House of Commons

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 18 May 2011

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

1. When he expects to receive a final report on armaments from the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to begin by paying tribute to David Cairns, the former Member for Inverclyde, who died recently. He served as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office for a short time in the run-up to devolution in 2007, and was liked and respected in all parts of the House. I speak for many in Northern Ireland in passing on our sincere condolences.

The British and Irish Governments have been presented with the IICD’s final report, which focuses on commissioners’ experiences and lessons learned. I am considering the report with my counterpart in the Irish Government and we will publish it in due course.

[Heidi Alexander]

I thank the Secretary of State for his reply, and may I associate myself with the condolences he expressed?

When the Secretary of State announced the dissolution of the IICD and the Independent Monitoring Commission at the end of March, he thanked the commissioners for the crucial part they played in assisting Northern Ireland’s transition to a peaceful, stable and inclusive society. Given developments since, what plans does he have to continue the work previously undertaken by those bodies?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and her comments. I would like to put on record our thanks to General de Chastelain, Brigadier Nieminen and Andrew Sens for the work they have done over the years. We intend to keep Parliament updated on developments, probably by written statements.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

May I pay tribute on behalf of my colleagues to the late David Cairns, former Northern Ireland Minister, for the excellent work he undertook during his time in that post, and pass on our sympathies to his family?

I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda on the recent Northern Ireland weapons finds in East Tyrone and South Armagh. Will he give an assurance that the amnesty previously offered under the decommissioning legislation to those handing in, and in possession of, such weapons will no longer apply, and that anyone caught in possession of weapons will be brought before the courts and any evidence arising from examination of the weapons will be used in prosecutions?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I entirely endorse his comments on the co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda and the recent arms finds in Tyrone. The amnesty to which he refers expired in February 2010, and we have no plans to reintroduce it. There is no place for arms in today’s Northern Ireland. Everyone can pursue their legitimate aims by peaceful democratic means, and those caught with arms will go through the due process of law.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

2. What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the level of security threat from dissidents.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Close co-operation with the Northern Ireland Executive plays a major part in our efforts to counter the threat from terrorism in Northern Ireland. This involves regular discussions with the Executive’s Justice Minister. I look forward to continuing work with the new Executive in the coming weeks and months on the security, economic and community aspects of this problem.

[Mr Hanson]

First, may I thank the Secretary of State for his tribute to David Cairns, whom I served with as a Northern Ireland Minister some years ago?

The Secretary of State will know that the PSNI is making good progress in capturing weapons and Semtex, but, with more than 100 bombings in the last year alone, I believe it is clear that supply is coming from outside Northern Ireland. Will he work with the Executive, the Home Office, the Irish authorities and, indeed, international authorities to ensure that he does everything possible to stem the supply of such material from outside Northern Ireland?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and pay tribute to his work on Northern Ireland. He is absolutely right that we must make sure that at every level of government we work to stem the flow of fresh arms into Northern Ireland. We now have unprecedented co-operation. That is the case not only between the Westminster Government and the Northern Ireland Executive—I pay tribute to all those who have recently been elected to the Executive, and I am delighted that David Ford, whom I spoke to this morning, has been re-elected—but there is also exceptional co-operation with the Garda. I discussed this matter with the Home Secretary yesterday as well, so we are clearly working at all levels.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

May I also pay tribute to David Cairns on behalf of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs? I had the honour of working with him on a number of Committees and always found him to be extremely efficient and courteous.

All Members will recall the show of paramilitary strength by men in balaclavas over the Easter period, which brings shame to Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State give an update on what is being done to pursue those who obviously have common cause with those who were threatening violence?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his remarks. As he will have seen over the weekend, the police investigation into those shocking scenes at Easter took its course, and in one case charges were laid against Marian McGlinchey. I took the decision to revoke her licence as she was charged under the Terrorism Act 2000. I spoke to the chief constable this morning. The police investigations continue, and I am confident that the PSNI will bring further charges when there is sufficient evidence.

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

Will the Secretary of State accept—I am sure he will—that the outcome of the recent Assembly and council elections in Northern Ireland showed a clear endorsement of moving Northern Ireland forward and a clear rejection of those who would use violence, whose philosophy is to wreck Stormont and drag us backwards? Will he give a clear commitment to work closely with the security forces, the police and the new Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland to protect society and do whatever is necessary to protect all of us from dissident terrorist threats?

[Mr Paterson]

I wholeheartedly endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s comments; there is absolutely no place for the pursuit of any political aim by physical violence in Northern Ireland. I congratulate all those who were elected to the Assembly and to the Executive. Obviously, on this particular issue, I congratulate David Ford, to whom I spoke this morning. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will keep up the very closest co-operation with the Stormont Executive on this issue.

[Mr Dodds]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s action on the revocation of the licence of Marian McGlinchey—or Marian Price, as she was known—as it sends out a clear signal to those who would threaten violence. Will the Secretary of State give us his assessment of the number of people he believes are involved in dissident terrorism? What is his assessment of the current level of police and other resources deployed to combat that threat?

[Mr Paterson]

I am not sure that the number of those involved is as important as their capability. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that these people are continuous in their efforts to attack not just the police, but completely innocent members of the general public who are going about their day-to-day business. Although these people are small in number, as we saw in the recent elections, they do have capability and we do not underestimate the threat. That is why we endorsed £50 million of spending last year, and we managed to negotiate an extraordinary settlement of a further £200 million over the next four years. We are absolutely determined to stand by Northern Ireland and do the right thing.

[Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State and hon. Members in their tribute to David Cairns. He was a much respected Minister when Labour were in government and a much loved colleague and friend. Our deepest sympathy goes to his family and his partner, Dermot.

It would be remiss not also to take this opportunity to put on the record the fact that the Queen’s extraordinary visit to Ireland at the moment is an enormous success. It is as healing as it is inspiring. The visit both symbolises the peace process and represents the next step in that process. The process is still necessary, as dissident republican groups pose new threats to the police and the public; just this Monday, a coded bomb warning brought huge disruption to central London. What is the Secretary of State’s evaluation of the capability of this growing number of dissident terrorists, not only in Northern Ireland but here in Britain?

[Mr Paterson]

I entirely endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on the significance of Her Majesty the Queen’s visit to the Republic of Ireland. It is a wonderful way to end the current President of Ireland’s two terms and it is a wonderful, ringing endorsement of the normality between our two nations. Significantly, the right hon. Gentleman and I are not in Ireland this morning; we are here answering questions in Parliament. This is an endorsement of the tremendous progress that has been made and a sign of how we will move further forward. On the question of capability here, we do not like to get into operational matters but, as he knows, we do not underestimate the threat of these groups and we have done a significant amount in the past year to bear down on them.

[Mr Woodward]

The threat, none the less, has clearly heightened, not only in Northern Ireland, but here in Britain. We must all ensure that in Northern Ireland, as well as here in Britain, no part of government resides in just hoping for the best; realism is as vital a tool in containment as is prevention. As part of that realism, the British Government must continue to recognise their responsibility in addressing the sectarian legacy of the troubles. What is the Secretary of State’s response to Co-operation Ireland’s bid for £20 million from the British Government—not from the Assembly—to ensure that in Northern Ireland the big society is more than just aspiration?

[Mr Paterson]

Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We increased the threat level from moderate to substantial in Great Britain last year and we are doing what we think is necessary to work closely with the authorities not just in Northern Ireland but in the Republic and to bear down on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this is a policy of containment long term and we need to break the cycle. We are extremely interested in the projects run by Co-operation Ireland, such as that in Kilwilkie, but many of these projects are also run by the devolved Administration. As I mentioned in my reply to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), we will discuss this work with the new devolved Ministers. I had a meeting with the chairman of Co-operation Ireland this week and I shall see him in Dublin later in the week.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

3. Whether he has reviewed the personal protection training plan for Government workers and VIPs in Northern Ireland in the light of recent trends in terrorist activity; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

The Government regularly review the guidance issued to staff on personal security and make them aware of any changes in the terrorist threat. The Chief Constable is responsible for the operational provision of close protection, which can include Government workers and VIPs.

[Patrick Mercer]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Can the Minister assure the House that, following the terribly sad death of Constable Kerr, specific training methods are being put in place to help protect VIPs, policemen and the like against the threat of under-car booby-traps?

[Mr Swire]

Yes, I can. My hon. Friend will know, as he did many tours in Northern Ireland, that the enemy to personal security is complacency. It is incumbent on all those employed by the state in one way or another to be vigilant at all times. The Chief Constable goes to bed thinking about the security of his policemen and women and he wakes up thinking about them, too, as do we in the Northern Ireland Office.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Minister will be aware that a small number of civilians work in security establishments in Northern Ireland, particularly in areas with a high dissident terrorist threat. He should also be aware that I wrote to him some three months ago about one such person who was trying to get a personal protection weapon to ensure his safety as he went to and from his work. Will the Minister ensure that he gets in touch with the Chief Constable to ensure that person’s safety, in so far as that can be guaranteed, in the light of this threat?

[Mr Swire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We take applications for PPW licences extremely seriously and they are looked into in great detail and independently assessed. I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers and we will get back to him once we have all the necessary details.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

4. What progress has been made on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, progress on this issue has been difficult in the absence of any agreement within Northern Ireland on how best to proceed. We want to see the issue resolved and we will be taking the views of the new Executive, political parties and others in Northern Ireland on how best to move matters forward.

[Paul Murphy]

I am grateful for that answer. I want to pay my own tribute to the late David Cairns, who was a fine Minister and a fine man.

With a new Executive and new Assembly in Northern Ireland, and as this issue is a fundamental part of the Good Friday agreement and the political process over the years, will the Minister undertake to try to seek consensus among all the political parties in Northern Ireland as soon as he can?

[Mr Swire]

The Secretary of State and I have been very clear. We said we would return to this after the election of the new Assembly, which has now happened. The right hon. Gentleman might not be aware of the commission on a UK Bill of Rights, and the Lord Chancellor has written to the First Minister asking for two people from Northern Ireland to advise on the implications for Northern Ireland. The Executive need to initiate a parallel process to come to some consensus on what specific rights that recognise Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances might look like.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

When members of the United States Congress asked the same question, perhaps not as elegantly as it was phrased by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), the Prime Minister replied in a letter that he stood “ready to facilitate agreement”. Will the Minister tell me what steps he and the Secretary of State have taken in the past six months specifically to facilitate this agreement?

[Mr Swire]

We have talked to a number of people, not least the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, and we are currently advertising for replacements. The Secretary of State and I have been quite frank and have said that we want to return to the issue after the election and to move forward on it, which the hon. Gentleman’s party, I point out gently to him, did not do for 12 years.

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

5. What his policy is on the treatment of any request by a Northern Ireland political party for a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland as part of the Union; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

No such request has been made to the Government. The policy and legal position on this issue is set out in the Belfast agreement and the subsequent legislation, the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that Sinn Fein raised the issue of a referendum in the recent Assembly elections. May I push the Minister a little further and ask what mechanisms would be used to deal with any future request for a referendum?

[Mr Swire]

I do not want to dwell on the hon. Gentleman’s domestic situation in Scotland—it is not the same in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has the right to hold a referendum at any point and he has a duty to hold one if it appears there is likely to be a majority for a united Ireland. It is quite clear in the Belfast agreement, but no such situation arises in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we very much hope that the new Executive will concentrate on bread-and-butter issues such as the economy rather than issues that seem to be of interest in Scotland.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the Minister recognise that dissidents try to make the argument on the ground in nationalist areas that those of us who support the Good Friday agreement have gone derelict on Irish unity? Does he recognise therefore that he has to treat with validity those of us who make the case for framing progress towards unity? Will he confirm that in the event of a referendum the British Government would play no part in imposing or opposing any free choice that would be made by the Irish people?

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman’s party’s position is well known and I pay tribute here again to the way in which his party has embraced the ballot box and the democratic process. In a referendum, that would be for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. I can do no better than support the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—it is probably a career-advancing thing to do—who, in a speech in May 2010, stated clearly and unequivocally:

“I will never be neutral on our Union. We passionately believe that England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are stronger together, weaker apart”.

I believe that, as Aristotle said, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on powers to detain terrorist suspects.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regarding this issue. The Government are absolutely clear that reducing the maximum pre-charge detention period to 14 days will strike the right balance between civil liberties and the need to protect the public from the terrorist threat.

[Paul Goggins]

I thank the Minister for his reply. David Cairns was a fine colleague and I join all those who have paid tribute to him this morning.

The recent detention of three terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland for periods of 13 and 14 days indicates that the Government are right to bring in arrangements to extend the maximum period of detention beyond 14 days in exceptional circumstances. Given the likely pressures of those circumstances, does the Minister agree that the mechanism for implementing those arrangements needs to be both swift and straightforward?

[Mr Swire]

The Minister does very much agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said in his usual responsible manner. The right hon. Gentleman is on the Joint Committee that is scrutinising the draft emergency legislation. I agree with everything he has said and I urge him to make his point very forcefully. The principle is right and we must make certain that, if necessary, we can enforce that principle swiftly whether Parliament is sitting or not.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the decision by the Secretary of State to revoke the licence of Marian Price. Is he as concerned as I am that the courts would have granted bail to the Old Bailey bomber on charges of support for an illegal organisation? What sort of message do our courts send out if they seem to take a softly, softly approach to confronting dissident republican terrorists?

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that justice is a devolved matter. I believe that my right hon. Friend acted extremely swiftly and that he was right to do what he did. The legal process will take its usual course.

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

7. What recent assessment he has made of the state of the Northern Ireland economy.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Like many in Northern Ireland, I believe that we need to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy and boost private sector growth and investment. The Government will work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to help make Northern Ireland a beacon for foreign investment and growth.

[Alun Cairns]

Enterprise zones in England are an exciting opportunity to grow the private sector, and I hope they will be delivered in my constituency by the Welsh Assembly Government. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what progress is being made in Northern Ireland to deliver such an innovative opportunity?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. I have been travelling to Northern Ireland for nearly four years and wanting to turn the whole of Northern Ireland into an enterprise zone, making it an attractive place for investment and building on all the advantages that it now has. On my hon. Friend’s specific question, enterprise zones as described in the Budget are now in devolved hands and I hope the devolved Ministers grasp the opportunity with both hands. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. The House must hear Mr Sammy Wilson.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Recently the Irish Republic abolished air passenger duty, which has put at risk cross-Atlantic flights from Northern Ireland and had an impact on the tourist and investment strategy of the Executive. Ironically, that was done as a result of loans facilitated by the UK Government. Will the Secretary of State ensure that in the renegotiation of those loans or any further loans, conditions are attached that stop the Irish Republic gaining such competitive advantage?

[Mr Paterson]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his re-election, and re-election to his Ministry. He is right that maintaining good, cheap and quick transport links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the world is vital. I have discussed APD with Treasury colleagues. A consultation is going on and I would like to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss how we work together on the matter. In meetings with the Government in Dublin, I will also raise the issue.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

8. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the establishment of a commission to examine the West Lothian question.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I discussed the matter recently with the Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional reform, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). The Government will establish a commission this year to consider the West Lothian question.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Does the Minister agree that, given the complexity of the West Lothian question, no time should be lost in establishing the commission?

[Mr Swire]

The programme for government promised to establish it in this Parliament, so the answer is yes.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the security threat from dissident republicans; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at severe. Despite the overwhelming community rejection of their murderous strategy following the despicable murder of Ronan Kerr last month, the terrorist groups continue to pose an indiscriminate threat to the lives of police officers and the general public, who just want to go about their lives without fear, disruption or intimidation.

[Mr David]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments, but may I have a reassurance that everything possible is being done to make sure that those people are apprehended as quickly as possible?

[Mr Paterson]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take the threat extremely seriously. We do not underestimate it. As I said earlier, we endorsed an extra £50 million package last year for the PSNI and we have negotiated an exceptional four-year plan of £200 million over the coming years. I know that Matt Baggott, the Chief Constable, to whom I spoke this morning, is already putting those funds to very good use. We are determined to bear down on that small number of wholly unrepresentative, dangerous people.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

10. Whether he plans to provide further direct funding for projects to deal with legacy issues in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

This Government funded the four public inquiries into legacy cases, which were set up under the previous Government, so that they could be completed as soon as possible. I am currently considering what, if any, further role the Government can play in dealing with the past in Northern Ireland.

[Ian Murray]

A successful and prosperous future for Northern Ireland requires the Government to deal responsibly with all outstanding issues related to the peace process. Does the Secretary of State intend to honour all those outstanding issues?

[Mr Paterson]

Yes, I understand the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We endorse the agreements. We made that clear, as our record over the past year shows, but we also recognise that the past continues to be an issue. That is why I am continuing to talk to a wide range of groups, as is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to see whether we can find a way forward on which we can work with the Executive.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that a coherent and comprehensive strategy to deal with legacy issues is vital if we are to build a stable future for the people of Northern Ireland?

[Mr Paterson]

I could not quite hear the hon. Lady’s question, but I think I got the gist of it. As she knows, it is not easy to achieve consensus on this issue, which is why we are carrying on this listening exercise and talking with a wide range of groups, and I am very happy to talk and listen to her.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 May.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to Marine Nigel Mead from 42 Commando Royal Marines, who was killed by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan on Sunday. He was a selfless, enthusiastic and committed Marine who has made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. Our thoughts must be with his family, his friends and his colleagues.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, this afternoon I will be travelling to Dublin as part of this week’s historic state visit by Her Majesty the Queen.

[Mr Hollobone]

May I associate myself and my constituents with the Prime Minister’s words of condolence?

Under rules introduced in 2003, illegal migrants who manage to avoid the authorities for 14 years can apply for permanent stay, have full access to the welfare system and even obtain a British passport. Given that in the past eight years nearly 10,000 such migrants have won such rights, and with an estimated half a million illegal immigrants in Britain today, will the Prime Minister seek to change those rules and restore some sanity to Britain’s border controls?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have pledged to break the link between temporary migration and permanent settlement in the UK because we believe that settling in Britain should be a privilege, rather than an automatic right for those who have evaded the authorities for a certain amount of time. We are going to consult on further measures, including the future of the 14-year rule he mentioned, and make announcements later this year. We have already announced that there will be tighter rules for those wanting to settle here, and have already implemented a new income and English language requirement for skilled workers who have been here for more than five years.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Marine Nigel Mead from 42 Commando Royal Marines? He showed exceptional bravery and courage, like all our troops in Afghanistan, and our thoughts are with his family and friends.

The role of the Justice Secretary is to speak for the nation on matters of justice and crime. This morning he was on the radio suggesting that there were “serious” rapes and other categories of rapes. Would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity to distance himself from the Justice Secretary’s comments?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, let me say that rape is one of the most serious crimes there is, and it should be met with proper punishment. Anyone who has ever met a rape victim and talked with them about what that experience means to them and how it stays with them for the rest of their life could only want it to have the most serious punishment possible. The real disgrace in our country is that only 6% of rapes reported to a police station end in a conviction. That is what we have to sort out. I have not heard the Justice Secretary’s interview, but the position of the Government is very clear: there is an offence called rape and anyone who commits it should be prosecuted, convicted and punished very severely.

[Edward Miliband]

Let me tell the Prime Minister what the Justice Secretary said this morning. He was asked about the average sentence a rapist gets. The interviewer said, “A rapist gets five years,” and then the Justice Secretary said in reply, “That includes date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15-year-olds”. He went on to say that there were categories of “forcible rape” and “serious rape”. The Justice Secretary cannot speak for the women of this country when he makes comments like that.

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, I have not heard the interview, but the point is this: it should be a matter for the court to decide the seriousness of the offence and the sentence that ought to be passed. I served on the Sexual Offences Bill under the last Government, and we looked at all the issues about whether we should try to differentiate between different categories of rape—and I seem to remember that one of the right hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench was leading the debate for the Government. We decided, as a House of Commons, not to make that distinction. What matters is this: do we get more cases to court, do we get more cases convicted, and do we get more cases sent down for decent sentences? That is the concern we should have.

[Edward Miliband]

When the Prime Minister leaves the Chamber, he should go and look at the comments of the Justice Secretary—and let me just say to him very clearly: the Justice Secretary should not be in his post at the end of today. That is the first thing the Prime Minister should do. The second thing he should do is to drop this policy, because this policy, which they are defending, is the idea that if you plead guilty to rape you get your sentence halved. That could mean that rapists spend as little as 15 months in prison. That is not an acceptable policy, and the Prime Minister should drop it.

