must be right in principle to seek to reconnect the public with the prevention and detection of crime and the preservation of public safety. However, as we all know, doing this effectively and appropriately is not so easy. The current tripartite system of police governance provides a careful balance of responsibilities and powers involving the Home Secretary, chief constables and police authorities, though it must be admitted that it is rather opaque to the public. The Government’s solution to the so-called democratic deficit is, as we have heard, the direct election of police and crime commissioners, in an attempt both to release energy for change and to improve communication and accountability. However, this is not without its problems, as we have been hearing. Several of us on these Benches have been made aware of the concerns of our local chief constables on this score.

I think it was Aristotle who identified three types of government: monarchy, oligarchy and democracy. Any system of governance is likely to incorporate the roles of the individual, the representative group and the people. There is wisdom in subjecting an individual to the scrutiny of a group of people with varied backgrounds and expertise, as the system of chief officers and police authorities does. Like others, I wonder whether setting up another individual police and crime commissioner to monitor a force and its chief does not in some respects narrow the potential for scrutiny, and create the potential for personality clashes and, worse, the intrusion of politics with a small “p”—and as we have been warned, even a capital “P”—into the relationship. Furthermore, by concentrating so much power in the office of the commissioner, does it not risk the possibility of police governance being hijacked by individuals or groups with a sinister agenda, particularly as a result of elections with a low turnout?

This may sound like an argument against democracy itself, but current concerns about the legitimacy of the AV referendum result suggest that we need to be aware of these practical problems when setting up a new system of direct election. I appreciate that the Government have sought to meet these anxieties by providing for the creation of police and crime panels, but despite the noble Baroness’s assurance, there is doubt about whether the panels have sufficient powers to hold the commissioner to account, particularly in the crucial business of the appointment, suspension and removal of chief constables. Police authorities are not perhaps as dispensable as the Government suppose.

A second major area of concern is the preservation of the operational independence of the police, which is one of the cornerstones of our system. It is agreed that policy must be democratically decided, but that operations must not be under the direction and control of politicians. As discussions in another place have shown, the difficulty lies in determining the meaning of operational independence. As a minimum, it must cover individual decisions to arrest and question, but clearly it involves much more. I can see the objections to a general definition of independence, which neither the Government nor ACPO wants. I therefore welcome the announcement in Committee that the Government would draw up a code of practice, setting out the respective roles of the Home Secretary, chief constables and—if we must have them—police and crime commissioners. However, in these matters, the devil is in the detail, and I hope your Lordships’ House will have at least some information about that detail during our discussions.

I close with some brief remarks on the licensing reforms in Part 2. Experience seems to show that the Licensing Act 2003 did not deal adequately with the public order and health problems arising from excessive alcohol consumption. In some respects, it made it more difficult to tackle them. I broadly support the proposals to rebalance licensing procedures to allow the concerns of local authorities and local communities to be voiced and taken into account. This must be part of a broader range of measures to reduce alcohol abuse and challenge the culture of excessive drinking. The proposals, in this respect, are nevertheless timely and welcome.

17:20

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

My Lords, I speak in support of the Bill. In the interests of brevity, I shall confine my remarks to Part 1. It is hardly surprising that I should be in support of Part 1 since I can claim a modest share in the paternity of that proposal. The proposal for elected police commissioners was in the 2005 general election manifesto of the Conservative Party, which I had the honour to lead at the time. I appreciate that that claim, judging by the speeches that we have heard so far, is not likely to endear me to all of your Lordships, but nevertheless that is the case.

At least that claim enables me to rebut conclusively one of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Blair: this proposal does not originate in any attempt to emulate some model transported across the Atlantic from the United States of America. Rather, it is designed to remedy a weakness in the present arrangements in this country. That weakness can be summarised in one question: what is the name of the chairman of your police authority? That is the question to which, if you ask the ordinary man and woman in the street, not one in a thousand would be able to give you the right answer; indeed, most of the people you asked would not have the faintest idea what you were talking about. Your Lordships will have noticed that I posed the question in terms of the chairman of the authority. If you ask the man or woman in the street the names of the members of the authority, you would have an even more minuscule response.

[Baroness Henig]

Would the noble Lord be able to guess how many members of the public out of a hundred would know the name of the present Police Minister? Is that then an argument for the Police Minister to be directly elected?

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

Not at all. The whole point, as I am about to explain, is that the reason why this single question contains the nub of the case for change is that police authorities should be the means by which citizens hold their local police force to account. That is the point of police authorities, and the anonymity of those authorities is an insuperable obstacle to the achievement of that objective. The point of Part 1 of the Bill is to sweep away that obstacle to provide the basis for true accountability.

The election of the police and crime commissioner will attract a great deal of attention. I would not go so far as to say that everyone in the local community will know the name of the commissioner when he or she has been elected; after all, not everyone knows the name of their Member of Parliament, nor does everyone know the name of the Prime Minister. However, a large number of people would know the name of the commissioner, many more than know the name of the chairman of the police authority. That would provide the transparency that is necessary—this proposal is about transparency—if the holding to account of the police is to become more meaningful, more effective and much better understood by those on whose behalf that accountability is being exercised.

This, however, is a big change, and I recognise that inevitably it gives rise to some concerns. There is a concern that the change will have an impact on the operation and independence of the police, and I accept that it is essential that that operational independence is preserved. As has been pointed out, though, the language in the Bill, which provides that the chief constable has direction and control over his force and officers, is identical to the language in existing legislation. The Government intend to publish a protocol, which I understand they hope to have available by the commencement of the Committee stage in this House. As the right reverend Prelate said, the devil is in the detail, and it is right that that protocol should be exposed to great scrutiny by this House in Committee, as I am sure that it will be. However, I do not accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, that chief constables, with the command that they have too of access to the media, the ability that they have too to put their case, will be so pusillanimous as to give way to any police and crime commissioner who oversteps the mark.

There are other concerns, including that someone dangerous or wholly unsuitable might be elected. I think it was Benjamin Disraeli, among no doubt many others, who said, “Trust the people”. That is not a bad watchword. With great respect, we in this House should be particularly cautious about casting doubt on that watchword. As my successor as Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, put it—admittedly in a different context—in an excellent article in yesterday’s Times:

“There is a patrician tendency among the British political elite that asserts that some issues are too serious to be informed by the vulgar instincts of the common people”.

It is a tendency that we in this House should particularly guard against. His words were, as I say, in a different context; he was criticising some of the policies of the current Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary—criticisms that I wholly share. I assure your Lordships that I am not invariably a supporter of all the policies of the Government. However, his words are equally apposite when applied to those who distrust the electoral process that the Bill would put in place.

The provisions of the Bill are consistent with the localism that is such an important part of the coalition Government’s approach. They create transparency, which is also at the heart of that approach, and so essential if true accountability is to be asserted. There are many points of important detail that will certainly merit careful attention and scrutiny on the part of this House. I wholeheartedly support Part 1 of the Bill and I commend it to your Lordships’ House.

17:27

[Baroness Hilton of Eggardon]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a police pensioner with 34 years’ service in the Metropolitan Police. I, too, will concentrate on Clause 1, which concerns the appointment of elected police commissioners. I confess that I have particular difficulty in understanding how a single individual can be expected to represent all the variety of local communities in a police area the size of, for example, the West Midlands or Thames Valley. However, there are more fundamental objections to this plan.

First, there is the very simplistic idea, often held by politicians, that elections are always a guarantee of democratic accountability. My experience of helping to monitor some 14 or 15 elections in countries of the old Soviet empire has shown that the mechanics of voting—now generally efficiently performed—have little to do with democratic accountability, which is much more dependent on a free and open media and a neutral police service that does not serve the sectional interests of politicians. I am puzzled, moreover, by the provenance of this idea that an elected politician should have direct control of a police force. The Home Office has always been irritated by the independence of chief constables, but to turn 43 forces over to the control of 43 politicians will only increase diversity and disparity between individual forces. We will no longer have a common standard of policing in this country.

It is also possible that the germ of the idea was drawn from the United States. That country, as we have heard, has about 17,000 separate forces, some of which are excellent. However, others have more examples of racism and brutality than we have seen in this country. Moreover, the crime rate has been declining both in this country and in America but, nevertheless, there were almost as many murders in New York last year as we had in the whole country. Therefore, I do not think it is an example to be followed.

Secondly, in this country we have had nearly 200 years of a tradition of a police service that is independent of political direction. Before Robert Peel managed to get the Metropolitan Police Act through Parliament in 1829, he had made previous attempts to establish a professional police service. These attempts were rejected by Parliament on the grounds that the whole concept of police was a foreign—specifically, French—idea, which would lead to a police state with a police service acting as a tool of government.

My own direct experience of the police service being used as a tool of government came most vividly during the miners’ strike. I was a commander at New Scotland Yard at the time and for a few months was responsible for the police co-ordinating centre that organised the transfer of large numbers of police officers around the country. Every morning someone came from the Cabinet Office for a situation report. I was horrified by their attitude, which was that this was some sort of war game and that the mining communities were the enemy. There was no understanding of the damage that was being done to police and public relationships in those areas.

I would also like to draw on my experience as a chief superintendent at Chiswick and Brentford. The division of Chiswick and Brentford has two very distinct parts, as many of your Lordships who are familiar with London will know. It is a large and diverse community but is inevitably biased in favour of those who are most powerful and most middle class. Chiswick is a leafy suburb of London with riverside communities, low-rise houses and a well-to-do middle-class constituency. Brentford in contrast has two high-rise council estates and a football ground. No part of the division was a high-crime area but the majority of the thefts, graffiti, harassment of Asian shopkeepers and rowdyism and two of the three murders that we had during my three years there were in the Brentford half of the ground. Nevertheless—this is the point of the anecdote—all the pressure that I had from the local community came regularly from the middle-class inhabitants of Chiswick. They wanted a considerable police presence—as someone said earlier, a policeman on every corner—to prevent commuters using their leafy streets as rat-runs. I had difficulty persuading them that there were more serious problems elsewhere in the division. I fear that a single politician representing a particular constituency would be similarly biased in directing what a chief constable did.

In many ways the police service is already highly accountable, and not just to police authorities. There is always intense media interest in all aspects of policing, whether crime detection, civil emergencies or the manner in which public order is maintained. The current widespread debate throughout the country about the tactics of police in dealing with demonstrations is an example of this scrutiny. There are great dangers in having police commissioners, who would inevitably represent a single political party and who would have such power over a chief constable, being able to set a budget and appoint and sack a chief constable. To claim that that individual represents the whole community would inevitably impact on operational policing. It is naive to assume otherwise. We have had 200 years of a police service that is admired throughout the world. It would be a tragedy to destroy it now.

17:34

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

My Lords, I will be speaking on Part 1. I begin by declaring my interests. For more than 20 years I was a member of the North Yorkshire Police Authority and was for eight years its chair. I was also a vice-chair of the Association of Police Authorities and am currently a vice-president of the association.

I want to outline a number of areas in the Bill about which I have concern; other noble Lords have indicated them. However, I begin by absolutely agreeing with the Home Secretary when she says that she does not want to run the police. What a refreshing statement that was after years of micromanaging the imposition of targets into almost every aspect of policing by former Home Secretaries. Sadly, though, this is where my praise has to end. The proposals in the Bill are unacceptable in their present form. Making one individual, instead of the present 17 or 19, responsible for oversight of policing makes the argument about politicisation and partiality very real indeed. At best, the proposal is likely to undermine the confidence of minority communities and, at worst, could introduce a real threat of corruption into policing.

Will a police and crime commissioner be able to resist pressure from one community over another, as we have just heard from the noble Baroness, if the ballot box has shown support from one of those communities but not the other? Will the PCC not feel the need to ensure that those who voted get the best service; and might those who did not vote be disregarded? What happens if the PCC is unable to fulfil his or her duties? Almost certainly, the PCC will be male, white and middle-aged. Who will deputise for that person? The Bill states that they should be a member of the PCC’s staff, but they are expressly required by the Bill to be non-political. I believe strongly that that role should be undertaken by a member of the police and crime panel, otherwise the PCC could have a wholly unelected person running things in their absence, who may have to make some very political decisions such as what precept to set.

There are serious questions to be asked about how the PCC will ensure diversity in his or her team, or how, indeed, diversity will be assured within the police force—making sure that the police reflect the communities they serve. I question how one person can give confidence to minority communities, and how the vast experience of the 17 or 19 members at present on police authorities can be harnessed. Who might fill the skills gap that they leave behind?

An erroneous argument has been put forward that police authorities have been weak and invisible, yet not one—I repeat, not one—authority has failed the recent inspection of authorities undertaken by HMIC. This compares very favourably with other public sector bodies, of which a minority routinely fail inspections. There has been a massive decrease in crime and a continued rise in public confidence in policing over the past few years, so I simply do not understand what is broken about the current system that needs fixing.

The argument about police authorities being invisible is probably made because they spend their money on policing, not on themselves. Police authorities have been lean and mean in order that front-line policing should not be diminished in any way. Indeed, they do the opposite of what is proposed. Personalising the role of police scrutineer, making it high profile and “visible”, will cost a great deal more than at present, as well as set up the possibility of conflict between the chief constable and the PCC over who exactly runs the police.

Talking of costs, calculations have been made about the setting up of this untested and untried scheme. The Police Minister, as we have heard, suggests that it will cost only what present police authorities cost now, plus the costs of elections—£50 million every four years. Independent analysis suggests that the reforms will cost a minimum of £453 million over five years, which is a conservative estimate. That is already £100 million more than the entire cost of running police authorities over the same period. Incidentally, that represents the equivalent cost of 600 police officers. I question whether that is good value for money in an age of austerity.

There is provision in the Bill for payment to panel members, but where will that money come from? If central government is paying for the PCC and his or her office, it must also pay for the panel’s office—the members and their staff—otherwise this whole exercise is deeply flawed and completely unfair, and proper scrutiny cannot take place. I hope there is no suggestion that these panels will be paid for out of hard pressed local government funds. That would be ironic indeed, and would take away local representation with one hand, and make it pay more for less involvement with another. The present structure of police authorities, with some variation of membership and perhaps size, would be far preferable to these proposals.

We will debate many other issues during the passage of the Bill, including the timing of the reforms. Hosting the Olympic Games will be the most challenging project that the police in this country have ever faced. The front-loading of the proposed cuts to police funding will have begun to bite. Reforms to police pay and conditions of service will have started to be implemented. One can imagine the effect of that on an already demoralised and unhappy police service. The stability and resilience of forces will be at their lowest. Whatever one's view of the desirability of police reform, this is absolutely the wrong time to do it.

This is a real mess, done without proper thought or consideration of the wider policing landscape. Dramatic constitutional reforms are being proposed without support from the public. A recent poll indicated that only 15 per cent of people want them. We should produce a consolidated Bill covering all national policing issues rather than taking this piecemeal approach. The current Bill predicates some of what might be in a future policing Bill. At a very risky time for policing in this country, we should test these proposals before bringing them in across the country. Only then will we know if these extraordinary, costly and radical reforms are genuinely wanted by the people of England and Wales.

17:42

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I will confine my remarks to Part 1 of the Bill. I declare a past interest: some 43 years ago I was appointed a Minister in the Home Office responsible on a day-to-day basis for policing. When I look back at that period, it seems almost a distant pre-incarnation.

The central reality that one should regard as a template for all matters that one considers in the context of the police is that the police service represents two things. In the first instance it represents a disciplined service with a disciplined hierarchy. In that regard, it has much in common with the armed services. However, unlike the armed services, the police force comes into daily contact with the citizens of this land. The idea of a disciplined force is central, because it raises the question of whether a civil commissar can overlook any part of the functions of a disciplined force. The second point, which is equally valid, concerns the force’s independence. The independence of the police is as crucial to the rule of law as the independence of the judiciary. Any tampering with those twin pillars—the disciplined hierarchy and the independence of the police—jeopardises the future of the police service. Whatever the temptation may be to pander to any whim, caprice or populist trend, it must be resisted.

The Government’s case has not been made in the slightest. Three cases have been put forward. The matter was debated in the other place on 13 December last year. I will not quote the exact words of the Home Secretary; they appear in col. 707 of Hansard. She gave as the main reason for the reforms the fact that the police had failed the public when it came to curbing crime. We heard nothing of that today—and understandably so. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, reminded us—the figures are slightly broader than those that he mentioned—from 1994 to the present, under successive Governments, the spectacular fact is that crime has fallen by almost 50 per cent. That is a huge diminution. Therefore, obviously, the main plank of the Home Secretary’s case disappears there and then.

Today we are told by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, that there has to be a transfer of authority from the Home Office—from Whitehall—to local bodies. Nothing of that is proposed in the Bill. Indeed, one could well argue that the police panels would be utterly without identity, as compared with the police authority. We heard from the former Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, whose main case was that people do not know the name of the chairman of the police authority. I do not suppose that those people know the name of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls or the head of the Family Division, but one does not impose a civil commissar on them.

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

Is the noble Lord suggesting that the Lord Chief Justice or the Master of the Rolls exercises some local accountability on behalf of the community? That is the difference between the two. Surely that difference must be apparent to the noble Lord.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I see no difference whatever between an ignorance that is shared by a small community in relation to a local matter and an ignorance that is shared by a large community in relation to exactly the same issue. That is my argument.

[Lord Cormack]

How many local people know the names of those who sit on the Bench?

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

That is the case and it illustrates how completely the Government’s case is shattered. The problem is not what has been identified but the solutions that are now proposed. They are disastrous. The idea of introducing a civil commissar, for that is what it will be, into this situation will jeopardise the future of the police service—the best police service in the world. It is a police service whose development we have been very proud of over the last 175 years.

I have no doubt that police commissioners will come in every size and shape, but they will have one thing in common: they will nearly all have been espoused by political parties. The election of an independent will be rather exceptional, yet in all those cases they will have one thing in common. There will be no need for any of them to have the slightest qualification or the slightest knowledge of policing—no more than the man in the moon. How can that bring about a diminution in crime? How can it bring about greater accountability? Anyone would think that our police officers were not accountable, but they are not a gendarmerie or a corps d’élite. Every police officer from the lowest in the land up to the chief constable is answerable to criminal law. Since 1964, every chief constable has been answerable for the actions of his or her officers.

There are massive dangers here. There can be no question of honouring the boundary that separates operational from non-operational matters. It is a shadowy boundary at best and in practice it is impossibly difficult. Imagine a commissioner saying to the chief constable, “I believe we are spending too much money on covert operations—on surveillance—and I want to know what they are”, and the chief constable says, “I can’t possibly tell you”. How then can the commissioner evaluate the division between some areas of expenditure and others?

I shall finish by saying that I believe that the Home Office has served the police badly over the past 12 months in failing to preserve the police budget. Of course, there is a case for an across-the-board sacrifice, but it was rightly decided by the Government that that sacrifice should not apply to hospitals or schools and that in relation to the armed services it should be reduced to 8 per cent. In the case of the police service, the Inspectorate of Constabulary made it clear that the diminution limited to 12 per cent would mean that no front-line cuts would be necessary. But that is not what was agreed. The diminution was set at 20 per cent and top-loaded to apply in the main in the first two years. That is a double jeopardy to which the police have been exposed: first, in the failure to preserve their minimum budget for efficiency; and, secondly, in the proposal for this utterly madcap scheme.

17:50

[Lord Patten]

My Lords, I wish to address two points: first, the matter of Parliament Square; and, secondly, the matter of police commissioners. However, before that, following the example of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, I wish to make one foray into generalities. I do not speak as a police expert, as your Lordships will know, but I believe that we need a police covenant in this country to parallel the military covenant, when that is finally formalised and published, as the Government have undertaken to do.

This excellent Bill, making provision for the administration and governance of police forces, will in the end be effective only if we move successfully back towards a new settlement in the public mind about the police, who do a difficult and dangerous job, sometimes getting killed at home in the civilian front line exactly as do our servicemen and servicewomen in their front lines abroad. We seem to have gone from Dixon of Dock Green to the idea that the police are somehow devils in uniform in just about a generation, as we also seem to have lost that intrinsic British balance between the right to a quiet life and the right to demonstrate.

We saw that not too far from my West Country home near Bristol on Good Friday, with crowds wishing to express their displeasure at a particular supermarket chain morphing from retail nimbys into stone, then bottle, then firebomb-throwing yobs in an instant, injuring police heads and breaking teeth with abandon. A nanosecond later, out came the usual suspects to blame the police for it all, locally and nationally—for violence, for pushing too hard, for using the wrong tactics, for being too heavy-handed or too light-handed, for kettling or not kettling enough. Strange how in fiction the police are often alleged in times of difficulty to go out to round up the usual suspects—no need for that on Good Friday, because the usual suspects were out in numbers, often on autopilot, coming out to speak for anarchist, community, liberal or human rights groups, blaming the police for all the ills of the demonstrations that took place.

I think that we are very lucky to have the police that we have and believe that we need to find ways both nationally and locally to formalise a covenant with them. That is something that we need to think about in government and that chief constables and the new police commissioners will need to do.

That generality explored, I turn to Parliament Square, where we have seen, and I have witnessed, violent and unreasonable protests leading to injuries to the police and an appalling misdirection of police effort and resources away from fighting crime in other parts of the capital. Knowledge that there is going to be another demonstration in Parliament Square outside the Palace of Westminster is a much welcomed burglars’ charter to those in that trade who want to operate in our outer boroughs, so I applaud the action that my noble friend is taking with the Government to strengthen our powers in Parliament Square to remove nuisances and to try to prevent them from happening there in the future.

I have looked with interest at the map of Parliament Square, published as an annexe to the Explanatory Notes. Having had some interesting maps in an earlier professional manifestation, I studied this map with care. Sadly, it lacks the traditional indication of where true north lies. The map is produced by the Greater London Authority, so I suppose that we can fairly blame Mr Mayor for that failing, unlike some of what I think were rather unfair criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton—he is not in his place, but I hope that one or two of his noble friends will draw my remarks to his attention. Also, there is not much detail at the edges of the map; there is terra incognita. The ancients, drawing their maps cartographically in the old days, had this problem. They used to run out of knowledge of what was at the edge of their maps, so they would put, “Here lie dragons, here lie monsters, here lie supporters of AV”, or whatever else.

We need some reassurance that the police with their new powers over Parliament Square will be able to act with the same determination in the matter of the pavements immediately opposite Parliament Square, for fear that there may be displacement activity and that those people removed from Parliament Square may move to Bridge Street, St Margaret Street or Great George Street—new betented encampments may spring up by the displacement of activity in Parliament Square almost as traditional as morris dancing to the streets around the margins. That is the one question that I would ask the Minister to think about letting me know the answer to, in future if not tonight.

Thirdly, lastly and briefly, I, too, am prepared to come out and be unpopular. I declare myself as very much in favour of police and crime commissioners. Indeed, had I not made the pledge to dear Lady Patten, I would have thought it an appealing post to stand for, but I do not think that I shall. The problems for police commissioners are excellent and interesting and I predict that, after all the huffing and puffing that has suddenly erupted in your Lordships’ Chamber, unlike in another place, such commissioners will very quickly become part of our civic warp and weft. It is important for people to have the opportunity truly to recommend local views and to be truly accountable to local people. The Government’s plans for police commissioners chime with the new, or at least reborn, Tory localism, meeting the honourable Liberal Democrat localism, which I thought was well established until I heard some Liberal Democrat views of dissent this evening. This is an excellent Bill and it has my strong support.

17:58

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a former president of the Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales. The history of the police in this country throughout their relatively short life has been one of those rollercoaster rides of success and acclaim, with periods of crisis and threats of reform. I once wrote a brief history of the association and I was struck by the cyclical recurrence of the crises, with morale and pay dropping off and politicians setting up committees and inquiries to remedy the problems—from Desborough at the beginning of the century, through the Oaksey committee and the Willink commission to the much lauded Lord Edmund-Davies inquiry, set up by the then Home Secretary, the late Lord Merlyn-Rees in 1978, followed by the controversial Sheehy inquiry in the early 1990s, which I am delighted to say the noble Lord, Lord Howard, stamped on after the disastrous stewardship of the now Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

The police service has been examined exhaustively throughout these years, and from my experience I can say that morale at the present time is at an all-time low. The police are different from other workers and play an important part in our democracy. What singles them out from other employees? First, there is the importance of the job itself. No civilised society can function without the enforcement of the law and the maintenance of order in a way that is acceptable to the populace. Secondly, there is the statutory prohibition of industrial action as a bargaining chip. It is extremely important, therefore, that Governments treat their police officers honourably and do not lose sight of the point. This is probably the culminant to which the noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred.

This is an important Bill that contains many important provisions. In the short time available, I intend to deal with one particular aspect that, as other noble Lords have mentioned, has caused great concern. I come to the debate with 35 years’ service in the police service but also 12 years in your Lordships’ House, and no proposed change to policing has caused me more concern than this particular Bill.

By popular acclaim, the United Kingdom sets the gold standard for policing in that we police by popular consent, and much to the surprise of foreign visitors the police are largely unarmed. I have lived through many reforming Home Secretaries from all parties, but for all the changes that have been advocated, and in some cases achieved, none previously tried to get the police involved in politics. The strength of the British policing model is the operational impartiality and independence of the police, and this was achieved after many scandals. Some noble Lords will remember the old rotten watch committee system of the 1950s that led to the undue influence of petty politicians on operational matters, and in some cases directly to police corruption.

The trick is to have an operationally impartial and independent police service that is also truly accountable. I believe that this was achieved with the development of the modern tripartite system of governance, with the chief constable working with the police committee and the Home Office. He is accountable locally to the public he polices through the guidance of elected members of the police authorities and to some extent through elected MPs, who can question the Home Secretary. The same Home Secretary, of course, exercises governance on national issues such as organised crime and terrorism. The chief constable of a force is also accountable to the local community through a plethora of consultation mechanisms in his police area, and of course ultimately he is accountable to the law through the courts.