[The Prime Minister]

I think that what the Leader of the Opposition might be doing is jumping to conclusions on this issue. The point is this: there is already a plea bargaining system in Britain, for one third, and we are consulting on whether to extend the system to make it even more powerful. We have not yet decided which offences it should apply to, or how it should be brought in, because there is a consultation, but the aim of plea bargaining—it is worth remembering this, because plea bargaining is used in very tough criminal justice systems, such as America’s—is to ensure that more people get prosecuted, more people get convicted, and it actually saves the victim from having to go through a court process and find out at the end that the culprit is going to submit a guilty plea at the last minute. That is what the Government are looking at, and when we have listened to the consultation we will announce our conclusions—but he needs to be patient until we do that.

[Edward Miliband]

We are getting used to this. As we saw on health, when there is a terrible policy the Prime Minister just hides behind the consultation. Frankly, it is just not good enough. Let me tell him what people think of this policy. The judges are saying the policy is wrong, End Violence Against Women is saying that it is the wrong policy, and his own Victims Commissioner says that the policy is “bonkers”. I know that he is in the middle of a consultation, but I would like to hear his view on this policy, which he should drop.

[The Prime Minister]

The terrible fact that the right hon. Gentleman refers to is that only 6% of rape cases are prosecuted and end in a conviction. That is after 13 years of the Labour party running the criminal justice system, so that is the improvement we want to see. He wants to know my view: my view is get out there, convict, prosecute and send these people down for a decent period of time. That is what we should be doing. Rape is such a serious offence, so he should wait for the outcome of the consultation, rather than just jumping on the bandwagon.

[Edward Miliband]

This is about the way the Prime Minister runs his Government, because yesterday the Justice Secretary said that this

“proposal is likely to survive”—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 150]

the consultation, and the prisons Minister was defending the policy. People are rightly angry about this policy; they think that it is the wrong policy. All I am asking is something very simple: why does not the Prime Minister give us his view?

[The Prime Minister]

I have given you my view, and I will give you my—[Interruption.] I have. I want to see more people prosecuted and convicted for rape, and we are going to take steps to make sure that happens. But I will give you my view on something else—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Yes, which is this: I think there is merit in having a plea bargaining system, which we have already—and which should be discretionary, to try to make sure that we convict more. What we had under the previous Government was a mandatory release of all prisoners, irrespective of what they had done. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman sat in the Cabinet that let 80,000 criminals out of prison. That was not a discretionary policy; it was a mandatory policy—and it was a disgraceful policy.

[Edward Miliband]

Does the Prime Minister not realise what people are thinking of him on crime? Before the election he made a whole series of promises, and now he is breaking them one by one. He was out of touch on anonymity for rape victims, and now he is out of touch on sentencing for rape. He is cutting the number of police officers—cutting 12,000 police officers. Why does he not go back to the drawing board on crime, and get rid of his Justice Secretary?

[The Prime Minister]

Talking of broken promises, I remember the Leader of the Opposition saying at his party conference, about Ken Clarke:

“I’m not going to say he’s soft on crime.”

Well, that pledge did not last very long. One of these days the Labour party is going to realise that opposition is about more than just jumping on a bandwagon and picking up an issue; it is about putting forward a serious alternative and making some serious points. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Sir Alan Haselhurst.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

This question is by way of contrast, Mr Speaker. In harmony with the priority being given by the Government to strengthening relations with the Commonwealth, does my right hon. Friend attach importance to the particular role of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and will he do his best to find a way of marking that when the centennial conference of the CPA takes place in London in July?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is an important part of the Commonwealth. For the celebration of that anniversary I have had an extremely attractive invitation to go along and say a few words, and I will certainly see whether I can.

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

Q2. Why is the Prime Minister giving private and confidential NHS prescription records of 9 million British citizens to multinational private companies that will no doubt show no mercy with that information?

[The Prime Minister]

What we are trying to do is clean up the mess of Labour’s NHS IT programme, which cost billions of pounds and is still struggling. We are desperately trying to get it under control and make sure we can save money to put into health care.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Q3. Will the Prime Minister join me in sending a message of support to Tony Blair’s former speechwriter, Peter Hyman, who is seeking to set up one of the coalition’s excellent new free schools in east London? [Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

It is funny that Labour Members do not want to listen to Tony Blair’s speechwriter, as they listened with such rapt attention for so many years to what he said. I welcome the free schools policy, and I very much welcome what Peter Hyman is doing in trying to establish a free school. I think this is an excellent policy. Yesterday we had a new policy from Labour when the shadow Education Secretary said that just because he is opposed to the free schools policy, that does not mean he is opposed to every free school. We are back to the days of John Prescott, being told that we cannot have new good schools because everyone might want to go to them. We are back to old Labour.

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

Does not the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to the Irish Republic this week demonstrate not just her own personal courage in carrying out such a visit in the face of severe dissident terrorist threats, but also, whatever reservations some of us may have about one particular aspect of her visit, the extent of the improvement in relations between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a proud part, as well as a recognition of Northern Ireland’s status? Is it not also an opportunity to build on co-operation to fight the dissident terrorists who still plague us in Northern Ireland and in the Republic?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is right in every respect. This is a remarkable visit that demonstrates that the relationship between Britain and the Republic of Ireland is strong, and has probably never been stronger, with the successful devolution of policing and justice that made the visit possible. The scenes on our television screens last night of the visits that Her Majesty made to heal the wounds of the past, but also to look to a very bright future between our two countries, are remarkable and hugely welcome.

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

Q4. Since it is the people of this country who have paid the enormous bills for bank failures, should not they get some reward for their sacrifice by being given shares when the banks are eventually denationalised? Will the Prime Minister look at the imaginative scheme put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), which is now backed by The Sun newspaper, to do that?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look at all the possible ways of putting the nationalised banks back into the private sector. I personally strongly support the idea of widening share ownership, so we will look carefully at the scheme that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. We also have to make sure that we secure value for money for the taxpayer as we try to fill in the great deep pit of debt that we were left by Labour.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Today hundreds of women in their 50s, supported by Age UK, have come to Parliament to protest against unfair changes to their pensions. The coalition agreement says that there will be no increase in women’s state pension age before 2020, yet under the Pensions Bill that increase will start in 2018. Why the U-turn?

[The Prime Minister]

Yet again, here is another reform important for making sure that our pensions system is affordable and sustainable that Labour has completely given up on. What we are doing with pensions is linking them back to earnings—something that was promised repeatedly but never done—and making sure that our pensions system is sustainable for the long term. That is what we are delivering—something never done by Labour.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q5. The people of England have almost as much to lose from any move towards Scottish independence and the break-up of the Union as the people of Scotland. Will the Prime Minister therefore give us all a vote in a referendum on the subject?

[The Prime Minister]

I have made my views clear: if the Scottish Parliament wanted to hold a referendum, although I think that that would be a retrograde step, we would have to grant it. I would then join with everyone in this House and beyond who supports our United Kingdom to ensure that we keep it together. That is the process that we should go through, and it would involve a vote for people in Scotland, not for those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Q6. I am a very generous person, so I compliment the Government on eventually deciding to sign up to the EU human trafficking directive. A recent report by the Children’s Commissioner for Scotland said that he could identify 200 children trafficked into Scotland, and ECPAT UK has stated that 1,000 children have been trafficked into the rest of the UK. Both bodies recommend that the Government appoint an independent human trafficking rapporteur and strengthen the guardianship system for children. Given that the Government have cut specialist teams in the Home Office and the police in this area, how can they assure the House that the UK is prepared for the responsibility that comes with signing up to the EU directive?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says, because I know that he has a deep concern about trafficking, as do many Members of our House. Frankly, the fact that children and young adults are trafficked for sex and other purposes in our world is completely disgraceful, and we have to stamp it out. We have signed up to the directive, as he said, and we were already complying with the terms of the directive. We must do everything we can to stamp out this repulsive practice.

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

Q7. What recent discussions he has had with the Leader of the Opposition on the future of the nuclear deterrent.

[The Prime Minister]

Although I have discussions on many issues with the Leader of the Opposition, the nuclear deterrent has not recently been one of them. That is partly because the Government’s policy is absolutely clear: we are committed to retaining an independent nuclear deterrent based on Trident. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will make a statement to Parliament today announcing our decision to proceed with initial gate.

[Dr Lewis]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for repeating our commitment to the future of Trident, its renewal and a continuous at-sea deterrent. Would he give his blessing to hon. Members in the Conservative party and on the Labour Benches who, like him, think that the nuclear deterrent should be above party politics, if they formed an alliance on this important issue, just as we did so successfully on the alternative vote?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be better if we could elevate this issue above party politics. Indeed, when we voted to go ahead with Trident it was on the basis of a Labour motion that was supported by most Labour MPs and almost all Conservative MPs. However, I have a feeling that my hon. Friend would never be satisfied, even if I placed a Trident submarine in the Solent, opposite his constituency, and handed him the codes—something, I am afraid, that I am simply not prepared to do.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Why continue to waste billions on a national virility symbol that has played no part in any of the military operations that we have taken part in over the last seven years, and is unlikely to play any part in the future? Does it not give justification and encouragement to other countries in acquiring their own nuclear weapons?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept either part of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. First, we are signatories to the non-proliferation agreement and are strong supporters of it. Secondly, the point of our nuclear deterrent is just that—deterrence. It is the ultimate insurance policy against blackmail or attack by other countries. That is why I believe it is right to maintain and replace it.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Q8. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no case for giving the EU powers over taxation, least of all in the present circumstances? Will he assure me that the Government will simply say no to the proposed EU directive for a common corporate tax base?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend. Those in the EU who want to see further tax harmonisation usually make one of two arguments: either they want to raise more money for the EU, which I do not agree with, or they are trying to reduce tax competition within the EU, which I also do not agree with. It is important that we keep our competitive tax rates and do not give the EU further coverage over our tax base.

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

Q9. The ministerial code is extensive in its guidelines and rules governing Ministers. What is the policy of the Prime Minister and his Government on Ministers who break the ministerial code?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, breaking the ministerial code is an extremely serious offence. I know that the hon. Gentleman has asked questions before about the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and let me be clear that the Employment Minister played no part in the decision-making process to award Work programme contracts. I want to make that point clear to the hon. Gentleman, as he has asked me the question.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Q10. May I echo the tribute that my right hon. Friend paid to Nigel Mead, the young Royal Marine who was serving with 3 Commando Brigade, which is based in my constituency?Given the recent inflation figures and the loose monetary conditions that contributed to the causes of the credit crunch, should my right hon. Friend now lead a fundamental debate reviewing the inflation target, and the operation and workings of the Monetary Policy Committee?

[The Prime Minister]

The point that I would make to my hon. Friend is that one of the fundamental causes of the problems during the credit crunch was the poor regulation of our banking system and credit. We have taken steps to put that right by putting the Bank of England back at the pinnacle of that system, after the failure of the system put in place by the Labour party. On inflation, I strongly support monetary policy being independent and established by the Bank of England. I do not want to go back to the bad old days of the Treasury setting interest rates. I think it is better to have that power vested in the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Q11. A number of my constituents with very serious health conditions are being declared fit for work under the Department for Work and Pensions work capability assessment. Can the Prime Minister give me a guarantee that the assessment will be fit for purpose by the time of the big move from incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance, especially in the light of cuts at the DWP?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we want to get the tests right, but I believe that the tests are showing that it has been wrong to leave so many people on benefits for so long without proper assessment. Of course, we can always improve the processes, and we will ensure that we do that as we go along, but I think it is absolutely right to go through people on all benefits and ask whether they can work, and what help they need to work. Then if they are offered work that they do not take, frankly, they should not go on getting benefits.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Now that there is to be a full investigation into the abduction or murder of Madeleine McCann, is there not a much stronger case for a full investigation into the suicide or murder of Dr David Kelly?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is raising two issues. First, on the issue of Madeleine McCann, it is welcome that the Metropolitan police have decided to review the case and the paperwork. On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the inquest that was carried out and the report into it were fairly clear, and I do not think it is necessary to take that case forward.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Q12. Is the Prime Minister aware that the most revealing statistic in recent days has been the fact that in recession-hit Britain, the billionaires have gone up by 20—an increase of 37%—in the first year of this Tory rule, while in the real world inflation is going through the roof and thousands of blind people are having to march through the streets of London to hang on to their disability living allowance? What a savage indictment of this lousy, rotten Tory Government, propped up by these pathetic Liberals—[Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

I can see that the hon. Gentleman enjoyed that—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s reply.

[The Prime Minister]

I think that the most revealing statistics today are the unemployment figures, which show that employment in our country is up by 118,000, that unemployment is down by 36,000, and that youth unemployment fell by 30,000. Those are the statistics of what is happening in the real world, rather than in the dinosaur land that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) still inhabits.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Q13. Hard-working families in Broxtowe want a cap on benefits, but the Labour party will vote against such a cap. Would the Prime Minister help us in this way: who is living in the real world and who is representing real families—us or them?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are proposing a cap of £26,000 on the benefits that a family can receive. People would have to earn something like £40,000 to get that level of income. Frankly, some people will be watching this and thinking, “I’m earning £15,000”—or £16,000, or £17,000—“Why am I paying my taxes to go to families that are getting more than £26,000 in benefits?” To answer my hon. Friend’s question, the Government are in touch with what people want, and the Labour party seems to have gone to sleep.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

What can the Prime Minister say to the people of Sunderland, the largest city in the north-east, and to my constituents, about the news that the Olympic torch is not stopping in the city?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say that I was not aware of that. Perhaps I can look into the route that the Olympic torch will take—and if it is possible to divert it via Sunderland, I will certainly do my best.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Q14. An increasing number of European Court of Human Rights and European Court of Justice judgments are deeply unpopular in our country, and intrude on what should be the preserve of member states. Will the Prime Minister assure my constituents that he will use every ounce of his considerable personal authority to support efforts to push back those overbearing institutions?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are leading the process of trying to reform the ECHR so that it pays more attention to the decisions of national Parliaments and, crucially, national courts. As for the ECJ, one thing that we must do is stop the transfer of further powers from Westminster to Brussels. That is why we are putting in place the referendum lock.

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

Does the Prime Minister think that the power and influence of this House of Commons will be diminished or increased by the reforms to the House of Lords that were announced yesterday?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that Parliament as a whole will be increased in terms of authority and respect. It is right to insert into the House of Lords some elected peers, so that we recognise that in the modern world, it is right to have two Chambers that are predominantly elected. That is the policy of the Government. It is clear to me that there are massive divisions on both sides of the House about that policy. However, this is an opportunity for the House of Commons to try to find a path through those, which we must do to achieve what was in every manifesto: elections to the House of Lords.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

Q15. An independent investigation is due to report on allegations that Reading borough council, when last under Labour control, diverted section 106 moneys to plug gaps in the general budget, and also to fund unrelated projects. Can the Prime Minister offer any advice on how residents can make use of the Localism Bill to ensure that section 106 money is spent correctly?

[The Prime Minister]

I would make two points to my hon. Friend. First, the Localism Bill gives local people a greater ability to influence what happens to section 106 money. Secondly, because of the new homes bonus, councils that go ahead with building homes will get more money, so they need not feel that they must go for one huge development in order to draw in the section 106 money. It could be that a different pattern of development—one more in tune with what local people want—would deliver some of the benefits that local people want to see.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

May I return the Prime Minister to his earlier remarks on rape? We all support moves to make the justice system easier for women, but many people out there—victims and non-victims alike—find his proposals to reduce sentences by up to 50% abhorrent and frightening. The only responsible thing for him to do is to take that out of any consultation now.

[The Prime Minister]

The point is that what the hon. Lady says is not what we are proposing—[Hon. Members: “Yes it is!”] Let me make this point as well: because this Government take the crime of rape so seriously, we have boosted the funding for rape crisis centres. The real need—frankly, the whole House should unite on this—is to change the fact that 94% of rapists are walking the streets free because they have not been convicted. That is what we have got to change.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

There are currently 2,500 trade union representatives across the public sector paid not to provide the service that they represent but to carry out campaigning activities that should be funded by the unions—and because the unions do not pay their salaries, they can spend their subs on other things, such as subsidising that lot over there. Does the Prime Minister not think it time that that was reformed?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. [Hon. Members: “No he doesn’t!”] It is interesting that whenever someone raises a point about union funding they get shouted down by the Labour party, because Labour Members do not want any examination of what trade unions do, or how much money they give to the Labour party. [Interruption.] I think that they protest a little too much.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I am absolutely delighted to be supported by the trade union movement. May I ask the Prime Minister why he has not sacked his NHS adviser, Mark Britnell, who said that the NHS would be shown “no mercy”, and that the reforms would be a “big opportunity” for private profit and would transform the NHS into an

“insurance provider, not a state deliverer"?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clear this up. When I read about Mr Britnell being my adviser, I was slightly puzzled, because I have never heard of this person in my life, and he is not my adviser. However, I did a little research, and it turned out that he was an adviser to the previous Government. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Oh, don’t worry, there is plenty more. He helped to develop Labour’s NHS plan in 2000, which increased the role of the private sector, he was appointed by Labour as chief executive of one of the 10 strategic health authorities set up by Labour, and when the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cabinet, Mark Britnell was director general for NHS commissioning. Although I do not know him, therefore, I suspect that Labour Members know him rather well.

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I cannot understand why the House does not wish to hear Mr Andrew Tyrie.

[Mr Tyrie]

I was rather impressed by that last answer, but I will draw the Prime Minister on to something else. Yesterday the Government announced plans to reform the second Chamber. Can he tell the House whether he will use all means necessary, including the Parliament Acts, to protect the coalition’s legislative programme?

[The Prime Minister]

The short answer is yes. This is Government legislation, like any other piece of Government legislation, and will be scrutinised, carried through, debated and discussed, and then passed in the same way.

Petition

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I should like to present the petition of my constituent, Miss Alice Bramall, of Newton Blossomville, which is similar to one signed by 500 of my constituents.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Milton Keynes,

Declares that Mr Ken Spooner’s children, Devlan and Caelan, were abducted to Zambia by their mother; notes the existence of a High Court Order requiring Devlan and Caelan to be returned to the UK.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that the High Court Order in the case of Devlan and Caelan Spooner is enforced.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000922]

Nuclear Industry Safety

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

12:32

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will make a statement on the implications of the Weightman report. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

The Energy and Climate Change Secretary will answer the urgent question on behalf of the Government. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, affording the Secretary of State the courtesy of a decent hearing.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

Earlier today I laid before the House the chief nuclear inspector’s interim report on the events at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear site in March. Dr Weightman’s final report is due in September. Safety is, and will continue to be, our No. 1 priority, and I believe that it is vital that the regulators and industry continue to adhere to the principle of continuous improvement for all existing and future nuclear sites and facilities. Dr Weightman has drawn a number of conclusions. He states:

“The direct causes of the nuclear accident, a magnitude 9 earthquake and the associated 14 metre high tsunami, are far beyond the most extreme…events that the UK would be expected to experience.”

In that respect, he concludes that there is

“no reason for curtailing the operation of nuclear power plants or other nuclear facilities in the UK.”

Nevertheless, Dr Weightman notes:

“severe events can occur from other causes and learning from events is fundamental to…the robustness of”

our nuclear safety arrangements. I can therefore confirm that once further work on the recommendations is completed, any proposed improvements to safety arrangements will be considered and implemented in line with our normal regulatory approach to nuclear safety.

The interim report also identifies various matters that should be reviewed to improve the safety of the UK nuclear industry. I consider it an absolute priority that the regulators, industry and Government should act responsibly to learn from the 26 recommendations in today’s report and respond to them within one month. My officials will review the interim report carefully, but from my discussions with Dr Weightman, I see no reason why we should not proceed with our current policy—that nuclear can be part of the future energy mix, as it is today— providing that there is no public subsidy. The interim report does not identify any implications for the strategic siting or assessment of new reactors, and I do not believe that the final report will either. Subject to careful consideration of the detail of Dr Weightman’s interim report, I intend to bring forward the energy national policy statement for ratification as soon as possible. I strongly welcome Dr Weightman’s interim report. I encourage the regulators to work closely with industry and other partners to take the recommendations forward, and I look forward to receiving the final report in the autumn.

[Paul Flynn]

The nightmare of Fukushima continues and intensifies. In the past seven days, the no-go area has been extended from 20 km to 30 km, and the residents of the towns of Kawamata and Iitate have been expelled from their homes. There is now proof that the greatly feared meltdown has taken place, and it is out of control. This is all in the past seven days. It is not possible in just eight weeks to make any assessment of the extent of this terrifying event, but that is what the Government have tried to do. This is not about science; this is about spin and PR. The whole reason for putting out the report so prematurely is to shore up collapsing public opinion and investor opinion.