Many years ago, as a superintendent, I spent some months with the FBI. I got to know a number of police chiefs and county sheriffs in the United States. It became obvious to me quite soon that the appointed town police chief was totally beholden to the elected town politician, who had the power to hire and fire. If the politician wanted the police to target a particular problem, which might be to his electoral advantage, he would not hesitate to interfere. In my experience, it was a foolhardy police chief who challenged his political master. If your job depends on it, you will by nature be reluctant to risk saying, “This is my operational decision, not yours”. Noble Lords live in the real world, and that is common sense.

With the sheriff, who is directly elected, it is in a sense worse. He is generally elected on a local ticket that deals with real problems in his area. That is fine as far as it goes, but it reduces his interest in regional problems and even more so in the national scene. The worrying thing is that he could be elected almost on a single issue, and sometimes is. All his deputies are appointed by him, and my experience was of them leaving for the weekend to canvass for the sheriff when he was due for re-election. They had to; their jobs depended on it. I found that bringing raw politics into this arena can lead to corruption.

In Britain, the constable’s oath of office emphasises a duty to impartiality and accountability to the law. We should be careful not to undermine his ability to honour his oath by creating a greater duty to support an elected politician’s chosen priorities. The existing police authorities provide balance and moderation coupled with community checks and balances. It is invaluable for the chief officer to have access to such a range of community views in the whole of his geographical area, provided by a mix of people who are both appointed and elected. The big worry with the present Bill is that all this power and influence is placed on one elected police and crime commissioner. In many cases, the constituency of a PCC will be greater than that of any elected Member of the House of Commons. Some will have populations of over 1 million, cover over 20 parliamentary constituencies and five local authorities. In my judgment of local accountability, a single individual cannot possibly hope to have the same level of representation as a police authority. This creates a less inclusive form of police governance.

High-level police corruption in the United States is very great compared with Britain. In my view, that is influenced by the politicisation of the police. This is an error in the Bill. It has not been justified by any evidence from Ministers, and it puts the police service at great risk of being dragged into politics. There is still time to change, and the coalition Government should be big enough to recognise this by not enacting provisions that they will live to regret.

18:05

[Lord Bradshaw]

My Lords, on 25 November last in a debate initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, I set out my views on the proposed reforms as they concern police commissioners. I want to make it clear that what I say today has no origins in the recent discord within the coalition. I am seeking not to destroy the Bill but to have its contents more carefully considered.

I was a member of a police authority for about 12 years, and I was a member when my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne introduced the last major reform, that of introducing independent members into police authorities. That improved the quality of the police authorities beyond measure by increasing their independence and bringing in more women and members of the ethnic minorities. Perhaps I may say that there was then much less politicking. There were no group meetings before police authority meetings.

I have asked myself why people serve in the House of Lords. Are we here for our experience or our wisdom? I make no claims to wisdom, but I have experience of working with a large number of chief constables, and I have never heard any of them discuss party politics. I suggest that this legislation has not been thought through. It will politicise the police, so it needs to be piloted to establish whether it is likely to have the intended effect, whether there are any unintended consequences, and whether the costs have been assessed accurately. Going back to three remarks that have been made by noble Lords, if the Licensing Bill 2003 had been put through a process of piloting, would we now be dealing with problems of alcoholism and disorder in our city centres? We are doing so now because the then Government rammed that Bill through without carefully thinking about the consequences.

I give notice that I shall move an amendment to provide for a pilot scheme to be conducted in a single county area outside London, and that at a later stage of the passage of the Bill I intend to press it to a Division. Sometimes the House of Lords must ask the other place to think again and again. I hope that noble Lords on all sides will support this attempt to construct a much better piece of legislation than we have been presented with.

18:08

[Lord Condon]

My Lords, I declare my registered interests. As a former police commissioner I am a life member of ACPO, and more recently I am the deputy chairman of a security solutions plc that provides outsourced services to the criminal justice system.

The election of over 40 new and inexperienced police and crime commissioners would be a challenging experiment in the best of times. But these are not the best of times. They are the most difficult times for policing for perhaps over 50 years. Police force budgets have been cut by over 20 per cent for the next four years. These understandable but nevertheless draconian reductions are leading to significant reductions in the number of police officers and civilian support staff. Police officers’ pay and conditions are being managed down, again for understandable reasons but with severe collateral damage to police morale. These events are being played out against a background of potential civil unrest and strikes over government spending cuts, while in the international arena we see increasing uncertainty, which could lead to more acts of terrorism in the United Kingdom.

I believe the Government have a very strong duty to set out a compelling case for how their proposals for elected police and crime commissioners will maintain, or hopefully enhance, the accountability and performance of the police service locally, nationally and when necessary internationally. Like other noble Lords, I believe that certain principles should be enshrined in the new arrangements. First, as others have said, nothing should be done to jeopardise the operational independence of the police service or to damage the historic office of constable, both of which have been enshrined in our policing arrangements since the formation of the Metropolitan Police in 1829. This operational independence is the cornerstone of the legacy of British policing, which has been, and continues to be, admired throughout the free world. I look forward to the promised protocol on how the operational independence will be preserved. It has been promised on several occasions. It is long overdue and I find it bizarre that at this stage of a Bill we are being asked, almost as an act of faith, to believe that a protocol will at some stage resolve this issue.

The second principle I would encourage is that police and crime commissioners are part of a joined-up, integrated policing network and not a patchwork of disjointed local forces. In the modern world a small incident in, say, Bristol, Birmingham or Bradford can quickly lead to issues that have national or international dimensions. We have yet to hear from the Government a persuasive, detailed account of how regional, national and international policing matters will be dealt with. The proposals for a national crime agency are still not sufficiently fleshed out to give complete reassurance that organised crime, terrorism and other major issues will be dealt with properly against the background of over 40 new, inexperienced, elected police and crime commissioners seeking to ensure their re-election on very localised policing issues. Again, I find it bizarre that, as an act of faith, we must believe that at some stage we will be told how these national arrangements will pan out.

The third principle I would argue for is that, against the background of the most difficult set of police budgets in living memory, the new arrangements must not add significant costs and levels of bureaucracy to a system that is already overburdened with form filling, red tape and endless meetings. Take Kent, for example—a county I know well. I had the honour of being chief constable there, and it has always had a good reputation for local government and policing. At the moment there is a county council with a great interest in police and public safety partnerships, the police authority and the chief constable. Under the proposed new arrangements, the county council will still have a real interest and role in the safety of its citizens, the police authority will undergo a form of metamorphosis and will emerge in a different shape as the police and crime panel, and the chief constable will remain in place.

From May 2012, the newly elected police and crime commissioner for Kent will be added to the process. He, or she, will need administrative support to do the job properly. He will need professional financial and personnel support if he is going to discharge his responsibilities for the budget and the policing plan, to hire and if necessary fire the chief constable, and all the other responsibilities that go with the post. Either he will have to be superhuman and omnicompetent or he will need significant support. The boundary management issues as all these key stakeholders learn the new rules of engagement of policing a county like Kent will, I believe, lead to several new senior posts to make it work. Otherwise, the police and crime commissioner will be a superficial role that adds little to the policing landscape. The Government have costed the elections of the PCCs, but I am not aware of costings for accommodation, staffing requirements and all the other infrastructures to make this proposal work. I just do not believe that these proposals can be cost-neutral. Even three to four new senior posts per county outside London will add significant costs to policing.

The fourth principle is that, against the background of the most dramatic reductions in police budgets that any serving police officer has experienced, the new arrangements for very localised policing must not prevent the savings from economies of scale that sensible procurement demands. Savings in the procurement of equipment, technology and services are best achieved through national, or at the very least regional, arrangements. The private sector, in which I have already declared an interest, will more readily offer up savings to larger-sized buyers of their products and services than deal with over 40 individual police forces. The new arrangements must encourage, if not compel, collaborative endeavours to procure goods and services and provide real value for money.

I am not, in principle, against the proposal for police and crime commissioners. The Government have the right and indeed the duty to test and improve the current arrangements for police governance and accountability. I believe I earned my credentials to say this when I was commissioner of police. I came into office when the Home Secretary of the day was the police authority for the Metropolitan Police. I believe there was a democratic deficit in the policing arrangements for London, and I argued strongly for a police authority for the Met with stronger links to London and Londoners and supported and embraced the creation of the Metropolitan Police Committee, which evolved into the Metropolitan Police Authority. I believe that the Metropolitan Police Authority has added great value to the people of London and the policing of the capital.

If and when we have elected police and crime commissioners, let them respect and build on the legacy of the historic office of constable and the operational independence of the police service. Let them be part of a clearly understood, integrated network of policing locally, nationally and internationally so that local uniformed patrolling complements and does not compete with the needs to deal with organised crime and terrorism, which will always transcend local force boundaries. And let us not allow the new police and crime commissioners to add layers of cost and bureaucracy to a system that already groans under the cumulative red tape and form filling that have blighted policing in recent years.

I hope the Minister and the Government will, during the passage of this Bill_, reassure your Lordships that the proposals for the new police and crime commissioners will enhance rather than undermine the performance of the current policing arrangements.

18:17

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, “Rutland is too large a place” was the response to my tentative request to Garter to be connected to the county of my birth. Has England’s smallest historic county ever been so flattered? I think not. However, I happily settled on the Vale of Catmose, as it was the name of my comprehensive school, and in the time I have today I hope to live up to Rutland’s motto, “Much in Little”.

Joining your Lordships’ House caused me to reflect on the input of so many teachers, friends and mentors, without whom I am sure I would not be here today. The uninitiated like me needed teachers to speak of a place they called Oxbridge, and after Rutland, Cambridge seemed a huge metropolis. To be closer than 20 miles to a cinema was, to my mind, positively cosmopolitan. To be corrected, however, that it was no coincidence that our law lecturer and the textbook author had the same name opened up a world of learning I never could have dreamt of.

Before law studies lay a gap year in Ghana, a country I have now known for over 20 years, a land of gold, cocoa, stable democracy and world-renowned politicians such as Kofi Annan. But I lived as a lone white face among a million people in the last days of communicating by thin blue airmail paper. The novelty of being so obvious and treated as somehow special soon wore off and I longed for anonymity, privacy and the perceived safety of not being different from everyone else.

Unfortunately, at Cambridge I required the excellent services of Addenbrooke’s Hospital, so my final year was deferred. Not to be outdone, I did voluntary work in the beautiful twin island state of Trinidad and Tobago while my contemporaries did their finals. Trinidad is the major Caribbean economy and I was surprised to find that it had a population which was then approximately 40 per cent black and 40 Asian. I had studied GCSE and A-level history, but was only then beginning to learn the tragic and utterly courageous stories behind much black migration around the globe. Trinidad is a peaceful and prosperous society, but not without complexities from its colonial past.

Upon completion of my law degree there were nine wonderful years as a barrister in Kings Chambers, Manchester, after which I moved to the truly cosmopolitan city of London. I came to direct the CCF—not the Combined Cadet Force but the Conservative Christian Fellowship—a great organisation, but at that time lacking in denominational and ethnic diversity. A 2007 Tearfund survey found that 48 per cent of the British black community is regularly in church. Meeting and learning from leaders of the British black community has allowed me to be the recipient of much hospitality and patience, as I struggled to grasp the issues.

Insights from Ghana and Trinidad were valuable but inadequate. I was forced to confront a reality that was not my own experience, and never more so than when the appalling murder of Rhys Jones hit the headlines. The response of the public, media commentators and politicians was utterly appropriate in its emotion, its volume and its outrage. But why when so many young black people died in similar circumstances did it seem that the response was more muted? Was it because the media were not needed to catch the culprits? Was it because the victims were slightly older? Did they die when other items legitimately dominated the news cycle? Taking all that into account, I could not get rid of the lingering suspicion that there were assumptions about these black youngsters and that that lack of outrage would communicate to relatives that young black lives were less valuable in our society. I am not seeking to label this or give it an “ism”, but I believe it to be there and to be wrong.

I am humbled to speak alongside my noble friend Lady Newlove, who, along with others whom I have been privileged to meet—Patsy McKie of Mothers Against Violence, Richard Taylor of the Damilola Taylor Trust, and the Reverend Les Isaacs of Street Pastors, to name but a few—is working to change things for the better. But people have gone beyond community response and are involved in the matter which your Lordships are considering today in this Bill: the governance of our police. Any wisdom I proffer owes much to Pastor Nims Obunge, adviser to both Operation Blunt and Operation Trident, and to the chair of West Midlands Police Authority, Bishop Derek Webley, the first black police authority chairman. It is sad to note that the late Lord Scarman, who reported on the Brixton riots, did not live to witness Bishop Webley's appointment.

Any branch of government, whether the legislature, the judiciary or public institutions such as the police, must have legitimacy. Legitimate government requires the consent of the people and must accordingly be representative of the people whom they seek to govern. It is my sincere desire that directly elected police and crime commissioners and the police and crime panels will reflect the population and, in particular, the ethnic diversity of the people whom they police.

Further, the social responsibility that the Bill is seeking to engender around alcohol consumption is already present in many of Britain's ethnic minority communities. I soon learnt when hosting events with guests from the black-led or Chinese churches that very few people would want alcohol. Legislation alone cannot create a culture, café-style or otherwise. I hope that the values of self-restraint, moderation and abstinence which are also found among the British Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities will come to dominate English and British values around alcohol, rather than those that the police often encounter on our streets in the early mornings.

As the youngest woman in your Lordships’ House, joining felt as exciting and daunting as the latest extreme sport. I remain amazed at the expertise and wisdom of this Chamber which I have been privileged to join. Some of your Lordships wrote the text books that I studied from.

Finally, I am extremely grateful to the doorkeepers, the Attendants' Office, to catering staff and to Black Rod's Office for their hospitality, answers to my endless queries and for the welcome given to me and my guests on the day of my introduction. I have particularly appreciated being able to dine with and get to know Peers from all Benches and I look forward to working with your Lordships on issues of mutual concern. Your Lordships’ kind generosity to me as a new Member has made my time in the House not quite so daunting.

18:26

[Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and to congratulate her on a truly outstanding maiden speech. Of course, we would expect no less from a very talented barrister, but she presented her maiden speech with a great deal of style and wit and let us see what a valuable asset we have gained in her presence with us.

In Dods, the noble Baroness put down her countries of interest as Ghana, Iraq, Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago, which indicates the breadth of interest that she brings with her. She explained to us today why she is such an expert on so many different facets of what one might call multiculturalism in Britain. We look forward very much to hearing a lot more from the noble Baroness and we are sure that it will be with the excellent style and wit that she has shown us today.

The Bill is of enormous importance, with potentially far-reaching consequences for our whole system of policing, as the long list of speakers bears witness today. At this stage of Second Reading, with such a long list of speakers, I shall speak as briefly as possible on Part 1 of the Bill and on Clause 154 on arrest warrants, in Part 4.

In Part 1, the Government propose to abolish the existing police authorities and replace them with directly elected police and crime commissioners in each police force area in England and Wales. That would fundamentally change the nature of our policing by politicising police services and interfering with the operational independence of the police, notwithstanding the protestations to the contrary of those who support these proposals and of course we have heard rehearsed again today by the Minister.

I agree with the summing up of the Association of Police Authorities that this is, “the wrong reform at the wrong time”. There are great risks in concentrating power of responsibility for oversight of policing in one individual rather than, as now, some 17 or so in a police authority, who are a diverse group of councillors and independent members drawn from various communities across the whole force area.

There is also the question of costs. In the present climate of cuts and reduced police numbers, we are surely entitled to expect that radical changes should be made only when benefits will clearly outweigh costs, but that is not the case here. Analysts have suggested that the cost of the proposed reforms will amount to £100 million more than the cost of running police authorities for the same five-year period, 2011-16—the equivalent cost of some 600 police officers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, so expertly explained to us.

I also believe that there are operational risks. There are real concerns that PCCs will focus on issues that are more likely to attract public attention and enhance the chances of their own election rather than lower- profile crime issues that are still of importance in any professional scale of policing priorities.

Then there is the timing of these changes, a point so eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Condon. The most significant cuts to the policing budget, of some 14 per cent, are likely to hit in 2012; and huge changes to police pay and conditions are proposed in the Winsor review. To implement radical changes when the police service is trying to implement reform to police pay and conditions, create a new national crime agency and implement other reforms—all shortly before the Olympics—seems to me to make too great a demand on UK policing. It puts at risk both police resilience and public confidence.

Many sources have expressed concerns about whether the proposed new structure will undermine the political independence of the police. ACPO, while agreeing with the Government’s expressed aim of improving democratic oversight—and who could be against that?—stated that the reform,

“will, on occasion, create a clear tension where political incentives for any politician are for partiality (such as on the approach to an election) and may run counter to impartial professional policing views”.

I do not always find myself in agreement with Liberty, as Members of this House will have noticed from some of the debates I have taken part in before. However, I do on this issue, when it says it considers that the proposals,

“will politicise operational decision-making and place too much power in one place—dangerously undermining the independence of UK policing in the process”.

The so-called “Peelian” principle—after Sir Robert—of policing by consent by officers operating on principles of non-partisanship and accountability to the rule of law, not to Government, has served this country well. I remain to be convinced that the proposals in this Bill do not put that principle in jeopardy.

Very briefly, I want to welcome the long-overdue reform of our universal jurisdiction legislation in Clause 154, which I am glad the Government are now doing and which I rather wish the previous Government had done earlier, even if they did start to prepare for it toward the end of their term in office. The current legislation dangerously exposes the English and Welsh legal system to politically motivated individuals trying to obtain arrest warrants against foreign politicians for publicity purposes. The amendment would reduce political exploitation, make the system in England and Wales more robust, and bring it into line with practice in Scotland, where magistrates cannot consent to private requests for arrest warrants without a Criminal Letter from the High Court, on which the Lord Advocate would have been consulted.

An unintended consequence of the current legislation is that the DPP is only consulted before the issue of arrest warrants in public prosecutions, not private ones. That really does not make any sense. Amending the law to require the DPP’s consent to the issue of arrest warrants against foreigners alleged to have committed war crimes will strengthen our system of applying universal jurisdiction laws. Clause 154 is therefore very welcome.

18:34

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will welcome a brief interlude from the almost unremitting attrition in relation to Part 1, for I, too, want to speak, and mainly about the universal jurisdiction. I was one of a group of colleagues in your Lordships’ House, with most of the others coming from the Cross Benches, who were involved in activity in the last Parliament supporting the provisions that were incorporated into Section 70 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. That provision extended the universal jurisdiction for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, since the enactment of that provision, we have seen little evidence that the new provision is working at all. My view is that it is part of good administration—which appears in the Long Title to this Bill—that Ministers should bear the responsibility for the universal jurisdiction and that police forces should bear the responsibility for showing that it is working. By now, prosecutions should be commencing as a result of the enactment of Section 70, but they are not. The criticism that the United Kingdom remains a safe haven for war criminals, I am afraid, still sticks.

With this in mind, I, along with others, will in due course table an amendment aimed to ensure reporting and accountability of the work in relation to the universal jurisdiction. Of course, the universal jurisdiction, as the noble Baroness has just said, is connected to Clause 154. For the reasons she has given, I welcome that clause and cannot understand any logical argument for the view that private prosecutions could be brought at a lower standard than public prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions has shown himself to be reliable in dealing with private prosecutions when he has taken them over and recently the higher courts have supported his view that private prosecutions should be subject to the same dual code test that the CPS applies to public prosecutions. I shall strongly oppose any attempt to remove Clause 154 from the Bill.

Now back to the attrition, I am afraid. I congratulate the Government on their decision to create direct democratic accountability for the supervision of police services. It is long overdue. However, I do not congratulate them on the way they have set about it. It has long been Liberal Democrat policy—and I regret very much that this was not in the coalition agreement—that we should have elected police authorities. I see no problem with elected police authorities—they would be reasonably substantial in size, they could elect and remove their own chair, and it is likely that their own chair would be from diverse sections of the community from time to time. I see this as a much more accountable and reliable process than that set out in the Bill. It would avoid—or at least be more likely to avoid—maverick leadership, eccentricity, crass bad judgment and conflict with the relevant chief officer.

I have worked professionally with police authorities in some pretty critical cases and have seen them to be responsible and careful and to listen to advice but, quite rightly, not always to take it. However, it has been their collective approach that has been the benchmark of their success. I therefore intend—I hope with others—to table an amendment for elected police authorities.

Finally, I want to regret the waste of an opportunity. In the time when I was the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, I watched joint working—which is absolutely inevitable in counterterrorism work—between police authorities. The Wales Extremism and Counter Terrorism Unit, which is a unified body involving the four police forces currently in existence in Wales, is an example. In all difficult areas of policing, 43 territorial police forces can no longer do the really serious work on their own. It is my regret that the Government have not taken the long-overdue opportunity to reform the police service in England and Wales; to reduce the number of police forces from 43 to something like a quarter or a third of that number; to reduce the number of chief officers and police authorities, whether elected or not; and to reflect, by that means, the essence—the needs—of modern policing.

Wales is one example I have much experience of and I cannot believe that it would not be better policed by one police force, or at the most, two, instead of four. I cannot believe that north-west England would not be better policed by the combination of Cheshire, Greater Manchester and the Merseyside police. I deeply regret that the Government and their predecessor—for their predecessor when Charles Clarke was Home Secretary started to approach this territory—have not taken on this agenda, which is really what we need to produce a police force that will survive the next couple of decades.

18:40

[Baroness Newlove]

My Lords, I was amazed but apprehensive when the Prime Minister asked me to join you, and I feel truly humbled and honoured to be here today. I want so passionately to do justice for the many campaigners and victims whom I represent. I know that I am hugely privileged to be singled out, and I promise that I will give every ounce of my strength, every breath, so that I do not let them, your Lordships or the Prime Minister down. I wish to thank my sponsors, my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lady Warsi, and my wonderful, warm and kind mentor, my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton. I thank especially all the employees of your Lordships’ House: my friends the doorkeepers, the attendants, and the wonderful staff and catering staff. They have shown me great kindness and respect. Their warmth has meant so much to me and they deserve their recognition for keeping the wheels turning smoothly here.

I might speak in simple words and not be as polished as many of your Lordships here today, but every word comes from my heart. There is such a wealth of experience, knowledge and humanity in this place. I look to your Lordships’ House to help me, a novice, make this a safer and happier country. I cannot change the past but I will do all I can to improve the future.

I dedicate my speech to my late husband Garry and to my beautiful daughters for their courage and strength. Without their love and support, I would not have wanted to go on living. Together, the girls and I set up Newlove Warrington and we are working on establishing a youth zone based on the brilliant model of Bolton Lads & Girls Club to enrich the lives of young people. I also thank my elderly parents for their love, guidance, discipline and strong core values, which have shaped my life and which I try to pass on.

Last year I became government Champion for Active Safer Communities, and I have met brave and inspiring citizens from all walks of life. These quiet, unsung heroes just get on making their neighbourhoods better places to live. They are good neighbours and they strengthen my belief in the better side of human nature, while exposing the darker element of suffering still out there, to our shame. My report, Our Vision for Safe and Active Communities, is their voice, and together we stand a real chance of rebuilding parts of our damaged society. I am also delighted to work within the Department for Communities and Local Government, and across Whitehall, to implement my report’s recommendations, and I ask you to support them and me.

I am just an ordinary woman from a working-class background propelled into this elevated position by a set of horrifying circumstances, which I wish with all my heart had never happened. Almost four years ago I was a wife, married to Garry for 21 years, and a mother of three children: Zoe, then 18; Danielle, 15; and Amy, only 12. Garry had been struck down with cancer at the age of 32 and had to have his whole stomach and spleen removed. Together, we fought and beat it as a loving, united family. Garry was brave, funny, the life and soul of the party, and he adored us, which makes all the more terrible the senseless way in which we lost him.

Our neighbourhood was bothered by groups of youths hanging around an underpass near to our home, drinking, swearing and being a nuisance. I attended neighbourhood meetings about them but it was treated as low-crime, anti-social behaviour, so not a priority. On the evening of 10 August 2007, Garry had gone out barefooted to investigate breaking glass outside our home. Our next-door neighbour was a young woman alone with a baby, and he was worried about their safety. Like a hunted animal he was brought down by the baying, laughing gang whom he had questioned in front of our horrified daughters. At one stage there were more than 15 around him, boys and girls, aged between 14 and 18 years, high on drugs, alcohol and adrenaline. Within minutes Garry suffered 14 ferocious kicks to the head as well as suffering 40 internal injuries. On 12 August I woke up a wife but went to bed a widow.

Some of these teenagers had been in trouble with the law from only 11 years of age, and I ask: where were their feckless parents? Our girls watched their beloved father being murdered; they were covered in his blood. At the 10-week murder trial, they had to relive that experience minute by minute, to be cross-examined by five QC barristers. My 12-year old daughter was told not to show emotion or fidget when being questioned via video link; but my girls bravely told the truth. They helped bring some of the guilty to justice.

There is so much in the criminal justice system that is so wrong. The victim or their families are given scraps from the table. That is why I am working with Victim Support, the national charity supporting all victims, as well as witnesses. For too long, victims have been second-class passengers, with the offender and their needs in the driving seat. It is time that we were treated with respect and allowed to participate in the criminal justice system—and even allowed to take the driving wheel sometimes. If victims do not have confidence in the justice system, then we all suffer. If frightened witnesses will not give evidence, cases will collapse and offenders will walk away. That surely cannot be allowed to happen.