Of course Britain is not Japan, as the report says, but there have been tsunamis here too. There was one that affected my constituency, destroying all human and animal life, and that was on the Severn estuary, where several nuclear power stations are placed. Our threat comes from two possibilities: a terrorist attack, and especially an attack by air, or a unique climatic event. Sadly, unique climatic events are happening regularly throughout the world and are more likely to happen in future because of the climate change that is afore us. The residents of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima were all assured of the absolute safety of the installations. What Weightman does is give false reassurances for commercial reasons, to suit the Government’s programme. This report has been produced in haste. We may regret at leisure shoring up this unnecessary, subsidised form of energy creation, which the public, because of their well-founded fears, might in future prevent from being built. It is right that we should look again at the lessons of Fukushima. We do not know what they are at the moment. We should pause and look to developing the safe renewables that are inexhaustible, British and sustainable.

[Chris Huhne]

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s long-standing opposition to nuclear power and his concern, interest and expertise in these issues, but I think he has gone too far in impugning the integrity of the chief nuclear inspector. I am not a scientist, but I have had a number of meetings with Dr Weightman, and I am absolutely convinced that he is an entirely independent, well-respected professional. Indeed, he is so well respected that after I asked him to conduct the inquiry and make his recommendations, he was subsequently approached by the International Atomic Energy Agency to lead the international inquiry into Fukushima. It beggars belief not to recognise his standing in the international community and his independence. This is a fact-based and evidence-based report. My concern has always been to base our policy on the facts and the evidence, and I think that the report does that.

The hon. Gentleman raised two specific points. He will find that I entirely agree with him on extreme weather events. It is absolutely essential that all our critical energy infrastructure needs to be proof against such events, not just the nuclear facilities. On page 97 of the report, he will find a useful table that summarises the extent to which our existing nuclear power stations are prepared against seismic hazards and flood heights. The hon. Gentleman’s description of our vulnerability on this front simply does not accord with the facts as set out in Dr Weightman’s report. First and foremost, we do not have the same reactor design. Secondly, we are not subject to earthquakes of anything like the same magnitude. The earthquake that so unfortunately hit Japan was 65,000 times stronger than the largest earthquake ever recorded in British territorial areas, which was centred on Dogger Bank in 1931. The situation is therefore entirely different. The hon. Gentleman will also see a discussion in the report about the vulnerability to tsunamis, and about whether the flood defence heights set out for each of the power stations on page 97 are adequate, and the conclusions stand.

I entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of security against terrorist attack. This Government have been very careful to improve the security arrangements in our nuclear facilities since we came into office a little over a year ago, and we will continue to do so.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

We, too, welcome the report. Safety in the nuclear industry is of paramount importance, and it is worth noting that the UK has a good safety record. I welcome Mike Weightman’s view that we need to be continually vigilant in that regard. Nuclear is clearly crucial to security of supply in a low-carbon economy, especially in the light of yesterday’s decision. What is the Secretary of State now doing to ensure that the nuclear programme is still on track? When will we see new plant in this country? Will he be pressing ahead with the national policy statements over the summer, or will he wait for the final report in the autumn? Will the lifespan of the existing nuclear stations be extended as coal-fired power stations go off-line? Will he step up his efforts to boost renewable energy to fill the emerging energy gap? That is an area in which we have seen a lack of action from the Government. Finally, although the Secretary of State keeps denying the subsidy issue, to hide his embarrassment, will he acknowledge the need for market support to ensure that we have safe new nuclear in this country as soon as possible?

[Chris Huhne]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. Clearly, there has been a delay in the new nuclear programme preparations as a result of Dr Weightman’s report, and I signalled that we needed to do that when I asked Dr Weightman to look at this matter. I am determined, as are the whole Government, to base our evidence on fact, rather than on emotional, knee-jerk responses, which would be entirely inappropriate given the importance of the issues. We will bring forward the energy national policy statements as soon as we can, and I would very much hope that we will be able to catch up over the next few months and years following the delay. As I mentioned in the House yesterday, we have already begun work at Hinckley Point, where EDF is preparing the earthworks for the first of the new nuclear reactors. I am keen to deliver on the commitment in the coalition Government programme that new nuclear should, subject to the proviso that there is no public subsidy, have a place in our energy mix.

I am not going to take any lectures on renewable energy from the hon. Lady. Our inheritance was to be 25th out of 27 European Union member states for installed renewable capacity. We are in the dunce’s corner as a result of 13 years of Labour policy, so the best commitment I can make is to say that over the next few years we are absolutely determined to be the fastest improving pupil in the class.

On the hon. Lady’s final point, I set out in October a very clear statement about public subsidies. She has to recognise that there is an enormous difference; money such as that available under the European Union emissions trading scheme penalises activities that generate carbon and therefore implicitly subsidises activities that do not generate carbon, and is designed to correct what Lord Stern has described as

“the greatest market failure of all time”.

On that basis, we will continue to have policies that encourage low-carbon alternatives, but there will be no support to nuclear; it is a mature industry and there is no justification for extra support.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is considerable interest, but the House is under real time pressure today, with a statement to follow before the remaining stages of an important Bill. Economy in questions and answers alike is of the essence.

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

Having discussed the Fukushima problems with the Japanese, I know that they have concluded that not only did the reactor need to be built stronger to withstand the extreme climatic conditions, but that the primary weakness was that there was no secondary power source to circulate the water to keep the nuclear core cool. However, if they can design out those problems, they are perfectly happy in principle to build new nuclear power stations. Should we not take some lessons from those statements?

[Chris Huhne]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The lessons from Japan are extraordinary. First of all, the earthquake, however terrible and powerful, did not damage the reactors. The damage came through the subsequent tsunami, which flooded the secondary cooling system and made it inoperable. It shifted away the diesel supplies for the back-up generating plant. That is precisely why it is so important to look at these secondary systems and ensure that they are proof against any extreme weather events in this country.

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

The Secretary of State referred to a raft of recommendations in the report, which he said the Government would accept. I have not read the report, but does he have any idea of the cost of those recommendations and who will pay for them?

[Chris Huhne]

It is too early to assess the likely cost. I merely point out that, as far as any new nuclear programme is concerned, we are still at the stage where negotiations are going on between the regulators and the companies interested in providing new reactors, making it possible to incorporate into the design stage any changes that flow from Dr Weightman’s recommendations. That means that it will be substantially cheaper than it would have been if we were attempting to retrofit.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on drawing the attention of the House to this report. On the alleged prematurity of drawing early conclusions from the Weightman report, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that he will keep this matter under review, given that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, this is very much a changing scenario in the Fukushima area?

[Chris Huhne]

There may well be longer-term implications. The key conclusions of the interim report relate to the potential choice of sites, for example, and therefore the implications for national policy statements and the new nuclear programme. We now need to look at any implications for the generic design assessments and the design of new nuclear reactors. There may also be longer-term implications for civil contingencies, as Dr Weightman points out. We will very much keep those matters under review.

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

Once again, the Secretary of State has claimed that new nuclear will not receive a public subsidy. However, in its report on electricity market reform, the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change says that the Government’s proposals are designed to give nuclear a substantial subsidy. Can the Secretary of State explain why there is such a difference of view between him and the Select Committee?

[Chris Huhne]

The hon. Lady will be aware, even after only a year in the House, that it is not the first time—[Interruption.] I was a colleague of the hon. Lady in the European Parliament for six years, and I have enormous respect for her. However, she will know from her experience both in the European Parliament and here that it is not entirely unknown for Ministers and Select Committees to reach different views on these issues. The key point is that there is a huge difference between offsetting the market failure—which, as Lord Stern pointed out, has been

“the greatest market failure of all time”

—and subsidies directed at a particular way of doing that.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I welcome what the Secretary of State said today. The British nuclear industry adheres to the highest standards of safety and excellence in engineering. To underline that, may I invite the Secretary of State, or a member of his team, to visit Graham Engineering in Colne, which manufactures nuclear waste drums, next time he is in Lancashire?

[Chris Huhne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind invitation. We will certainly consider it, and we hope to see him in due course.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I welcome the interim report. It would appear from the flooding risk assessments in conclusion 6 and annexe G that Dr Weightman may not have taken account of recent research at Delft university on eustatic sea level drop. I urge the Secretary of State to investigate that. As for the conclusion on MOX—mixed oxide—can he tell us exactly how the plutonium fallout relates to the testing of nuclear weapons? I believe that after the second world war Japan agreed not to undertake any nuclear weapons testing.

[Chris Huhne]

The hon. Gentleman has considerable expertise in this area. As a humble economist, I shall be happy to take away his questions and correspond with him on the answers.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

What happened in Japan was clearly a disaster, but we should be considering both the design and the siting of new nuclear reactors. Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to assess whether the report will have any implications for the siting of the proposed new nuclear power stations?

[Chris Huhne]

Dr Weightman makes clear in the report that he believes it will not.

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

Will the Secretary of State be considering the implications of the additional expense of new nuclear building as a consequence of the Weightman recommendations? Will he also be considering the present target of bringing one new nuclear power station on stream every nine months between 2018 and 2025 in the light of those additional costs? How fundable does he expect the programme to be?

[Chris Huhne]

As I said in my response to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), the cost impact may well be limited by the fact that the programme is at the design stage. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not propose to subsidise nuclear reactors or to invest public money in them. The funding will be up to private investors, who have shown no lack of desire to finance a new nuclear programme.

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

Every time I go home to my village of Westleton, I see the white dome of Sizewell B. My local energy company is very concerned about safety, and is not at all complacent. I am sure that it will welcome the additional review.

On the matter of nuclear industry safety, the newly formed Office for Nuclear Regulation is part of the Health and Safety Executive, which reports to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would make sense to transfer responsibility for the ONR to his own Department, so that all nuclear matters can be—so to speak—under one roof?

[Chris Huhne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and, in particular, for the benefit of her scientific background. The first read-out of our nuclear regulatory system produced very good results in comparison with those in other countries, and we were recently given a clean bill of health by the IAEA inspection team. The system is very independent: for example, in the event of a hazard, our regulators are able to shut down the facility immediately with no political sign-off. We have agreed that the Office for Nuclear Regulation will be set up statutorily as an independent body, which is entirely appropriate.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge and respect the fact that planning consent on nuclear issues is devolved, and that under the newly re-elected Scottish National party Government, there will be no new nuclear power stations in Scotland?

[Chris Huhne]

Yes.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

In parallel with the Weightman report, the Council of the European Union has requested that national regulators carry out stress tests on nuclear power stations. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the development of those tests, and on when the results are likely to be reported?

[Chris Huhne]

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), discussed the stress tests recently at an informal EU Energy Council meeting in Hungary, and during bilateral meetings with Commissioner Günther Oettinger. Good progress is being made in defining the tests, and I believe that we will be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

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

However much the Secretary of State tries to dress it up, is it not the case that the new carbon floor price represents a massive subsidy to the nuclear industry, possibly to the tune of £2 billion? Is that not why the nuclear industry has been lobbying for it?

[Chris Huhne]

I return to the point that I made in answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). As Lord Stern said, we have experienced the greatest market failure of all time. We will be able to provide the incentives that will lead all of us, in the private and public sectors, to change our behaviour only if we offset that market failure by incorporating the costs. What there will not be is any subsidy for the nuclear industry.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I am sure my right hon. Friend will confirm that a magnitude 9 earthquake hit western Europe in its not too recent history, and that the consequent tsunami crossed territorial maritime boundaries and hit the United Kingdom. Given evacuation and compensation bills running into tens of billions of pounds, and sea contamination at 18,000 times the safe limit, is not the real lesson of Fukushima that in the event of an unpredictable catastrophe of any kind, nuclear is the worst possible power source to be in its path?

[Chris Huhne]

There is an enormous difference between our vulnerability to seismic shocks and, sadly, that of the Japanese. That is a matter of record. There is a good discussion of the matter in Dr Weightman’s report, and I urge my hon. Friend to look at it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am not opposed to the nuclear industry at all, but has the Secretary of State or his Department been able to ascertain details of the deaths that have taken place recently? It has been indicated that there have been many deaths, but it has not been made clear whether the people who lived nearby were involved in repairs to nuclear reactors. This is not a case of dwelling on tragedy; it is a case of the lessons that we can learn. Can we learn any lessons from the Japanese authorities about how we can improve the safety of people who live close to nuclear reactors?

[Chris Huhne]

It is far too early to reach conclusions in relation to the Fukushima accident, but there have been estimates on the basis of past accidents. A comparison of the casualty rates of different generating technologies appeared recently in the New Scientist. We are acutely aware of the issue, but, sadly, casualties and deaths are associated with almost all energy sources.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State may accept that some of us find the inspector's answers to the essential safety questions as predictable as those of Churchill the dog. As for the question of public subsidy, is he telling us that any additional infrastructural protections that arise as a result of the report will be funded not from the public purse but by the nuclear industry, and that the carbon floor price will not be adjusted in the light of those additional costs to provide additional subsidy?

[Chris Huhne]

The considerations that are taken into account in setting the carbon price support—and, indeed, all our other measures—are related to our need to mitigate carbon emissions and have nothing to do with the costs of any particular technology. In that sense, we are technology-neutral; we want the lowest possible cost response in making sure we have a low-carbon economy. Whether that points to alternative technologies to nuclear will be a decision for the market, not the Government.

Nuclear Deterrent

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

13:00

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on our nuclear deterrent programme.

The House will be aware that we have been considering the next stage of investment—called initial gate—in the programme to deliver a successor to our current nuclear deterrent. This is the point in the Ministry of Defence’s procurement cycle at which we decide on broad design parameters, set out our plans for detailed system assessment and order any long lead items that might be required. Taking this action enables us to be sure that we will make the right decisions at the key investment stage, at the main gate, which for this submarine programme will be in 2016. I am announcing today that we have approved the initial gate investment and selected a submarine design that will be powered by a new generation of nuclear propulsion system—the pressurised water reactor 3—that will allow our submarines to deliver our nuclear deterrent capability well into the 2060s if required.

At this milestone in the project, I think it is useful for me to remind the House of this Government’s policy on the nuclear deterrent. The first duty of any Government is to ensure the security of their people. The nuclear deterrent provides the ultimate guarantee of our national security, and for the past 42 years the Royal Navy has successfully operated continuous deterrent patrols to ensure just that. I pay tribute to the crews and support staff who ensure the continued success of deterrent operations, and I extend that tribute to the families of all those personnel, many of whom are regularly away from home for long periods.

We assess that no state currently has both the intent and the capability to threaten the independence or integrity of the United Kingdom, but we cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge. We simply do not know how the international environment will change in the next few years, let alone the next 50 years; and as this House concluded in 2007 when it voted on whether the UK should start a programme to renew the deterrent, the time is simply not right to do away with it unilaterally. That is not to say that if the time is right we will not move away from nuclear weapons at some time in the future. Our long-term goal remains a world without them, and we are doing all we can to counter proliferation, to make progress on multilateral disarmament, and to build trust and confidence with nations across the globe.

In this spirit, as part of the value-for-money study we reviewed carefully how we manage our deterrent programme, and concluded that we could take significant steps to demonstrate our commitment to disarmament: by reducing the number of warheads carried on each deterrent submarine from no more than 48 to no more than 40; by consequently reducing our overall stockpile of nuclear weapons from no more than 225 to no more than 180 in due course; and by giving a stronger assurance to non-nuclear weapon states in compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The value-for-money study delivered £3 billion of savings and deferrals over the next 10 years.

The coalition agreement reflected both coalition parties’ commitment to a minimum credible nuclear deterrent, but also the desire of the Liberal Democrats to make the case for alternatives. As Secretary of State for Defence, I am absolutely clear that a minimum nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile delivery system and continuous at-sea deterrence is right for the United Kingdom and that it should be maintained, and that remains Government policy; but to assist the Liberal Democrats in making the case for alternatives, I am also announcing today the initiation of a study to review the costs, feasibility and credibility of alternative systems and postures. The study will be led by Cabinet Office officials overseen by the Minister for the Armed Forces. A copy of the terms of reference of the study will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

As I have said, the Government have approved the initial gate for the nuclear deterrent successor programme. We have now agreed the broad outline design of the submarine, made some of the design choices—including the propulsion system and the common US-UK missile compartment—and the programme of work we need to start building the first submarine after 2016. We have also agreed the amount of material and parts we will need to buy in advance of the main investment decision.

We expect the next phase of work to cost in the region of £3 billion. That is a significant sum, but I am confident that it represents value for money for the taxpayer, as every aspect of the programme has been carefully reviewed by MOD, Treasury and Cabinet Office officials. It will fund the programme that we need to conduct to make sure that we can bring the submarines into service on time. Overall, we assess that the submarine element of the programme will still cost within the £11 billion to £14 billion estimate set out in the 2006 White Paper, but these costs were estimated at 2006 prices, of course, and did not account for inflation. The equivalent sum today is £20 billion to £25 billion at out-turn, but it is important to recognise that there has been no cost growth in the programme since the House first considered the findings of the White Paper.

Between now and main gate we expect to spend about 15% of the total value of the programme. That is entirely consistent with defence procurement guidance. The cost of long lead items is expected to amount to about £500 million, but it is not true to say that large parts of the build programme will have been completed by main gate. Although we are ordering some of the specialist components, that does not mean that we are locked into any particular strategy before main gate in 2016.

I would like to focus for a moment on the matter of nuclear safety. There has been some ill-informed comment suggesting that our nuclear propulsion systems are not safe. That is simply not true. All our nuclear propulsion plants meet the stringent safety standards set out by the defence nuclear safety regulator and the Health and Safety Executive. However, we are developing a new design of submarine, and it is right that we take advantage of the opportunity that that affords to advance our policy of seeking continual improvement of nuclear safety. A new propulsion plant allows us to do that while also giving us the opportunity to improve the availability of propulsion systems and lower through-life support costs.

I have announced a major step forward in this programme. We have some of the finest submarine builders in the world, and the approval of the next phase of work in the programme will secure the jobs of the highly skilled and professional work force already involved in it, as well as providing further opportunities for the engineers and apprentices of the future. However, both my Department and industry will have much to do to deliver this programme and to ensure both that we continue to maintain the sustainability of the submarine industry and that we improve performance and drive costs down through more efficient and inclusive working. I am confident that all sides will respond to this challenge.

This is a programme of great national importance, so today I am placing in the Library of the House a report that sets out in detail the work that has been completed so far, the key decisions that I have presented to the House today, and the work that is required over the coming months and years. I believe that the decisions we have taken on our nuclear deterrent programme at initial gate are the right decisions for the country and that, as a result, future generations will continue to benefit from the security we have been so fortunate to enjoy.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State both for his statement and for providing advance sight of it. I join him in paying tribute to all our forces operating our deterrent and their families, and to our skilled civilian work force who help to build and maintain our defence capabilities. Let me also stress once again that where the Government do the right thing on defence policy, we will, in the national interest, support them.

Britain’s independent deterrent has been the cornerstone of our peace and security for over half a century, and our view is that, in today’s world, as long as there are other countries with such capability it is right that the UK retains an independent nuclear deterrent. In what will be a detailed debate on the military, technical and financial aspects of today’s announcement, there is a careful judgment to be made: whether we believe the threats posed to our nation and our interests to be such that we are more secure with the UK having our own independent deterrent. Most of us believe in a world free of nuclear weapons and a multilateral process to achieve that, whereas others take a different and unilateralist view, born of a myriad of traditions such as faith, passivism, political commitment or concerns about costs. I respect all those views but take a different approach.

The previous Government met their commitment in the December 2006 White Paper to reduce the number of operationally available warheads to fewer than 160, meaning that the UK has reduced its nuclear arsenal by 75% since the end of the cold war. We welcome this Government’s announcements in the strategic defence and security review to reduce the number of operationally available warheads and the overall weapons stockpile. We will continue strongly to advocate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Its three pillars—non-proliferation, disarmament and the right to use civil nuclear power peacefully—provide the framework around which we should base our policy.

The greatest nuclear threats we face today come from proliferation and unilateral armament, specifically from North Korea, which we know has a nuclear capability, and Iran, which we know has nuclear ambitions. The most robust response to those threats is for the UK to remain committed to the NPT and to be an active disarmer, alongside our allies and other nuclear weapons states. Maintaining our independent deterrent as part of international non-proliferation efforts is therefore vital in enabling us to combat the threats we face at home, and to sustain regional and global security.

I now wish to deal with some specific questions about the review announced today. In 2007, Parliament took the view that it would support the position set out by the previous Government in the 2006 White Paper of replacing the current Vanguard class submarines and maintaining an independent, continuous at-sea submarine-based nuclear deterrent. The decision then was based on evidence and military advice. The Government have announced today that as we move towards main gate there is logic in looking again at some of the defence capability and financial issues relating to how best to maintain a credible, minimum, independent nuclear deterrent. It is important that this is an open process. What is crucial is that the process is evidence-based and in the interests of national security, and that it is not, on occasion, driven by the dynamic within the coalition parties.

I wish to ask the Secretary of State some specific questions. Will the review look at the Government’s procurement policy in this Parliament for materials for successor submarines? Will the review look at international co-operation over nuclear policy, including deeper co-operation with France above and beyond the agreements made in the UK-France defence co-operation treaty, which we welcomed? Finally, on the review, can he confirm that the Minister for the Armed Forces is a one-man ministerial review team?

It was announced in the SDSR that initial gate was due to take place by the end of 2010. Can the Secretary of State tell us the reason for the delay and how much it will add to the cost of the programme over its lifetime? He said there were £500 million of costs for long lead items. Can he say what these items are? Can he say what the total cost of the replacement programme will be, and over what period? He made some comments about that, but can he also say from which budgets the overall costs will be met? Can he say whether both the running and construction costs will come from the core defence budget, and whether he has any estimate on the impact that may have on other equipment programmes?

The SDSR stated that the Government would reduce the costs of the successor programme by a total of £3.2 billion over the next 10 years. Can the Secretary of State say whether that takes into account the £1.2 billion to £1.4 billion additional costs of extending the life of the Vanguard class submarines in service until 2028? What reassurances has he been given that extending the life of the Vanguard class submarines is indeed safe? Can he make it clear how much is being spent on the new PWR3 reactors, and over what period?

In conclusion, Labour remains committed to a minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent, and we welcome the announcements made today by the Government. This decision will have an impact on our nation and beyond for decades to come, and it is crucial that government find additional ways to involve Parliament in the decision-making process. Labour will always do what is right for the UK’s defence and national interests, and the country would expect the Government to continue to do the same.

[Dr Fox]

I shall do my best to answer the long list of questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. I shall check Hansard, and if I have missed any I shall write to him with further details.

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Opposition’s support for the principle of this policy? Cross-party support adds greatly to the credibility of our deterrence policy, which is an essential part of the protection of our country. He rightly says that the major proliferation risk at the moment comes from North Korea and Iran. We do not know whether other countries will join in that so, as he says, it is entirely prudent to retain a minimum, independent, credible nuclear deterrent for the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions about costs. The costs of the various items were set out in the 2006 White Paper, when they were broadly split into: £11 billion to £14 billion for the submarine; £2 billion to £3 billion for the warhead; and £2 billion to £3 billion for infrastructure. We believe that those costs are still contained in the programme itself. He asked specifically about long lead items, on which, as I said in my statement, approximately £500 million will be spent. They include: the specialised high-grade steel; the main boat systems, such as the computer systems, hydraulic systems and atmospheric systems, the generators and the communications systems; and specialist components, including steam generators and test rigs for the propulsion plants.

On our wider international co-operation, we continue to work, as we set out in our treaty with France, on the capabilities required constantly to maintain the safety of our warheads. There are no plans for collaboration on deployment of a deterrent that goes beyond the treaty that has been signed. Agreement with the United States on the major parameters of the jointly developed common missile compartment design, which will be capable of carrying the Trident D5 missiles and any replacement once the D5 reaches the end of its life in the 2040s, has been a major part of our cost containment during the process.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the overall costs of the programme. As I said, £3 billion of those will fall between now and 2016. The costs for the years that fall within the current comprehensive spending review are met by the current defence budget settlement. He asked about the life and costs of the Vanguard class submarines. Our assessment when we undertook the value-for-money study was that we could extend Vanguard’s life to 2028 without having huge additional maintenance and upgrade costs, and while preserving our continuous at-sea deterrent—CASD. To go beyond 2028 would almost certainly have huge cost implications and might have implications for CASD that we are not willing to undertake. Those were the reasons we took the overall decision, and I hope that I have answered the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions.

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

My right hon. Friend is well known for his independence and openness of mind, as was shown by his recently published correspondence with the Prime Minister. May we take it that the conclusions of the study to which he has referred will be published? Given that independence of mind, may we also take it that if the study produces credible procurement and policy alternatives, he will take proper account of them?

[Dr Fox]

I have always thought that our independence of mind was why we were sent to the House of Commons in the first place, but perhaps I was mistaken. Because of the nature of the content of the report, most of it will remain unpublished, but I will consider whether its conclusions might be published without in any way prejudicing the security of the project itself. As I have just outlined, the Government are committed to the replacement of the Trident system, and the spend will go ahead through the rest of this Parliament.

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

On costs, does the Secretary of State accept that since the election two things, effectively, have gone on? Savings have been made as a result of the joint missile compartment and the reduction in the number of warheads, but those savings have been completely wiped out by the political decision demanded by the Liberal Democrats to extend the procurement period beyond the next election. I would have thought that those political decisions have led to costs approaching £2.5 billion, if one takes into account the necessity to build an additional Astute class submarine just to keep Barrow going. One might think that in the circumstances faced by the Secretary of State this might not have been his priority, what with all the other cuts he was making and the additional maintenance round that will now be needed for the existing fleet. How much more additional cost will there be as a result of the separate review? In a Department in which we are bearing down on manpower and reducing the skills available, we are now applying the skill base to an ongoing, second round assessment and review.

[Dr Fox]

The costs of the alternatives review are met from existing departmental budgets and no additional costs will be associated with it. As I have said, when we take into account the different developments, including the fact that we have taken costs out of the missile compartment, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly says, and have reassessed the infrastructure required, we believe that there has been no additional net cost to the programme on the 2006 prices.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Whatever my right hon. Friend’s openness of mind, does he personally agree that the real choice is between a ballistic system and no nuclear deterrent at all? Although there are perfectly respectable arguments for both propositions, the idea of having a vulnerable cruise-based system misses the point of nuclear deterrence altogether.

[Dr Fox]

I have made it clear on a number of occasions why I believe that having a ballistic, submarine-based system providing continuous at-sea deterrence is the only way to guarantee the level of deterrence that this country has come to regard as the minimum credible level. A number of disadvantages relate to any cruise system, including the fact that the missiles are more vulnerable to anti-missile defences, that they are slower and that there are cost implications because we would require more of them and more platforms from which to launch them. I am very relaxed about any consideration of the alternatives because I believe that anyone who has looked at the criteria and the information behind the 2006 White Paper will rapidly come to the conclusion that if we want a minimum credible nuclear deterrent for the United Kingdom, this system, which will be provided by the replacement Trident system, is the best and in fact the only credible one.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

This is a very depressing statement today. First, the Secretary of State gave us no indication of the long-term total costs of the system—he said only that £5 billion would be committed now. Will it cost £70 billon in total, or more? We should be told. Secondly, 184 countries manage without their own nuclear weapons, and most countries see no need whatsoever even to think about getting them. We are spending a vast amount of money on a status symbol that will make the world not a safer place but a more dangerous one. The Secretary of State’s arguments about deterrence are nonsense because those arguments could be used for any country in the world. Most choose to take active steps to bring about a nuclear-free world; this country should do the same.

[Dr Fox]

I appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman’s views; I just profoundly disagree with them. As I have said, we assess that the costs have not changed from the 2006 basic programme. I also said that, taking inflation into account, we expect them to be some £20 billion to £25 billion at out-turn. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong: there is a growing nuclear threat in the world from such countries as North Korea and Iran. Who knows what other countries might be trying to develop nuclear technology and weaponisation? Those countries pose a wider risk and our nuclear deterrence is not just the UK’s independent deterrent but part of the wider NATO nuclear umbrella. It is important that the reductions that have been announced as regards warheads and stockpiles are not only within the letter but within the spirit of the NPT and set a clear direction for future Government policy.

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

I am really rather worried that my right hon. Friend is in danger of inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is really quite a decent chap. If the Secretary of State, like me, had had the experience of watching the hon. Gentleman address the Liberal Democrat conference on this subject, he would have seen that it was indistinguishable from a CND revivalist meeting. How is it fair to the Minister for the Armed Forces to confront him on the one hand with serious arguments about why Trident is the only option while on the other hand requiring him to go back to the Liberal Democrats and tell them that unavoidable conclusion?

[Dr Fox]

I rather fear that my hon. Friend is a little too late. Having made my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces sit through some 57 hours of the strategic defence and security review, I feel I have already inflicted a cruel and unusual punishment on him. I refer my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) back to the advice he gave me when we were in opposition, which was that we should never be afraid to have the most rigorous look at alternative systems. When one considers the evidence, the costings and the threats, one inevitably comes to the conclusion that a submarine-based continuous at-sea deterrent based on the Trident system will be the best protection for the United Kingdom. I take him at his word and I am not at all afraid to consider the alternatives.

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

Given the phenomenal cost of this weapons system and given that we will commit future generations to it by these actions, I believe that people have the right to understand whether this weapons system can be used. What are the circumstances in which Trident would be used? Will the Secretary of State tell the House?

[Dr Fox]

This has always been at the heart of the deterrent argument. The whole point is that there is uncertainty about the circumstances in which the United Kingdom would respond, and the system therefore acts as a proper deterrent. We would hope that such weapons would never have to be used, because they would deter any threat against us. That is the principle and the core of the issue, and it is something that the unilateralists never understood.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Without, obviously, asking the Secretary of State to go into any sort of detail, will he make absolutely certain that the phasing out of Nimrod will not make our submarines more vulnerable to counter-attack?

[Dr Fox]

We have a number of ways of ensuring the protection of our deterrent and, as my hon. Friend says, he would not expect me to go into detail. As for the Nimrod MRA4 programme, to which he might be referring, I must remind him that that capability was not available to us because the programme was already nine years late and the aircraft had not flown other than in one test that was abandoned for safety reasons. I am afraid that the failure of procurement over a number of years made that capability unavailable today.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement. He is well aware that majority opinion in Scotland is opposed to Trident, yet the UK Government are planning to spend billions of pounds of Scottish taxpayers’ money on it. Scotland’s Churches, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Scottish civic society are also opposed to Trident, but the MOD wants to base these weapons of mass destruction in Scotland while cutting conventional defence. Scotland’s parliamentarians have not voted for this. What kind of respect agenda is this from the London Government, who totally ignore Scottish opinion and go ahead anyway? The Secretary of State is making the most eloquent case for Scottish independence.

[Dr Fox]

It would be hard to make a less eloquent case for Scottish independence! It is important that we recognise that defence was retained in the UK Parliament in the devolution settlement and that decisions about national security are taken by this House of Commons. Given the attitudes of the Scottish National party, the whole of the United Kingdom should be grateful.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is of course always open for any political party or any part of any political party to take a different view from Her Majesty’s Government. Can the Secretary of State think of any precedent whatsoever for public money, ministerial time and resources being used to bolster and examine the manifesto commitment of one particular party that might or might not be part of the coalition?

[Dr Fox]

There are realities of coalition government that simply have to be faced. As part of the coalition agreement, we made it very clear that we would continue and move to the decisions I have announced today, but we also made it clear that the Liberal Democrats, as one of the coalition partners, would be free to make the case for alternatives. We have lived up to that commitment today.

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

The Secretary of State knows that approval of initial gate is overdue and it is good that more work can finally go ahead, but let me be clear: he has placed yet another review on the future of the deterrent in the hands of a Minister from the Liberal Democrats—a party that is predisposed to rejecting the only option that makes any sense. How can the Secretary of State give us confidence that he will prevent his colleagues, from the Prime Minister down, from playing politics on this issue and that he will back Barrow so that it can deliver for the nation?

[Dr Fox]

What I am making clear today is that for the rest of this Parliament we will be going ahead with the replacement programme. We are setting out the budget, the areas of policy and the industrial implications for doing so. As I have said, it is part of the coalition agreement that the Liberal Democrats are able to look at these alternatives. Having looked, as Secretary of State since we came to office, at all the alternatives in great detail, including the costs and the implications for defence, I remain absolutely confident that the study is very likely to come to exactly the same conclusion as the 2006 White Paper, but we have given a commitment and we are carrying that out, through Cabinet Office officials, for our Liberal Democrat partners in the coalition. We made an agreement and we are going to honour it.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the independent nuclear deterrent is being used all the time because it is, by definition, a deterrent to potential enemies? The firing of the weapon would be a disaster of course, but the point of its possession is to prevent that.

[Dr Fox]

I cannot fault my hon. Friend’s logic. He understands the whole basis of the concept of deterrence. Of course, the deterrent is designed to protect the United Kingdom from the threat of nuclear blackmail, but we still have to work hard to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other parts of the world as a complementary, not an alternative, policy.

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

The Secretary of State said in a small phrase in his statement that “if the time is right”, we could move away from nuclear weapons. Given the strategic arms agreement between the United States and Russia and the successful outcome of the non-proliferation review conference last year, neither of which he has mentioned, when does he think the time will be right to put British nuclear weapons into international disarmament multilateral negotiations?

[Dr Fox]

In making reductions that go further than necessary we are, as I have already said, not only within the letter of the NPT but well within the spirit of it. The reductions that we have made in going ahead with this programme show that we are committed to seeing lower levels of nuclear weapons worldwide. As long as the threat to the United Kingdom remains, it is prudent for us to maintain a minimum credible nuclear deterrent. How big that credible deterrent is will obviously be reviewed as a matter of policy, but as long as it is required and as long as this Government are in office we will retain it.

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

The Secretary of State said that it is difficult for us to predict events that will happen in the future, but what we do know is that we have instability in Pakistan and a nuclear-ambitious Iran and that North Korea is developing further nuclear capability. Does he agree that it would be strategically naive for the UK Government to make any decisions that would prevent us from being able to deter threats and emerging threats in the world in future?

[Dr Fox]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I wonder how many in the House predicted the Arab spring, or what was going to happen in Libya. We have little ability to predict what is happening in the strategic security environment and as long as the threat remains there and, in particular, as long as nuclear proliferation continues in states such as North Korea and Iran, the Government simply will not gamble with the future security of generations of British people.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

May I press the Secretary of State on his decision to introduce a study to assist the Liberal Democrats in making the case for alternatives? What will really be the extra cost of this new study?

[Dr Fox]

I repeat the answer I have already given to this question. I have already said that the costs are contained within departmental budgets. The study will be led by Cabinet Office officials, there is more than sufficient expertise on this subject, believe me, inside the Ministry of Defence, and ministerial oversight will be provided by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces.

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

May I first welcome the statement by the Secretary of State? Does he agree that the United Kingdom’s capability as a nuclear-armed state helps it to have a seat on the international top table and helps with global policy?

[Dr Fox]

I do not think that having a nuclear deterrent does anything to diminish the status of the United Kingdom, but our ability to influence world events is a combination of a range of things including military power, economic power and diplomatic power, all of which we exercise in the furtherance of our national interests.

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

The Secretary of State has demonstrated that he is a principled and honourable man. Does he therefore understand the concern on both sides of the House, and indeed in the country, that given the decision not to have carrier capability for more than a decade, as the First Sea Lord confirmed last week to the Select Committee on Defence, we could, for financial reasons, have no continuous deterrent at sea because the decision will be postponed for so long that it becomes financially unviable?

[Dr Fox]

I am not entirely sure that I grasped the essence of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We will have continuous at-sea deterrence because this programme will seamlessly move into the replacement programme in 2028. The whole point is that we have continuous at-sea deterrence to give us a credible deterrent for the country.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the main plank of deterrence is mutually assured destruction, but that for MAD to work one has to be sane, and the countries that want to acquire nuclear weapons today are very different from the countries that have them and had them in the cold war? Does he agree that the Government, NATO and other western nations should revisit the strategic defence initiative so that we have the ability to destroy nuclear weapons if they are unleashed from such regimes?

[Dr Fox]

The point of our nuclear deterrent is to deter a nuclear threat to the United Kingdom from wherever that threat occurs. I make the point again that it is not a choice between having a nuclear deterrent and having a stronger non-proliferation policy—we need both if we are to have a safer Britain and a safer global environment.

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

The Secretary of State rightly says that the “first duty of any Government is to ensure the security of their people”. If it really is the case, as he also says, that the “nuclear deterrent provides the ultimate guarantee of our national security”, does he accept the logic of his own argument, which means that all nations should seek to acquire nuclear weapons to ensure the security of their people, and does he look forward to a world in which every nation is nuclear-armed?

[Dr Fox]

I look forward to a world in which the nuclear threat is being reduced, and we are reducing our nuclear stockpile as part of taking that process forward. I hope that we will see a time when fewer countries will want to enter into nuclear proliferation. We have an international non-proliferation treaty for exactly that purpose, and the status of the United Kingdom and other countries was recognised in that treaty when it was drawn up. In putting forward the proposals we believe not only that we are providing a safe future for the United Kingdom by maintaining our deterrent, but that in reducing the number of warheads we have, we are setting our direction very clearly towards a world in which we hope to see the elimination, over time, of this wider threat from weapons of mass destruction.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome the study of alternatives. It would be a shame to waste that initial investment should a subsequent Government decide to cancel Trident, having read the report, at the main decision point in 2016—I suspect that during the 2015 election campaign that is what the Liberal Democrats will argue should happen—so can the Secretary of State confirm that new propulsion systems and other technology could be used in submarines deployed in other contexts and not just as part of a Trident programme?

[Dr Fox]

There is a certain read-across from the Astute to the Trident replacement and the UK should certainly take great pride in our technical capabilities in the submarine arena. However, the hon. Gentleman rather jumps the gun in determining what his party’s position will be at the next election before the study on alternatives has been carried out.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State understand that many people will find it shocking that we are talking about value for money in the context of weapons of mass destruction, for which no moral case can be made? May I press him further on the point made earlier in relation to deterrence? Surely if something is to act as a deterrent, there must be a reasonable assumption that at some stage it may be used. What are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would sanction the use of nuclear weapons? If he cannot give a straight answer to that, is it not time for the UK to move towards disarming and not to replace Trident?

[Dr Fox]

I have never accepted the arrogant attitude that there is no moral case for a deterrent. I can appreciate that there are arguments for and against, but the argument that only one side has any moral legitimacy I have always found rather repugnant. We believe that protecting the 60 million people of the United Kingdom from the threat of nuclear blackmail from wherever that threat may come is not only morally justifiable, but is the duty of the Government.

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

I, too, welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend and his full commitment to future investment in our nuclear deterrent. What assurances can he give me that that investment will be spread as widely as possible across the UK to make sure that companies in my constituency, South Basildon and East Thurrock, have an opportunity to benefit from this announcement?

[Dr Fox]

We will spread the costs wherever we are achieving our objective industrially, which is sustainability, secured by getting the costs down and the performance up. I am sure that if my hon. Friend has any specific examples of companies that would like to bid for the work, the Ministry of Defence will be only too happy to listen.

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

The Secretary of State seems to believe that simply by reducing the number of weapons, he is complying with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Does he accept that we need to do far more in that regard if we are to have any influence in Iran, North Korea and all the other states that we do not know about, which are developing nuclear weapons?

[Dr Fox]

I am just a little stumped by the logic of that. We announced some time ago that we are reducing the number of warheads carried per submarine, the number that are operationally available, and our total stockpile. Countries such as Iran and North Korea are continuing with their proliferation policy, so there does not seem to be any correlation between what we are doing—making those gestures—which goes well beyond the letter of what is required of us under non-proliferation, and any ability of the rest of the world to predict what rogue regimes such as North Korea will do. As long as that threat remains, and as long as proliferation remains a threat to the United Kingdom, we must maintain the protection of our people.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State indicated that the costs between now and 2016 were containable within his budget for the spending review period, but there have been widespread reports in recent days that he is looking for further cuts in his budget to meet his commitments. Can he reassure us that the costs can be met without detriment to the rest of the defence budget?

[Dr Fox]

The short answer is yes, but what I said was that a proportion of the costs that I outlined today, which go to 2016, fall within the current comprehensive spending review period. I am happy to give the hon. Lady the reassurance that the cost of that element which falls within that CSR period is already met by the departmental budget.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. He mentioned that the programme was of great national importance for the whole United Kingdom. A majority of our great nation want our national defences to be strong, and a nuclear deterrent is clearly a core part of that. It is also clear that we need to work alongside our European colleagues to have a strong deterrent. What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with them to ensure that the cost of maintaining the deterrent falls on the shoulders not only of the United Kingdom, but of some of our European colleagues?