I also have to ask: why have we let our lovely towns and villages, so charming by day, turn into Dodge City at night, infested with drunken, brawling people vomiting and causing chaos? They cost us billions of pounds, their violence immeasurable in lost innocent lives. They prevent ordinary people enjoying a night out. We must return to social drinking, get rid of underage and binge drinking, and work closely with the drinks industry to educate and promote safe, sensible alcohol consumption. I will make that one of my top priorities.

Since that terrible night when Garry died, I have campaigned for victims whose lives are blighted by thugs. Minor crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour should be a huge warning bell to us all. Unless this behaviour is nipped in the bud, it grows like a cancer, unseen and undetected until it blooms like a malignant flower, which, as we know, can kill. Stories like the Pilkingtons’ or the Askews’, where isolated and vulnerable people have been bullied and hounded to death, are a disgrace and must not continue to happen. But I know that the big society is out there. It has been simmering for years on low heat with no name. Good neighbours and good deeds exist and we must learn from them. We must celebrate them and give them the resources and the power to turn up the heat. I believe we need that fuel of people power to make a difference. Cynics may knock it, but I know that it works. I stand before you to show that it can propel anyone to the greatest heights. Personal responsibility is the price we pay for all the good things that we take for granted. We have shelter, food, education, access to free worship and free speech, and many countless blessings. Children and young people have to be taught moral values and standards, and also that community, family and a love of our country are things to honour and cherish, not to mock and deride.

When we enter a period of peace and kindness in this country, when everyone is able to go about their lives safely, day or night, then, and only then, will Garry's legacy, the high price he paid with his life, be deemed by me to be almost worth the cost.

18:49

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to this House and shall try to find the appropriate words to congratulate her on her incredibly moving speech. We have heard some very fine speeches today. My speech will be extremely quickly forgotten, but I will never forget that speech—it was amazing. Not only has the noble Baroness made a very important contribution today, but I have absolutely no doubt that she will be a very important contributor to the work of this House, representing very effectively the issues of victims and of the social problems in our communities. I cannot say more than to welcome her and thank her for joining us.

I feel like sitting down right now, but I will limit my comments to Part I of the Bill, with a very brief reference to Clauses 152 and 153 on the drugs issue. I want to support concerns already raised about the replacement of police authorities with newly elected police and crime commissioners. For me this is by far the most worrying proposal in the Bill. Indeed, I might be quite happy with one or two other parts of the Bill, but like so many other noble Lords I cannot accept this one.

There are many noble Lords more qualified than I to speak in this debate, as so brilliantly illustrated by the fine speech from the noble Lord, Lord Blair, supported so eloquently by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee, Lady Harris and Lady Hilton, and many others. However, I feel bound to make a brief contribution, having spent eight years with the Police Complaints Authority, working very closely with chief constables and other chief officers across the country. I developed a considerable respect—to my surprise, as I was not expecting to respect these people—for the professionalism, impartiality and deep understanding of humanity of those officers. It seemed to me throughout that period that senior officers paid due respect to their police authorities while holding on very clearly to their strict political impartiality.

I agree with Liberty’s point that,

“policing by consent, and engagement between the police and the community must not be confused with direct community involvement in operational decision-making”.

For me, this is the massive mistake of the Bill.

With so much else to be concerned about in the country today, is there any justification at all for changing the governance arrangements for the police service? It is worth asking what the serious weaknesses are of the present system of police authorities that have led to the development of these ideas. We have had different views about HMIC inspections from the Minister and from other noble Baronesses, but the long and short of it is that no evidence has been presented today that the police authorities have any weaknesses that could not be remediated. If these weaknesses even exist, do they justify the risks involved in introducing overtly political control over chief police officers? Do they justify the inevitable costs involved in the move to PCCs? The evidence suggests not. I understand that the Government's main motivation for the introduction of PCCs is that UK policing has become too far removed from the needs of local communities. I would accept that, but this problem could be tackled very effectively through an overdue reduction in the number of targets, circulars and guidance from the centre to police services and perhaps also some strengthening of the police authorities. Such changes would reduce costs instead of increasing them, avoid unnecessary upheaval, and reduce rather than increase political interference. It would certainly reduce central political interference, and we would all welcome that. Crime, as we know, and as others have said, continues to fall, and the chances of becoming a victim of crime are lower than at any time since 1981. If the system is working, why change it—or, as they say, if the system ain’t broke, why fix it?

The next question is whether the proposals are sensible. Again, the evidence, comments already made in your Lordships' House and common sense suggest not. This matter has been very adequately covered by others, and I shall not repeat their comments. As to the extra costs, the Minister suggests that this matter will be cost-neutral. I have to say that I disagree. Clearly, other noble Lords have made it very clear that there will be costs involved, and the general view seems to be that the PCCs will cost an additional £100 million a year, or about the cost of 600 police officers. I do not have in my head the numbers of police officers to be cut, but I for one would prefer to see a reduction in cuts in front-line policing rather than wasting precious resources on this new governance system.

The Association of Police Authorities points to the pertinent quote from Robert Peel:

“Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law”.

Other speakers have addressed that issue very fully. I simply want to support their remarks.

To introduce a different perspective on the issue, it is perhaps worth noting that the health department has a very different approach to governance from this one. The Minister may find it helpful to consider the approach of her health colleagues. In essence, Health Ministers are seeking to enhance the role of councils of governors with their foundation trusts. These councils are the health equivalent of police authorities, including both elected and nominated individuals representing all sections of the community. Governors are volunteers and the governance system carries a minimal cost. There is no plan in the Health and Social Care Bill to replace these 40 to 50 individuals with a single commissioner.

I want to refer very briefly to the plans for temporary banning orders for legal highs. I welcome the Minister’s reference to listening to the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. This is a very pleasant change from the recent past, if I may put it that way. I was glad to hear the Minister’s assurance that there will be no possession offence under the temporary controls. Is the Minister aware that the UK Drug Policy Commission will publish in two weeks or so an interesting report recommending a system of regulatory controls over legal highs? I would welcome an opportunity to have a discussion with the Minister about that report and possibly a constructive way forward.

In conclusion, I hope that the Government will reflect on the profound concerns about the PCC proposals and will also consider alternative approaches to the drug issue.

18:57

[Viscount Simon]

My Lords, it is necessary for me to declare that I am an honorary member of the Police Federation of England and Wales roads policing central committee, but your Lordships will be delighted to learn that I will not mention anything about roads policing today.

We have heard the Government say that they are a listening Government, but what concerns me with regard to this Bill is that although they may well listen, will they act on concerns raised when they listen—or am just being too cynical? I do not know. The noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, who is not in his place, has stated his experiences of this earlier.

Page 57 of the Conservative manifesto stated that the Bill needed to,

“replace the existing, invisible and unaccountable police authorities”.

Yet, in the Police and Magistrates’ Courts Act 1994, when the other place was considering your Lordships’ amendments to the Bill, the Home Secretary, who is now in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, said that,

“the members of each police authority should continue to choose their chairman and that, in order to stress the independence of the new members, the Home Secretary alone should not select the independent members; but nor should they be selected by the councillor and magistrate members of the authority alone”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/1994; col. 112.]

Thereby, that Bill set out procedures to reflect a balance between the influence of the Home Secretary and the influence of the other members of the police authorities.

Where does that leave us with this Bill, and why the change? How will the police commissioners provide a stronger alternative to that which is currently in place? The single commissioner will have no significantly greater powers in statute beyond the powers to make grants. When a police and crime commissioner, or PCC, seeks to change personnel, that person will lose the power, now exercised carefully by police authorities, to appoint and have oversight of the conduct of ACPO ranks below the rank of chief constable.

The appointments of Sue Sim in Northumbria and Sara Thornton in Thames Valley are welcome examples in tackling the historically indefensible record of the police in maintaining the truth that “the public are the police and the police are the public”. Since the present system of accountability was established, great strides have been made to develop diversity. It is madness to backtrack on this now and to hive off appointments of those very senior officers charged with delivering public services away from the public. With the proposed changes chief constables will become stronger in that they will have the right to act in their own right rather than with the functions delegated by those in the police authority who are accountable to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, mentioned the number of police forces. As an aside, I am sure he is aware that a number of police forces are now beneficially working closely together although they still have their own chief constables and officers.

The current system allows between 17 and 23 diverse individuals to examine the crime as a whole—from counterterrorism to car crime. And, with this in mind, it is possible for individuals to specialise in particular areas of policing, which a single PCC could never do. However, if a PCC wishes to monitor a particular area of concern, new staff will need to be employed at additional expense, whereas, currently, colleagues within the authority could assist. Even if replacing 17 skilled people with one individual is considered as a solution to a weak system, how will that single person strengthen accountability? And how can one person become expert in what are increasingly complex challenges for all society? I hope that noble Lords will exercise extreme caution when considering this proposed revolution to the British model of policing.

Perhaps I may briefly say a few words about the operational independence of the police under the proposed changes, and the interesting debates that lawyers might have as a result. In the exercise of their powers the police are answerable to the law and to the law alone—so said Lord Denning in R v Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, ex parte Blackburn, in 1968. Since then life has changed. However, what has not changed is the fact that police officers are free from political influence. All of that might change. In some circumstances lawyers might be asked to advise a commissioner and a chief constable respectively about a certain matter, which could well result in both being advised differently. As a result, both lawyers would welcome the Bill as it stands, because the financial rewards for them are there for the picking.

19:03

[Baroness Doocey]

My Lords, I would like to address my remarks to how Part 1 will impact on London. I need to begin by declaring an interest as chair of the London Assembly. I also serve on the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Home Office Olympic security board. I have a number of concerns about this Bill, not least the Government's plans to implement it in London from 1 October this year. There are two reasons for my concerns: the Olympic Games and the London mayoral elections.

The Games are not just a London issue; they will affect every police force in the country. They take place between July and September next year but there are also many preparatory events—notably the torch relay, which will start on 18 May, last for 70 days and impact on every area of the UK. The Olympics present the biggest peacetime challenge the police have ever faced and officers from all over Britain will be involved in providing mutual aid. The logistics of this huge operation are truly mind-blowing. The Met has spent years planning for every eventuality and will continue to refine those plans right up to the Games. To force the police to divert their efforts from the security of the Games to a major reorganisation at this critical time almost beggars belief.

If that was not enough there is also the issue of the mayoral election in London next May, the outcome of which is uncertain. It is quite possible that a new policing system could be put in place this October, designed to reflect a Conservative agenda, only to be dismantled again next May if another party wins the mayoral election. Such an expensive and time-consuming process should happen only once. The Bill does not stipulate when its provisions will be implemented and the Government are free to choose a sensible date. I strongly urge them to do so.

My next concern involves the democratic legitimacy of the office of police and crime commissioner as exercised in London. The Bill provides for the post of elected police commissioner to be carried out by the Mayor of London, in the form of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime. The mayor may appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime with most of the same powers and responsibilities. However, there is no requirement for the deputy mayor to be an elected person. The mayor could simply hand this job to a non-elected friend, making a complete nonsense of the argument about democratic legitimacy.

I have a specific concern regarding the proposed system of police complaints in London. The Bill proposes that, where senior officers below the rank of deputy commissioner are subject to complaint, responsibility should be moved from the Metropolitan Police Authority to the commissioner, who will hear not just the complaint but the appeals. This would make the commissioner both judge and jury, and remove all elements of independence and transparency. I believe we should remedy this by making the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime the relevant appeal body. Like other noble Lords, I believe that the powers of the police and crime panels need to be significantly enhanced. I have three specific proposals for London: that the panel should be able to reject the mayor's draft police and crime plan by a two-thirds majority; that the panel should have the power to require senior officers from the Met to provide information and attend meetings; and that the power to co-opt voting independent members to the panel should be vested in the London Assembly, to ensure that such appointees have a proper statutory basis that is not open to challenge.

One of the greatest weaknesses of the Bill is its provisions for the hiring and firing of chief constables and I share many of the concerns that other noble Lords expressed. We need appropriate procedures to ensure that those appointed have the necessary professional knowledge and experience, that dismissals are for professional or disciplinary failures and not political convenience, and that operational independence cannot be compromised by inappropriate political pressure via the threat of a dismissal.

My final point concerns the duty of the Home Secretary to issue a strategic policing requirement to deal with national threats. Under these proposals, police and crime commissioners would effectively be free to disregard such requirements in favour of political expediency or re-election strategies. They must be obliged to respect them. When we move to Committee, I shall seek to address all these issues.

19:08

[Lord Imbert]

My Lords, like other noble Lords this afternoon, I must declare an interest. I was attested as a constable in the Metropolitan Police in the year that the current commissioner—the real commissioner—was born and I served in every rank in the police service, from constable to chief constable and commissioner. We all know the expression, “like the curate's egg”. It is an appropriate way to describe the Bill. It has some good bits and there is potential for the reform proposals, such as the new strategic policing requirement and national crime agency, to be forces for good. Yet I hope that the new national crime agency will not be just a cheaper, remodelled and less effective SOCA by another name. Like the curate's egg, however, if you swallow a bad bit it is likely to prove fatal to the whole. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that I, too, consider the fatal bits to be the proposals that there should be elected party-political commissioners for crime and policing.

To call him or her a commissioner is deliberately misleading. We have two commissioners in this country: the Commissioner of the City of London Police and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. This newly elected politician is not a commissioner. Despite the Bill being littered with assurances that the operational decisions will remain in the hands of the chief constable—methinks they doth protest too much—let us be realistic. This will not be so in practice. A visiting politician to your Lordships’ House recently said to me, “Of course we will become involved in the operational decisions—that’s why we’re politicians; it’s our nature and purpose to be involved”. To call him or her a commissioner will imbue him or her with the king’s clothes, as the final arbiter of the chief constable’s decisions. The correct definition is not “commissioner”, but—as my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan said this afternoon, either on purpose or by accident—“commissar”. If you look at the dictionary definition of that, you will see that it is an official charged with political education. That is who it will be.

ACPO, with which I have naturally spoken, is determined not to get involved in an unseemly political argument with Government as to the election of PCCs or the disbandment of police authorities. As to the proposed system of PCCs or alternatives, however uncomfortable it might be with the proposal it is clear in acknowledging that it is Parliament's decision who holds the chief constable to account, and how. Despite its widespread doubts—and indeed there are widespread doubts—about the current proposals, it will accept them because they will, of course, work in some areas. That is what police do. If Parliament commands it, they will do their best to continue to give their public the highest level of impartial policing they possibly can.

Noble Lords will be only too well aware that police, like all other public services, will be facing a severe cut in their resources—a 20 per cent reduction. They will of course grumble, but they will get on with it; that is their nature. Many different estimates have been voiced about how many front-line personnel will be withdrawn. Again, despite the cutbacks and their present low morale—because of the danger to their public service pensions for which they have paid and continue to contribute at an incomparably high 11 per cent of their salary—they will get on with it, because that is what they do. We should value that, rather than kicking them again and again.

What are we all worrying about? I am grateful to the Minister for correcting my information in a question that I posed recently; I had understood that the Government would be spending more than £200 million on a system provided for an elected politician to set the police budget and hire, fire and suspend the chief constable as he or she might decide. Are we not fortunate—as the noble Baroness assured me—that it is not £200 million but only £50 million? That is only the beginning, as my noble friend Lord Condon said earlier this afternoon. There is accommodation and other paraphernalia that will go with it. The commissar in every force in the country is likely to receive a salary of something well over £100,000—after all, he would need to be well above the chief constable, would he not? The Bill also makes provision for a well qualified staff for this individual, and the commissar and his staff will want acceptable office accommodation and furniture: carpets, desks, chairs, telephones, headed stationery, computers and printer equipment. That is every force in the country. It is beginning to sound a bit more like £200 million, is it not?

Is it not ironic that we can find all this and much more to ensure that we can introduce this discredited American system, at the same time as we accept that London will lose 700 ambulance drivers to make up a similar amount, a £52 million shortfall? My Lords, do not have a heart attack or a stroke or a sudden illness in the Palace of Westminster after the end of this year, or you will have to get a bus or a taxi to take you to St Thomas's. And who will be there to attend to you? I am told that there will be a severe shortfall of nurses because we cannot afford them. May I be forgiven for thinking that if only we had that £50 million that is planned to be spent on mending something that is not broken and calling it reform—a new definition for reform—we might have enough nursing and ambulance personnel to continue to provide their vital, life-saving work?

I shall leave the incredible costs of this idea to one side for a moment. The originators of this Bill have undoubtedly missed the most important point: that police are not government or political appointees or agents. The office of constable is a Crown appointment, and all officers take an oath at the beginning of their service which begins:

“I (full name) do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen”—

yes, the Queen—

“in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality”.

I emphasise that they are not civil servants but Crown servants, who discharge their duties impartially according to law and not according to a political instruction, preference or whim.

Those who are of the same political persuasion as the Bill's originators will, understandably, no doubt vote for this part of the Bill, but how will they feel when we have the first National Front, British National Party or other extremist party-political commissar? Please let us not put our heads in the sand. Let us not ignore that; it could, and no doubt will, happen. How will the chief constable respond if he believes or has information that a planned march or demonstration is likely to result in very serious public disorder, but it is also known that the commissar is of the same political persuasion as the march organisers?

It has already been mentioned this afternoon by noble Lords that a recent YouGov poll showed that 65 per cent of those polled did not want any change from the present system, 15 per cent agreed with it, and 20 per cent did not know. The poll was commissioned by Liberty, which I admit has not been my comfortable bedfellow very often. It is difficult to ignore a poll like this, which shows that a large and representative section of our society is against this proposal, with only a few in favour.

If the Bill is to go through unamended, will we next find a proposal using similar arguments—that we do not know the name of our High Court judges—for the election of High Court judges on a party-political basis? It might sound dramatic, but we would be failing in our duties if we did not remind ourselves that in Germany in the 1930s political direction and action took precedence over real policing of society, as it did in the Soviet Union in the 1950s, 1960s and very early 1970s. I emphasise that I am not saying that that would happen here, but we must beware of the opportunities for an insidious and subtle political creep into ordinary daily even-handed policing decisions.

The Bill as it stands will be the valedictory address for the global reputation of the British police service—the final eulogy for British policing as the world has come to know, admire and emulate it. No longer will we be asked to travel the globe to help and train foreign police forces in the traditional way laid down by Sir Robert Peel in this country.

As I went through the Bill I made some comments in the margin. Against the election of PCCs I put two comments: one was “dangerous” and the other, if your Lordships will forgive the expression, was “daft”. I realise that to use “daft” is discourteous and would upset many of my Conservative friends, and I have many—at least, I did have until today. Instead of using “dangerous and daft”, I turned to my thesaurus and decided that it would be better to say “dangerous and ill advised”—in fact, grossly ill advised.

Do we cast Peel’s concept of an impartial and entrusted system of policing to the dustbin, and accept that something that has been an example to the rest of the world must now imitate a failed and untrustworthy system from across the Atlantic where another culture prevails? If we want real and well thought-through reform let us do what the Police Federation has, over the past 10 years, been asking for and have a royal commission. Do not let us legislate in haste and repent in future.

19:23

[Lord Freeman]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the moving maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Newlove. She has already won many friends in the House as well as great respect for her courage and, I am sure, for her speech today.

I strongly support my noble friends Lord Howard of Lympne and Lord Patten. I, too, strongly support the Bill and I want to spend a couple of minutes in defence of the political process and party politics. The assumption of many noble Lords today has been that this may turn out to be a corrupt and corrosive process. I think that the opposite will be the case. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—he is an effective debater and an astute politician—but I was slightly depressed by his assertion that somehow we will have a corrupt regime in place if and when the Bill becomes an Act, as I am certain it will.

My argument is this. With the protocols, which the Minister has explained will be tabled shortly before Committee, I hope that we can concentrate on the clear distinction between the chief constable, who has operational responsibilities, and the police and crime commissioner—he or she is not a commissar—who is an individual elected both to ensure that there is a clear division of responsibility and to build a sense of confidence and co-operation.

I take a positive view of these changes because, as my noble friend Lord Howard rightly said, there is a democratic deficit. My experience as a constituency MP was that very few constituents knew who the members were—people will certainly know who the police and crime commissioner is—and the activities of the police authority seemed not to be as central as I believe they should have been. Under the Bill there will be an opportunity for the commissioner to raise issues of responsibility, not the operational discharge of functions, reflecting the concerns of their constituency.

I very much agree with the remarks that were made earlier from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Larger constituencies—mergers of counties, if you like—are certainly in the best interests of making sure that we have a high quality of candidates coming forward, not only to stand as commissioners but to be nominated by the district councils to serve on the panel.

I believe that the protocols are going to be extremely important. I agree that, as several noble Lords who have served with great distinction in the police force have said, it is very important that the distinction of the two roles is made clear and I believe that that will happen.

I support the Bill. I hope that we will have a rational discussion and that the noble tradition of being a party politician, like 50 per cent of noble Lords in this House, will be preserved.

19:26

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Newlove, on their maiden speeches. The whole House will benefit from their contributions in the years ahead. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

The Bill is one of those Bills that need the House to exercise its full powers of detailed line-by-line scrutiny. It will require considerable amendment as it goes through your Lordships’ House so that we ensure that it is a much better Bill when it returns to the other place.

At the outset, I should make it clear that I am not at all convinced of the case for police and crime commissioners. Things can always be reformed and renewed but that is not the case in these proposals. The problem is that in one Bill the present arrangements of police authorities and chief constables are being done away with, to be replaced with PCCs. To make such a major change without thought and planning, without testing and reviewing, is very unwise.

The more I hear of these proposals, the dafter I think they are. There is certainly little support from the public for this change. Your Lordships will be aware of the YouGov poll, which other noble Lords have mentioned, that showed that only 15 per cent—yes, only 15 per cent—of the public would trust an elected police and crime commissioner to best protect their family rather than a chief constable reporting to a police authority.

This is of course a Conservative manifesto proposal that has found its way into the agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. It will be interesting to hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches how in the negotiations of the agreement they gave up on their manifesto proposal for directly elected police authorities with the power to co-opt extra members to ensure diversity, experience and expertise, and why they think that this is so much better than their original proposals.

A number of noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have said how opposed they are to these proposals and that they are going to do everything that they can to stop them. Well, if the Government are not persuaded by the weight of argument, I hope that we see those noble Lords in the Content Lobby supporting amendments to the Bill that will deal with its weaknesses, as that is the only way in which it is going to be made better.

There are a large number of speakers today, so it will be impossible for the Minister to respond to all the points raised. I hope, though, that she will further address the point about the operational independence of the police and say how the Conservative Government will ensure that that is maintained and not affected by the proposals in the Bill, as I am not convinced by her earlier remarks.

I think that we are heading for all sorts of problems—in particular, where the police and crime commissioner has a police and crime plan that is at odds with what the chief constable or commissioner in London believes are the operational requirements for the policing service to meet the challenges ahead of it. That is why I am disappointed that the Conservative Government have not suggested a pilot of these proposals and a proper review before consideration of a rollout. Maybe we should have the benefit of an inquiry into the proposals, or the option of a local referendum, as other noble Lords have said, before they are implemented in any area. At a time when we have to make public expenditure cuts, is this really something to which we should commit new spending?

If the options are more police officers or a police and crime commissioner, I would rather have more police officers protecting people against criminals. I think that most sensible people would want the same. I live in London, so I keep thinking of the Conservative Mayor of London, Mr Boris Johnson. He may have many admirable qualities but he and his deputy mayor are not the right people to determine such matters. I was alarmed when I read the briefing note from the mayor’s office, particularly the part that says that,

“it is vital that it be made clear that the MPS Commissioner cannot refuse to deliver the MOPC plan and priorities”.

That is a recipe for disaster, putting the mayor and the commissioner at loggerheads. Surely we want the commissioner and his staff—the professionals—to deal with crime, using their expertise and professionalism to keep our communities safe from crime and criminals.

Moving on to other parts of the Bill, I have always supported the right to peaceful protest. I have participated in peaceful protests and organised a few in my time. Since I became a councillor, people have protested about things that I have done in that and other roles. I have also seen protests and wondered what was going on. Therefore, I have seen protests from all sides, with the exception of policing them. Changes have to be made to what is acceptable outside Parliament. The permanent encampments are not necessary and sensible plans should be brought into play. The damaging health effects of living on the pavement, for years in some cases, should be of concern to us all. It is very regrettable that Parliament Square had to be fenced off from the public and 24-hour security put in place, costing thousands of pounds and preventing residents, visitors and tourists from coming to the square. This needs to end as soon possible. It can happen only when we have proper measures in place to ensure that there is no return to the problems of the past. I look forward to the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, when we will explore what reforms can be put in place to give the police the correct powers to police protests on the square and to allow not only protestors to make their point but also those who wish to enjoy Parliament Square to do so.

On licensing, the Bill includes several measures that merit proper discussion in your Lordships’ House. We should look at how the late-night levy will operate in practice and at what incentives there are for well managed premises to be recognised as such. Maybe there could be something such as an insurance-type discount scheme. If there is no trouble, your levy goes down; if there is trouble, you risk your levy going up. We should also explore the process by which people are licensed. Is there any way, through the levy system, to ensure that residents who object to licences have access to legal assistance to enable them to present their case better? My experience of local government, although some years ago now, is often that companies, businesses and their owners employ experienced specialist solicitors and counsel as necessary, while local residents—the tenants’ or residents’ associations, the local playgroup or the community group—do not have the means at their disposal to do likewise. They are at an immediate disadvantage in putting their case forward. We should use the passage of the Bill to explore options for empowering citizens to have their voices heard. It would be useful if the Minister could give her initial reaction to this in her response this evening.

There are many other points in the Bill that other noble Lords have raised, about which I, too, have concerns. I will leave it there at this stage, but I will raise these and other matters at the next stage of the passage of the Bill.