[Dr Fox]

Clearly, the costs of the British deterrent fall upon the British taxpayer, the costs of the French deterrent fall upon the French taxpayer and the costs of the US deterrent upon the US taxpayer. There is a great deal of work that we can do together to minimise costs. We have worked with the US on the missile system, we have worked on the common compartment, and we have worked with the French on reducing the costs of ensuring the safety of our warheads. When it comes to the consensus in the House and the country, it is fair to pause and reflect that at the general election, the two largest parties supported the replacement of the Trident programme. The Liberal Democrats supported the concept of minimum credible deterrent, so any idea that the public have not given their assent to this in principle is to fly in the face of the reality of the ballot box.

Points of Order

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

13:45

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any indication that the Prime Minister will return to the House and correct the record in relation to the role of Mr Mark Britnell under the previous Government? Mr Britnell was chief executive of an NHS hospital and then a civil servant in the Department of Health, not an adviser to the Labour Government, as the Prime Minister claimed earlier today.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. Mr Britnell is known to me, but I think the hon. Lady is seeking to continue the debate and argument. She may earn her spurs on her side by doing so, but it is not a point of order on which I can rule.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice in relation to a procedural matter. Would it be in order for the Health and Social Care Bill to be recommitted to a further Public Bill Committee, in light of the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments last night, when he said that it would be in order to remove one third of the 299 clauses in the Bill—those that relate to the new economic regulator, Monitor?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is correct in supposing that it would be procedurally possible for the Bill to be recommitted to a Public Bill Committee, but the handling of the Bill is the Government’s responsibility; it is not mine.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just heard a lengthy statement from the Secretary of State for Defence about the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system. I was not aware of any remarks by the right hon. Gentleman about when Parliament would debate that, when there would be a vote on it, and when Parliament could fully consider it, as a great deal of money appears to be committed to the project.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that I think he has given the House advance notice of his intention to be present in the Chamber tomorrow for business questions, for that will present an excellent opportunity for him to make his request.

Road Safety

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

13:48

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

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision requiring the fitting of equipment to heavy goods vehicles to eliminate driver blind spots; to make other provisions relating to the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and other road users; and for connected purposes.

The Bill is about saving the lives of vulnerable road users, particularly cyclists but also pedestrians and others. The particular vulnerability that it deals with is caused by blind spots on heavy goods vehicles. It is a problem that is particularly acute in city traffic, especially at junctions. The problem is likely to increase as cycling becomes ever more popular as a means of getting to work in urban areas and for leisure, and as lorries get bigger.

A daughter of a constituent of mine lost her life in a collision with a tipper truck. Eilidh Cairns was cycling from her home in Kentish Town to her work in Chiswick. She had cycled this route daily for three years and she was an experienced cyclist. She was caught up under the wheels of the lorry, probably because its front bumper made contact with her rear wheel. The coroner described it as a

“terrible, terrible tragedy that unfortunately is not an uncommon occurrence here in London where a cyclist and a large vehicle come into contact with each other, and invariably the cyclist will suffer very serious or fatal injuries… It’s a huge problem that I think the Government, cyclists and safer cycling groups are going to be grappling with for quite a considerable time”.

The purpose of the Bill is to encourage the Government to grapple with that problem in order to safe lives, and using mirrors or technical means to eliminate drivers’ blind spots on HGVs is a vital weapon in doing so.

After her death, Eilidh’s family and friends set up the “See me, Save me” campaign, which has gained massive support. It shares a name with a motorcycling safety campaign that similarly seeks to secure greater road safety. In the European Parliament, my colleague Fiona Hall MEP tabled a written declaration on the issue and well over half of all MEPs—more than 400—have put their names to it. This means that the Commission must produce proposals to deal with the issue, probably by revising an existing directive so that newly registered HGVs will have effective means of eliminating blind spots, emergency braking and lane departure warning systems.

Here at home, the Transport Secretary last week published a road safety consultation document with a short section on vehicle technology. It stressed a preference for voluntary compliance rather than regulation. On some issues I would share that preference, but on this issue I think regulation is needed, first because the problem remains so serious, and secondly to ensure that hauliers who want to invest in good technology do not feel that they will be undercut by those who are unwilling to do so.

In fact, the costs to a haulage business of involvement in a fatal accident are substantial, including the loss of a driver’s services for a long period, the disrupting insurance, legal and other costs, and potentially compensation costs. The cost to the economy is massive. According to the Department for Transport, fatal accidents cost on average more than £1,750,000. The cost of better mirrors and technical additions would be very small in comparison to the huge cost of a new HGV. Fitting such technology to older vehicles could at least be achieved on a gradual basis, at a cost of around £700 on present estimates.

Clearly it is best for these measures to be introduced across Europe, because HGVs travel all over the continent and our roads see numerous haulage vehicles from other European countries. For British hauliers, it would be much better if their competitors from continental Europe were subject to the same requirements as they are. Although the Bill would give our Transport Secretary powers to make regulations for the fitting of equipment to vehicles, its underlying purpose is to demonstrate that Parliament wants to see the British Government actively involved in securing Europe-wide regulations and not holding back. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has responsibility for roads, has been present throughout my speech to hear this case.

Other safety provisions could be incorporated in the Bill, and it will be drafted in such a way as to allow this. The details of its provisions can be examined carefully if the House allows it to be brought in and gives it a fair wind. I have found very ready support across the House for the Bill; the list of sponsors was filled up to the limit within an hour or so of it becoming known to the House and many more hon. and right hon. Members would have liked to add their names. The all-party group on cycling has been particularly supportive of the campaign, as have a number of newspapers—The Independent, the Evening Standard and the Newcastle Journal have all given it substantial coverage.

Coroners’ verdicts often refer to the deaths of cyclists in the circumstances I have described as accidental deaths, which is much resented by many of the families involved. They feel very strongly that “accident” implies something that was beyond control or prevention. It also seems to preclude culpability where a driver has ignored the fact that he cannot see an area of road on to which his vehicle is encroaching. RoadPeace, the national charity for road crash victims, is pressing for the word “accident” not to be used in future for road crashes or collisions. The case that we are putting today is that many collisions that lead to the deaths of cyclists and other vulnerable road users could be prevented. We should not miss the opportunity to call for practical measures to save lives.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Sir Alan Beith, Dr Julian Huppert, Mr James Arbuthnot, Meg Munn, Naomi Long, Sir Peter Bottomley, Andrea Leadsom, Jeremy Corbyn, Tom Brake, Mr Don Foster, Fabian Hamilton and Natascha Engel present the Bill.

Sir Alan Beith accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 191).

Localism Bill

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[2nd Allocated Day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee.

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee, Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum?, HC 517; Written evidence submitted to the Communities and Local Government Committee on the General Power of Competence, HC 931; The Third Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Sustainable Development in the Localism Bill, HC 799.]

New Clause 21

Tax

‘Schedule [Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions] (provision about tax in connection with certain transfers and transfer schemes) has effect.’.—(Robert Neill.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

13:56

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new schedule 2—‘Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions.

Government new clause 20—Authority may be required to carry on commercial activities through a taxable body.

Amendment 351, in clause 158, page 138, line 45, at end insert—

‘London Housing and Regeneration Board

“333ZDA London Housing and Regeneration Board

(1) The Authority must establish a London Housing and Regeneration Board within six months of the Localism Act 2011 being passed.

(2) The London Housing and Regeneration Board is to consist of such numbers (being not less than six) as the Authority may from time to time appoint.

(3) The Authority must appoint one of the members as the person with the function of chairing the London Housing and Regeneration Board.

(4) In appointing a person to be a member, the Authority—

(a) must have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who has experience of, and shown some capacity in, a matter relevant to the exercise of the functions set out in this Chapter,

(b) must be satisfied that the person will have no financial or other interest likely to affect prejudicially the exercise of the person’s functions as a member, and

(c) must ensure that at least 50 per cent. of the number of members on the Board are appointed representatives of London boroughs.

(5) In exercising its housing and regeneration functions and powers subsequent to the enactment of this Chapter the Authority must consult and obtain agreement from the London Housing and Regeneration Board.”’.

Government amendments 205 to 210 and 212.

Amendment 352, in clause 168, page 148, line 7, at end insert—

‘(e) a majority of those London borough councils whose borough contains any part of the designated development area agree to the designation.’.

Government amendments 213 to 215, 218 to 220, 223, 253 to 255 and 265.

[Robert Neill]

We are dealing with part 7 of the Bill, which relates to governance in Greater London, and part 3, which relates largely to business rate matters and, I am delighted to say, has not proven controversial. I hope that part 7 will not detain us terribly long either, as a good degree of consensus was achieved in Committee and there are just one or two matters that it is necessary to debate further.

I will start with new clause 21, the lead provision in the group, and the majority of associated matters. With the exception of only two topics that I will come to in a moment, the rest of the group comprises a large number of technical amendments relating to two tax issues. Although the new clause is the first new clause listed on the amendment paper, it is not really the natural starting point, so perhaps I will be forgiven if I leapfrog over it to new clause 20, which will amend the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and require the Greater London authority to undertake certain specified activities for a commercial purpose through a taxable body. It relates to the transfer of a large number of functions of the Housing Corporation in London to the Mayor, to the movement of the London Development Agency into the GLA’s main body, and to the establishment of mayoral development corporations in London. All of those potentially involve commercial activity, so we have to get the tax treatment right.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It might be helpful if I interrupt to make the point to the House that, although that is indeed the lead new clause, the order in which representatives on the Treasury Bench deal with matters is entirely a matter for them. Members can come in on such matters within the grouping as they think fit.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

I will encapsulate the technicalities as swiftly as I can, but it suffices to say that these amendments are necessary to ensure that those commercial activities that are undertaken by the GLA are done so within a taxable environment. As a local authority, it would normally have tax-exempt status, but some of those activities are not of a local authority nature but more of a commercial nature and so have to be properly taxable. There is a long-established tax principle in that regard to ensure a level playing field between the public and private sectors in relation to commercial activities. That is particularly important in this case because the GLA will inherit, as a consequence of our devolution measures, a significant portfolio of land interests, some of which operate on a commercial basis and are subject to corporation tax and capital gains tax. It is not a new state of affairs. Section 157 of the 1999 Act made like provision in relation to the activities of Transport for London. That is the background to what we are doing.

In a nutshell, the list of specified commercial activities, which will be set out in a detailed order, will be worked up by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the GLA during the passage of the Bill, but essentially the activities of the London Development Agency and Homes and Communities Agency will be transferred to the Mayor. That is how new clause 20 kicks off the whole proposition.

New clause 21 introduces new schedule 2, which will neutralise certain tax consequences—the other side of the coin—that might otherwise arise from the transfer of various property, rights and liabilities from the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords, the Homes and Communities Agency and the London Development Agency to other public bodies. There is a measure to enable the Treasury to make similar tax provisions for future mayoral development corporations. As we know, one is proposed, and we will come to that in a moment, but the provision will technically permit others to be set up and, therefore, embrace properly, within a legal framework, all those related activities.

Essentially, every Government new clause and amendment with which we are concerned relates to that process. The Opposition have tabled a couple of amendments, which I can deal with conveniently either now or in due course once they have been spoken to, but suffice it to say that the only Government amendments that do not form part of the tax treatment provisions are amendments 212 and 213. They relate to the mayoral development corporation, which is proposed for establishment, and I hope that we can find some common ground, because in Committee there was a discussion and Members generally accepted as desirable both the idea that the Mayor of London should have the power to establish a mayoral development corporation, and the current Mayor’s intention to establish such a corporation broadly relating to the Olympic park in east London.

The provision is more widely cast than that, for good reasons, and it will permit the establishment of other mayoral development corporations. None is envisaged by the current Mayor and I am not conscious of any envisaged by potential Mayors, either, but it would be on the books for the future.

The question that arose, and which the Government seek to address with the proposed changes, was what are the appropriate means of holding the Mayor to account for mayoral development corporation proposals. If a future Mayor—I am sure that it would not be the current Mayor—were to come up with a proposal for a mayoral development corporation which was thought objectionable, by what means would a control or brake be put on that process?

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the anecdotal evidence from the Thames Gateway is that the level of accountability and the funding streams were often indistinct, that there was an insufficient level of democratic accountability through boroughs outside London, London boroughs and the mayoralty, and that the proposed changes before us seek to rectify that situation?

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a history to the incremental growth of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, which did not prove satisfactory, and as he knows the Government are looking at the matter in a different context.

We seek to introduce proper accountability to the London mayoral development corporation. There was a debate about whether it would be appropriate to give the boroughs a veto, and that possibility has foreshadowed an Opposition amendment. The Government have reflected on the matter, and we take the view that it probably is appropriate and sensible to include a check and balance in the system, but we conclude that, because the Mayor of London is a strategic authority and charged with the economic development policy and oversight for London, the check and balance should not be through any one London borough or group of London boroughs, as they have their own important role, are in any event the statutory consultees on these matters and would have the opportunity to put their views forward anyway.

It is more appropriate if the check and balance mirrors other checks and balances in the GLA’s governance scheme, so that the London assembly, which is democratically elected and represents all Londoners, is able to veto a proposal for a mayoral development corporation by a two-thirds qualified majority vote.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Government for accepting the approach that I outlined in Committee in response to an amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). Will my hon. Friend confirm that, because of the two-thirds majority to which he refers and the GLA’s electoral system, one merit of the proposal is that it will effectively ensure the need for cross-party consensus behind any MDC designation?

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I am grateful to him for raising the suggestion in Committee, because it fits neatly with an established pattern of working in the GLA. As he rightly observes, the proposal will require any Mayor to achieve a measure of cross-party consensus. The system is established in relation to the Mayor’s budget and the various strategies that he is entitled to bring forward, and it is logical to include such an important issue in the same regime. Not only is there an electoral system in the GLA which requires cross-party consensus for a two-thirds majority, but the assembly is seized of certain powers not unlike our powers in this place to call for people and papers, so it can summon people and, therefore, carry out robust scrutiny.

Importantly, the assembly is also elected on a basis that includes constituency representatives and those elected through a list system, so any London borough that might be affected or concerned by a proposed mayoral development corporation has its constituency assembly representative at City hall who is able to stand up, ask questions and challenge on their behalf. I hope that that meets the Opposition’s point, and that their amendment will not be necessary.

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

I doubt it, because having representatives from borough councils on the assembly is not a strong enough measure; they may not comprise the majority. There is still the view in London borough councils, which we will hear more of when we come to our amendments, that they should have a veto. The designation of a mayoral development corporation in an area is a very powerful measure. I heard the Minister say that he did not believe the current Mayor had any extra MDCs in mind, but he could do, and the power is cast quite widely.

[Robert Neill]

I am disappointed in the hon. Lady’s response, because I thought that we had got a good deal of the way down the track to meet what were sensible concerns. There is a difference between recognising that the establishment of a mayoral development corporation is part of the outworking of London-wide policy, in which the Mayor will have to have regard to the strategic economic and developmental interests of the whole city, which may be different from the individual interests of a single local authority, and recognising that the assembly is the body that this House has already charged with holding the Mayor to account for the way in which he exercises those powers.

There is a difficulty with giving a veto to an individual London borough, because the borough’s interests are very properly not required to be strategic in the same way as those of the Mayor and of the assembly. Often they are, in fairness, and I do not mean to diminish the importance of the London boroughs. As the hon. Lady knows, I spent 16 years as a London borough councillor before spending eight years on the London assembly. That may indicate precocious sadness on my part, but that is a different matter. Both bodies fulfil very important functions, but they are different functions, and, if we are rightly going to put a check and balance on the Mayor’s exercise of his strategic role, we must do so through the assembly—the elected strategic check and balance. The boroughs have an important role in this because the Mayor is required to consult them, among other bodies, and they therefore have a powerful tool in being able to raise their concerns and to lobby their borough elected representative on the assembly to ensure that their case and their voice is heard.

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

Our colleagues on the London assembly are supportive of the Government’s amendments and new clauses, as are my London colleagues and other colleagues in this place. Let me seek clarification on one thing; I hope that I might catch the Speaker’s eye later to speak on the substance of it. If the Mayor were to set up development corporations in London, would there be any changes in the planning processes in those areas that took democratic control away from the elected councillors? That was controversial under the old urban development corporations set up by the Conservative Government when Lord Heseltine was the relevant Secretary of State.

[Robert Neill]

Yes, the corporations could act in that way. They do not have to, because we have not been as specific as was the case in the past with the old-style development corporations as to exactly what they have to include. The likelihood, it is fair to say, is that they would, because part of the objective of a development corporation generally is to bring the development function and the planning function for a particular area together to speed up development. In practice—I hope that this will reassure my right hon. Friend—the east London MDC that was proposed for the Olympic park area has been involved an iterative process, with a degree of discussion between the Mayor and the five London boroughs affected. There has been some negotiation, which is probably a mature thing to have in the current circumstances. The upshot is that we now have a proposal to which the Mayor and the London boroughs are satisfied they can sign up. The boroughs accept that they cede some planning power for a period, but now do so by agreement with the Mayor. I think the same process can be achieved in other cases.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Setting aside the sui generis nature of London governance, does my hon. Friend agree that the level of direct accountability of these Government proposals is greater than that which existed hitherto in, for instance, West Northamptonshire Development Corporation, North Northants Development Company and most of, if not all of, the housing market renewal areas? This is indeed an improvement in terms of direct accountability for regeneration policy.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, for two reasons. First, the power to set up the corporation is devolved, and a directly elected regional figure, in the shape of the Mayor, takes that decision. Secondly, there is the veto, which did not exist in relation to the other, earlier-style development corporations. There is therefore a significantly enhanced degree of accountability.

[Simon Hughes]

I heard what the Minister said about the discussions that have been going on in east London between the Mayor and the local authorities. If, for example, the current Mayor or any future Mayor had the further idea that there should be mayoral development corporations south of the river, would that, of necessity, require him to have the agreement of the local authority or authorities in question if they had a different view, given that there could be a conflict? Co-operation is fine, but a difference of view that means that the local authority’s views are disregarded is not so fine.

[Robert Neill]

In theory, a Mayor could seek to disregard a local authority’s views, but in practice we reckon that the new clause makes that unachievable. There are two reasons for that. First, the Mayor will have to consult the local authorities, which will have registered their objection. As with any public law decision, he has to behave in a way that is rational and reasonable within the terms of the Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation case. Secondly, because of the electoral arrangements in London, the local authority would be well placed to ensure that a blocking majority was created in the assembly to prevent the policy from going through. There is a theoretical possibility that the Mayor would be able to create the sort of rogue corporation that one might be concerned about, but in reality it is pretty much inconceivable.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that it is not just a theoretical possibility. The Bill states very clearly that if the Mayor applies to the Secretary of State for a mayoral development corporation and has gone through the processes of consultation, if that proposal then comes before the Secretary of State, he must, under the terms of the Bill, create that mayoral development corporation. When I put these points to the Minister in earlier debates in this Chamber on Second Reading and in Committee, I said the real danger was that a Mayor who had considerable support in the assembly, as can happen following an election, would be in a strong position to railroad through his proposal against the opposition of the local borough. That remains the case, and I hope that the Minister will accept that.

14:15

[Robert Neill]

I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has been consistently wrong on this point. If he will forgive my saying so, I know that he is offended when somebody comes up with an idea in London governance which is not his own. With respect to him, as he has considerable experience in this field, his solution to the risk, which I do accept, that a Mayor might seek to set up a rogue or an unacceptable development corporation was, in effect, to give the Secretary of State the veto—in other words, instead of saying, as the Bill does, that the Secretary of State “must” approve the proposal, that he “may” approve a policy, and that the veto would rest with a Minister. That was a highly centralising means of resolving the problem. Instead, the Government have trusted the elected representatives of London and said that the assembly, through qualified majority voting, may exercise the veto. That is much more consistent with the localist thrust of the Bill, and I would have thought it was closer to what the right hon. Gentleman, who after all introduced devolution in London, would himself wish to see.

[Mr Raynsford]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

I give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As my hon. Friend knows, West Northamptonshire Development Corporation has been hated by local residents for the simple reason that it was forced on them to try to implement a central Government housing policy that has not been successful and that we hope to eliminate within the next couple of years.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing her experience of that body, which is a matter of great concern to her and to others. We have endeavoured to learn from past experience and past failings in the way in which we construct our arrangement, and we have therefore put a democratic veto into our proposals.

[Mr Raynsford]

I want to correct the Minister’s assertion that I was wrong in my interpretation of the Bill. I repeat the point that was put to him by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes): if the Mayor decides to proceed with a proposal for a mayoral development corporation, the Secretary of State has to give effect to it if it is not blocked by the assembly. We have had debates about the proper mechanisms for blocking such a proposal. However, as the Minister must concede because it is in the Bill, if those mechanisms do not work, the Secretary of State has no discretion and has to give effect to the Mayor’s requirement to bring into effect such a development corporation irrespective of whether the individual borough is opposed to it. Will he now please concede that I was not wrong on that point, because that is what the Bill says?

[Robert Neill]

I will give the right hon. Gentleman this: he is right on textual analysis but remains wrong on policy, because his solution is a centralist one that would give the Secretary of State a veto. The whole point of what we are doing, in improving the Bill from its original state, is that we do not allow the Secretary of State to veto a decision taken by elected representatives in London; rather, we allow the assembly, which is the established body for keeping the Mayor of London in check, to exercise the veto. In policy terms, that is preferable.

I am disappointed that the Opposition object to this. As I recall only too well, in 1999 they made great play of having devolved power to London by establishing the Greater London authority. I now accept that that was the right thing to do. We are following the logic of that by enabling Londoners to take the decision as to what is the best shape and size of an important regeneration tool for London. They do that with the Mayor making the proposal and the assembly having the ability, if necessary, to veto it, and the boroughs being able to be consulted and to exercise influence through their elected members of the assembly. I am sorry that the Opposition seem to want to start a bit of a war where none need exist, because there is consensus among all parties in the assembly that it is desirable to go down this route.

[Barbara Keeley]

I think I am right in reporting the Minister as saying that a principle of the Localism Bill is to trust local representatives. I hope that Ministers will bear that in mind as they take the Bill through its final stages in the House, because I want to question them about why that does not carry through to the imposition of shadow mayors, although I know that that is outside the scope of this debate. If we are to be true to the principle of trusting elected representatives, which the Minister has just stated, we must not impose on them.

Various people have intervened in this debate. It would help if we moved on to considering the amendments fairly soon, because we will be able to take the arguments in the round if we do that.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is in the hands of the Chair. At this stage, the hon. Gentleman will continue his remarks.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I am anxious to deal with as many of the issues raised by hon. Members as possible, because this debate is time-limited, and for good reason. I hope that I have dealt, in large measure, with why it is appropriate to adopt the Government amendments, and why that is preferable to placing a veto in the hands of the boroughs, which would create a potential conflict of interest, or the earlier Opposition proposition of leaving a veto with central Government, which would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the Bill.

I will cover one final topic before I finish, if I may. Another proposal in the group, which I anticipate will be put, is amendment 351, tabled by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), the next-door neighbour of part of my constituency. The amendment relates to the London housing and regeneration board. It is important that the Bill transfers housing powers and responsibilities from central Government agencies, in the form of the Homes and Communities Agency, to the Mayor. That has been welcomed across the piece politically in London. It is envisaged that the London housing board will be the vehicle within which that work is carried out.

As I read it, and I will happily be corrected if I am wrong, the amendment would prescribe in statute a requirement that the GLA should have a London housing and regeneration board. I cannot go that far because although it is no doubt a sensible thing to have, certainly at the moment, and is something that works well enough with the involvement of the Mayor’s office and the boroughs, we do not think it is consistent with the spirit of localism for us to prescribe, in one particular area, the manner in which the GLA should carry out its activities. Interestingly, that again seems to be a little bit of potential centralism creeping in through the back door. I would prefer to give the Mayor and the boroughs flexibility in determining how to take those issues forward.

I hope that I have dealt with all the topics in what has perhaps been a livelier debate than might have been anticipated when we started to talk about tax clauses, which I note have not featured in the controversy at all, perhaps not surprisingly.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the two amendments in my name, although it feels rather strange to be doing so when we have already had much of the debate. I will speak to amendment 351, which relates to the establishment of a London housing and regeneration board, and seeks to guarantee that at least 50% of the membership of such a board would be made up of representatives from the local authority. I will also speak to amendment 352, which we have already debated at some length, and which relates to the process that has to be gone through to establish a mayoral development corporation. Under the amendment, the agreement of any council that is affected would be required before an MDC could be established. I am conscious that there is much to debate this afternoon, so I will limit my remarks.

I will move on to why I tabled the amendments. I should say at the outset that the amendments have been promoted and supported by London Councils, which, as hon. Members know, is the cross-party organisation that represents London boroughs. We can debate the localist merits of the Bill as a whole, but the provisions on London are distinctly regionalist. Whereas in other parts of the country there is the abolition of regional spatial strategies, we still have the London plan. The Bill proposes the winding up of the London Development Agency and the London part of the Homes and Communities Agency, with their powers being transferred to the London Mayor. Due to the Government’s understandable desire to ensure that the regeneration legacy of the Olympics takes effect, there are proposals in the Bill to enable the Mayor to set up a mayoral development corporation. However, as drafted, the Bill suggests that there could be an MDC anywhere in London, and not just at the Olympics site. My amendments would act as a brake on the concentrating powers that the Bill puts into the hands of the Mayor of London. They would give councils and councillors a voice, and they would give people in London the same say as people elsewhere in the country.

Amendment 352 would make it a requirement that a local authority in a proposed MDC area must agree to its establishment. If more that one local authority is affected, all must agree. The Bill as drafted gives complete power to the Mayor and the Secretary of State. Under Government amendment 213, the support of two thirds of the assembly will be needed for a proposal to move forward. That is not a sufficient assurance. There could be a situation in London in which local people are completely against the setting up of an MDC, councillors and the local authority in the area are completely against the setting up of an MDC, and the GLA constituency member is completely against the setting up of an MDC, and yet if the Mayor wants it to happen, it will happen. I ask hon. Members, what is localist about that?

We had some fun in Committee. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) talked about the prospect of a new Mayor of London—perhaps Ken Livingstone in a year’s time—choosing to establish a mayoral development corporation in Bromley. I will not repeat those comments.

[Mr Raynsford]

Why not?

[Heidi Alexander]

I will not repeat them because I am under strict instructions to keep the debate moving as quickly as I can.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I am interested in the hon. Lady’s views and I am listening to her with great attention. Does she not feel that her proposals are a recipe for institutionalised impasse? Having served on such benign bodies as the London Ecology Committee, the London Waste Regulation Authority and the London fire and civil defence authority, I know that it is almost impossible to get all the boroughs to agree. Therefore, if one borough has a de facto veto, there would never be any major progress on housing and regeneration across Greater London.

[Heidi Alexander]

That is quite a negative view of politics in London. I do not think that my proposal would lead to institutionalised impasse. The proposals on the ability to set up an MDC in any area are incredibly important. The things that an MDC could do, such as granting planning permission for different developments, compulsorily purchasing land and agreeing plans for an area, are significant matters for people who live in the neighbourhood. Local councils and councillors would also have views on those matters. I would hope that all parts of London government could come together and agree whether an MDC was an appropriate vehicle in a local area. I therefore question whether retaining the powers with the Mayor and the Secretary of State in the Bill is true localism. That was my reason for tabling amendment 352.

As the Minister said, amendment 351 to clause 158 proposes the establishment of a new London housing and regeneration board. With the winding up of the London Development Agency and the London part of the Homes and Communities Agency, many powers will be transferred to the Mayor of London. We also see in chapter 3 of part 6 that provision is made for the devolution of local authority housing finance. That will mean an enhanced role for local authorities in providing, commissioning and funding affordable housing in London.

14:30

I believe it is vital that local authorities and the London Mayor work together to ensure a joint focus on the delivery of much-needed new affordable homes. My amendment would establish a board within six months of the Bill coming into law, and as I said earlier, at least 50% of members of that board would be local authority representatives. That would be a good way of achieving the joint working that London so desperately needs.

The Minister said that the amendment was unnecessarily prescriptive and asked why we should legislate to set up such a board in London. I cannot let that pass, because in other parts of the Bill, that idea has not prevented the Government from being incredibly prescriptive, whether about arrangements to establish a neighbourhood forum or the process for nominating land as a community asset. The Bill is hugely prescriptive in many ways, and I suggest that on a matter as important as regeneration and the provision of affordable housing, perhaps we could have a bit more prescription to ensure that we achieve what we all want in London.

The provision of new homes in London at a rent that people can afford is one of the most pressing challenges in the capital. It is difficult, because we do not see huge amounts of land lying around in London and it cannot easily be bought cheaply. Also, the Government have brought forward a huge programme of swingeing cuts to capital budgets for house building. We have seen the proposals for the affordable rent model, and there are many important questions to ask about how workable it is in London, particularly in funding the building of three and four-bedroom family homes. Perhaps they can be built, but whether anyone living in London can afford to live in them is another thing altogether.

There are important issues to deal with in the provision of new affordable housing in London, and we have to find a way of getting the Mayor of London, the Greater London authority, the local authorities and local communities to work together to achieve that aim. That is the only way in which progress will be made. It is not about one part of London government blaming another; it is about genuine partnership. I am not making a party political point—yes, politics will come into the discussions that take place between the Mayor and London boroughs, but sometimes the arguments will be between politicians of the same party. I want us to raise the issue above party politics and give it the importance that it deserves.

I urge Members to listen carefully to the rest of the debate and to ask themselves the following questions. Does part 7 of the Bill represent a new era in localism? Does it devolve decisions to the lowest possible level? Does it give more power to London residents and citizens? I do not think that it does, and if Government Members agree with me, I suggest that they join me in the Lobby when we vote on my amendments later, because I intend to press them.

[Gavin Barwell]

I will restrict myself to commenting on mayoral development corporations. There is an irony in the positions that the parties are taking today. It is rather strange for Conservative Members to be defending city-wide government and for Labour Members to be making the case for the boroughs. Incidentally, I say in passing that I always find it slightly grating when people refer to London as a region. It is a city, and I consider myself as living not in a region but in the world’s greatest city.

Having started on that note of disagreement, I wish to say that on Second Reading and in Committee the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) correctly diagnosed a problem with the Bill. There was a danger that a future Mayor would designate a mayoral development corporation despite widespread cross-party opposition in all parts of the affected area. There would be nothing that the Secretary of State could do but accept that designation. He was absolutely right about that, and we had a good debate about it in Committee.

As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the problem with the solution that the right hon. Gentleman proposed at that point was that it would have centralised the decision back with the Government. I made the suggestion, which I am grateful to the Government for adopting, that we should go with the grain of the existing arrangements, for which the right hon. Gentleman was probably responsible, and use the London assembly to hold the Mayor in check.

The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who made a very good contribution throughout the Committee stage, has proposed an alternative solution. The problem is that, if just one local authority were involved, that local authority would essentially be given a veto. There might be good public policy reasons for the Mayor wanting to pursue a development corporation solution in a particular area. I therefore believe that the Government have adopted the right model in the Bill. I suppose I would say that, having proposed it in Committee, but I hope that Ministers will consider a couple of minor tweaks that could be made. If they are persuaded, perhaps that can happen in another place. I shall come to those tweaks in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Minister will know that many of the people who serve on the London assembly are themselves councillors in the local authorities concerned. In Croydon and Sutton, our London assembly member, Steve O’Connell, is a Croydon councillor. In the neighbouring GLA constituency of Merton and Wandsworth, Richard Tracey is a local councillor.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

indicated assent.

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend, who is a former member of the assembly, knows that many members are in that position.

The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) referred to urban development corporations. I see that he is in heavy conversation at the moment, but he talked about the lack of democratic accountability in those corporations in the 1980s. It is important to make the point that in this case, the designation of a development corporation would be made not by central Government but by the Mayor of London, who is democratically elected.

I am conscious of the time and know that other Members wish to speak, so I end with two points that Ministers might wish to consider. Schedule 21 deals with the detailed arrangements for mayoral development corporations. Paragraph 1 is about the membership of them, and perhaps the Government could consider a requirement that the people whom the Mayor appointed to them, or at least some of them, should have a connection with the local area covered. That is not mentioned in the schedule. It sets out the need for people to have experience and to have shown some capacity in the relevant functions of the corporation, and for them to have no financial interest. Those are both good and sensible provisions, but there may well be a case for ensuring that at least some members have a local connection with the area and perhaps a relationship with the local authority.

Paragraph 6 of schedule 21 is about committees established by mayoral development corporations. Sub-paragraph (3) states:

“A committee or sub-committee may, with the agreement of the Mayor, include persons who are not members of the MDC, but a majority of the members of a committee or sub-committee must be members of the MDC.”

I, and I suspect other Members, have received representations from both the Mayor and the assembly stating that they would be happy with a much more relaxed rule that gave MDCs more freedom to appoint a greater proportion of people who were not members of its board. Those people may well be members of the local authority or have connections with the area. Given that we have not yet achieved complete consensus on this matter, the Government could look at some of the details of schedule 21, to see whether we can address some of those concerns.

In conclusion, it is greatly to Ministers’ credit that they listened to the debate in Committee and came back with a solution, which I think is a good one that improves the Bill. If they went away and looked at a couple of details on schedule 21, it might be possible to address some of the concerns that hon. Members have raised in this debate.

[Simon Hughes]

I shall make a brief contribution to what is an important debate for London, which I am happy to take part in once again.

I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) that the two biggest issues that affect my constituents and hers, and that fall directly or indirectly within the remit of local government, are jobs and housing. Most people are most concerned about those two issues most of the time. I am afraid that I come to this debate with long experience in this place. When I was first elected, Lady Thatcher’s Government had just set up urban development corporations throughout the country, of which the London Docklands Development Corporation was one. Indeed, that was the backdrop to my by-election, because my predecessor, Bob Mellish, was appointed as vice-chairman of the LDDC. That was not uncontroversial in Bermondsey, because people in general, and particularly those in the Labour party, did not think that a quango should be given the powers over Southwark, Newham and Tower Hamlets that the LDDC was given, so appointing a Labour MP to the LDDC was not consistent with Labour party policy.

That handover of powers to the UDCs was very controversial, because it meant that planning decisions were taken by a group of unelected people. It was possible to influence the people who took the decisions, but never possible to hold them directly accountable. I used to go to planning committee meetings following lots of community activity—they were not always in Southwark: sometimes, for major planning schemes in the Surrey docks or along the riverside, meetings were held at the LDDC in the Isle of Dogs or elsewhere—but communities often felt alienated afterwards. The legacy is the feeling of remoteness when decisions are not taken by locally elected representatives.

I am not saying that the local community comes away feeling deliriously happy after every local council planning committee meeting. I have seen enough local planning committees in Southwark over the years make controversial planning decisions—under Labour, Liberal Democrat and Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition administrations. However, at the end of the day, the public at least know that they can kick those people out at the next election if they want to do so. My premise, therefore, is that the starting point should always be accountable decision making, particularly on planning matters, and particularly on the big planning matters that “urban development” by definition implies. This is not about whether someone can have a bedroom in the mansard roof of a flat or house, or whether someone’s garage can be an extra bedroom; this is about schemes for industrial sites and other things on that scale.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I hasten to say that I do not know as much about the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency as he does, but surely the history of the LDDC is that the political administrations in, for instance, Tower Hamlets and Newham, which happened to be Labour-run at the time, were viscerally hostile to central Government, and refused to undertake any realistic action on regeneration or to face up to post-industrial decline in their boroughs. Central Government was therefore forced to step in to provide a template for regeneration and housing.

[Simon Hughes]

I shall not help the House to hold a seminar on London in the ’70s and ’80s, which would actually be very interesting. The hon. Gentleman is nevertheless right. Local authorities did not get on with development. There were frozen developments, including one in the Royal Docks and some in my constituency, after the closure of the London docks in the upper pool in places like Bermondsey, and their move down to Tilbury. That is why the Government intervened, and I understand why they did so. It was necessary to get something moving. Whatever else we say about it, the LDDC certainly did that. Its legacy has, in general terms, been very benign. The regeneration has been hugely successful. Southwark is as prosperous as it is, and the business rates that are collected in Southwark are as high as they are, because of the regeneration along the riverside from London bridge down to the end of my constituency at the other side of the Greenland dock, on the border with Deptford.

14:45

To pursue the housing and jobs theme, it is clear that there are huge opportunities for employment-regenerative activities in inner-London boroughs if the conditions— meaning rate relief, sites and so on—are right. I visited the Tower Bridge Business Centre in my constituency just the other day, which is on the site of the old Peek Frean’s factory in Bermondsey. That hugely successful, privately owned enterprise provides a nursery and units of various sizes for people as they grow their businesses. It is one of a set of businesses run by the same company around Greater London, where it does all its business. It has very innovative ideas. There is no shortage of individuals, small firms and others that want to come in to take over the spaces that were previously occupied by larger businesses. The large wholesale warehouses and distribution centres, for example, are not in London any more, and we no longer need storage centres because we store on micro-files rather than in paper files.

The opportunity for London to continue as a place of employment still exists, and not just in the financial industries of the City. London has fantastic creative industries, small engineering enterprises and so on, and we must make the most of these opportunities.

There is a huge need to ensure that we continue to build homes at prices that our constituents can afford. The other day, I met some representatives of the G15 group of London housing associations, which owns the largest number of properties in London; it is known to all London Members. The G15 is concerned about how the financial picture and envelope will permit them to develop. I undertook to the G15 that I would seek to convene a meeting in June to try to sort out what appears at the moment to be a set of policies that is not yet fully connected. Invited are the Housing and Local Government Minister, who has agreed to attend; Lord Freud, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; colleagues from throughout London from all parties; the Mayor, who has shown an interest; local councillors representing the 33 local authorities;, and the housing world. How do we deliver more affordable homes, particularly the larger homes with three or four bedrooms for families, and deliver on the Government’s general approach to welfare without making it impossible for people to stay in the sorts of homes that we want them to be in? I hope we can join up that remaining part of the policy, and I welcome the advice of the hon. Member for Lewisham East, who has experience of the matter. I will work with her colleagues and Conservative colleagues, and I am sure that we can make further progress. I also welcome the fact that the Mayor is taking a direct interest.

The proposals in this group are about further transfers of power to the Mayor. As a veteran of both the legislation to the abolish the Greater London council, which I opposed, and the legislation to set up the Greater London authority, which I supported, I believe that more powers should be given to London government from central Government. Indeed, the difficulties that the Government have run into on other policies—for example, on the NHS—could have been less had they accepted our advice. I and my hon. Friends argued and voted for amendments on transferring strategic health powers to London government, for example, because it is better to get rid of unaccountable quangos and regional bodies and to replace them with accountable regional bodies.

[Mr Raynsford]

I was a little surprised when the right hon. Gentleman said that he supported the restoration of the GLA. My recollection is that he and the Liberal Democrats voted against the creation of a Mayor of London. He might have supported the concept of an assembly, but the Liberal Democrats did not support the GLA architecture as it exists.

[Simon Hughes]

The right hon. Gentleman is of course correct. He knows that as well as anybody, because it was his plan that the Government were delivering on. Liberal Democrats wanted devolution to London, but we were not sold on that model, which is why we still—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just say that we need to get back to dealing with the new clause? We are having a history lesson in the Chamber. As interesting as that is, other people are waiting to speak. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman now wishes to address the new clause.

[Simon Hughes]

I stand rebuked, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was tempted by the right hon. Gentleman, but I will not be any more. I will make a few more comments, and then sit down.

The next issue is how exactly the transfer of powers back to London will work. It is certainly right that, as the Bill proposes, we get rid of the London function of the Homes and Communities Agency, which is a quango, and transfer it to a democratically elected Mayor answerable to the 25 elected members of the London assembly. That is a good thing. It is also certainly right that the Government abolish the Government office for London. There is no need for a Government office for London as well as a Mayor, a London assembly and a Greater London authority. All those policies are heading in the right direction.

We now need to solve the further dilemma of how we strike the right balance between London-wide decisions, which are perfectly proper, and the interests of the boroughs. I understand that there is still some unresolved tension in that regard. My colleagues on the London assembly and across London think that, on balance, the Government are heading in the right direction, so today, although obviously the hon. Member for Lewisham East is entitled to make her case, we cannot support her. However, I do not want her to take that to mean that there are not further conversations to be had. Obviously the Bill will go to the House of Lords, and there will be opportunities to look at these things afresh.

I am hopeful that today’s debate will flag up the need to ensure—I am happy to have further conversations with colleagues about this—that the new architecture is the right architecture. I heard clearly what the Minister said about the Mayor’s power being subject to the two-thirds support of the London assembly, and I agree that that amounts to a requirement for a cross-party endorsement or cross-party veto. That will be a welcome control mechanism. I do not criticise the fact that the representatives, particularly the constituency representatives, should be able to speak for their constituencies, including for the borough councils within those constituencies, which is one of their jobs.

[Heidi Alexander]

What does the right hon. Gentleman make of what I see as something of a conundrum in the Bill? If a neighbourhood forum in his constituency came up with a neighbourhood plan, it could be completely overridden by the establishment of a mayoral development corporation, over which his community, councillors and local authority will have had no say.