19:34

[Lord Ramsbotham]

I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, is not in his place. Had he been there I could have assured him that in 1965, when I was operating on the border between Borneo and Kalimantan, I was equipped with a map that had the words “Here be dragons” on it. Before making my main contribution to this debate, I give notice of two issues that I shall raise in Committee. One has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Meacher, namely Clause 153, the question of the advisory council and the amendments proposed to it. In introducing the debate the Minister assured us that the Government were willing to listen to expert advice, yet the Bill proposes that the expert advice that is available to that committee should be dispensed with. It is not only an error but a pity that an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is being included in a Bill with several other clauses rather than being treated as an issue in itself. Secondly, on behalf of the British Transport Police Authority, I shall table some amendments that will strengthen the Bill by increasing co-operation between the authority and other police forces, particularly in counterterrorism and in the run-up to the Olympics.

I must admit that I was surprised, when I looked at the title of the Bill, to see that it was called the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. I could find very little in it that was about police reform. Instead, it was about police responsibility reform, which is not the same thing at all. I was brought up to believe that there is little point in making substantive change to something unless you are absolutely convinced that what you will put in its place is noticeably better, particularly when that process is involved in delivering an operational outcome. The operational outcome is, of course, the policing of this country.

I looked for guidance in the impact assessment that was published on 31 March. I looked first at the two questions that were asked in the first box. The first was:

“What is the problem under consideration?”.

I see that the problem is:

“The Government believes policing governance under Police Authorities has become distorted and over-centralised in recent years, leading to a system heavy with bureaucracy, and removed from the public view”.

The second question is:

“Why is government intervention necessary?”.

The answer is:

“Government intervention is necessary to achieve wholesale change, and to formally provide the public with a participatory role”.

That comes from a document signed by the Minister for the Police. I admit that I found those answers slightly thin. You do not have whole Bills merely to achieve wholesale change; you are looking for what this change is all about. What is it doing for us? I looked at the next box, which said:

“What are the policy objectives and the intended effects?”.

The answer was:

“To transform the policing landscape in England and Wales by reducing bureaucracy, increasing democratic accountability and getting the public involved in how their streets are policed”.

However, the public are already involved in how their streets are policed through the 17 members of the police authorities, nine of whom are elected and eight appointed. That has been so since the 1960s, so what are we talking about?

Then I come to the last box, which asks:

“What policy options have been considered?”.

Two have been considered. One is “Do Nothing” and the other is:

“Replace the existing governance framework of Police Authorities”.

However, there is a third option, is there not? Surely, if the complaint is that the existing system has become distorted, instead of wholesale change we could look at amending distortion. In particular, as my noble friend Lord Condon has pointed out, we are now in a very difficult situation, not just economically but over the whole question of how the policing structure of this country is constructed and operated. I am extremely concerned that we should be launching ourselves into something as fundamental as is proposed here. It is not that I instinctively object completely to it all, but I ask myself whether it is worth a candle to do this instead of having an option 3. That would be to look at what is currently said to be wrong and see whether there is another way of fixing it without throwing the whole thing away and starting with something completely new and untried, particularly as that new and untried thing includes this extra dimension of increased political oversight of something that, traditionally, has been operationally independent.

Having looked at all that, I then remembered that when I studied for the staff college exam in 1962 one of the set books was the report of the Royal Commission on the Police, published in 1962, which went into the whole question of policing. I remembered it particularly because of a memorandum written by the father of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that dissented from the line put forward, which essentially promoted maintaining the status quo of local police forces. However, Goodhart said, “No, it is time to go national”. His reason for saying that it was time to go national was based on a very simple statement that criminals recognise no local boundaries and that many of them travel about the country executing their plans on a big scale. In fighting crime of this kind the police are handicapped unless they can enjoy the advantages of central command, without which no army could hope to win a battle, and small forces are greatly handicapped by their lack of modern technical facilities. I say, “Hear, hear to that”. However, that was the situation in 1962. We now have increased electronic complexity added to the whole web of what the police have to deal with. Instead of focusing, as the Bill seems to do, on pointing everything down to the local end and on the local accountability of local policing, which of course is important, surely it makes sense when we are looking at policing in general to have national oversight and what the Minister described as the strategic direction that might come from the Secretary of State.

I have thought about this matter for years, and my conclusions have been reinforced by my personal experience on the streets of Northern Ireland and my experience commanding the United Kingdom field army that was responsible for the defence of this country and for counteracting the effects of natural disasters. I have often thought that it was time to recognise the tensions that are inherent in policing. The tensions are there because essentially policing is a compromise between the national and the local. Neither element is superior; both have to be accommodated. The difficult job that faces our chief constables is the balancing act that they have to perform not only in satisfying the demands with which they are confronted at the national level but in honouring and recognising the local element that is in all their work as they live and work among people on the streets, and it is their well-being that sends out the real message about how successful policing is in their eyes. This tension, caused by compromise, must never be forgotten.

I wonder how an unelected, inexperienced, untrained police commissioner is going to become responsible for producing what are called police and crime plans. Where will they get the education, staffing, experience and background to carry out this very difficult balancing act that chief constables currently have to perform? Surely the role of councils, commissars, commissioners, or whatever anyone calls them, is to support the chief constable and to help and enable him or her to carry out their responsibilities in the part of the country to which they are appointed, however large or small. As I said, I hope that this will be done on a larger scale.

Noble Lords might think that I am talking as a soldier. Fortunately, as a soldier one was not subject to party political interference. We did our job and it did not matter which Government were in charge. I would like to think that the same applies to policing and that party politics should never enter the policing arena. I hope that out of this opportunity that the Government have created to examine what we mean by policing, instead of focusing too much on the reform of responsibility, which has so many red herrings that it will draw people off on all sorts of trails, we get back to the fundamental questions: is our policing system fit for purpose for the 21st century, and have we got the structures and the people in place?

While we are on the subject of people, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned leadership, the training of leaders and the identification of them. That is hugely important. One of the reasons why we should consider a national and a local police force separately and recruit people both locally to carry out local community activities and at a national level is because of the complexity of the things that the police have to deal with. You need to recruit, train and manage the career plans of people who will become the experts in these extra activities, which place so many demands on our police.

Therefore, I hope very much that the Bill will turn into a discussion on the reform of the police and not just the reform of the responsibility. To aid us in that I ask the Minister to ensure that the missing paper from the Minister of Prisons is provided before we start Committee so that at least we have firm details of what the Government are proposing.

19:46

[Lord Boateng]

My Lords, let me at the very outset, in the presence of the noble Lords, Lord Stevens, Lord Condon and Lord Imbert, put my hands up and say, “It’s a fair cop Guv, I’ve got form as long as your arm on police accountability”, because I have. I have had the pleasure of working with all three of those noble Lords in different capacities over the years as a civil liberties lawyer campaigning for the reform of the police, as chair of the GLC’s police committee campaigning for the political accountability of the police in London, and as Minister of State for Police in the Home Office. In all those various capacities, I have supported and campaigned for directly elected political oversight—I stress “oversight” as opposed to “control”—of the police. Therefore, I am bound to say that I cannot oppose as a matter of principle the proposal that is put forward in the Bill—and I do not. However, I am also bound to say that I share the very real concerns that have been expressed in the debate about the proposal that the Bill envisages and the way in which it is being introduced.

I cannot but recollect the vehement opposition of the then Home Secretary to the very modest proposals that were put forward by my colleagues in the Labour Party in 1994 when we proposed directly elected police authorities. That modest proposal—modest in comparison with this reform—was met with the following words of the then Home Secretary. He said:

“I reject entirely the view long held by members of the Labour party that there should be directly elected police authorities. That would be a recipe for politicising the police service. It would also mean removing all magistrates from the work of police authorities. I believe that that would be a retrograde step”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/94; cols. 112-13.]

The noble Lord is in his place. He knows whose words those were. They were the words of the then Home Secretary.

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

When circumstances change, I change my mind. What does the noble Lord do?

[Lord Boateng]

I very much welcome that almost damascene conversion. I would be the last person to oppose the conversion that the noble Lord has evidenced in his remarks today in support of the Bill. However, I should counsel against the sort of zealotry that often comes with conversions of that nature—the zealotry that cannot find any place in its heart for piloting or the modest proposals for safeguards that have come from noble Lords not only on this side of the House but on his own side. I hope that the Minister, in her response and during Committee, does not exhibit quite the same degree of zealotry that has been exhibited in the noble Lord’s speech, because this will be an occasion when the House will need to come together to improve the Bill and try to find common ground where we can find it, while accepting the principle of directly elected political oversight of the police.

I return to stressing the word “oversight” because the bottom line for all of us—certainly for me, as someone who has sought to exercise in the best way that I could the role and responsibilities of Police Minister—is that we must safeguard at all costs the operational independence of the police. That is the bottom line. That is absolutely vital if we are to maintain the best traditions of British policing and to uphold the rule of law.

As we do so, we need, of course, to understand that political oversight brings with it some real advantages, because we would not have seen the reforms that there have been in policing in this country over the past 20-odd years if politicians on all sides of the House and of all political parties had not been pushing and working for the sort of reforms that have made our policing now so much better than it was 20 years ago. I pay tribute to the police, and to a number of noble Lords who sit in this House who have exercised responsibility as operational chief officers of police, for the way in which they have taken the police forward in the course of some very difficult times and in the face of some difficult and hard cases that have exposed real failures on the part of the police. It would be a tragedy if we were to go backwards as an inadvertent result of the proposals in the Bill.

I want to make two remarks on matters to which we will need to return in Committee, and I pay tribute to the two maiden speeches that we have heard this afternoon—those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Newlove. They have touched on two areas in which policing has been found to have failed: diversity and ethnic minorities, and victims and their families. The two speeches were exemplars, in their different ways, of what maiden speeches should be, and were a timely reminder of the need to ensure, as we debate the Bill, that in the exercise of the functions of police commissioner and the composition of the panels, victims and ethnic minorities have their concerns taken into account. I certainly hope that we will return to that issue in Committee.

The other issue that we will have to explore with real care is operational independence. It is a matter of concern that we have not, to date, seen the protocols. We will want to see them, examine them carefully and see what the interplay will be between the panels, the police commissioner and the chief constable. As to getting that balance right in the budget, policing policies and priorities, we need to make sure that all three constituent parts of that arrangement are properly equipped, able and resourced to carry out their responsibilities. I do not accept the assurances that we have heard from those on the government Benches that the whole exercise is cost-neutral. If it is cost-neutral, it will be unable to deliver what the Government hope for, because you must resource properly the panels and the police commissioner. If you do not do that, this will be a sham exercise or an exercise that is designed purely to pander in some way to the notion that we have a form of direct accountability, when in fact we do not.

What matters above all else is the principle that Sir Robert Peel sought to enshrine in his version of policing—to recognise always that:

“The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it”.

Those words are worth repeating. Those of us in this Chamber who have been politicians know that for us the test is always visible action. That is, frankly, the great danger of some of what is proposed, unless you properly resource the role of panel and commissioner alike, because all our officers—those noble Lords who have had operational responsibility for the police—will tell us that the real test of efficiency is the test that Robert Peel set out. We need to ensure, as we take this matter forward, that it is the Peelian concept that is supported and upheld rather than any other.

19:58

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, it is with more trepidation than usual that I seek to make my maiden speech on this Bill. Not only am I still in awe of the glorious history of this Chamber and the illustrious noble Lords who have preceded me in this place, and those who are currently serving, but I am deeply conscious of the fact that this House has at present noble Lords with a total of 250 years’ service in the office of constable—from a president of the Police Superintendents’ Association to chief constables, Metropolitan Police commissioners and senior inspectors of constabulary, some with bravery awards.

I was privileged to work with some of these noble Lords in the four years that I was Police Minister in the Home Office—the most satisfying, difficult, but enjoyable post that I ever held in government. Indeed, I so much enjoyed working with the splendid members of the police service, of all ranks, that I declined to leave my post on promotion, but stayed until the electorate forcefully removed me in 1997.

Before turning to the Bill, I wish to express my appreciation of the extent and depth of welcome that I have received from noble Lords on all sides of the House, and the extraordinary help given to me daily by the doorkeepers. As an ex-Chief Whip in the other place, I thought that I had seen everything; but nothing can prepare one for the genuine warmth of welcome that a new Member receives in this House.

I support this Bill because it goes a long way towards getting national politics out of policing and lets chief officers concentrate on local priorities. Let us not kid ourselves: politics has been in policing for many years, and some of the ablest politicians I met were chief constables who were even better than the generals. However, this Bill concentrates any politics into the person of the locally elected police commissioner and reduces substantially Home Office political interference. I have been through six general elections and I know that the electorate will not vote capriciously, whimsically or erratically on things that matter to them—and local policing matters. We do the electorate a disservice if we think otherwise. In my opinion, neither of the voting systems proposed in Clause 57 will deliver extremists as police commissioners.

The old-fashioned concept of the balanced three-legged stool—the tripartite relationship of independent chief constables, strong police authorities footing the bill and the Home Office giving a bit of advice and guidance—is as mythological as the storyline of “Midsomer Murders”. It has long gone. The Home Office dictates too much local policing from Whitehall, with a plethora of targets and reporting back. The police authority is an anonymous body, not accountable to the electorate, and chief constables are first in the firing line when local politicians are unhappy about any aspect of policing in their neighbourhood.

We are told these days that all politics is local. That is a good thing. The Bill inserts an elected police commissioner between the electorate, with their aspirations and grievances, and chief constables, who have to deliver neutral, local policing. The policing panel of elected local authority councillors, the policing plan and all the consultation involved with police commissioners ensure that local priorities are addressed at that level. Chief constables should not then be dragged into political considerations. How many hours have chief constables spent in agonising over press releases on their funding settlement from the Government, and in trying to balance gentle criticism of the Government for not giving them enough money with trying to appear a champion of local interests? That should be the job of elected police commissioners, not of neutral chief constables. Rather than introduce politics for the first time, in my opinion the Bill takes out national politics and puts in local priorities.

The first clause that I looked at concerns repeals. I was delighted to see that Home Office target-setting powers are removed, with the exception of the power to set a strategic policing requirement on national security grounds. There was no harm in the past in the Home Office setting a few key targets for violent crime, burglary et cetera, but the excessive number of targets set in recent years means that this power should not be left on the statute book to be potentially abused in future.

When I look at the £50 million cost of electing police commissioners, even if it were £100 million, I would compare it to the total police budget of £13.8 billion this year. The cost of elected commissioners at £50 million is less than 0.5 per cent of local police funding. Of course, that is additional money that we are promised; it will not come out of the police settlement. Elsewhere, money is wasted. We can free up resources for the front line by speeding up the demise of the National Policing Improvement Agency, which spent £37 million on consultancy fees in the past two years alone. It performs essential services such as maintaining the police national computer homes—whatever number we have now—and the national DNA and fingerprint databases, which should be put into a trust company owned by all the police forces. Bramshill should be under Home Office control and the task of promoting best practice should be given back to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

HMIC is one of the finest examples of the police and Home Office family. It has the most highly trained police officers in the United Kingdom, who visit all forces regularly and know what is happening on the ground. Yet the role of the NPIA was expanded to do what HMIC can do a dash sight better. When we consider in Committee Clauses 84 to 90 on the functions of HMIC, I hope that we can make it clear that in addition to inspecting forces and detecting strengths and weaknesses, HMIC will be the key body,

“identifying good practice and sharing experiences from within the service”.

That is a quotation from the NPIA website on one of its main activities. I suggest that considering all the functions that the NPIA performs with regard to improving police efficiency, there is nothing that HMIC cannot do better, and at much lower cost—and from my experience, it would be done by a body that is respected, feared slightly and utterly independent.

I have tried noble Lords’ patience for too long already and I shall save my other points for Committee. I simply conclude with this point. If your Lordships think that the opinions I have expressed are right, they should support the Bill. If, on the other hand, noble Lords think that I am utterly wrong, that my judgment is flawed and that I cannot be trusted, it is absolutely vital that your Lordships support the Bill, to prevent politicians like me being in charge of the police in future in the Home Office.

20:06

[Lord Dear]

My Lords, I warmly endorse the congratulations that have been extended to the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Newlove, on their maiden speeches. I also associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, identifying the two essential elements of their very different but equally powerful speeches.

It is my pleasure and honour, by tradition, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. What an appropriate title David Maclean chose when he was ennobled. Those like me who have tramped over the high fells and mountains of the Lake District will already know Blencathra. It is a massive, whaleback fell that stands alongside Skiddaw—or “Skidda”, as he prefers to pronounce it—overlooking Keswick and guarding the northern edge of the lakes, close to the Scottish border at which it glowers. He knows the scene well, for it is in the heart of his old parliamentary constituency.

If mountains have characters, and they probably do, Blencathra exudes many of the qualities that the noble Lord brought to high office in the other place: certainty, dependability, a steadfast adherence to high principles—the pun there is deliberate—and a rock-solid determination to do the right thing at all times. I admired him for all that and for other qualities as well. As most noble Lords know, he comes widely experienced in the business of the other place and in the workings of government. He was an assistant government Whip, and later opposition Chief Whip. He was a Parliamentary Secretary in the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Minister of State at the Department of the Environment.

I saw much of the noble Lord in the role that he talked of earlier, when he was a Minister in the Home Office, where his sensitivity to human issues, frank integrity, clarity of thought and determination to cut through the dross to reach the kernel of the problem were refreshing and welcome. I am sure that we shall see more of that in your Lordships’ House. If there was a complex issue that David Maclean had in hand, you knew that it would be very well handled. His elevation to the peerage was met with universal acclaim. We all knew that he would contribute at a very high level and we have not been disappointed tonight. Far from it—his maiden speech was a model of its kind. It was succinct, apposite, humorous, forward-looking and wise. In short, it was brilliant. It is a great privilege and pleasure to follow him in this Second Reading debate, to congratulate him on behalf of the House on his speech today, to welcome him formally to his place in your Lordships’ House and to wish him well in the future.

I declare an interest: I, too, was a police officer, for around 40 years. A moment of light humour occurs to me in a rather serious debate. There is an old adage that you can never find a police officer when you want one—but here you have seven under one roof. All of them are retired and unable to cause any more damage to society than they did before. I intend to be brief because most of what I wanted to say necessarily has been said already. I intend to take a close interest in the progress of this Bill in your Lordships’ House. I am, for example, very interested in the licensing proposals and in tents on Parliament Square, but today I, too—and I do not apologise for this—want to address the proposals in Part 1 concerning commissioners.

When I read the proposals concerning police and crime commissioners in the policy review document Policing for the People, which was published two or three years ago, I was unimpressed and underwhelmed. I believed that it was all too much like the east coast of America, too prescriptive and frankly politically too dangerous. Since then, there has been a good deal of discussion with interested and concerned parties and I am now very much more relaxed about the Bill that has emerged and, quite against the seeming trend in your Lordships’ House this afternoon, I am confident enough to give it support—qualified support, but support nevertheless—at this juncture.

It is true that some existing police authorities operate very well, and their members and supporters will understandably feel aggrieved at the proposed changes. I sympathise with their position, but the fact remains that many others do not perform up to scratch or nearly well enough. Perhaps it is time to revise our current arrangements, which, as we have already heard, have been largely in their present form for almost 50 years, while society has changed immensely in the past half-century. In any case, I have to say that it is difficult to fault a proposal that seeks to create a direct channel between the man in the street on one hand and the chief police officer on the other—something that clearly does not exist at present.

I am much reassured that operational responsibility will continue to vest in the chief officer but, as Liberty has emphasised to me and others in your Lordships’ House, the overriding requirement will be to defend a non-partisan, consent-based policing tradition. We should be aware of the overriding tension that will exist in the proposed new system, which is that while chief police officers will always be answerable, as they are now, to the courts, the new commissioners will ultimately be answerable to the ballot box. It is that tension that we should keep in mind throughout the various stages of this Bill. Therein lies the potential for the law of unintended consequences to apply and it is at the root of much of the disquiet that has been evidenced today in your Lordships’ House.

Like others, I want considerable reassurance that the Bill will be constructed in such a way that single-issue politics do not encroach into this field. I go no further than that, as the point has been well made already. Like others, I want reassurance that a proper balance will be maintained between local issues and national requirements, and most important, as most speakers have identified, that the police function does not become a political football. The eagerly awaited protocols that the Government have promised will do much to assuage doubts on those scores; I, too, look for their early publication.

What about hire and fire? It is an area for the closest attention. I applaud the move to allow a chief officer to select his own deputy and assistants. That has been necessary for a long time, but when appointing a new chief officer, what advice and supervision will a commissioner receive, and from whom? Even more important, when a commissioner considers the dismissal of a chief officer, what checks will be instituted to prevent a dismissal that is ill judged, unjustified or, at worst, a malicious dismissal sought for political reasons? In July last year I sought reassurance from the Minister that the Home Secretary would retain some residual oversight of the function of dismissing a chief officer, but no such oversight is contained in the Bill at present.

Relationships between the commissioner and the local authorities in the area will be crucial. Some Members have talked about that this afternoon. How will the financial arrangements work in practice and what realistically will be the role of the police advisory panel? Can it be truly effective or will it prove to be merely an appendage? There is much more, but I do not intend to go into it. Time is pressing and we have heard much already.

I approach the subsequent stages of this Bill in your Lordships’ House optimistically. I hope that what I see is a bold attempt to begin to modernise the police service in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned. I hope that it will re-establish public confidence and the respect that, sadly, has waned over recent years and that it will put in place a cornerstone on which other initiatives can be based. Those initiatives could and should include, as has been said, the structure of the service, a crucial new approach to establishing high-quality leadership and increased economical collaboration between forces. All those and more cry out for attention. I believe that, if properly handled, this Bill could be that crucial first step towards a thoroughly modernised police service.

20:17

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I shall limit my contribution to Part 2 of the Bill, which deals with licensing. Given the way in which alcohol licensing policy impacts on lifestyle, health and safety, I suspect that many members of the public will have stronger feelings about the need for change on that issue than about police commissioners. I was reinforced in that view listening to the most moving maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. Access to and availability of alcohol under the licensing regime affect all because abuse is often linked directly to violence, anti-social behaviour, community disturbance and disorder. Those trends regrettably have been growing while other criminal statistics, as noble Lords have said, have been in decline. As the Minister said, in 2009-10 nearly half of all violent crime—almost a million incidents—was fuelled by alcohol. She could have gone on to say that more than a million hospital admissions in 2009-10 were again alcohol related. Regrettably, that figure continues to rise. I understand that there are around 78,000 additional cases in hospitals each year. An estimated 40 per cent of all accident and emergency attendances are alcohol related.

Yesterday, the Brighton Argus—the daily paper from the city where I live—published a major article in which the city’s principal medical officer, Dr Tom Scanlon, claimed that the impact of alcohol was costing Brighton and Hove £100 million a year. That figure includes the cost of treating people with illnesses caused by drinking excessively and of dealing with alcohol crime. He called for a tougher stance on providing alcohol licences in the city and for the low cost of alcohol to be addressed. The Government have already been turning their attention to the latter, but I am not quite sure whether he will have been pleased with what has emanated from the Government so far.

Dr Scanlon argued that the increased availability of alcohol and the rise in the number of licences now being granted were significant factors affecting Brighton and Hove overall. That applies especially to the growing number of licences being granted for off-licensed premises, in many of which cheap drink is available. In Brighton, 73 per cent of A&E attendances on Friday and Saturday evenings are substance or drink related, yet every week ever more drink licences are being granted.

Licences are going, amazingly, to places such as fish and chip shops and video hire shops. Innumerable grocery stores are now being granted licences for drink. Licences are even going to sandwich shops— Submarine applied for a licence to sell drink with its sandwiches. I have drawn the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who is the Minister responsible, to the fact that, under the transferring of local post offices, they, too, are being granted alcohol licences. I have sent a photograph of a local one where the window is piled high with alcohol, even though the post office shop is immediately next to an off-licence and within 50 yards on either side are two major supermarkets selling alcohol.

I freely knowledge that some of the responsibility for those changes has its origin in the Licensing Acts 2003 and 2005. Some of us on these Benches were unhappy with what was being passed by our Government then. It cannot be denied that the earlier legislation effected a major shift, with the presumption embedded in it that all new licence applications should be approved.

I welcome the Government’s decision last autumn to review local licensing arrangements and to seek to rebalance the Licensing Acts so that there is a better balance between applicants and the needs of the local community. I welcome in general many of the changes that the Minister has outlined in Part 2, where I will be prepared to give support, but I have concerns in a number of areas and I wonder whether we may not be embarking on a further policy of nice words and of smoothing the hair but with no action to be seen.

I have two or three questions about what the Minister said in moving Second Reading. She said that there will be a lower evidential threshold; I understood her to say that it will be more difficult to get agreement that a licence should be granted. Am I correct and, if so, what will the threshold be? Will the Government define their objectives and set out how they expect people to try to attain them?

Also, to my surprise, the Minister did not mention the fact that, in the earlier reviews and exchanges, it was suggested that a public health factor could be considered by committees when deciding whether licences should be granted. The original idea was that PCTs would be imported into the process and would be exercising a judgment. In the light of what is happening on the health service front, will PCTs be used for the interim? If not, has the proposal been totally dropped? If it has not been totally dropped, who will take the position of the PCTs? To what extent will they have power to influence decisions taken locally? Will the public health factor be of sufficient weight to ensure that an application is vetoed in an area where there are already a fair number of licensed premises?

Finally, it is generally accepted that cost is an important factor in all alcohol issues. This is being addressed from a variety of standpoints and I know that a strategy is to be drawn up later in the year on the approach to alcohol. A whole range of different strands will have to be brought together, but cost is, in the opinion of many people who know something about the subject, very much at the heart of the solution.

In the Commons, an amendment was introduced only very late in the process to devolve the setting of licence fees from the centre to the local level. I would like to know why it was done so late in the exercise. Is that devolved power limited to a reimbursement of the costs incurred in considering a licence, or will true localism operate so that local authorities are given permission to set the cost of licences at whatever they consider appropriate in the best interests of the community, although that may exceed the cost of reimbursement for the bureaucratic exercise? I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could answer those questions when she winds up.

20:25

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to all of today's maiden speakers. We have heard some brilliant and moving speeches today. Most speakers have concentrated their remarks on Part 1. I am in complete agreement with the views of my noble friends on the issue of elected police commissioners, but I focus my remarks on the extensive changes proposed to the Licensing Act 2003 under Part 2, like the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.

The genesis of and authority for the current proposals in Part 2 are contained in the section of the coalition agreement headed “Crime and Policing”, and the statements:

“We will overhaul the Licensing Act to give local authorities and the police much stronger powers to remove licences from, or refuse to grant licences to, any premises that are causing problems. … We will permit local councils to charge more for late-night licences to pay for additional policing”.

There is also, however, a statement later in the agreement:

“We will cut red tape to encourage the performance of more live music”.

That encouraged me earlier this year to introduce the Live Music Bill as a Private Member’s Bill.

I have been in strong agreement with those who want to stamp out alcohol abuse in our town centres. I live in the inner city and share many of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, but I have strong concerns about some of the provisions in the Bill, some of which relate to the impact on the performance of live music, but others of which are more general in nature concerning the regulatory burden they impose. Although some aspects of Part 2 are very welcome, its provisions seem to go well beyond the bounds of the coalition agreement.

Let me take some of the proposals in turn. First, there is the vicinity test. The current vicinity test for making representations will be removed, and any party will be able to object to a live music event if they are located in the licensing authority area. A person will no longer be required to be an interested person in order to object. Why? What mischief has been detected which must be cured by these provisions? As was clear, the proposed removal received a majority-negative response in the consultation. Respondents of all kinds suggested that that proposal could lead to a rise in vexatious complaints and give disproportionate influence to non-local individuals.

Secondly, in Clause 110, entitled, “Reducing the burden: premises licences”, we have the proposed reduction of the evidence required for the attachment of licence conditions, so that they are “appropriate” rather than “necessary”. During Committee in the other place, the Government justified the lowering of the evidence test from necessary to appropriate on the grounds that some local authorities feared that a particular condition or step that they sought to take would not be regarded as necessary. They admitted, however, that support for the measure was based on anecdotal evidence. Surely that is insufficient grounds on which to base a change of this nature, which will fundamentally alter the Licensing Acts.

Why should we reduce the evidence base for conditions so that the need for them becomes a more subjective matter of opinion? That will only lead to conditions being challenged more than currently, resulting in an increased burden on licensing committees, the courts and licensed premises. The licensed trade believes that the current “necessary” test has worked well and has ensured that conditions attached to licences are fair and address specific concerns, as opposed to being unfair and disproportionate. Where is the evidence otherwise?

Then there is the question of objection to temporary event notices. Previously, the police could object only on crime prevention grounds. Now, they and the environmental health authorities will be able to object on the basis of any of the four licensing objectives, and licensing authorities will be able to impose conditions. Temporary event notices are largely used by community groups. Allowing objections to temporary event notices could inadvertently affect a huge range of events, such as community events, village fetes and charity fundraising events. Where is the justification for these changes? Where is the evidence that these additional powers of objection are needed? Are we just creating more bureaucracy for community groups for no purpose? What price the big society and local initiative?

Then we have the early morning restriction orders. The ministerial foreword and the Government’s response to the consultation on the Bill recognise and acknowledge that the majority of premises are well run businesses. Then we have the early morning restriction orders that contradict that, in so far as businesses that have applied for and been granted hours beyond midnight—until 1 am or 2 am, for example—will be penalised through no fault of their own if such orders are imposed. They will simply be swept up in a requirement to cease to trade at midnight.

What exemptions will there be from EMROs? It is important that such exemptions also recognise best practice and social responsibility initiatives, rather than being solely based on premises type. This would ensure that well run businesses that would not otherwise qualify for an exemption are not being unduly penalised by the provisions. Such a blanket measure in itself risks large numbers of customers coming out on to the street at the same time, just like the bad old days. Would it not be more practical to tackle those premises which are the source of the problem rather than penalising responsible premises?

I move on to the late night levy. A large number of trade organisations are particularly concerned about the untargeted nature of the proposed levy for late night premises. The power can only be applied across a licensing authority district as a whole, rather than a specific area, and its untargeted nature means that many responsible businesses will be caught.

A late night levy can be imposed irrespective of whether a bar is a source of disturbance. Ultimately, it is unfair that any licensed premises operating in a responsible manner should have to pay such a charge when the best course of action would be specifically to tackle the irresponsible operators, or indeed individual members of the public who cause problems. Is it not patently unfair, as was pointed out in Committee in the other place, to impose a charge on a business which may be 20 miles away from the source of the problem? As the trade associations point out, it is vital that there are appropriate exemptions and discounts on the levy for recognised best practice and social responsibility schemes.

Finally, businesses in the sector are concerned about the cost implications of late amendments tabled by the Government on fees—a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke—without any adequate explanation for their decision or impact assessment. In the event that fees are to be set locally by licensing authorities, there should be a national cap on the levels that may be charged. A precedent for this is contained in the Gambling Act 2005 with regard to a cap on fees for gaming licences, and it appears to have worked well.

My overriding concern is that all these proposals will add considerably to the regulatory burden of business without a corresponding impact on crime prevention.

The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers estimates that the average cost per pub will be in the order of £2,000 to £5,000, but this could double when reform of annual fees is taken into account. It complains, justifiably, that this is yet another cost burden imposed on the trade at a time when the Government are seeking to encourage growth and job creation. The measures introduce significant additional costs for those trading responsibly beyond midnight in particular, and introduce uncertainty by increasing the likelihood that licences will be refused or reviewed with no account taken of their previous trading history or their good relationship with the community. Indeed, as the Government’s own regulatory impact assessment makes clear, the net effect of these reforms will see licences refused, revoked and additional conditions imposed, with more restrictive outcomes of appeals and hearings.

What evidence is there that all this extra regulation is needed? Are we not meant to be a deregulatory Government? Instead it will significantly add to the burden of business. I took the liberty of looking at the business department’s website to see how the “one in, one out” rule applied. I do not see where the “one out” comes in for every regulation imposed by this Bill. I wait to be enlightened by the Minister, but is not this very Bill, in the way it has been put into effect—unless the Home Office is exempted in some shape or form from the need to deregulate—contrary to government policy? I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that.

20:35

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, it is very good to be able to contribute to a debate that has included three such distinguished maiden speeches. I extend congratulations to the authors of those speeches.

I should like to focus on Clause 154 in Part 4, but with a viewpoint somewhat different from those expressed by the two noble Lords who addressed that clause.

My concern about Clause 154 is that it adds a second layer of legal process to an already stringent procedure to arrest and prosecute those suspected of war crimes. The clause requires any potential case for arrest to be referred not only to the magistrates, as is the case at the moment, but to the DPP before any magistrate can issue a warrant.

For those who are perhaps unfamiliar with the background, very briefly, it is this. The UK Government, under their universal jurisdiction obligations, can and should facilitate the arrest and questioning of any person suspected of grave offences, such as hijacking, hostage taking, torture and/or grave war crimes. The principle of universal jurisdiction extends even to those non-UK nationals suspected of grave offences committed outside the UK. Any prosecution however is dependent on the consent of the DPP, thus the two events, arrest and prosecution, are distinct. Clause 154 now conflates these two procedures by requiring all the evidence previously dealt with by magistrates to come before the DPP before any decision on arrest can take place.

Clearly, there are limitations to these procedures, in particular that of diplomatic immunity. By long-standing agreement those in senior government positions are protected from criminal investigation and/or prosecution. There is also a degree of immunity for former government Ministers.

In addition to this convention of immunity, there are many other obstacles to the successful prosecution of war criminals, which include the reluctance of the police to act upon information more often provided by human rights groups, the slowness of reaction allowing suspects to avoid arrest, and the lack of what is perceived to be incontrovertible evidence of crimes against humanity. The new clause presupposes that the DPP might require an even higher standard of proof, creating an almost impossible task for NGOs.

In the past 10 years, there have been 10 applications for the arrest of suspected perpetrators of serious crimes and only two of those have resulted in the issuing of actual warrants. The human rights organisation Redress, of which I was a director many years ago, makes it clear in its report that senior district judges take great care in determining whether the high threshold of evidence, liability and jurisdiction has been met and that no immunity applies.

The evidence therefore suggests that the current system enables the judiciary to filter out any potential abuse—a threat the Government cite as one of the reasons for introducing the involvement of the DPP at the initial stages of any potential prosecution that we are today discussing. One cannot view this system as it exists today as anything but a responsible one. So the question arises: why it is necessary to add another level of permission? The arguments put forward by the Government focus on the fact that any threat of arrest prevents those with whom the Government wish to engage risking travel to the UK.

One understands that any Government, including that of the UK, wish to avoid embarrassment, and certainly to avoid at all costs the arrest of former government Ministers in the absence of sound evidence. But as I hope I have shown, the current system is pretty tough and has not resulted in a flood of arrests or prosecutions; in fact, quite the contrary. The clause about which I have concerns in effect introduces a policy that will provide a discretionary extension of current immunities to categories of persons outside the established rules, and in doing so it undermines, to say the least, the principle of universal jurisdiction to which the UK Government are committed and, as a consequence, contributes to a politicisation of the judicial process. The result is that the UK could well come to be seen as a country friendly—even more friendly, perhaps—to those suspected of war crimes.

Instead, one would wish that the Government would bring in measures to enhance and make more effective the current system by providing more resources to the police and the CPS in order to pursue cases and by developing clear and coherent policies to make the UK a no-go area for perpetrators of heinous human rights abuses.

20:41

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, this has been a remarkable occasion in the House of Lords. The depth and experience of the speeches has been terrific, and I am so glad to have been here to listen to three moving maiden speeches. I congratulate the Government on introducing an important Bill that in many ways is very radical. I think it will be a big step forward. I should say straightaway that a lot of work has been put into it, unlike some of the other pieces of legislation that have been put before us in recent months which have been ill digested and caused a great deal of grief all the way round.

I, too, want to focus on Part 1 covering the proposals for elected police and crime commissioners and to say something about Part 3 covering the proposals for Parliament Square. We have all had many representations on the Bill. I found the ACPO submission helpful, and I have had the advantage of a discussion with the chief constable of my own home county force in Suffolk and a discussion with the chair of the Suffolk police authority.

There are four reasons, most of which have been referred to, why elected commissioners for forces outside London would be a huge advance. The precedents in the United States, although totally rubbish at one point, have in general been helpful. Those in the UK certainly have been. Secondly, people do not feel that they have an individual whom they can hold to account, to whom they can make representations on their expectations or occasionally express their unhappiness with the performance of the police. Thirdly, the police should be held accountable, not in terms of their individual operations but for their overall operational efficiency. Fourthly, and it has not been referred to sufficiently, the police often need a local person who has the democratic authority to speak up on their behalf.

Let me also acknowledge some of the concerns that the police have over this change. Will there be interference with operational independence? Will an elected commissioner have a party political agenda, a manifesto commitment or the need to demonstrate personal energy or achievement? Will the police and crime panel advising the commissioner have too many powers of veto over a chief constable’s plans? Will the appointment and removal of chief officers continue to be fair and independent? Will the security clearance of the police and crime commissioners be adequate for them to receive full and frank briefings on sensitive matters of security and criminal intelligence?

I believe that the transfer of responsibility for the Met from the Home Secretary to the mayor have been a real success. I remember a wonderful man called Donald Grant, chief of public relations at the Home Office in the days when Lord Whitelaw was Home Secretary, once saying to me, as a journalist asking why something I was going to write about had not been done, “You know, Mark, when Willie is dealing with the Met, he is treading on eggshells”. That is not a healthy relationship. Perhaps one of the worst examples was in July 1982 when a man got into the Queen’s bedroom in Buckingham Palace. The commissioner at the time refused to resign, as I personally believe he should have done.

My noble friend Lord Howard has pointed out that the membership of local police authorities, even the chair, is sometimes unknown to 99 per cent or 99.9 per cent of the local population; I cannot remember which figure he used. That is a real democratic deficit. Even MEPs have a better level of recognition than that. The new police and crime panels will be very important. I suspect that they really could be smaller than the 17 members there are on police authorities, and in many ways, although they will be appointed from local authorities, they will often effectively act as deputies for the commissioner him or herself.

The maintenance of operational independence does not mean that a commissioner’s involvement with operational efficiency is in any way inappropriate. For example, the police can sometimes be quite clumsy in the way in which they handle traffic incidents, showing little regard for the inconvenience to road users from long road closures and diversions. It is perfectly proper and desirable that commissioners should be able to reflect consequent public irritation on such matters. I believe that neighbourhood watch schemes are important and have a real contribution to make, yet quite often the police regard them as just a nuisance.

Another really important point, which I mentioned earlier in my four reasons, is that the commissioner should be able to represent the views of the police when it is difficult for them to do so themselves. For example, when there is ill-founded criticism of the use of profiling for policing, even though the shortage of resources for the police means they have to use them efficiently, an elected commissioner speaking for the taxpayer should be able to mount an effective and brisk defence of the police. I noticed last week that the Chairman of British Airways, Sir Martin Broughton, talked a lot of sense on that issue in relation to the scrutiny of passengers.

Finally, I want to say a brief word on the proposals for Parliament Square in Part 3. I hope we can all agree that Parliament Square is the most appropriate place for public demonstrations to parliamentarians, the public and the media on any matter which is of public concern. But it should be a vibrant and fluid place, not a squalid camp with faded and tattered banners or a precious space hogged by some for months or even years. I am afraid the Bill as drafted, with its five pages of legislation, is not the best way forward. In February 2011, I published a Private Member’s Bill, the Parliament Square (Management) Bill, which proposes in four clauses and on only two pages a simpler and, I believe, more elegant solution. Under my Bill, there would be a Parliament Square committee made up of all the bodies responsible for the square. It would have the power and the obligation to remove from Parliament Square each night at any time between midnight and 6 am all litter, detritus or other debris, including tents and sleeping equipment. I believe within two or three weeks we would have a transformed square. I propose in Committee to introduce some amendments to the Government's Bill. I have talked to a number of colleagues on all sides of the House and I feel I have some hope of getting some support.

20:49

[Lord Desai]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord with whom I came into your Lordships’ Chamber 20 years ago. There is an iron law of British politics that the Home Office introduces the maximum number of Bills in every Parliament. Every Home Office Bill is large and very complex, aims to cure the problems caused by previous Home Office Bills, and goes on to create new problems which subsequent Home Office Bills will have to cure. I do not think that we have seen any break in that iron law so far.

I shall speak only to Part 3. As far as policing goes, my experience is of being in Grosvenor Square in March 1968 and being chased by police horses rather than being on a police horse chasing demonstrators. From that point of view, I would have much preferred this Bill to have got us back to the Public Order Act 1986 and done nothing more. It will be 10 years on 2 June 2011 that Mr Brian Haw has been demonstrating in Parliament Square. He has been there since before 9/11 and before the Iraq war. In the mean time Parliament has—if I may use unparliamentary language—disgraced itself in its behaviour towards what is, after all, a non-violent demonstration. It is squalid; it is dirty; it embarrasses us. But that is the nature of freedom.

Freedom is not designed to have people demonstrate in morning suits, except maybe to go to the royal wedding, for which even the Prime Minister has had to agree to wear a morning suit. But the whole point of the freedom to demonstrate is that it will be embarrassing and troublesome. If we do not grant that freedom, what are we here for? What is the parliament of a free country for if it cannot tolerate a little bit of noise? And it is much less noise than the House of Commons makes itself—but that is beside the point. Is a little bit of noise so inconveniencing to Members of Parliament that we have to ban this, persecuting and prosecuting this man for years on end, and for what purpose? He is not breaking any law. He is not smashing glass windows in Great George Street or anything like that. He is just standing there saying, “It is shocking that 10,000 people, or whatever, have died”.

I supported the Iraq war. I have no compunction in that. I am a humanitarian warmonger, as I have often called myself. But I still feel that if someone wants to demonstrate in Parliament Square, if they do it peacefully and non-violently, they have a fundamental right to do that. It is no good having the Human Rights Act or abiding by the European Convention on Human Rights—as every Minister says he will do on the front of a Bill—if all we are going to do is prosecute innocent people. I have been on the prosecuted side. I have been on civil rights marches in America and on student demonstrations here. I marched against the Vietnam War. I will not forget my past, but I still think that the Bill should retain Clause 142 and junk Clauses 143 to 150.

We do not need a management committee or a clean-up operation. None of that is necessary. If noble Lords watched tourists going by as often as I have—I do not have a car, so I often walk round these premises and streets—they would see that tourists are fascinated that the British political system allows someone to abuse it right in front of Parliament. We should be proud of that. It should be a world heritage site more than anything else. I do not know how much it has cost us to chase this poor single man around the courts and so forth. Since the calculus is how many police officers we can employ, I am sure that we could have employed 10 or 15 police officers for the costs that we have incurred.

I urge the Government even now to go back to their libertarian principles. The Liberal Democrat Party has libertarian principles. The Conservatives were supposed to have libertarian principles once upon a time when I knew them. There is no problem and no harm is being caused. We should leave people alone and let them demonstrate. It is the oldest freedom and one that we have fought for over many centuries. We can once again get back to the sanity of the Public Order Act 1986. When it was passed it was perfectly adequate, and it had long been adequate before the previous Government, I am sad to say, panicked and brought in this SOCPA legislation, which is completely over the top.

There is still a chance to withdraw from all this nonsense and keep Clause 142, which allows for the Public Order Act to come back into operation. That is more than enough. It would be a proud tribute to the libertarian traditions of the coalition, while it lasts.

20:57

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, I am part of the coalition, which I hope will last. I want to address my remarks both to universal jurisdiction, in Section 154, and to licensing—to the universal and the local, if I can put it that way. No one is trying to stop universal jurisdiction for the prosecution of suspected war criminals. That case was made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, by my noble friend Lord Carlile and by the Minister when she spoke at the beginning of the debate, so I thought that I would just stand up and say that I agreed. Luckily for me, the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, added some comments that I can elaborate on.

The noble Baroness pointed out that we do not want a two-tier system. I am sorry that she is not in her place, but we already have a two-tier system. If I talk about private prosecutions, the next stage is the Attorney-General. The two-tier is already there, so she is not correct in that assumption.

The usual course at the moment is that when someone is accused, the police investigate and pass the file to the Crown Prosecution Service. If the Crown Prosecution Service feels that there is a realistic chance of conviction and a prosecution is in the public interest, it will charge the accused with the crime. It has powers of arrest while it investigates. That is the case now and that will be the case after and if the Bill is passed.

In answer to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, although she is not here to hear the answer, if she had followed the case in the House of Commons she would know that, in answer to one of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, the Minister gave extra reassurance that the Crown Prosecution Service would be given sufficient resources to give exactly what the noble Baroness is complaining about, which is not happening now.

The difference in a private prosecution is that the test is much lower—a prima facie case—and the magistrate is shown only the alleged evidence for the prosecution and nothing at all from the defence. There has never been a private prosecution for universal jurisdiction ending with a conviction. There has never been a trial. Comments were made that there were only 10 cases, of which only two had arrest warrants, but they never went to trial.

So, at present, an arrest warrant is issued and the person concerned is not informed, nor can he or she defend themselves. The person foolish enough to come to our democracy is arrested, and then, currently, the Attorney-General—the second tier, which the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, did not notice—will decide whether there is a realistic case to answer.

The change effected by the Bill would be that someone can still be accused before an arrest warrant is issued but the Director of Public Prosecutions would have to agree that a prosecution should go forward. The change, which is very good for a democracy, is that you are taking out the politician—the Attorney-General—and replacing them with the DPP, who is not a politician and who has given lots of assurances in the other place. When we spoke about this outside this Chamber, people asked me what the difference is and why someone should not be arrested by the magistrates’ court. The bottom line is that, under the current system, that person could spend two nights in jail before the Attorney-General said that there was no case and they were released. However, if there was a case—whether it is a Crown Prosecution Service arrest or one that arose out of a private prosecution, supported by the DPP—universal jurisdiction and all the things that follow would be there. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, also said that there should be no politicisation of the process. I assure her that the DPP is not a politician—however, the Attorney-General is, and that aspect of the current system is being changed.

I now turn to the localism of the licensing section. Until the last two or three speakers spoke—the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Clement-Jones—I thought that this would break new ground and offer a little light relief from police commissioners. Part 2, which covers this issue, is pretty good apart from one point, which I think is wrong—the Minister used the word “vicinity” when she talked about widening the places from where people can make objections. At first glance, that is correct, because anyone within the local authority area can object now, which is an improvement. However, local authority areas have boundaries. In my own area of London, there is a boundary for instance between the borough of Barnet and the borough of Brent, called the Edgware Road. There is a pub I can think of on the Brent side of the road that causes great trouble, which, indeed, is subject to a licensing appeal and hearings. However, the people on the other side of the road, in Barnet, under the current draft of the Bill, would not be able to object, because although they live in the vicinity, they live in a neighbouring licensing authority area. I hope to bring forward a minor amendment to include that in Committee.

The Bill itself, as far as licensing is concerned, is dealing very much with dotting the “i”s and crossing the “t”s. However, the trouble is that we have moved in this country towards the free availability of alcohol under the licensing legislation, which did not exist before. Licensed establishments tended to close at 11.30 pm, perhaps with a half-hour drinking-up time. We were told that in order to stop the inebriated persons—let us call them drunks—coming out of the pubs at 11.30 pm in one horde, we would lessen the load by spreading it from 11.30 pm to 12.30 am, 1 am, 3 am and so on, and then it would be easier. Our neighbours across the channel sit quietly at the tables and drink their wine in a civilised fashion, or so we are told.

The halcyon days of the pubs closing at 11.30 pm have now moved on to the pubs emptying out over a period of hours. During that period, those inebriated people may be kept under control within the licensed establishment, but once they are outside, it is the responsibility of the police. Local communities are being treated very, very badly by the freeing up of licensing laws. One noble Lord talked about licensed retailers selling alcohol. So many retailers—someone mentioned a fish and chip shop and someone mentioned a post office—are extending their licensing hours and applying to sell alcohol that it is free for drinking not only within the pubs but in our streets. I believe that that aspect of the Bill needs to be looked at again.

21:05

[Baroness Coussins]

My Lords, I rise to add a few brief thoughts in relation to the provisions in Part 2 concerning the licensing offence of persistently selling alcohol to children. I will first declare some interests. I am a former chief executive of the Portman Group and a former member of the Alcohol Education and Research Council. I currently work as a paid adviser on corporate responsibility to two drinks companies, whose names are listed in the register. I emphasise that I provide them with non-parliamentary advice and that I have had no discussion about this Bill with either company.

The Bill would double the maximum fine imposed for persistently selling alcohol to children from £10,000 to £20,000. I have no problem in principle about a £20,000 fine for this crime. After all, it is perfectly easy to not break the law by always asking for reliable proof of age and refusing to serve any young person who does not have it. The problem is that, even if the fine were a million pounds, it would still be completely ineffective and meaningless unless the law were properly and rigorously enforced. There is no point in having a tough law if people think their chances of being caught are minimal. Under the Licensing Act 2003, the number of people taken to court for persistently selling alcohol to children has been minuscule. It was eight people in 2008, of whom seven were found guilty. In 2009, the last year for which figures are available, this fell to only four people prosecuted and convicted. There have been no occasions to date in which the full £10,000 fine has been applied, and the average fine is just £1,700, a very long way short of the proposed new maximum.

Could the Minister clarify the Government's objective in proposing this clause? If it is to deter people from the crime of selling alcohol to children, how do they expect to be taken seriously enough when the existing law is so feebly enforced? Would it not be a more effective strategy to ensure that the police, local authorities and trading standards officers have sufficient resources to conduct regular, rigorous and extensive test purchasing operations, accompanied by publicity and public education, so that licensees were in no doubt that selling to children would be extremely high risk, putting their licence, their livelihood and their reputation on the line? I am concerned that test purchasing is just the sort of multi-agency activity that will become vulnerable to budgetary cuts in the current economic climate. If the penalties, even if doubled, were never applied because the law is barely enforced, we could end up with neither the prevention that test purchasing provides nor the cure of the law for those who do offend.

I draw attention to another aspect of the existing licensing law, which is the offence of buying alcohol on behalf of children—often known as proxy purchase—where unscrupulous adults will buy alcohol to pass on to children, very often children who are not even known to them but who have stopped them in the street outside licensed premises. Even though the incidence of prosecution and conviction for this offence is still remarkably low, the numbers are much higher than for illegal sales directly to children. In 2008, 42 people were taken to court and 28 were convicted. In 2009, the figures were 29 prosecutions resulting in 25 convictions. This offence carries only a level 5 fine, which is a maximum of £5,000. Why is the Bill not also proposing to double the fine for this offence or to put it on a par with the offence of persistent direct sales to children? Many local authorities now recognise that the offence of proxy purchase is an increasingly significant source of alcohol for the under-18s and are working hard with retailers and the police in community alcohol partnerships to tackle it.