[Simon Hughes]

They will have had a say, because, as the hon. Lady will know, the Bill contains a requirement for formal consultation with a list of people, including every local authority and others.

The Government are trying to take power from the centre and hand it down to the regions, including London, and then further down, not just to local authorities but to neighbourhoods. Southwark has eight community councils, which is very welcome. That is what the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who has responsibility for planning, asks us to support. However, that does not mean that there should not be overarching responsibilities on a London-wide basis.

I say to the hon. Member for Lewisham East that there is certainly a wish to continue arguing for a London-wide responsibility for housing strategy, and we need to work out the best way of delivering that. Boroughs will do their own thing to develop as much as they can, but we will clearly need a London-wide policy to meet the needs of the homeless, asylum seekers and refugees, for instance, who do not immediately and naturally become the responsibility of a particular borough, because they do not have a fixed link with that borough. I and my London colleagues are keen to work with her and her London colleagues and the Minister and his colleagues to try to ensure that at the end of the deliberations we put in place the best possible structure, providing appropriate responsibilities at the level of boroughs and the Mayor and the London assembly, and as far as possible allowing for democratic accountability for all policies, particularly housing and regeneration.

[Gavin Barwell]

I tried to address in my speech the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but he was in discussion with a colleague at the time. If paragraph 6 of schedule 11 was amended, it would give the Mayor more flexibility to put people from neighbourhood planning groups or local authority representatives on to the MDC planning committee. That may be one way of squaring this circle.

[Simon Hughes]

At the moment, of course, the legislation provides for how the Mayor chooses the people to be on the development corporations. That could be looked at again. I do not think that my colleagues would object to there being nominees either from the local authorities in the areas in question—whether from more than one or a single local authority—or from the community councils and elsewhere. I think the hon. Gentleman’s idea, which we need to consider, is a good one.

There needs to be good democracy in London whereby people can be held to account for the decisions they make. The fact that the London Development Agency is going is helpful, because it means that the Mayor will be responsible for London’s economic regeneration as a whole. That is what mayors of big cities should do. Whether people support mayors in big cities is a separate debate, but if we have them, that is what they should do. The Mayor should be held to account by the assembly, so I hope that we can say to the Minister that he is on the right track, but that he should remain alert to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Lewisham East and her Front-Bench colleagues. If we can get it, we need to aim for consensus by the time the Bill completes its passage through the House of Lords and Parliament.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). It goes without saying that I support the Government amendments. The Bill will disturb the equilibrium that we established in 1998 and the settled view of London governance. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) piloted the legislation on this matter through Parliament. I had the pleasure—generally speaking—of serving with him in the last Parliament on several Bill Committees, but in some respects he is resiling from earlier commitments. His proposals opposing the Government amendments and the views expressed ably and articulately by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) seek effectively to undermine the authority and autonomy of the boroughs. They would set up an institutionalised conflict between the boroughs and the Greater London authority, with the Mayor quite possibly acting as the de facto referee and invigilator. That is a serious concern.

On the hon. Lady’s amendment 351, we should acknowledge the consensus in the House on the need for more affordable housing, better-quality housing and aesthetically pleasing housing, and above all for regeneration to consolidate London’s position as the pre-eminent city in Europe. However, looking at what was delivered in the dozen or so years of the regional development agencies, when we had a centralised policy, and an over-prescriptive and—one may even say—draconian approach to housing targets, I am not convinced that instituting a pan-London borough body would achieve the key objectives that we all seek.

I mentioned earlier, albeit perhaps in a slightly irreverent way, that for eight years while I was a London borough councillor, I served on bodies that were largely non-political. To get agreement on waste transfer and ecology centres was difficult enough, so making value judgments as between different boroughs and in effect resiling from a strategic overview of what is good for a whole city or region probably would not work. Incidentally, I have to disabuse my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) of one notion. Peterborough is, in fact, the greatest city in the world, but we might have to beg to differ on that. However, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Lewisham East, while my heart agrees with her, my head says that her proposals probably would not work or deliver what we wish.

Let me briefly address the Government amendments and the points made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. As the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said, we would be returning to something like the situation that prevailed with the London Docklands Development Corporation, with the Secretary of State required to make the value judgment that neither the boroughs nor the GLA could sort something out, and therefore to impose a regeneration body. We have moved on from that. We now have a more mature and nuanced political culture. Once we establish the bona fides of London governance through the GLA and the Mayor, with the proviso that there will effectively be a two-thirds veto for the directly elected individuals, who will debate among themselves and with their boroughs, it would seem invidious to undermine that by putting so much potential power—again, effectively in the form of a veto—in the hands of the Mayor.

15:00

On that basis, I would urge Ministers—and in particular the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—to reject the Opposition’s views and to make the case strongly. What we have is the best consensual way forward to ensure that we get what we all want, which is better quality housing in London and for the economic engine driving the south-east and the wider country to be a success. That is why I support the Government amendments.

[Barbara Keeley]

I want to speak briefly in support of the amendments so ably presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). There was much consensus on this part of the Bill, unlike on others. There was much consultation with the Mayor, the Greater London assembly and London councils. To me, this part of the Bill shows the value of early and thorough consultation. Perhaps there is a lesson for us there.

As my hon. Friend has argued, the powers of a mayoral development corporation would be great. The power of the Mayor to establish new mayoral development corporations anywhere across the Greater London area is cast widely, as we discussed extensively in Committee. Amendment 352 quite rightly seeks to ensure that where a Mayor seeks to establish a further mayoral development corporation, the majority of the borough councils affected by such a designation would have to agree to it. The Opposition do not believe that this would create any form of impasse. However, it is important that a borough council with only a small representation in the assembly—one that could therefore in no way seek to achieve a two-thirds majority through its assembly representation—should be able to come to agreement with either one or all the other boroughs if another development corporation was designated. We agree with my hon. Friend’s amendment 352 and will support it in a Division.

[Robert Neill]

This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate, although I accept that there has been an element of déjà vu for some of us. I say that as someone who served on the old Greater London council and who found its abolition quite painless, partly because at the same time I was serving on the fire authority, the waste regulation authority, the waste disposal authority and the borough council. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) is quite right that we created a somewhat convoluted architecture thereafter, which is why it is right to restore as much decision making as we can to London. That is why I am grateful for his support for the general thrust of where we are going.

I understand the point that the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) made about the importance of employment and housing. She is absolutely right about that. I also accept the need to take all the agencies in London along with any such proposal, but I cannot accept her proposition that we cannot trust London’s politicians to come to a mature decision on the best way forward.

A powerful point about the history of London was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), and it was also reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. They all have long experience in London government. Their point was that there are some details that can be looked at, but it is important to recognise that the relationship between the Mayor and the assembly has matured, even in the short time that the assembly has been in existence. Indeed, the relationship between the Mayor and the boroughs has matured regardless of party, under Mayors of both principal parties, as it happens. We should not underestimate the brokerage and leverage role that exists in the system, in addition to a purely legalistic role.

If I may be permitted to mention one bit of history, something that we learned from the previous GLC is that it was not simply the disagreements of Ken Livingstone with the Government of the day that undermined the GLC. Rather, the GLC was undermined by the tension between the two tiers and the risk, on occasion, of impasse —impasse that arose regardless of the party controlling the GLC and the London boroughs at the time. That is my concern. Giving boroughs an absolute veto in the way suggested by amendment 352 risks recreating the tensions of the old GLC days, rather than sticking with the more collaborative working that we currently have.

The proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark also referred, is a sensible one. We can consider the details and discuss them sensibly to find a way to take it forward. We have learned from the rather remote model of operation of the earlier development corporations, and we want to embed that learning in how we go forward in future.

Even at this late stage, I hope that the Opposition will think about the necessity of pressing their amendment 352 to a vote. However, if they really insist, I would ask the House to reject it.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 21 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2

‘Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions

Part 1

Transfer under paragraph 60 of Schedule16

1 (1) For the purposes of any enactment about income tax or corporation tax, the Office and the HCA are to be treated as the same person.

(2) In particular, the transfer effected by paragraph 60 of Schedule 16 is to be disregarded for those purposes.

(3) Accordingly, that transfer is not to be regarded for the purposes of Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (gains and losses from intangible fixed assets) as involving any realisation of an asset by the Office or acquisition of an asset by the HCA.

(4) In this paragraph—

“enactment” includes an enactment contained in an instrument made under an Act,

“the HCA” means the Homes and Communities Agency, and

“the Office” means the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords.

Part 2

Certain transfers under scheme under section161 or162

Interpretation of Part 2 of Schedule

2 In this Part of this Schedule—

“CTA 2009” means the Corporation Tax Act 2009,

“public body” means—

(a) a person which is a public body for the purposes of section 66 of the Finance Act 2003 (stamp duty land tax: transfers involving public bodies), or

(b) a person prescribed for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule by order made by the Treasury,

“relevant transfer” means—

(a) a transfer, in accordance with a transfer scheme under section161, to a taxable public body of property, rights or liabilities of the Homes and Communities Agency, or

(b) a transfer, in accordance with a transfer scheme under section162, to a taxable public body,

“taxable public body” means a public body which is within the charge to corporation tax,

“transferee”, in relation to a transfer in accordance with a transfer scheme under section161 or162, means the person to whom the transfer is made, and

“transferor”—

(a) means the Homes and Communities Agency in relation to a transfer, in accordance with a transfer scheme under section161, of property, rights or liabilities of that Agency, and

(b) means the London Development Agency in relation to a transfer in accordance with a transfer scheme under section162.

Computation of profits and losses in respect of transfer of a trade

3 (1) This paragraph applies where a taxable public body (“the predecessor”) is carrying on a trade or part of a trade and, as a result of a transfer scheme under section 161 or 162—

(a) the predecessor ceases to carry on that trade or part of a trade, and

(b) another taxable public body (“the successor”) begins to carry on that trade or part.

(2) For the purposes of calculating, in relation to the time when the scheme comes into force and subsequent times, the relevant trading profits or losses of the predecessor and the successor—

(a) the trade or part is to be treated as having been a separate trade at the time of its commencement and as having been carried on by the successor at all times since its commencement as a separate trade, and

(b) the trade carried on by the successor after the time when the scheme comes into force is to be treated as the same trade as that which the successor is treated, by virtue of paragraph (a), as having carried on as a separate trade before that time.

(3) If a trade or part of a trade is to be treated under this paragraph as a separate trade, such apportionments of receipts, expenses, assets and liabilities are to be made for the purposes of computing relevant trading profits or losses as may be just and reasonable.

(4) This paragraph is subject to the other provisions of this Part of this Schedule.

(5) In this paragraph “relevant trading profits or losses” means profits or losses under Part 3 of CTA 2009 in respect of the trade or part of a trade in question.

Transfers of trading stock

4 (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) under a relevant transfer, trading stock of the transferor is transferred to the transferee,

(b) immediately after the transfer takes effect, the stock is to be treated as trading stock of the transferee, and

(c) paragraph 3 does not apply in relation to the transfer.

(2) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) have effect in calculating for any corporation tax purpose both—

(a) the profits of the trade in relation to which the stock is trading stock immediately before the transfer takes effect (“the transferor’s trade”), and

(b) the profits of the trade in relation to which it is to be treated as trading stock (“the transferee’s trade”).

(3) The stock is to be treated as having been—

(a) disposed of by the transferor in the course of the transferor’s trade,

(b) acquired by the transferee in the course of the transferee’s trade, and

(c) subject to that, disposed of and acquired when the transfer takes effect.

(4) The stock is to be valued as if the disposal and acquisition had been for a consideration which in relation to the transferor would have resulted in neither a profit nor a loss being brought into account in respect of the disposal in the accounting period of the transferor which ends with, or is current at, the time when the transfer takes effect.

(5) In this paragraph “trading stock” has the meaning given by section 163 of CTA 2009.

Continuity in relation to loan relationships

5 (1) For the purposes of the application of Part 5 of CTA 2009 (loan relationships) in relation to a relevant transfer of rights and liabilities under a loan relationship to which immediately before the transfer takes effect the transferor is a party for the purposes of a trade it carries on, the transferee and the transferor are to be treated as if at the time of the transfer they were members of the same group.

(2) For the purposes of the application of Part 5 of CTA 2009 in relation to a transfer that—

(a) is to a public body,

(b) is in accordance with a transfer scheme under section 161 or 162, and

(c) is of rights and liabilities under a loan relationship to which immediately before the transfer takes effect the HCA or LDA is a party otherwise than for the purposes of a trade it carries on,

the HCA or LDA, and the person to whom the transfer is made, are to be treated as if at the time of the transfer they were members of the same group.

(3) In this paragraph any reference to being members of the same group is to be read in accordance with section 170 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

(4) In this paragraph—

“the HCA” means the Homes and Communities Agency, and

“the LDA” means the London Development Agency.

Chargeable gains: disposal on transfer to be treated as no gain/no loss disposal

6 (1) For the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, a disposal constituted by a transfer within sub-paragraph (2) is to be treated in relation to the transferor and transferee as made for a consideration such that no gain or loss accrues to the transferor.

(2) A transfer is within this sub-paragraph if—

(a) it is a transfer in accordance with a transfer scheme under section 161 of property, rights or liabilities of the Homes and Communities Agency and the transferee is a public body, or

(b) it is in accordance with a transfer scheme under section 162 and the transferee is a public body.

(3) In section 288(3A) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (meaning of the “no gain/no loss provisions”) at the end insert—

“(m) paragraph 6(1) of Schedule [Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions] to the Localism Act 2011.”

Stamp duty

7 Stamp duty is not chargeable on a transfer scheme under section162 if the transferee is a public body.

Modifications of transfer schemes

8 (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a company delivers a company tax return,

(b) subsequently an agreement is made modifying a transfer scheme under section 161 or 162, and

(c) as a result of that, the return is incorrect.

(2) The return may be amended under paragraph 15 of Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 1998 so as to remedy the error, ignoring any time limit which would otherwise prevent that happening.

(3) An amendment may not be made in reliance on sub-paragraph (2) more than 12 months after the end of the accounting period of the company during which the agreement is made.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) apply if the company does not amend the return so as to remedy the error before the end of that 12 month period.

(5) A discovery assessment or a discovery determination may be made in relation to the error, ignoring any time limit which would otherwise prevent that happening.

(6) Such an assessment or determination may not be made in reliance on sub-paragraph (5) more than 24 months after the end of the accounting period mentioned in sub-paragraph (3).

(7) Expressions used in this paragraph and in Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 1998 have in this paragraph the meaning they have in that Schedule.’.

Part 3

Transfers under scheme under section171(1) or (4) or187(1)

9 (1) In this paragraph “transfer scheme” means a transfer scheme under section 171(1) or (4) or 187(1).

(2) The Treasury may by regulations make provision for varying the way in which a relevant tax has effect from time to time in relation to—

(a) any property, rights or liabilities transferred in accordance with a transfer scheme, or

(b) anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, or in consequence of, the transfer of any property, rights or liabilities in accordance with a transfer scheme.

(3) The provision that may be made under sub-paragraph (2)(a) includes, in particular, provision for—

(a) a tax provision not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in relation to any property, rights or liabilities transferred;

(b) any property, rights or liabilities transferred to be treated in a specified way for the purposes of a tax provision;

(c) the Secretary of State or Mayor of London to be required or permitted, with the consent of the Treasury, to determine, or to specify the method for determining, anything which needs to be determined for the purposes of any tax provision so far as relating to any property, rights or liabilities transferred.

(4) The provision that may be made under sub-paragraph (2)(b) includes, in particular, provision for—

(a) a tax provision not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in relation to anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, or in consequence of, the transfer;

(b) anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, or in consequence of, the transfer to have or not to have a specified consequence or to be treated in a specified way;

(c) the Secretary of State or Mayor of London to be required or permitted, with the consent of the Treasury, to determine, or to specify the method for determining, anything which needs to be determined for the purposes of any tax provision so far as relating to anything done for the purposes of, in relation to, or in consequence of, the transfer.

(5) In this paragraph—

“relevant tax” means corporation tax, income tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, stamp duty land tax or stamp duty reserve tax, and

“tax provision” means a provision of an enactment about a relevant tax.

(6) In sub-paragraph (5) “enactment” includes an enactment contained in an instrument made under an Act.’.—(Robert Neill.)

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20

Authority may be required to carry on commercial activities through a taxable body

‘(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 34 insert—

“34A Restriction on exercise of certain powers except through a taxable body

(1) The Authority may carry on specified activities for a commercial purpose only if it does so—

(a) through a company that is a subsidiary of the Authority, or

(b) in pursuance of an authorisation under section 38(1), through—

(i) a body that is specified in section 38(2) and is within the charge to corporation tax, or

(ii) a company that is a subsidiary of a body specified in section 38(2).

(2) Subsection (3) applies if—

(a) the Authority carries on a specified activity for a commercial purpose otherwise than as permitted by subsection (1), and

(b) the activity is actually carried on by a body (whether the Authority or another) that, disregarding this section, is in respect of the carrying-on of the activity exempt from corporation tax and income tax.

(3) The body mentioned in subsection (2)(b) is to be treated in respect of the carrying-on of the activity as not being a local authority for the purposes of—

(a) section 984 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (exemption of local authorities from corporation tax),

(b) section 838 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (exemption of local authorities from income tax), and

(c) section 271 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (exemption of local authorities from capital gains tax).

(4) In this section—

“company” means—

(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or

(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, and

“specified activity” means an activity specified in an order made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury.”

(3) In section 420(8) (orders subject to annulment) after the entry for section 25 insert—

“section 34A;”.’.—(Robert Neill.)

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 161

Transfer of property of Homes and Communities Agency etc

Amendments made: 205, page 143, line 31, at end insert—

‘(ba) a company that is a subsidiary of the Greater London Authority,’.

Amendment 206, page 143, line 38, at end insert—

‘“company” means—

(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or

(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;’.

Amendment 207, page 143, line 42, at end insert—

‘“subsidiary” has the meaning given by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006.’.—(Robert Neill.)

Clause 162

Abolition of London Development Agency and transfer of its property etc

Amendments made: 208, page 144, line 8, at end insert—

‘(ba) a company that is a subsidiary of the Greater London Authority,’.

Amendment 209, page 144, line 17, at end insert—

‘“company” means—

(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or

(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;’.

Amendment 210, page 144, line 21, at end insert—

‘“subsidiary” has the meaning given by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006.’.—(Robert Neill.)

Clause 168

Designation of Mayoral development areas

Amendments made: 212, page 148, line 1, leave out from ‘has’ to end of line.

(e) the Mayor has laid before the London Assembly, in accordance with standing orders of the Greater London Authority, a document stating that the Mayor is proposing to designate the area, and

(f) the consideration period for the document has expired without the London Assembly having rejected the proposal.’.—(Robert Neill.)

Amendment proposed: 352, page 148, line 7, at end insert—

‘(e) a majority of those London borough councils whose borough contains any part of the designated development area agree to the designation.’.—(Heidi Alexander.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

15:07

Division 280

Ayes: 222

---

Labour: 210
Democratic Unionist Party: 7
Plaid Cymru: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Green Party: 1
Independent: 1

Noes: 310

---

Conservative: 262
Liberal Democrat: 47

Amendment made: 213, page 148, line 22, at end insert—

‘(4A) For the purposes of subsection (3)(f)—

(a) the “consideration period” for a document is the 21 days beginning with the day the document is laid before the London Assembly in accordance with standing orders of the Greater London Authority, and

(b) the London Assembly rejects a proposal if it resolves to do so on a motion—

(i) considered at a meeting of the Assembly throughout which members of the public are entitled to be present, and

(ii) agreed to by at least two thirds of the Assembly members voting.’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 171

Transfers of property etc to a Mayoral development corporation

Amendments made: 214, page 150, line 12, at end insert

‘, or

(c) a company that is a subsidiary of the Greater London Authority.’.

Amendment 215, page 150, line 23, at end insert—

‘(8A) In subsection (4)(c)—

“company” means—

(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or

(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, and “subsidiary” has the meaning given by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006.’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 173

Functions in relation to Town and Country Planning

Amendment made: 216, page 151, line 41, leave out from ‘has’ to end of line.

Clause 185

Powers in relation to discretionary relief from non-domestic rates

Amendment made: 217, page 157, line 28, leave out from ‘has’ to end of line.

Clause 187

Transfers of property, rights and liabilities

Amendments made: 218, page 158, line 26, at end insert—

‘“company” means—

(a) a company within the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Companies Act 2006, or

(b) a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 1965 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;’.

Amendment 219, page 158, line 31, at end insert—

‘(ba) a company that is a subsidiary of the Greater London Authority,’.