Also absent from the Bill is any proposal to increase the fine for serving customers who are already drunk. This has been an offence for years but, again, the law seems to be virtually unenforced. In 2008, 17 prosecutions were made, resulting in just seven convictions. In 2009, these figures fell to eight prosecutions and just six convictions. Most people in a town-centre pub on a Friday or Saturday night will probably have witnessed that many breaches of the law in 10 minutes. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House why the offence of serving children has been singled out for increased penalties but not the offence of serving drunks or of proxy purchase. Incidentally, I place on record my thanks to the Library researchers in your Lordships' House for providing me only yesterday with all the up-to-date figures that I have quoted this evening.

If the Government’s intention is to rebalance the Licensing Act, this must mean something in practice, not just in terms of the theory of what the law says, which remains meaningless if unenforced. Considerable rebalancing could be achieved by the effective enforcement of the existing law on selling to children and to drunks. But if more severe penalties are genuinely considered to be justified—and I am not sure yet that we have heard that convincing case—could the Government at least be even-handed and apply the penalty upgrade to all the relevant offences that I have mentioned?

21:12

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, batting at number 36 in the order for this debate, I can offer very little that is new. The House will have heard the collective experience of retired Metropolitan commissioners and chief constables, and we will hear from past members of police authorities and many others in the field of law enforcement. Many of the contributions have been informed by first-hand experience of policing and in the criminal justice system. I declare an interest in that for a year I chaired a public inquiry into the professional standards and workplace practices of the Metropolitan Police. I pause here to pay tribute to all those members of police authorities up and down the country who gave evidence to my inquiry.

In the light of my experience of chairing the Morris inquiry, and having listened to the wealth of retired chief officers and others, I ask myself whether our police service is broken. My certain answer is no. Can it be improved? Of course, the answer is yes. Is this Bill the vehicle for that improvement? To that question, I conclude that the jury is out. What then is the added value of the policing Bill before us? What is the value of replacing police authorities? We have argued over many years that democratic accountability is important and it was said earlier in this debate that the missing link was the election of the authorities. We must now ask ourselves whether the elected police and crime commissioners will fill that void and that vacuum. How will an elected commissioner change the daily crime experience of the people in many of our communities—those who live in St Pauls in Bristol, Toxteth, Brixton, and Handsworth in my home city? Will the citizens of these communities feel any safer because the commissioner is now elected? I fear not. I ask these questions because these provisions will be measured by the experience of the citizens. That is how the Bill will be tested and measured.

Perhaps the Minister can clarify for us the method of election because, as we read in the impact assessment note from the Home Office, it is not necessarily going to be first past the post, nor AV. Indeed, the note advises that elections will be held using a supplementary vote system and will cost, as we have been told, some £50 million over four years. The striking fact here is that the SV system will cost by itself an additional £5 million. Perhaps the Minister can also enlighten the House with a gentle tutorial on the SV system because it is not popularly understood, or indeed popularly promoted. I ask myself whether that £5 million might make a tremendous difference to a number of officers—front-line serving officers—who are leaving the service because of the budget cuts.

We look to our police chief officers not only to walk the beat, as they say, but to be trusted builders of social capital in our communities. I doubt that the elected commissioners will deliver the social capital, reassurance on concerns, understanding and sensitivity to our communities that are so vital if we are to maintain cohesion in them. Our police service is not perfect by any means but it is a changing force that is much more responsive to the public whom it serves. The recent TUC demonstration, for example, was typical of the change taking place in our police services. They invited over 100 observers to be present in the control room to observe the demonstration, to give advice and to be consulted. They are getting closer to the people and becoming much more accountable.

I am aware that elected commissioners, even by another name, are common practice in the United States. While I am not saying that everything that happens in America is bad, what is good for American society and its community is not always good for Britain. Politics and policing do not mix. Our police deserve our support; they do not need our politics.

21:18

[Viscount Brookeborough]

My Lords, please forgive me, someone from Northern Ireland, for joining a Second Reading debate on a Bill that is primarily about English and Welsh policing. I declare an interest as I was a member of the security forces in the Province for many years and worked closely supporting the police, planning and patrolling with them frequently—almost daily, sometimes—on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. I was also a member of the first Northern Ireland Policing Board, formed in response to the Patten report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes. That Policing Board was in fact an enhanced model of an English police authority. I hope that that experience justifies my giving an opinion in this case.

I come from an area that, sadly, through necessity, had the most politicised policing in Europe. Remember that those opposing the Government shot and blew up the police, the supporting security forces and many others as well. The Patten report and the consequential Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 set in place mechanisms to depoliticise the police and to make the force more acceptable and responsive to community opinions. We now even have the ex-terrorists in government, encouraging their community to join the police. Sadly, I realise that a small number of their erstwhile colleagues are still killing and maiming, which, of course, we all condemn.

Why on earth is the coalition moving towards greater politicisation, rather than away from it? The Minister said that the Bill would transfer power to communities and professionals. For the life of me, I do not see communities involved, except through local politicians. I cannot even see the professionals whom she talks about—professionals of what? They all look like politicians to me, except for two token independents appointed to the panels. For all the reasons given more eloquently by others, I am very much against the establishment of this elected police and crime commissioner working in isolation. I cannot see how an individual can do the work of an authority on his or her own. Who will do the committee work—the staff? It is not what they are there for. Will he or she have a deputy? If there is no deputy, how on earth is this going to run, not only if that person is away, but if they fall ill? The Minister said that the PCCs would be cost-neutral. Maybe, but the PCPs can only have teeth, which she insisted they would have, if they are provided with structure and substantial funding—in effect, mirroring the PCC’s office. This, of course, is unnecessary.

Although our governance of policing in the Province is by no means perfect, some of what we do is perhaps relevant. We have come from a long way behind, but now we are well ahead of these retrograde steps proposed in the Bill. Northern Ireland is the size of Yorkshire and our Assembly is equivalent to the Yorkshire council, to put it into perspective. Our Policing Board is the equivalent of a combination of the proposed PCC and PCP, with, if you like, the PCC becoming our chairman.

However, although we have Assembly Members equivalent to councillors in England and Wales on our board, we also have independent members who most importantly outnumber the political members. Collectively, they elect the chairman; it does not take much guessing to see that they will not elect a political one. We then also have another body even closer to the communities: district policing partnerships, which consist of councillors in our case, although in England and Wales it might be parish council members—again, critically, with a larger number of independents than elected representatives.

The independents on both these bodies are appointed to provide community balance. The Secretary of State appoints independents to the board, while the committee of the board appoints those on the district policing partnerships. I was on the first panel for appointing independents to DPPs. In carrying out this task, we had to take some of the following criteria, laid down in legislation, into consideration to provide balance: religion, gender, age, geographic location of people’s homes, the less able-bodied and the disadvantaged. We also had to include those who were victims. In her most moving maiden speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, brought up this requirement and the option of having victims represented and involved. Whether that will come about, we wait to see. We have already got this in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the lesson is that, rather than going far away to the US, where there is a totally different scale and a totally different society, and where a lot of what goes on is quite questionable—the Policing Board made a lot of visits there—we should try looking closer to home, taking examples that are built on our own culture.

In respect of what I have said, in this Bill the coalition is tackling the issues from the top down when it should be tackling them from the bottom up from the community. The declared aim is to provide accountability and connection with the communities. Policing is about policing communities, especially the minorities, and protecting them. Where in the Bill is the inclusion of ethnic minorities, equal gender representation, the aged, the less able-bodied, the disadvantaged and the victims, among others? They simply do not appear. I just do not see that the Bill solves the problems; in my view, it will make them worse.

There is a myth that you often hear that more policemen on the street will not solve our problems. In Northern Ireland during the Troubles, we had what amounted to saturation policing, with the support of the military. As opposed to what we have now in my area, where there are 14 policemen, there were up to 650 security force people—it was saturation. What we called ODC—ordinary decent crime—was at a very low level because of the presence on the street. I accept that we cannot afford to do that here, but it is not true that police on the beat do not inhibit crime. They do, and we must find a way of getting them out of the stations and on to the beat.

21:27

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, in Committee I plan to participate in debates about a range of issues, including Parliament Square, but today I will concentrate on Part 1 of the Bill and the main issue of elected police and crime commissioners.

I support the idea of elected PCCs because I believe in the power of individual leadership. Yes, we will need strong candidates who are good communicators to come forward with manifestos that are as realistic as they are ambitious, and we will need all the right safeguards to protect the vital principle of police operational independence. If we get the detail of the legislation right, though, I believe that elected PCCs will create an opportunity to renew our fight against crime in a way that unites the police and our citizens.

I am not a policing expert but I am interested in the Bill and the proposal for elected PCCs for two reasons. The first is an interest in the impact of crime, particularly antisocial behaviour and drug-related and drink-related crime, on people’s morale and the ambitions that they might have for themselves and their families. The second is a general interest in people’s lack of confidence in, and their frustration with, our political system.

In preparing for the Bill and deciding whether or not to participate in it, I did a lot of reading and research. That included all the research that was relevant to the proposals in the Bill about PCCs. For me, other evidence not directly about PCCs was more interesting and useful in forming my views. First, in the context of some work that I have been doing for the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, I have been reading a report published in 2006 following an extensive study about declining participation and disillusion in the political system by the Power commission, which was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I do not agree with all its recommendations but the analysis that it offers about why people feel disengaged is very interesting. The report’s central point—what it says underlines a wide range of frustrations that people have—is important in the context of our debate today, and it is this: basically, people feel that they do not have enough influence over the decisions that affect them.

Elected PCCs will offer a real say on how crime will be fought in local areas. I believe that PCCs, standing on a manifesto that people can judge, working with the police chief on a strategic plan to deliver what the people have voted for and setting the right budget so that they have the money to do it, are a powerful response to what people feel they need now in our political system.

The second piece of research that I looked at was more recent. It was research into crime and punishment, commissioned by my noble friend Lord Ashcroft. As your Lordships will know, he is the founder of Crimestoppers and the chairman of its trustees. I have no idea what he thinks about elected PCCs; I do not at all want to suggest that he shares my view. However, his research, although about public and police opinion on the proposed reforms to the justice system, was striking for the unanimity of the police and the general public in their views on crime and the remoteness of government. In other words, they shared a view on the lack of local accountability. A key point from the findings of this research was:

“The public felt that what they saw as the failure of successive governments to act on their concerns about crime and punishment were due to politicians being unaffected by crime in their own lives; the constraints of human rights law and the fear of being accused of political incorrectness; the criminal justice system being staffed by unrepresentatively liberal individuals; and lack of money. Police officers felt mistakes were made because governments paid more attention to theorists than to victims and practitioners”.

As has been clear in the debate so far, some senior police officers and former police chiefs are concerned about elected PCCs, particularly the risks of politicisation arising from ill-defined roles and responsibilities. I understand the need for clarity. I have worked in an environment where the distinction between strategic and operational issues is essential. I understand what can go wrong when that is not the case. Although I have never worked in policing, I have some knowledge of that. The evidence suggests that, once clarity is achieved via the memorandum of understanding or the protocol that has been raised previously, agreement on the strategy in pursuit of a shared goal will not be hard to reach. The public and police will unite in their demand that elected police and crime commissioners demonstrate that they are serious about listening to the public and working with the police to fight crime.

Elected PCCs are radically different from what we have now. Some noble Lords have raised questions about piloting. I absolutely see that much effort will be needed to communicate to the public the effect of PCCs and this change to raise awareness of and interest in elections. However, this is achievable. Indeed, a nationwide campaign will build real momentum. The more I think about it, the more enthusiastic I am. Once support grows for elected PCCs so, too, will public concern about some of the Lord Chancellor’s justice reforms, particularly those that might reduce prisoner numbers. Hearing the public’s views on that will be no bad thing. I support elected PCCs because they will offer stronger local leadership in the fight against crime. I look forward to the detailed scrutiny and debates in Committee and on Report, which are of course necessary. I will participate, in particular, in the part relating to Parliament Square; there is need for some amendments to that part of the Bill. However, I have no hesitation in supporting the principle of the Bill and the changes it proposes at this stage.

21:34

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, as vice-president of the Association of Police Authorities and as chair of the All-Party Group on Policing.

Fundamental to the model of British policing is the notion of policing by consent, particularly in our society, where the police are largely unarmed and must rely on the good will and confidence of the citizens to carry out their duties effectively and sensitively. The lifeblood of policing is information, and the reason this information flows from the public to the police can be summed up in one word, trust—trust in the police to act fairly and with integrity, and trust in the police that the information will be used judiciously and without attracting retribution from anyone.

Without that trust, information stops and policing becomes ineffective. To achieve this trust, you must have accountability. Without accountability the police become a controlling force, an oppressive instrument of powerful and self-interested groups. In parts of the world this will be the military, in others local warlords, and in some, perhaps, the senior officers in the police force itself. If policing is thus distorted or dictated to by unrepresentative groups, the trust of the public is gone. The only possible result is a downward spiral that manifests itself in corruption, organised crime and abuses of human rights. So, getting it right matters. But how confident can we be that the Bill does get it right? The drafting is certainly deficient. Take the centrepiece of the Bill—the creation of directly elected police and crime commissioners. The dictionary tells you that a “commissioner” is “one who commissions”, and that “to commission” is,

“the act of procuring, committing or performing”.

So in England and Wales we are to have 41 directly elected police and crime commissioners procuring, committing or performing crime. That is brilliant drafting.

Of course, in London we are not going to get directly elected commissioners, partly because we already have two commissioners: the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and the Commissioner of the City of London Police, who is responsible for a resident population of around 10,000, the size of a local government ward elsewhere in the capital. Instead, the corporation will continue in its own unique and, I have to say, rather opaque way, and the rest of the city will have the “Mopsy”—the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Because we already have a directly elected mayor, we will not have a directly elected individual in charge of the police service; so instead the mayor will appoint a deputy—to be called the deputy “Mopsy”—to run the “Mopsy”. That is what the Bill says.

I have no problem with the principle of direct election. Indeed, when I was the first chair of the police authority in London I would have welcomed the additional authority that direct election would have given me—not, I hasten to add, in dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, who, as all his colleagues knew, was an absolute pussycat in all such matters. It was much more about authority in relation to other elected individuals, all of whom would otherwise claim primacy in trying to set a general direction for the police force. Therefore, I would have had no problems with that principle, but had I been elected directly to the office of chair of the police authority, I would have been surrounded by an effective governance structure. That would have made arbitrary decisions by myself, or inappropriate directions to the chief officer of police, impossible.

Most of the governance mechanisms that police authorities currently provide are swept away by the Bill. What is also lost is the visible answerability of the chief officer of police. At the last meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority, the Met not only gave and answered questions on its regular operational report and on the policing budget for the year but apologised to the family, present in the audience, of Daniel Morgan, who was murdered in 1987 and whose killers have not been brought to justice because, it is alleged, of police corruption; made a statement about the delays in bringing Delroy Grant to justice for the attacks on elderly people in south London over many years; responded to questions about phone-hacking and the News of the World; and heard from people in the audience about the death of Smiley Culture who allegedly stabbed himself during a police raid.

Where would that happen under this Bill? How would the visible answerability of the police service work under these proposals? The answer is that there is no such mechanism. It may be that the Minister, in response, will talk fondly about the proposed police and crime panels, and say that somehow they will be a substitute. That would be nonsense. If that is the argument she was planning to deploy, I suggest that she does not do so. Those panels will not have authority over the chief officer of police, and they will not even have the power to require his or her attendance at their meetings. Their remit is to scrutinise the elected commissioner, or the MOPC in London. Those forums, by necessity, will be overtly party political, as one group of elected politicians seeks to score points over another elected politician. This is what will happen. It is not clear how the new arrangements will ensure that there is a balanced model of policing everywhere in the country. How will the national policing requirement be enforced to ensure that every force plays its part in delivering effective policing to combat serious organised crime and to counter terrorism? Yes, there will be a national policing requirement, but how is that to be enforced?

There are many other problems. For example, as presently drafted, the Bill makes each chief officer of police a “corporation sole”. This is intended to permit them to employ police staff. Leaving aside whether or not this is a desirable objective—it is a function that could perfectly satisfactorily be carried out by police and crime commissioners, and is currently carried out by police authorities—the function of this corporation sole is not effectively limited to this specific function, potentially allowing chief officers to enter into procurement contracts and detracting from the authority of police and crime commissioners.

The Bill also creates two statutory chief finance officers for each force—one for the police and crime commissioner’s office and one for the force itself. Having two corporations sole for each force will in practice create two auditable bodies, two sets of accounts and consequential cost and bureaucracy, along with a blurring of lines of accountability—the exact antithesis of what the Bill is supposed to achieve. There will be more additional expense and duplication, with a worsening of accountability.

However sound or otherwise the intentions of this Bill, it fails to do what it says on the tin. The risk is that it will weaken police accountability; that the police will be less answerable, not more; and that we will create a system that is more expensive, less efficient, and will in the end undermine that trust on which policing by consent depends.

21:43

[Baroness Tonge]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. We do not often agree and I do not very often support him, but I agree with his promised amendment to deal with war criminals who shelter in this country. This measure is long overdue, and I support it.

I find it extraordinary, however, that in the same speech the noble Lord said that he wanted to make it easier for war criminals to come to this country by tampering with the long-held right of private individual citizens to apply for arrest warrants on potential war criminals planning to visit the United Kingdom. It follows that I shall be asking this House to look closely at Clause 154, and reject or amend it. I may, as usual, be a voice crying in the wilderness, but I am used to that. I am sure that in the course of my speech, I may touch on some sensitive issues. I apologise for that in advance.

Currently, any citizen who can afford legal help and can muster enough evidence against a person alleged to have committed war crimes covered by universal jurisdiction can apply to a district judge for an arrest warrant to be issued on that person. Thereby the allegations can be properly investigated while the person is being held. Of course, that may not lead to that person being charged.

The Government propose in Clause 154 that the Director of Public Prosecutions should give consent before any arrest warrant is issued. I and many other people think that this will further erode this country's record on upholding human rights. Also, obtaining the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will cause substantial delay; it will not be done over a weekend. It also puts at risk the independence of our judiciary. The Director of Public Prosecutions may be called independent, but he is under the supervision of the Attorney-General, who is a member of the Government. This is not just my view; it is held by many human rights lawyers. If a Government now or in future wanted to protect a foreign national against whom well founded allegations had been made, they could do so via the Attorney-General and his pressure on, and supervision of, the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was pointed out earlier by no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the elected police and crime commissioners might politicise the police force. This is a thread that runs through the Bill. Many human rights lawyers feel that Clause 154 could eventually politicise the judiciary. We do not want either of those things to happen.

I will look briefly at the reasons that the Government give for changing the law. It is said that politically motivated people wishing to obtain arrest warrants abuse the law. As we have heard, there have been 10 such attempts in the past 10 years. In the two cases where an arrest warrant was obtained from senior district judges, neither was effected because the people concerned changed their plans to come to the UK. This was confirmed by Kenneth Clarke last November in response to a Question from Nick de Bois MP. Interestingly, neither of those people attempted to clear their names by contesting the charges. This is hardly abuse of the law: 10 cases in 10 years.

The other reason the Government give is that the risk of the arrest warrants will deter important international leaders from visiting this country to talk to our Government. What nonsense is that? First, if the important leaders are members of a current Government anywhere in the world, they will be immune from the law anyway. Secondly, what is to stop our leaders going to talk to them? I am afraid that the real reason for Clause 154 is that a foreign Government—in this case the Israeli Government—complained when an arrest warrant was issued on the former Israeli cabinet member Mrs Livni when she wanted to visit the UK. Noble Lords may remember that Mrs Livni was a member of the cabinet in Israel that authorised Operation Cast Lead against Gaza, where, as verified by many human rights groups and Judge Goldstone's UN fact-finding mission, war crimes were probably committed. Mrs Livni is famous for saying that Israel would “go wild” in Gaza.

Discussions with the Israeli Government took place, as was confirmed in an Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, to my noble friend Lady Northover in 2009. The then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, announced that he would see that the law was amended to prevent UK citizens,

“motivated purely by political gesture”,

from doing such a thing again. I noticed that, at the beginning of this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said that we must ensure that arrest warrants were used in a responsible manner. I remind noble Lords: 10 in 10 years.

What an insult this is to our senior district judges, and to human right groups worldwide. More importantly, what an insult it is to Judge Goldstone and the United Nations. William Hague has endorsed Gordon Brown's promise and, sadly, so has my party, the Liberal Democrats. Before the election, we campaigned hard for the law to remain unchanged and promised to work for the implementation of the Goldstone report. However, like most other promises we made before the election, the Palestinians have been betrayed by the only party—mine—that ever gave them real support.

Of course, a change in the law will apply not just to Israelis. It could affect many current members of Governments worldwide and attempts to investigate what went on in Sri Lanka, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Kashmir—not often mentioned—to name but a few. We all support the calls for the International Criminal Court to investigate the recent activities of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya. A change in our law at this time seems inappropriate. Finally, we frequently hear complaints in this House about European Union interference in our laws and affairs. Why then should we tolerate a foreign country interfering on this issue? The way in which the law on universal jurisdiction operates at present in this country takes away any political interference, and that is how it should be. It is not abused and it works well. As for the separation of government and the judiciary, we must be very proud of that and maintain it.

21:51

[Baroness Stern]

My Lords, I shall concentrate my remarks on Clause 1 and aim to be brief. I begin by welcoming something, at least: I welcome the Government’s commitment to a different approach to policing, and the move away from governance through targets that often count things that can be counted but which have no way of measuring what is being counted. That contributes to what the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, called, in her most powerful maiden speech, a safer and happier country.

I came across the limitations of the target approach when I carried out the review of how rape complainants are dealt with by public authorities. In the course of that work I found widespread concern about the targets for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which were in conflict. The police were judged on how many suspects they charged and the Crown Prosecution Service on the other hand was measured by getting a person convicted at court. While the police were really keen to charge suspects, the CPS was really interested in charging only those who were most likely to be convicted. The conflict led to a lot of frustration, incomprehension among the complainants and other unintended consequences. I am glad that the Government in their response to the rape review said that they were removing the focus on separate police and CPS measurement. I welcome very much, therefore, the Government’s approach towards a different philosophy of measuring what is seen as good performance by police forces.

I find it very hard to welcome what the Government have chosen as their replacement for governance by target—that one directly elected person should hold the police accountable. I have to say that I was almost convinced by the most persuasive maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—almost. When I was carrying out my work on rape complainants last year I had the privilege of spending quite a bit of time with the police. I was profoundly heartened by what I discovered about how they were responding to this most difficult issue. Obviously there have been widely publicised mistakes that should not have happened but in all parts of the country there are police officers who have been specially trained, for example, to cope in the middle of the night with a very distressed person, and to gently take that person through the very personal and invasive questions they have to ask and the very intimate and embarrassing tests that have to be done. They put a considerable time into investigating very difficult cases, such as abused people who are often not believed, not listened to and seen as unlikely to be good enough witnesses to put before a court.

I heard recently about one such case at a conference in the north-east, where the excellent Northumbria Police had used the most advanced forensic techniques to secure the conviction of a care worker who had raped a middle-aged woman with learning difficulties. That was very expensive and time-consuming, but it was done and the outcome was positive.

Some police forces are working to persuade street prostitutes to report rape and violent assaults so that the perpetrators of such attacks can be brought to court. In some forces, the most painstaking, time-consuming and painful investigations go on to uncover and prosecute those who are exploiting vulnerable young people leaving care. The NSPCC wrote to me with its concerns about how offences against children and young people and protecting them may not be given priority under the new arrangements.

Democracy is a big word and a big idea. It is more than knowing people's names—with enormous respect to the noble Lord, Lord Howard. It is more than looking at a list of names and putting a cross in a box. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, in her excellent maiden speech, reminded us about majorities and minorities. Democracy is also about minority rights, about protecting the most vulnerable, about people being able to complain and about people being seen to matter, however inarticulate they are.

Our current arrangements are not perfect, but we have policing here that tries, more than in any country I know, to prioritise the vulnerable, the powerless and the exploitable. It would be a great pity to lose that, and I fear that these proposals risk that outcome.

21:56

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. When I was thinking about how to describe it, it reminded me of a delicious chocolate chip cookie. There have been lots of typical extremely high-level Second Reading debate comments and, every now and again, you come across a chunk of deep, bitter chocolate, represented by the expertise which has been massing over on the Cross Benches and some other Benches of people with real experience of working in the areas which we are discussing. There is more to come, and if noble Lords stay with the debate to the end, they will see what I mean, because we have more contributions of real calibre to come.

The debate has ranged across the whole Bill, which is good because it covers a wide range of issues, and has drawn in a huge amount of expertise, including three widely and rightly praised maiden speeches. Like many other noble Lords, I was very moved by the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Newlove. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and I entered the House on the same day, so I am glad that she has now made her maiden speech and is joining us as a full Member. I am sure that she will contribute in a wide range of activities.

Mind you, if I were the Minister, I would not be quite so pleased by what I have heard today. Indeed, she is not here; she has gone; perhaps she has had to go off to seek inspiration elsewhere. I also notice that although she started with eight people in the Box, we are now down to one. I rather suspect that the devastating critique which is running at about 10:1 against the Government's proposals may be having an effect.

I have three reservations to make about the Bill, because many of the points that one could have made have already been made very well. I will make one suggestion at the end.

My first point is: why are only some of our police services in England and Wales being legislated for? If you look at the full list of police forces, you find that there are seven additional services which operate in England and Wales: the British Transport Police, the Central Motorway Policing Group, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police, the Port of Dover Police, the Port of Liverpool Police and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. In Scotland, there is also the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. They will not be caught by the Bill. As a result, the operational activities which we have been discussing risk being steered away across the whole of the police service. I should declare at this point that I have a past interest as a mentor involved with the British Transport Police, a service which I hold in very high regard.

I am concerned, in the run-up to the Olympics, about a divergence between the police forces under the Bill, if it passes, which will be operating under one set of rules and operations, because the BTP and the others I mentioned will of course be under a different regime. They will all be playing a part together, as has been mentioned, in the Olympics. There are differences already across government because the BTP reports to the Department of Transport and not to the Home Office. But it surely must be in the best interests of all concerned that as much commonality of approach and operation is present in our police services, however they are organised, and I do not think the Bill will help with that.

Like several noble Lords, I am concerned about some of the licensing proposals. I echo some of the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Brooke and I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was saying about the concerns he had received from the licensed trade, which are worth serious consideration. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that.

My particular concern, which I think was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is the stealth tax that is being applied on the late night levy, which may have a devastating effect on live music. If that is the case and it does come in in that way, it will undermine the Private Member’s Bill, which we support on this side of the House and which seems to be running dangerously close to some of the provisions in the Bill. We will have to watch that very carefully.

I have two concerns about aspects of the drugs provisions in Part 4, some of which have been mentioned already. The temporary banning orders for new drugs fly in the face of common sense. About a month ago we had a debate on the Government’s drugs policy. We learnt that banning was not always the best way to deal with new drugs. We were told during the debate that some 40 new drugs are produced every year. We must have evidence, and that evidence must be used to make the decisions. I was glad to hear what the Minister said on that, but I think we will need to probe this matter more in discussion in Committee. What has been argued in the debate, and seems to be agreed around the House, is that we really have missed an opportunity in the Bill in terms of drugs policy, which is that we now need to look forward to a regime that encompasses all potentially harmful psychoactive substances, including alcohol and tobacco. That is not provided for in the Bill.

In her opening remarks the Minister stressed the value of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. As has already been pointed out, at the same time Clause 153 removes the requirement of the advisory council to have members with certain specified scientific expertise. I can understand the need for flexibility in this area, and of course there are credibility issues. Again, we should probe that in Committee.

I should like to end by agreeing with some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Patten. I did not agree with much of what he had to say, but I did agree with his point about the tensions that have come up a number of times in debates between the appropriate democratic accountability of the police force and the operational independence which it must have. We have not seen the protocol. It is a bit like “Hamlet” without the prince: we cannot discuss this because we do not know what is in it, but we all know that it is a serious and big issue that will need to come back and be discussed again.

The noble Lord, Lord Imbert, made an important point. If all police constables and above have to swear loyalty to the Queen, surely a protocol—whatever that might be—is not enough. We really should be thinking in terms of a royal charter—in that sense echoing the movements towards a military covenant and the work that was done on the NHS constitution—to enshrine the high-level objectives and standards that we require across the whole country in a way that cannot be changed on a regular basis and that will give the certainty and the backbone we need as we go forward in our police service.

22:03

[Lord Wasserman]

My Lords, I, too, begin by declaring an interest. I have been involved with policing for almost the whole of my working life. I cannot claim to have been at the sharp end of policing, unlike some noble Lords who spoke earlier. I have never made an arrest, I have never tackled an angry mob and I have never even walked the beat. My policing experience was gained in much safer conditions. For nearly 27 years I was a member of the Home Office, where I had responsibilities for policing policy and for the provision of national policing support services, including information technology and forensic science. After leaving the Home Office in 1995, I continued my involvement with the police in the United States, where I spent 10 years working on the other side of policing as an adviser to chiefs of police in New York, Philadelphia and a number of other American cities.

This experience has left me with the greatest respect for the professional police officer who puts his or her life on the line each day to keep us safe and free. It has also given me a tremendous sense of admiration for the management and leadership skills of our chief police officers. We are lucky in this country to have at the top of our police service a group of men and women of outstanding ability, unquestioned integrity, a high level of professionalism and a deep commitment to public service. As I shall argue, this Bill recognises the quality of our chief officers and gives them the freedom that they require to exploit their full potential as leaders and managers. I believe also that it keeps us safe from the sort of corruption dangers which other countries have faced and which some noble Lords have mentioned as one of the problems inherent in this Bill.

A number of noble Lords have argued that one of the major flaws of the Bill is that it is an attempt to copy models of policing accountability from the United States. I can assure your Lordships that that is not the case. There is no American model for the governance of local police forces. American policing is as diverse as America itself. The only thing that American police departments have in common is that they are all paid for locally and they are managed locally. The national Government takes almost no interest in local policing. For this reason, the governance arrangements for these forces, and there are some 18,000 of them—some noble Lords have mentioned 17,000 while others have quoted 19,000; no one knows because some of them are one-man bands where a single officer fulfils every role from chief constable to the constable on the beat—are all home-grown; that is, they reflect the governance of the local communities that they serve.

In New York, for example, the police chief is appointed by and reports to the mayor. In other cities, including Miami, the police chief reports to the city manager. In Los Angeles, the mayor appoints the police chief, but the chief reports to a five-person board of police commissioners, who, in turn, are appointed by the mayor. As Americans are fond of saying, “You pays your money, you takes your choice”. I cannot swear that there is not a single police force somewhere in America with governance arrangements that resemble what is proposed in this Bill, but if there is I do not know about it. Even if there were, that does not affect the fact that, as my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne told us what seems like many hours ago, the proposal for directly elected PCCs set out in this Bill was developed to meet a particularly British policing need: the need to re-establish close links between local people and their police force.

I use the word “re-establish” advisedly when referring to these links, because our police forces grew out of our local communities and at one time could not have been closer to them. I have no doubt that many noble Lords will remember the pre-amalgamation days when there were nearly 200 local police forces and when chief constables were familiar local figures. Over the years, forces have grown larger and more dependent on central support services such as the police national computer, the police national network and other information and communications systems. They have had to give more attention to such things as serious and organised crime, illegal immigration, internet crime and terrorism, all of which can be tackled effectively only through the strong national and even international collaboration that had to be put in place.

All this has led to a steady growth in the influence of central government on local forces. Chief constables have been drawn inexorably to the Home Office for leadership, direction and funding. Inevitably, this has meant that they have had far less time to spend in their local communities. In fact, some of our best chief constables spend several days a week in London at meetings with Home Office officials and others developing new “policies and initiatives”. The police authorities set up in the 1960s to be responsible for these forces have proved too weak to overcome these pressures from Whitehall. They have had to accept the demands set centrally and sit by and watch their chief constables tick the boxes, complete the report cards and strive to meet the national targets that often bear no relationship to the crime and anti-social behaviour problems that they see all around them.

This Bill stops that trend dead in its tracks. It returns responsibility for local policing to local people. It gives responsibility for identifying and prioritising local policing needs to a local individual who understands the needs of the community and is very much part of it. Most important of all, it makes this individual directly accountable to the community, through the ballot box, for meeting those needs. Many noble Lords have said that PPCs will not know anything about policing. In my view, that is a very good thing. Their job is to identify the policing needs of their communities, not to deliver the policing services required to meet those needs. That is the job of the professional, the chief constable. In parentheses, I can say from first-hand experience that those Ministers who come into office thinking that they know all about the subject for which they now find themselves responsible are not always the most successful.

This Bill does all this without in any way affecting the complex structure of national support and crime-fighting arrangements which have been put in place over the past 50 years and which are rightly admired around the world. At the same time, the Bill significantly strengthens the management role of chief constables. It gives them the freedom to use their professional skills to manage their forces as they judge best. It treats them like proper chief executives of major organisations, which is exactly what they are. It gives them, for the first time, the power to appoint their own top management teams rather than having to make do with a team imposed by their police authorities. It also provides for them to be corporations sole, which means that the force’s civilian staff can be employed by them rather than by the police authority.

Most important, this Bill formalises a process that began when this Government took office a year ago. It frees chief constables from the bureaucratic accountability of the Home Office. It relieves them of the constant flow of guidance, advice, report cards, targets and ring-fenced grants issued by successive Ministers with the encouragement of enthusiastic officials like me, who themselves have had no direct experience of policing and whose knowledge of the local circumstances in which all this guidance and advice have to be applied is at best second-hand. In short, this Bill recognises that local policing needs can be identified only at the local level and that it is only the local chief constable who can decide how best to deliver the policing required to meet those needs. I commend it to the House in the strongest possible terms.

22:13

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, we have had a long and very useful debate on the Bill. It has identified a large number of issues which we will need to consider further in Committee. In view of the time, I am going to restrict my comments to the role of the proposed elected police commissioner and to Part 1. Despite the several hours that we have spent in this debate, it still is not clear to me what exactly the problem is that the Government are trying to solve.

The polls show that the public have little interest in changes to police governance and for them, scrutiny and accountability take place at their neighbourhood level. To them, that is local, and in the main it works very well now because of all of the initiatives that have taken place in recent years. As that structure, particularly around partnership working, will continue as now, it would help the Government’s case if they produced evidence of the measurable benefits they seek to deliver. Elections can enhance democracy and accountability and, in theory, commissioners backed by the power of a ballot would enhance the accountability of the police. But it is not as simple as that. Today, we have heard a great deal of the dangers in some of the proposals within the Bill. First, policing could become politicised because many candidates would be nominated by political parties, but only one of them can win. There would therefore be a direct party-political connection with the post of commissioner, which does not occur in the same direct way with the role of the chair of a police authority, who operates much more by consensus.

Secondly, there is a danger that one person cannot represent a population averaging perhaps a million people, which will often be very diverse. That will lead in practice, because of the abolition of the police authority, to a democratic deficit, not to an improvement in democratic accountability.

The issue about commissioners seeking to direct resources to gain votes has been raised in the Chamber today. There is a real risk that commissioners might seek to do that. There is also a risk that commissioners might champion visible issues to gain votes at the expense of those that are less visible but nevertheless very important to the general public. It has rightly been identified in today's debate that the cost of the new arrangements will be much greater than for the existing police authorities because commissioners will inevitably create their own support staffing structures. The Bill itself says that they must have a chief executive and a chief finance officer, but the staff will inevitably have their own substructures and before we know it costs will rocket.

The Bill says that the costs of commissioners must be contained within existing budgets, but there will be a minimum of 82 further new posts under commissioners. That is low because there would have to be an office, support staff, policy staff and press staff. There may even be a number of finance staff and, for example, a statistician. Every commissioner will have a number of staff and I see no evidence that to date the Government have identified the numbers of those and how much it will all cost.

Then there are the problems associated with the powers of the panels proposed. It seems strange that a single commissioner will be responsible for holding the police to account on behalf of perhaps a million people, but a panel of 10 or more people will be set up to hold to account one commissioner. It seems even stranger that the panels, unlike our current police authorities, will not be able to scrutinise the police. That is a major democratic deficit. The panels, if we have them, must be bigger—at least 15 members to cover the diverse needs of their areas. They will need additional powers to enable them to veto the police and crime plan. A two-thirds majority will be needed here to secure a veto, as with the precept. In addition, the panels must have some greater power over the detailed budget as opposed to just the precept because it is in the detail of the budget that the actual plan—for the distribution of police, for example—will occur.

Then there is the issue that we have heard a little about this afternoon of the dismissal of a chief constable. It seems clear from the Bill that the powers of the commissioner are simply too great and the panel will have to have much greater authority. Looking also at the temporary cover that is proposed where a commissioner is absent, surely a panel must be able to elect one of its members to provide temporary cover for the commissioner. It is odd that the Bill proposes that a member of staff of the commissioner's office—presumably appointed by the commissioner, who could be a junior member of staff—is able to take over the commissioner's role for several months not having been elected. That is not right. The proposal for a deputy commissioner who would be a member of the panel and elected by the panel would give greater legitimacy.

I have two brief points about elections. For a number of reasons, I am in favour of a pilot. First, we would see whether it works. However, elections in 2012, as proposed in this Bill, should not apply to those 12 cities having mayoral referendums. That is because we are going to have not just two democratic organisations in local authorities—councillors and commissioners—but, in 12 English cities, we will perhaps have elected mayors. Who would be in charge in that situation—the elected mayor or the elected police commissioner? The elected mayor will be on the panel. I do not think that will work terribly well or that there should be an elected commissioner in any police area where there is going to be possibly an elected mayor. In London, of course, the political boundaries for the London Assembly and those for the Metropolitan Police are coterminous; but in other cities that is not the case. That seems to be a major problem.

Secondly, I have a real concern about an election using the supplementary vote system, because it does not require the support of 50 per cent of the electorate. You could well end up with somebody with significantly under 50 per cent actually securing the post and then being seen to represent just one part of their geographical area.

In conclusion, I hope that in Committee we have some very detailed discussions on much of what we have debated today and also on what we have not. In the event, I believe that it is right that we should now be seeking to pilot this Bill and not simply to impose it from 2012, lock, stock and barrel.

22:22

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I concur wholeheartedly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, my fellow Newcastle city councillor; and I ask the rhetorical question, which was implicit in what he said, as to what the mischief is that the proposal for elected police commissioners purports to address. It appears to consist of an alleged lack of visibility and accountability on the part of police authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, who enthusiastically espoused police authorities and their chairmen when he was Home Secretary, today of course abandons them with equal enthusiasm and says that most people do not know the name of the chair of their police authority, which is probably true. Interestingly, the Northumbria force surveyed the population in 2005 and found at that point that only 55 per cent of the population were aware of the police authority. It addressed that issue and sought to promote public engagement; and in the last survey, last year, it recorded that 88 per cent of people in the force area were aware of the police authority. People may not know the name of the chairman, but they are certainly aware of the authority.

The question continues to be: what is it that this appointment would address? After all, the statutory framework currently provides for extensive consultation by police authorities. The very useful paper distributed by Liberty points out that:

“When discharging its functions, every Police Authority is under a statutory duty to take into account the views of the people in the Authority’s area about policing in their community. Police Authorities are also required by statute to make arrangements for obtaining the views of local people on matters concerning policing of their area and obtaining co-operation in preventing crime. The views obtained must encompass a wide range of people with particular focus on those aged under 21 or over 65 and from people from diverse backgrounds including marginalised groups and those of disadvantaged socio-economic status. The Authority must also ensure that it obtains a sufficient number and range of views so that it does not act on the basis of an unduly limited or unrepresentative sample. The Police Authority must also take into account whether the public in the area has confidence in the police force and whether the public considers that their views are being taken into account”.

These are significant statutory obligations currently laid on police authorities, which would no doubt be carried forward into the new framework.

It seems, with respect to the Minister, that she misinterprets the results of the survey that she quoted, which suggests that the interest of people logging on to the new crime maps is sufficient to drive the model that is now being proposed. However, that of course assumes that people are interested in statistics for the whole area. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has pointed out—it is certainly our experience as councillors in Newcastle, attending public meetings regularly with the police in our areas—the interest is very local indeed. It is not force-wide. It is not even citywide. It is very much area-based. I have been present at countless such meetings. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has as well. Nobody has ever asked about policing in the city as a whole, let alone in the Northumbria force area, which is 70 miles in length and encompasses 1.6 million people. That is the kind of localism that the Bill apparently seeks to address, but that is not localism at all. Localism is very much at a lower level. It is certainly true that accountability at that level has improved over the years. It needs to be reinforced at the basic command unit level, at the divisional level, perhaps at the level of the city or part of the county area. However, to assume that a single individual can be responsible and accountable to an area as wide as that, where there is a population of that size, or greater in many parts of the country, seems wholly unrealistic.

Moreover, there is probably not a real risk of an extremist being elected to a position of police commissioner, as one Member of your Lordships’ House suggested, but it is at least likely, in the context of a campaign on a single issue, that fear of crime will certainly be ratcheted up by those seeking election. Fear of the fear of crime, I am afraid, rather dominated the policy-making of the previous Government to an unfortunate and unnecessary extent, and I suspect that elections of this kind will have that same effect again. Of course, the likely outcome is that there will be a further fragmentation of services, when in fact they need to be brought together, with an elected commissioner having a separate, possibly competing, mandate with the local authorities in the area that he or she would seek to serve and to work with, with their separate mandate and their relatively insignificant contribution to the problems of community safety, which of course transcend merely policing the area. It is arguable that, for the first election, there would be an element of accountability. After a commissioner is elected for the second and last time, there is no further degree of public accountability in again looking to the ballot box, so the accountability argument can certainly be overdone.

There is also the question of the substantial powers that accrue to the elected commissioner. The commissioners would be responsible for something like 11.5 per cent of the council tax levied in England and 15.5 per cent in Wales. That is a significant slice of local taxation levied by a separate authority. This is subject only to a three-quarters veto by the police and crime panel. That scrutinising body would have virtually no power. It would have no power to call in decisions or to play any significant part in the appointment of a chief constable or other officials appointed either by the commissioner or by the chief constable. It would not have the power to agree or amend the crime plans. Indeed, even the chief constable would not have the power to agree a commissioner’s plan, and what would happen if there is a disagreement is entirely unclear within the legislation. Therefore there are significant issues about the degree of power to be vested, in effect, in a single pair of hands without much real accountability at all.

As the Bill goes forward, there are other issues that we will have to address around appointments—around the role, for example, of Her Majesty’s inspectorate, which will no longer have to report to the Secretary of State. It is possible to improve this Bill if the Government are prepared to listen and to act on the genuine concerns expressed on all sides of this House and by other interested organisations, and to recognise that what is most important is to improve accountability at the very local level, and not to vest enormous powers in an individual with a wide geographical and population constituency without having that individual subjected to any significant scrutiny. I am afraid that that is the effect of the Bill as it stands.

22:29

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I want to focus on alcohol-related harms, the worst of which was so eloquently described by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in her deeply moving maiden speech.

The Licensing Act 2003 is a spectacular failure in public health terms. This Bill is a missed opportunity. Alcohol misuse abounds, costing £17 billion to £22 billion per annum, around £770 per household. Alcohol costs the NHS £2.7 billion per annum, double the amount of 10 years ago in real terms and rising. Last year, best estimates are that 40 per cent of the 319,000 people injured in violence in England and Wales were intoxicated at the time of injury and 70 per cent of accident and emergency attendances after 10 pm relate to alcohol misuse.

So what are the possible solutions? The first is pricing alcohol to return its relative cost in relation to income to where it was 20 to 30 years ago. Irresponsible off-licence promotions at less than 60 pence per unit of alcohol must end. Alcohol is ludicrously cheap; supermarket cider is commonly less that 50 pence a pint. Indeed, the late night levy that the Bill provides should also cover the NHS costs from the high accident and emergency attendances. The drinks industry profits could underwrite some of the costs that they actually incur.

Secondly, licensed premises’ cumulative impact and saturation policies should be statutory rather than simply constituting the current ambiguous guidance. A decision to deny a licence is easily overturned. A clear example comes from my home city of Cardiff, where the council licensing committee’s sensible decision not to grant permission to extend an off-sales licence in St Mary Street from 6 pm till 11 pm was easily overturned by well paid lawyers of a large supermarket chain, even though the area has seen the highest incidence of violence according to police and accident and emergency attendances of any street in the city over the past 10 years, and there were already other outlets. The Bill needs amendment to really strengthen the local voice in licensing decisions, and to ensure that cumulative impact and saturation policies include consideration of supermarkets and other off-licence outlets.

Thirdly, we can learn from South Dakota’s SCRAM project. Alcohol fuels about half of all violent crime and road deaths, particularly among young new drivers. An alcohol monitoring requirement, estimated to cost about £1 a day and producing an 80 per cent sobriety rate in the programme, is cost-effective and potentially saves many lives. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, like the North report, estimates that 16,000 injuries and up to 168 deaths caused by car crashes could be avoided in the first year of a reduction in the blood/alcohol limit for drivers from 80 to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres and to zero for new drivers.

The fiscal reasoning behind the policing changes in the Bill seems illogical. We are asked to endorse changes costing somewhere in the region of £100 million per annum, yet the Government continue to refuse to fund, by their own estimate, £1 million to £2 million for the office of the chief coroner. Just two judicial reviews avoided would fund the chief coroner, whose creation was supported across both Houses to provide leadership and bring justice to the bereaved victims of crime. This is hardly joined-up financial planning.

As for Wales, the amendments in the other place do not respect the spirit of devolution, as they provide the Secretary of State with powers over local authorities in Wales, which needs to be able to defer implementation until the results from England are proven.

As a UK drugs policy commissioner, I will seek to amend the drugs section to improve the proposals, because I fear that they will only be expensive wallpaper as drafted and will fail to reduce the real harms that they are meant to address.

22:35

[Baroness Henig]

My Lords, I declare my interests as president of the Association of Police Authorities and chair of the Security Industry Authority. I promise to try to keep noble Lords awake for the next 10 minutes. That is surely a lesser challenge than keeping the attention of students on a Friday afternoon, which I used to have to do regularly. I have been involved in the governance of policing at both force and national level for more than 20 years. My whole approach to the Bill, particularly its first part, is shaped by that experience and by my absolute conviction that good governance is fundamental to success and that in the public sector it is in the policy area of policing that good governance is most essential.

British policing is justly admired throughout the world, not least in the United States, because of the principles on which it is based. Those principles are fundamental to the success of policing in this country and any proposed change in our policing structures should be judged on the extent to which it upholds or betrays those principles. We have heard reference to those principles throughout the debate. I shall allude to them only briefly, but they are important. Police forces, in particular the chief constable and his senior command team, must be held to account to local communities through a body that represents, and which is seen to represent, local people. This body should not operate in a party-political way but should hold the force to account, working with the chief constable to draw up overarching policing strategies within which the force will operate, while day-to-day operations must be exclusively the preserve of the police, who are accountable to law.

The police authority needs to gain its mandate by consulting local people effectively about policing issues, seeking their views on matters such as the level of the policing precept, divisional and force policing plans and their experience of day-to-day policing. This means that any police body has to operate not just at force level but at divisional and ward levels, working in partnership with district bodies such as crime and disorder reduction partnerships and local councillors who may want to raise policing issues. We have to realise that policing in this country is delivered at four levels: national, force, divisional and neighbourhood. Any effective lay policing body has to strive to hold the force to account effectively at all four levels.

I have spelt all this out because it is only when we articulate those fundamental principles underlying policing in this country that we can see how flawed many of the proposals in this Bill are. For me, the most worrying aspect of the proposed changes is that no evidence has been put forward to suggest that the reform will enhance the effective delivery of policing or contribute to the reduction of crime. Surely, if we are making such major changes, we need some evidence. We certainly have not heard from those who have spoken on behalf of these measures today how effective delivery of policing will be enhanced or how a reduction of crime will come about. Without that evidence, how should we possibly be asked to support such far-reaching changes?

The proposals are not supported by the public, who we know in a number of recent surveys have overwhelmingly rejected the idea that one individual elected on a party-political basis should exercise lay control over a police force. They will not apply in Northern Ireland or Scotland, while the Welsh Assembly has voted to reject them. That has led to a serious impasse between the devolved Welsh Government and the Government, which we will have to look at seriously in Committee. It is therefore the forces in England and in local communities outside London who will face the most massive change in systems being imposed on them—a change that, despite all the talk about localism by the coalition, they will have no opportunity to influence.

It is interesting that, although there was consultation last year, we have not yet heard how many of the 900 or so responses apparently received by the Home Office were in favour and how many opposed. I find that rather surprising. We can probably conclude from it that the vast majority were opposed. I have not yet heard any compelling arguments for why these changes are necessary. We heard, not so long ago, about the importance of re-establishing links between the police and the public, but 60 per cent of the public already have confidence in the police. That is third only to doctors and nurses and far higher, I might say, than for politicians or journalists. Neighbourhood policing now gives the public a big and a regular say in setting priorities for their local areas. How much more reconnection are we looking for? The public are getting what they want. In fact, the proposals, as we hear, have not been supported by the public.

There are at least five powerful reasons for opposing the proposals. First and foremost—and everyone has talked about this—we will be injecting party politics into policing in a big and dangerous way that will completely change the dynamics of policing. Anybody who says that it will not does not understand how policing works. It is going to give one individual the power to hire and fire a chief constable. It is no use denying this. What is being proposed will undermine effective delivery by creating huge political tensions between the elected commissioner and the chief constable. It is going to bring party politics to the heart of policing. No protocol that I can imagine at this point in time is going to lessen those tensions.

Secondly, there is a complete mismatch between what the public are asking for and what they are being given. What individuals want is information about policing in their neighbourhood and their district—and increasingly they are getting it. What they are being given in this Bill is an individual elected to cover a force area—that will comprise 18 parliamentary constituencies in Devon and Cornwall, three whole counties in Thames Valley, or the whole of the West Midlands. Obviously the definition of “local” used by the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, is very different from mine.

This one individual, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, told us, will decide on the policing precept, which accounts for about 11 per cent of the local authority budget. This individual also has to liaise with and scrutinise the force, all its divisions, all its crime and disorder reduction partnerships, all the local councils and all their scrutiny panels. That is an impossible job for one individual. Partnership is the essence of delivering effective local policing. The election of one single commissioner will weaken and not enhance those essential local partnerships, which have brought crime levels down so dramatically in recent years.

Thirdly, this Bill takes policing away from local government, as the noble Lords, Lords Shipley and Lord Beecham, identified. At present, all police authorities have at least nine elected councillors, who assess police performance at force and divisional level, work with local bodies, question the chief constable in public on any policing issue monthly or bi-monthly, look at force HR and equality issues and consult the public on a range of policing issues. All this is going to disappear. The proposed police and crime panel is a pathetic invention with puny powers. It is confined to scrutinising the commissioner and his policing plans and proposed budgets. It has no political balance and no ethnic or gender balance. It is a huge step backwards from the present situation. Indeed, I believe that this part of the Bill is an insult to local government.

How can it be right that policing is being removed from local government in this way? Is this the beginning of the end for local government? Will we see commissioners for local health, for education, for local transport? What will the relationship be between directly elected mayors and commissioners? Surely the mayors will want some say in policing matters. Among the many amendments that I shall be tabling at Committee stage—this will come as no surprise to your Lordships—will be some to change the role and powers of police and crime panels. They should be working with the commissioner and be operating at divisional and local level, not just scrutinising his or her actions. That at least would make some sort of sense, rather than, as is proposed at present, the commissioner scrutinising the chief constable and the PCP scrutinising the commissioner. Nobody who understands what really makes policing work effectively could ever have proposed this structure.

Fourthly, the election of commissioners is going to be expensive, as we have heard. Should that really be forced on the public at a time when we know that they are facing draconian cuts in their local front-line forces? I confidently predict that, if the public were given a choice between more front-line police and these elections, well over 90 per cent would want the front-line forces.

Fifthly, what if the person elected is no good at the job? At present, chairs of police authorities are elected annually, but we will be stuck with commissioners for four years. They are not to be appraised by Her Majesty’s police inspectorate, unlike police authorities, which is rather surprising, given the Minister’s emphasis on the appraisal of police authorities. No, the will of the people apparently trumps the ability to do the job effectively as, it is argued, those with no aptitude for the position will be voted out of office. That has to be an extremely naive view and it is not borne out by my experience of politics at either local or national level. Also, if a commissioner falls ill, a non-elected member of his office can stand in for him. That cannot be right. It is something else that needs to be looked at in Committee. I have long argued in favour of fewer, larger, more resilient forces. Alas, the measures in the Bill will prevent, not facilitate, that development, which is increasingly necessary in the modern world.

I cannot deal with any other part of the Bill. It is the first part which will change our system and its structure of governance irreversibly and which has the capacity to do so much damage to the delivery of a service that has operated pretty well for nearly 200 years. My fundamental concern is that we are being asked to take a gigantic leap in the dark towards the politicisation of policing in a situation where the existing system is not broken and few people are calling for change. For me, the supreme irony is that the system that we have was established by a Conservative Home Secretary, Robert Peel, and overhauled in the early 1990s very effectively by another two Conservative Home Secretaries. Why on earth does the Conservative Party now want to destroy one of its most enduring achievements? I hope that the Minister will be able to explain the reason to me and to allay my profound concerns when she concludes the debate.

22:46

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington]

My Lords, I declare my interests: I was a serving police officer for 43 years, and my various other interests are in the House of Lords register of interests. I have concerns in relation to the Bill. I will be going through them, but your Lordships will be glad to know that I will be as quick as I possibly can.

I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Newlove. If ever there was a description of why we have to get policing right in this country, the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, was it. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. The reason why he is so positive about HMIC is that he was an excellent Police Minister and we in HMI at the time used to take him to the local pub and regularly paid for his drinks. One of the greatest things that people do not know about him is that he was offered a Cabinet post but, because of his devotion to the police service, turned it down. We were glad about that then and we are delighted to see him in the House now.

In my view, the timing of the Bill is extraordinary. We stand at a stage when the police service in this country is facing some of the biggest changes in relation to conditions, wages and pensions that it ever has. We are also standing at a stage when—although hopefully I am wrong—there could be grave public disorder in the streets in the next 12 months to two years, and we have the Olympics around the corner as well. Morale has been quoted as being at its lowest levels; some of us have been downstairs to talk to police officers from Northumbria and other places, and certainly morale is not good. Why are we bringing in the Bill in the way that we are?

I know that in policing people will say that morale is always low. I remember a very good chief constable of mine saying, “John, if they weren’t moaning, I’d be very worried indeed”, and I suppose there was something in that. However, policing over the past 15 years has been highly successful. This was started by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who as Home Secretary decided that police could actually affect crime and disorder in this country and created one target all about reducing crime, which he pursued as well. Policing has been a success story over the past 15 years and continues to be so. Anything that gets in the way of that success story has to be considered in other than a positive way.

I have a real problem. I was chief constable of Northumbria for five years and I cannot see one model fitting all the forces that I served in—Northumbria, Cambridgeshire, Hampshire and the Metropolitan Police. I was also an HMI for two years, inspecting some of the major forces in this country. I was also present at the appointment of 17 chief constables, the head of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the head of the National Crime Squad. What worries me about one model fitting all is a problem that relates to Northumbria in particular. Northumberland, to the north, is a county on its own, with the boroughs that we all know so well—Newcastle and Sunderland. For one person to try to deal with the complexity of that would be extraordinary.

There is another thing with which I have a slight problem. I do not often disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard—we usually agree on most things, do we not? The people whom I inspected and for whom I was chief constable were not shrinking violets. I know I was a pussycat, Lord Harris. We have heard some of them today: the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris and Lady Henig, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to name a few. There was also George Gill. All those people were and still are known in their areas and respected. That argument is perhaps not as persuasive as it should be from my experience, which may be limited.

I have a problem with the elections as well. The election of the PCCs will be conducted under the supplementary vote system, which could, through the transfer of secondary preference votes, result in a candidate being selected without having secured a clear mandate from the electorate. That in itself is worrying, bearing in mind all the comments from my colleagues and, far more eloquently, from some of the people here this evening.

Here we come to the real crux. There are two issues. One is the impact on the national policing priorities. I was lucky enough to chair the police border review. The noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, was generously part of that for the Conservative Party under David Cameron. All of its recommendations were taken up by the Conservative Party in opposition. What we discovered on border policing was that there was a mismatch between what was being delivered nationally and what was being delivered locally. One of the weaknesses has to be the question of whether the reforms to local delivery, under one person, will have an effect on national policing and its resources. Clause 79 states that PCCs and chief constables must,

“have regard to the strategic policing requirement”,

which is set out by the Home Secretary. However, this is not binding. As such, it does not go far enough in mitigating the risk of local issues being prioritised at the expense of national policing matters. That means that the local policing commissioner or chief constable will have priority over national issues.

Very quickly, on the role of chief constable, we have not seen the protocols. I am sure that the Minister is working hard on those. We were promised them by Second Reading. Some of those of us who are privileged enough to speak to the Home Secretary and the top teams have a problem with that. How can we decide about the independence of policing, and where the chief constable or the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police sits in this structure, unless we know that we have independence for the police officer who is involved in crime?

If I may, I shall end by talking as a senior investigating officer. Some time ago I looked into and investigated the National Criminal Intelligence Service; I have now been in Northern Ireland for 20 years, investigating some very difficult issues; and more recently I investigated Princess Diana’s death in Paris. The real power and confidence that I enjoyed in carrying out those investigations and the dedication of the people around me were related to one thing—that I was answerable to the law and the law alone.

Finally, this Bill is the biggest change to the constitution of policing in 150 years. It is absolutely our responsibility tonight and in the following months to ensure that we get it right even if it is carried through in a certain form, which it probably will be. If we get it wrong, we will never sleep soundly in our beds in the future.

22:56

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we have had a lengthy and interesting debate. We have also had the pleasure of hearing three informative, knowledgeable, and at times moving, maiden speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Newlove, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which have rightly drawn much praise. I both hope and expect that they will all be regular contributors to debates in your Lordships' House.

There are some parts of the Bill which we can support in general terms. These are: the alterations to existing powers for licensing authorities and other responsible bodies with regard to alcohol licensing; the new regulations governing protest in Parliament Square; the new powers for the regulation of drugs; and the provision for the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant is issued for universal jurisdiction offences. We will, though, want to probe further into the detail of the Government’s proposals on these provisions in Committee, particularly in the light of some of the comments made in this debate.

Most of those who have spoken on the issue have either been directly opposed to the principal provision of the Bill—namely, the elected police and crime commissioners—or have expressed strong and powerful reservations about the proposal and its potential implications. One of the concerns is: what exactly will the police and crime commissioners do if they are not, as claimed, going to become involved in operational matters? The Bill sets out the basic duties of the post, which hardly add up to a well paid, full-time job, unless, of course, the appointment, suspension and dismissal of the chief constable is to become a regular event, or police and crime plans and objectives are to be changed every five minutes in order to create a job.

We currently have police authorities which meet at regular intervals but not exactly every day. We have an individual who is the chair of the police authority but it is not normally a full-time position. If the police and crime commissioner is not going to be involved in operational matters, will the Minister set out exactly what duties and responsibilities the commissioner will be taking over from the chief constable, what duties and responsibilities he or she will be taking over from the chair of the police authority and the members of the police authority, and what duties and responsibilities will be entirely new and are not undertaken by anyone at all at the present time? Is the reality that much of the work of the police and crime commissioners will simply be duplicating work which the chief constable and his senior team already do, and will in effect create a further management layer with the need for further papers, reports and attendance at meetings by senior police officers who should be spending as much of their available time as possible leading the fight against crime? Is it the undeclared intention that the role of the police and crime commissioner will be extended at some later stage to other areas of the criminal justice system such as, for example, the probation and prison services, or even the local courts service?

What exactly will be the position in London? The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, which sounds a bit like a quango, will have the same powers as a police and crime commissioner, so will the mayor be the commissioner or will the commissioner in reality be a mayoral appointee, in which case what has happened to the Government’s much vaunted concept of the need for directly elected commissioners?

To whom will the police and crime commissioners be accountable during their period of office? It does not look as though there will be the equivalent of a Parliament, an Assembly or a local council with the power to accept or reject key proposals or changes that the commissioner wishes to take, or to hold the commissioner to account. Where is the check on inappropriate or overenthusiastic use of power by a single individual? It will certainly not be with the toothless police and crime panels—the PCPs that will be the police commissioner’s poodle—which, even in their own limited area of power, will need 75 per cent of all their members, not even just those present, to send back the commissioner’s proposed precept. Current police authorities are executive committees, but police and crime panels will be scrutiny bodies without executive powers. It appears, in reality, that the only person whose approval the commissioner needs to seek is himself or herself.

Those who may consider that elected national politicians have already politicised the police will be in for a shock when they realise the degree of party politicisation that single elected police commissioners will bring. If the intention is that the operational independence and impartiality of the police will not be put at risk, what is the Government’s definition of operational independence? The Government have said that they will produce a memorandum or protocol that will set out the terms of agreement on the relationship between the new elected police and crime commissioners and chief constables to ensure that operational independence is protected. Typically, the Government have failed to produce the document in time for today’s Second Reading. That is presumably because the Government, despite claiming that operational independence will be protected, do not yet know what the words they have uttered mean in reality. That is a not dissimilar situation to their lengthy silence when we asked them to define what they meant by the front-line policing that they asserted would be protected from cuts.

Does operational independence include decisions on how many police officers are required to be on duty for particular demonstrations, marches and protests? Does operational independence include the police tactics to be deployed on such occasions? Does operational independence include, within the parameters of an overall budget, the number of officers and civilian staff to be employed on the variety of different activities that a police force undertakes? Will a police and crime commissioner be able to dismiss or remove a chief constable when the issue or issues that have caused difficulty would appear to any reasonable person to relate to a chief constable’s unwillingness to carry out instructions from a commissioner on an operational issue?

Will not the reality be that we will find ourselves with police and crime commissioners who have won an election, but have yet to find a role? In trying to create a full-time job for themselves—incidentally, how many staff is it anticipated they will have, and at what cost?—they will seek to usurp the responsibilities of those senior police officers who currently manage and run our police forces and, in so doing, create a lot of frustration and conflict, as well as unnecessary and unjustified duplication and additional bureaucracy. The reality, as has been said on many occasions today, is that a commissioner who has the power to dismiss will always have the whip hand over a chief constable on issues regarding what is or is not deemed to be an operational matter.

For what purpose is all this being done? The level of crime reduced steadily by more than 40 per cent over a number of years under the previous Government, and confidence in the police is at a high level. That is not bad for police authorities that suffer the allegedly overwhelming defect of not having a chair or members who are widely known to the public. What exactly is it that is so deficient about the present structure that demands the introduction of police and crime commissioners and the potential politicisation of policing and dealing with crime, which should be independent and impartial? Are the imposition and additional costs of directly elected police and crime commissioners the Government's thank you to police officers and police civilian staff throughout the country for their success in reducing and tackling crime, for facing cuts in numbers and for facing pay and conditions being managed down?

The argument is that policing and crime have a significant impact on people's lives. The current arrangements of police authorities provide a level of accountability that includes a majority of locally elected council representatives, which should not simply be swept aside. People want managerial competence, an efficient and effective service, and an ability to have a say over what happens in their immediate locality—an ability that has been enhanced by community partnership working, and by the introduction of neighbourhood police community support teams, which spend time keeping in direct contact with those who live and work in their neighbourhood to make sure that they are aware of their principal concerns on crime and policing issues.

People do not want the politicisation and fragmentation of the police service because not all policing matters affect only one area or county. Counterterrorism and kidnap activity do not respect police authority boundaries, or at times even national boundaries, any more than do drug trafficking, human trafficking, e-crime and cybercrime. Co-operation between forces is vital, and the Association of Chief Police Officers does much good work in this area.

What will be the attitude of an elected police and crime commissioner who believes that his or her prospects of popularity and re-election will depend on allocating resources and on trying to deliver on promises made, however unlikely, during an election campaign, rather than on directing their resources at major national or international crimes that may not have an obvious immediate impact in their own area? We do not want more than 40 separate police service silos, but that is what we risk getting, and the Government certainly have not explained how the strategic policing objectives will ensure that this cannot happen.

The creation of police and crime commissioners will enable the Government, having made significant cuts in police budgets, to seek—in vain, I suspect—to wash their hands of any responsibility for the incidence of crime and how it should be addressed, on the basis that that is the responsibility of the elected police and crime commissioner. The approach will be similar to that adopted towards local government, where they reduce the amount of money received by local authorities and then seek to blame them when the inevitable happens and important services are cut or reduced.

We have seen the Government decide, following almost universal criticism of their proposals for the National Health Service, to take time to reflect on their position before proceeding further. A similar period of reflection on the proposals for police and crime commissioners would not come amiss. They will not make policing work easier. They will cost money that could be better spent on more police officers fighting crime. The election of police and crime commissioners will potentially politicise the work and activity of each and every police force, threatening the perception of the police as being impartial and independent in dealing with and fighting crime.

The work of policing will be further politicised if elected police and crime commissioners, elected local authority members or elected mayors have public spats with each other over where responsibility and accountability lie for levels of crime or the incidence of particular types of crime. Reducing and fighting crime requires a crucial partnership approach between the police and local authorities. Having different arms of that partnership under different political leadership, with different priorities and objectives, will jeopardise and not enhance successful partnership working, and with it the continuation of the reduction in the incidence of crime.

My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath referred to the absence of a Green Paper, pre-legislative scrutiny, an impact assessment on the proposals for commissioners from HMIC, proposals for referenda on the introduction of PCCs and any provision for pilot schemes. The Government should think again. The continuation of effective, impartial and non-politicised policing is more important than delivering, without due regard or consideration of its consequences and implications, what appears to have become a pet project of at least one half of the present Government.

23:11

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am grateful for the generally thoughtful tone of the debate this afternoon and evening, even if it was not especially supportive of the Government’s position. Like other noble Lords, I was struck by the fact that it was graced by three outstanding maiden speeches, from my noble friends Lady Berridge, Lady Newlove and Lord Blencathra. Listening to the speech of my noble friend Lady Newlove, in particular—I agree with those who said how moving it was; indeed, she told a tragic story—I was reminded that this Bill is also a social responsibility Bill. I am sure that the whole House hopes that when enacted it will reduce the likelihood of the sort of incident that she described occurring in the future.

As time is short, I should like to confine the greater part of my closing remarks to Part 1 of the Bill. I hope that the House will understand if I do not tackle all the points made, but I hope to touch on the key themes. Something else that struck me in the debate was the fact that many of the doubts expressed by Members of this House betrayed what I would regard as being a preference for expertise over visible leadership, reliance on robust democracy and indeed the good sense of the electorate—a prejudice that my noble friend Lord Howard warned us against at the beginning of the debate. Reliance on the people is not, as some noble Lords have suggested, naivety. It is actually healthy democracy. As against that, I particularly welcome the offer from those who have considerable experience in policing to work with us to engage constructively on making these reforms work. Of course, I accept that there are ways in which they can be improved.

The core of the Bill, however, is about accountability. It is not about operational policing matters. The Bill will support operational matters and will not, as has been suggested, somehow adversely affect them. That is why your Lordships did not hear from me this evening about many operational policing matters, on which Members on the opposition Benches have touched. I agree with those who have said that we have the best police service in the world, but we do not have the best governance of that police service. It is that aspect that the Bill is designed to improve.

There have been many queries as to why the reforms are needed and why they are needed now. Let me touch on this again; I spelt it out in my opening remarks, but it is worth repeating one or two of the points. A number of noble Lords suggested that the reforms are not needed. We disagree. It is clear, as I have indicated, that there are some philosophical differences between us, as well as, I suspect, differences in the assessment of the quality of the situation that we have at the moment. In our view, the case for change is clear. Police authorities are not sufficiently connected to the public. We know this because only 7 per cent of the public understand that they can approach their police authority if they are dissatisfied with policing. I reject the argument that anonymity does not matter. A typical police authority gets only about two letters a week from the public. When the Mayor of London took on the responsibility of policing in our city, the fact that there was a recognisable figure in charge prompted a significant rise in the amount of correspondence received from the public. The public care and, contrary to what has been suggested, they are not satisfied. At the moment, they simply do not know whom to call. We believe that some of the provisions, which have not received great attention in the debate, for greater transparency in all the proceedings that will take place between the police and crime commissioner, the chief constable and the PCPs, which lie at the core of the Bill, will help immensely in generating greater information about and confidence in the police.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, argued that no police authorities had failed their inspections. That is the case, but we do not think that not failing is good enough. As I mentioned, only four police authorities are performing well out of the 22 inspected by HMIC. I think that we all agree that HMIC must be respected in its judgments. We believe that we can do better than that and that the public have a right to expect better performance.

We also think that there is a democratic deficit between the authorities and the public whom they are meant to serve. Only 8 per cent of wards in England and Wales are represented on a police authority. We think that the system of governance, even if it is not broken, is not performing well enough and requires improvement, so we are going to make the changes. We also think that the change is needed now. As I indicated, the Government do not believe that piloting would be helpful. I have no doubt that I will have considerable opportunity in Committee to explain in greater detail why I think that that is the case, but I must inform the House that I will be resisting that idea vigorously.

The coalition parties support the direct democratic reform of police authorities. It is interesting that the Opposition also favour the democratic reform of police authorities. The only difference between the Opposition and the coalition Government is how, not whether, it should occur. That puts a point on some of the arguments that we have heard tonight. Right at the outset of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that HMIC be asked to approve the Government’s reforms before they are instituted or that there should be a series of local referenda before they could take effect. If we think, as a House and as Parliament, that direct democracy in policing could be improved, it seems to me odd that we should suggest that HMIC should make a judgment on what is clearly a political matter. That is not what HMIC is there for. As for local referenda, the PCCs are a national policy, and a single system of governance is needed. Policing crosses force boundaries, just as criminals do, and we must have a degree of commonality in how it operates, so I do not think that we can go for local referenda.

In respect of the arguments made to the effect that these reforms will politicise policing—we have heard a great deal of that this evening—I want to be absolutely clear: that will not be the case. There is no reason why there should not be partnership between the PCC and the chief constable. Many of the Bill’s provisions are clearly designed as a failsafe in case there are problems but the whole premise of the Bill is that there should be partnership. We agree with those who say that there should be partnership, and we are confident that partnership will come about. Equally, it is important, as the whole House acknowledges—we certainly support this—that the operational independence of chief officers is not prejudiced. It will not change. Under the 1996 Act chiefs will continue to have direction and control of their staff. Operational independence is already protected, not just by measures in primary legislation but also in common law and the attestation of all constables on appointment, as has been said in debate. It is a cornerstone of British policing and nothing—nothing—in the Bill or any protocol that we produce will alter that, but we shall seek to make the principles of the relationship between the various parties clear in the protocol.

It has been well said that the police are answerable to the law. Indeed, we are all answerable to the law. But the Government see no contradiction between being answerable to the law and being accountable. These two things go hand in hand.

I have no doubt that in debate we will spend some time on the arrangements in London. I am not going to deal with those this evening, but I should like to make a comment on one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He seemed to be suggesting—perhaps I have him wrong—that because the precise method of accountability of the chief constable had not been prescribed in the legislation, therefore it could be assumed that there was no such answerability. That is not the case. The PCC has the same statutory responsibility to hold the chief constable to account as he has at present to the police authority. Not everything has to be spelt out in detail in the legislation as if no one is capable—

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, my point was not that there is not a clear accountability mechanism, because that is set out in the Bill; my point is—it applies not just in London but to all the PCCs—that the one-to-one relationship between the elected individual and the chief officer of police does not allow for the visible answerability of the chief officer of police, answering questions in public on matters that affect the locality. That is what will disappear in this Bill.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I do not think that that is the case, my Lords, because there is nothing to stop meetings taking place in public. Indeed, the records have to be put into the public domain, so I do not think that somehow this relationship will be conducted behind closed doors. On the contrary, I think that it will be extremely transparent. One other point I would like to make is that the police and crime commissioner can require a chief constable to report on a particular matter if he does not get co-operation from him, although I do not see why he should not. Both accountability and transparent accountability will be present in arrangements.

I should like to deal with some of the points where it was claimed that this new model would be costly and would introduce unnecessary bureaucracy, and to be clear about what the model involves. The PCP will not replace the police authority, so those costs are gone. The PCC replaces the police authority and indeed will need support staff but, unlike now, they will be held directly to account by the public, so we will require them to publish details of their expenditure and the public will expect them to deliver value for money. This creates a very strong incentive to drive costs down, an incentive which does not exist at present.

If the House is concerned about costs, I say that the alternative models that have been suggested—an elected chair of a police authority or indeed an elected police authority—are no less expensive than what we are proposing, and would probably be more expensive. We also think they would be less effective.

Finally, I should like to put these reforms into their proper context. Some noble Lords have asserted that PCCs will be concerned only with the local agenda, neglecting national issues and protective services. I had hoped that I had spelt that out adequately in my opening remarks, but let me repeat that that is not the case. The Bill starts to rebalance the system from the Government telling local areas what their priorities are to focusing on those issues that are of national importance such as organised crime and counterterrorism. To that end, we have included Clause 79, which gives powers to the Home Secretary, as I mentioned, to set out a strategic policing requirement. That is obviously an important document. The strategic policing requirement will describe the collective capabilities that police forces across England and Wales would need to have in place in order to protect the public from serious harm and maintain national security; that is, the contribution that they would be expected to be capable of making to these national issues. The police and crime commissioners will have to have regard to the strategic policing requirement, which means that they may not ignore it when setting out their police and crime plans. It cannot be the case that their focus can be wholly local.

I cannot see how a police and crime commissioner who wished to be regarded as effective would see his duties as not encompassing the things that he needs when it is quite obvious to the public that he needs to be charged with doing them effectively. When he is setting out his police and crime plans, they will include the discharge by that police force of its national or international functions, and chief officers will be held to account if in any respect they fail to come up to the operational standards that are required. Furthermore, all this will be underpinned by the new backstop powers which currently apply only to the Metropolitan Police Authority for the Home Secretary to enter into an agreement with any PCC or the Mayor of London on their national and international functions, where it is deemed necessary, to direct them to take action. We hope that that is not the kind of thing that is going to be necessary, but clearly the power will be in place if it has to be exercised. At a later time, as the House is aware, we will be introducing the new national crime agency, which will be a framework for the functions of national scope, and these will cover such things as organised crime.

I turn briefly to the points made on licensing, the first of which is the removal of the vicinity test. I know there is a fear that this proposal could lead to an increase in frivolous or vexatious representations, but I have to say that during our consultation a very large number of respondents welcomed greater community involvement in the licensing process, and they were clear that the activity related to licensed premises can have an effect well beyond the immediate vicinity. The objectors, of course, have to make a case which is related to the full purposes of licensing.

On the issue of health bodies becoming responsible authorities, I can confirm that the Government will ensure that in the future this role is compatible with the changes being made to PCTs, but in the short term the PCTs will be the relevant health bodies. As regards the maximum fine for underage sales of alcohol, by doubling it, the Government are sending to retailers a clear message that we will not tolerate the sale of alcohol to children. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked a number of detailed questions focusing on why the Government were not doing more in other areas, and no doubt we will take those in greater detail in Committee. The point of the Bill is to do something simple, obvious and straightforward, and which is capable of being actioned in a way that we hope will be effective. However, I quite appreciate that there are issues other than those set out in the Bill which add up to an effective challenge to the increasing abuse of alcohol.

As for the levy, it applies across the whole licensing authority area because that is the simplest and fairest way of ensuring that all premises that benefit from selling alcohol late at night contribute towards costs. We have to recognise, as I have just said, that there is a problem of alcohol abuse in this country and it has to be tackled. That is why the emphasis in this Bill is on increasing our ability to do just that.

I hope the House will be willing to forgo responses on the many points raised in relation to Parliament Square and universal jurisdiction. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has promised us a lively debate in Committee on the first and I have no doubt that we shall debate the need for the intervention of the DPP on the second. The DPP has made it clear that he would be willing and would have the capacity to act rapidly in any case and that his intervention would not act as a delay or a bar on issuing a warrant.

The core of the debate has been on the PCCs and I want to make two last points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, made the point, which I am sure the whole House accepts, that we shall need to come together on this Bill to ensure its passage. Secondly, while I did not accept many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, he said something with which I profoundly agree; namely, that trust is crucial to the preservation of our tradition of unarmed, impartial policing. In making the changes, the Government are determined to preserve this long-standing principle and great tradition. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at 11.32 pm.