Amendment 220, page 158, line 34, at end insert—

‘“subsidiary” has the meaning given by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006.’.—(Greg Clark.)

New Clause 19

Capital receipts from disposal of housing land

In section 11 of the Local Government Act 2003 (use of capital receipts by a local authority) after subsection (5) insert—

“(6) The Secretary of State and a local authority in England may enter into an agreement with the effect that a requirement imposed under subsection (2)(b) does not apply to, or is modified in its application to, capital receipts of the authority that are specified or described in the agreement.”’.—(Andrew Stunell.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Disestablishment of an arm’s length management organisation—

‘Schedule [Disestablishment of an arm’s length management organisation] has effect.’.

New clause 24—Landlord notification of succession of tenancy—

‘In Schedule 2, Part 3, Ground 16, sub-paragraph (b) of the Housing Act 1985, after “date”, insert “on which the landlord was notified”’.

New clause 25—Recovery of a tenancy granted on ineligible grounds—

‘In section 167(8) of the Housing Act 1996, after “scheme”, insert “and any allocation which is not in accordance with the allocation scheme shall be void and shall not give rise to a tenancy”’.

New clause 26—Housing co-operatives—

‘(1) Schedule 14 of the Housing Act 2004 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 6 insert new sub-paragraph—

“(3) This paragraph does apply to any building which is owned by a fully mutual co-operative housing association as defined by section 1(2) of the Housing Associations Act 1985, the management of which is undertaken by general meeting.”.’.

Amendment 273, in clause 123, page 108, line 11, after ‘1985)’, insert

‘or who have been owed such duties at any time within the previous five years’.

Amendment 360, in clause 124, page 110, line 37, Clause 124, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘five’.

Amendment 270, page 110, line 39, at end insert—

‘(7A) In subsection (7AC) at end, insert—

“(d) In so far as reasonably practicable, the private rented sector offer must be within the local housing authority’s district.”’.

Amendment 269, in clause 125, page 111, line 33, at end insert—

‘(2A) Omit section 190 and replace with—

“190 Duties to persons becoming homeless intentionally or who are not in priority need.

(1) This section applies where the local housing authority is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and is eligible for assistance but are also satisfied that he became homeless intentionally.

(2) The local authority must—

(a) secure that accommodation is available for his occupation for such period as it considers will give him a reasonable opportunity of securing accommodation for his occupation, and

(b) provide him with (or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance in any attempts he may make to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation.

(3) The applicant’s housing needs shall be assessed before advice and assistance is provided under subsection (2)(b).

(4) The advice and assistance provided under subsection (2)(b) must include information about the likely availability in the authority’s district of types of accommodation appropriate to the applicant’s housing needs (including, in particular, the location and sources of such types of accommodation).”.

(2B) Omit section 192.’.

Amendment 274, page 111, line 39, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘five’.

Amendment 275, page 112, line 12, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘five’.

Amendment 276, page 112, line 34, leave out subsection (6).

Amendment 361, in clause 126, page 113, line 15, at end insert—

‘(1A) In preparing its tenancy strategy a local authority must ensure that to the greatest extent possible, tenancies granted in its area provide security of tenure so as to support and develop stable and confident communities.’.

Amendment 363, page 114, line 19, leave out clause 128.

Amendment 13, page 114, line 36, leave out clause 130.

Amendment 271, in clause 130, page 115, line 7, at end insert—

‘(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply to a secure tenancy if immediately before the tenancy was granted the person who became the tenant under the tenancy, or in the case of joint tenants, one or more of them was—

(a) a secure tenant of the same or another dwelling-house, or

(b) an assured tenant of a private registered provider of social housing or a registered social

landlord (otherwise than under an assured shorthold tenancy) in respect of the same or

another dwelling-house.’.

Amendment 272, page 116, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 on page 117 and insert—

‘sections 83 to 85A of the Housing Act 1985 shall apply equally to Flexible Tenancies and references to secure tenancies in those sections shall be read accordingly.’.

Amendment 362, page 116, line 33, after ‘Subject’, insert

‘to the discretion of the court, in circumstances where the tenant has made representations against the granting of possession, not to make an order if it considers that order disproportionate, and subject’.

Amendment 14, page 118, line 19, leave out clause 131.

Amendment 277, in clause 134, page 121, line 36 at end insert—

‘(c) or P is another member of the tenant’s family and has resided with the tenant

throughout the period of 12 months ending with the tenant’s death.’.

Government amendments 191 to 203.

Amendment 364, page 128, line 35, leave out clause 148.

Government amendment 204

Amendment 278, page 130, line 18 leave out clause 153.

New clause 23—Litter deposited from motor vehicles—

‘In Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter etc) in section 87 (offence of leaving litter) after subsection (7) insert—

“(8) Where litter is deposited from a motor vehicle, the person in charge of the vehicle shall, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, be treated as having deposited the litter whether or not he gave any instructions for this to be done.

(9) The registered keeper of a vehicle shall, for the purposes of subsection (8) above, be deemed to be the person in charge of the vehicle unless within twenty one days of receipt of the summons for an offence prosecuted by virtue of subsection (8) above the registered keeper provides in writing to the prosecutor notification of such identifying details as are available to him of any other person he claims to have been the person in charge of the vehicle at the relevant time.

(10) For the purposes of subsection (8) above a constable or an authorised officer of a principal litter authority may by notice in writing served on him, require any person to furnish such information specified in the notice as may reasonably be required to ascertain the person in charge of the vehicle at the relevant time, in such form and within such period, being not less than fourteen days following service of the notice, as is so specified.

(11) It is an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse to fail to comply with any requirement imposed under subsection (10) above.”’.

New clause 33—Street litter notices—

‘(1) In Part 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter etc.) in section 93(2) after “unoccupied” insert “or where there is multiple occupancy”.

(2) In Part 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter etc.) in section 94(1)(a) omit “commercial or retail premises” and insert “premium other than dwellings”.

New clause 38—Protection of businesses and non-domestic users of buildings from complaints—

‘(1) The Environmental Protection Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 80(2) insert—

2AA (1) Except that a local authority must not issue an abatement notice to a business, place of worship or other non-domestic user of land for a statutory nuisance falling within section 79(1)(g) if the following conditions are met.

(2) The first condition is that the relevant premises was already in use for the same purpose at the time when the complainant became a local resident, and that such use resulted in a similar noise, and a similar level of noise, at that time.

(3) The second condition is that use of the relevant premises complies with the planning permission for that land and other legislation in force.”.’.

New schedule 1—‘Disestablishment of an arm’s length management organisation—

1 This Schedule applies to the disestablishment of an arm’s length management organisation (ALMO) by a local authority as a result of which responsibility for the management for housing previously managed by the ALMO is transferred to the local authority.

2 (1) The Secretary of State shall not entertain an application for his or her consent to the disestablishment of an ALMO and a transfer of management to which this Schedule applies unless the authority certify either—

(a) that the requirements of paragraph 3 as to consultation have been complied with, or

(b) that the requirements of that paragraph as to consultation have been complied with except in relation to tenants expected to have vacated the dwelling-house in question before the transfer;

and the certificate shall be accompanied by a copy of the notices given by the authority in accordance with that paragraph.

(2) Where the certificate is in the latter form, the Secretary of State shall not determine the application until the authority certify as regards the tenants originally consulted—

(a) that they have vacated the dwelling-house in question, or

(b) that the requirements of paragraph 3 as to consultation have been complied with;

and a certificate under sub-sub-paragraph (b) shall be accompanied by a copy of the notices given by the authority in accordance with paragraph 3.

Requirements as to consultation

3 (1) The requirements as to consultation referred to above are as follows.

(2) The authority shall serve notice in writing on each tenant informing him or her of—

(a) such details of their proposal as the authority consider appropriate, but including the identity of the person to whom the transfer is to be made;

(b) the likely consequences of the transfer for the tenant, and

(c) the effect of the provisions of this Schedule and informing the tenant that he or she may, within such reasonable period as may be specified in the notice, make representations to the authority.

(3) The authority shall consider any representations made to them within that period and shall serve a further written notice on the tenant informing him or her—

(a) of any significant changes in their proposal, and

(b) that the tenant may within such period as is specified (which must be at least 28 days after the service of the notice) communicate to the Secretary of State his or her objection to the proposal,

and informing him or her of the effect of paragraph 4.

(4) When a notice has been served under sub-paragraph (3) the authority shall arrange a ballot of the tenants in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) to establish whether or not the tenants wish the transfer to proceed.

(5) The authority shall—

(a) make arrangements for such person as they consider appropriate to conduct the ballot in such manner as that person considers appropriate; or

(b) conduct the ballot themselves.

(6) After the ballot has been held the authority shall serve a notice on each tenant (whether or not he or she voted in the ballot) informing the tenant—

(a) of the ballot result; and

(b) if the authority intend to proceed with the transfer, that the tenant may within 28 days after the service of the notice make representations to the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the Welsh Ministers.

Consent to be withheld if majority of tenants are opposed

4 (1) The Secretary of State shall not give his or her consent if the result of a ballot arranged under paragraph 3(4) shows that a majority of the tenants of the dwelling-houses to which the application relates who voted in the ballot do not wish the transfer to proceed; but this does not affect his or her general discretion to refuse consent on grounds relating to whether a transfer has the support of the tenants or on any other ground.

(2) In making this decision the Secretary of State may have regard to any information available to him or her; and the local authority shall give him or her such information as to the representations made to them by tenants and others; and other relevant matters, as he or she may require.’.

Government amendments 221, 222, 224 to 252, 256, 257, 259 to 262, 267 and 268.

[Andrew Stunell]

The Bill brings forward a package of reforms to social housing. Taken together, they strengthen localism, giving greater flexibility to local authorities and to social landlords in providing the needed housing and the right basic safeguards for tenants. The provisions will allow landlords to make better use of resources, allocating existing homes more sensibly, making sure that support is better focused and providing the right basic safeguards for tenants.

The Bill’s provisions include: giving back to local authorities the freedom to determine who should qualify to go on the housing waiting list; new flexible tenancies in addition to, rather than replacing, secure and assured tenancies for council and registered social landlord tenants; flexibility to meet the homelessness duty with an offer of accommodation in the private rented sector; and, perhaps most popular of all, replacing the unpopular housing revenue account subsidy with a devolved system of self-financing.

New clause 19 relates to that, ensuring that the Secretary of State may continue to enter into agreements with local authorities to determine that specified new homes be exempt from the requirement that most of the receipts from any sale under the right to buy should be surrendered to central Government. This will help remove obstacles to local authorities investing their own resources in new homes. To be clear, new clause 19 preserves an existing relaxation in the rule that requires 75% of receipts to be paid to the Treasury in certain circumstances.

The Government are also taking the opportunity at this stage to make technical improvements with regard to flexible tenure and succession, which I would like briefly to outline. Amendments 202 and 203 exclude shared ownership leases from the landlord repairing obligation, in line with established practice and policy.

Amendments 191 to 201 are needed to rectify drafting errors in clauses 134 and 135, which deal with succession rights. They clarify the original intention that where there has not already been a succession, someone who is not a spouse or partner can succeed where there is an express term in the tenancy agreement to allow it.

The Opposition have tabled a number of amendments. Proposals for social housing reform proved to be one of the more contentious areas of the Bill in Committee, with strongly held views often reflecting points of principle. That is reflected in Opposition amendments 13 and 14 as well as in amendments 271 and 272, which would remove flexible tenure in the one case or, frankly, make it unworkable in the other. There have been some misunderstandings over points of detail, so it would be good for me to address them.

[Simon Hughes]

Before my hon. Friend deals with that, will he put it on the record that nothing in the Bill changes the status of any person who is a tenant in a local authority home or a housing association social home in England in respect of security of tenure? Will he also confirm that nothing in the Bill will require any local authority or any social landlord to change that policy in future—in other words, that the Bill is enabling, not prescriptive, in that respect?

[Andrew Stunell]

My right hon. Friend is right on both counts.

Let me begin by saying that, as I ended up summing up a two-hour debate in 16 seconds yesterday, I hope the House will forgive me if I do my summing up at the start of today’s debate.

There are some concerns that I think any sensible observer of the social housing market understands and shares. The current market does not work as well as it could. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the shadow Secretary of State, made that point herself when her party was in government, and the facts speak for themselves. There are about 5 million people on the social housing waiting list, and a quarter of a million overcrowded households already in social housing. At the same time, there are 400,000 homes in the social housing sector in which more than one bedroom is under-occupied.

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

Will the Minister make it clear what the disparity between overcrowded and under-occupied properties actually means? Is it not the case that overcrowded accommodation is overwhelmingly concentrated in London and the south-east, while under-occupied property is almost wholly concentrated in the north of England? How does the Minister expect those two types of stock to be matched under his proposals?

15:30

[Andrew Stunell]

I have news for the hon. Lady. As one who represents a constituency outside London, I can tell her that I see both problems. In the last two months, I have been contacted by a family with three teenagers living in a two-bedroom house who have little chance of being allocated a larger house in the near future. Meanwhile, many older people, widowed, are under-occupying large three-bedroom houses. I appreciate that, as is often the case, London presents a special set of problems, but I do not want the hon. Lady to get away with the mythology that this particular problem does not affect every constituency. People visit the surgeries of all Members to discuss it. I hope that the hon. Lady is not seeking to sweep that under the carpet.

[Ms Buck]

The Minister may wish to respond to a statistical point anecdotally, and of course it is true that there are individual examples of both problems in almost every constituency and part of the country. However, will he confirm for the record that it is statistically the case that the bulk of under-occupation is concentrated in the north of England while most overcrowding is concentrated in London and the south-east? Nothing that we have seen so far in the Bill explains the mechanics of how it will deal with the problems of overcrowding in the south-east and under-occupation in the north without the need for large numbers of people to be moved.

[Andrew Stunell]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that the Minister wants to answer that question briefly, but I think that any further interventions should relate directly to the new clauses and amendments.

[Andrew Stunell]

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would have been tempted to talk about our housing investment programme and the impact that our affordable rents policy can have on the securing of new affordable accommodation, particularly in areas with high rental values, of which London and the south-east is an outstanding example, but as you—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think the Minister is pushing his luck. As he knows, he will be summing up the Third Reading debate as well. I think that if he sticks to the new clauses and amendments from now on, everyone will be happy.

[Andrew Stunell]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The housing measures in the Bill will provide greater discretion for social housing landlords and their professional staff. They will relax the rigid rules set by central Government in the past, and together they will allow landlords to exercise greater discretion, adapt the services they offer to local needs, and manage a valuable public resource more effectively in the best interests of local people.

I recognise that flexible tenure and the proposals to deal with homelessness have caused the most concern to date. Let me repeat what I said in Committee. In the vast majority of cases in which a social landlord offers a flexible tenancy, we will expect that tenancy to be for at least five years. It will often be appropriate to provide longer—in some instances, lifetime—tenancies. If an elderly lady is offered sheltered accommodation or a bungalow, any sensible landlord will doubtless provide a lifetime tenancy. However, if that family in my constituency with three teenagers in a two-bedroom house are finally allocated a three-bedroom house, it surely makes sense to give them a 10-year tenancy, subject to renewal. After 10 years, when the children are in their twenties and have probably left home and the family’s circumstances have changed, they will have had time enough to decide whether that is the accommodation they want.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

rose—

[Andrew Stunell]

I will give way, but then I must make some progress.

[Alison Seabeck]

Does the Minister not accept that the situation he describes will end up involving an amazingly complex series of different tenures and rents, which will be a nightmare for housing providers to manage, and that it will clearly lead to the system stagnating at times and being hugely unfair?

[Andrew Stunell]

Of course I do not accept that. A housing provider who decides that this is too complex can choose not to take it up. As has been said, we are offering social landlords an additional way to let tenancies, and they can choose whether or not to take it up. They can base that decision on any sensible factor, including their administrative convenience. We propose that five years should be the minimum term in normal circumstances. We would expect it to be appropriate to offer less than five years only in very exceptional cases, and we have stated in the Bill a two-year lower limit.

[Mr Raynsford]

The Minister has said he would like the five-year limit to be the normal minimum, with shorter terms only in very exceptional circumstances. Will he therefore tell us why the Bill does not state that, and why he is proposing to vote against the Opposition amendment proposing that five years should be the normal minimum term?

[Andrew Stunell]

Yes of course I will, although I will take just a few minutes to reach that point in my remarks.

I want to put clearly on the record again that our proposal does not affect any existing tenant, even if they swap or transfer their home, and even if the person they swap with has a flexible tenancy. Our current system for social housing is not working as well as it can and should. A one-size-fits-all approach to social tenancies does not take account of the different needs of both individual tenants and local communities. A more flexible approach is essential.

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

May I take the Minister back to the scenario he was describing of a family who move into a three-bedroom house until the children leave, perhaps to go to university or because they get jobs? I am a little confused as to what exactly will happen. After the children have left, will a housing officer turn up and tell the parents that they should move out of the property? Based on my experience as a councillor, this is what currently happens in such situations: a housing officer goes to the three-bedroom house to visit the person—often an elderly lady—and has a conversation with them about perhaps moving to a smaller property, but they may well choose not to do so, because that is their home.

[Andrew Stunell]

Under our proposals, gradually over a period of time there will be a more diverse pattern of tenancies for new tenants. There will not be a wholesale shift to short-term tenancies however, and social landlords have clearly indicated that they will remain focused on maintaining sustainable and cohesive communities and providing appropriate periods of stability to tenants.

[Andrew Percy]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Andrew Stunell]

Just give me a moment.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Give an answer.

[Andrew Stunell]

I will give an answer, but I thought it might be useful to give a complete answer, rather than a partial one.

The provisions already in the Bill and our proposals for a new tenure standard will be binding on every social landlord, and they contain important protections for tenants. Under the new system, the regulator will set a tenure standard, the local housing authority will have to develop a housing strategy, and the registered provider will have to publish a tenancy policy. That policy will be drawn up in consultation with tenants, and landlords’ decisions on allocating tenancies will have to be in line with it. A landlord’s decision to end a tenancy will be subject to appeal—that is in the Bill—and if the appeal is unsuccessful and the tenant is not satisfied, possession can only be granted by a court So such a process can never come as a surprise to a tenant. They will have taken that flexible tenancy knowingly, in advance of moving in. If, at the point when the tenancy is being allocated to them, they do not wish to accept the terms and they think them unreasonable, they can ask for a review of that tenancy before they start. They will be taking up any flexible tenancy knowing that it is flexible and knowing what the procedures will be subsequent to their doing so.



The Government have made it clear that we intend that the tenure standards, which the regulator sets out, will include the guidelines that cover all these matters. It is a little perverse that the Opposition’s amendment 363 would take away the Secretary of State’s power to issue instructions to the regulator to cover those tenure and mobility standards.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Will not one of the results of this change be that local authorities such as mine in Great Yarmouth will have much more flexibility to manage the housing stock? That will ensure that they do not have problems with the situation that has been outlined, where people who need a one-bedroom property are in a three-bedroom property and families, including the ones I deal with in my casework all the time, cannot get into properties because they are not available. People are being blocked out and this flexibility will allow local authorities to have better management across their housing stock, which will benefit residents in each area.

[Andrew Stunell]

The hon. Gentleman is right.

This process is not going to be an instant event and a miracle cure; it will happen only as re-lets take place and only then when a social landlord decides that it wants to implement flexible tenancies for some or perhaps all of its tenancies. At the current national rate of turnover, which is about 5% a year, the evolution of this will be slow. Gradually, it will lead to a better match between the needs of tenants and the housing available for them.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister is doing a very good Pontius Pilate impersonation. He is saying, “I’ll wash my hands of it and we will leave it to others.” But he is leaving it to authorities such as Hammersmith and Fulham council or Notting Hill Housing, the second biggest social landlord, which have both said that they will opt for the minimum possible terms for all tenants, including the elderly and the disabled. What he is allowing as a Liberal Democrat Minister—if that means anything—against what many Liberal Democrats are arguing in constituencies such as mine, is the removal of all the security that people, including the elderly and the disabled, have come to depend on. Will he not take a stand on this issue?

[Andrew Stunell]

The hon. Gentleman has not been listening, and that is perhaps not unusual. We are setting tenure standards that the regulator will be imposing, if that is the correct word, and to which local housing authorities must have regard in creating their borough-wide housing strategies. In other words, there will not be a completely unregulated market and his fears are grossly overstated.

[Andrew Percy]

Of course one person’s flexibility is somebody else’s inflexibility—in this case, we are talking about the authorities and, potentially, the tenant respectively. Will the Minister confirm that he is saying what I think he is saying? Let us suppose that somebody has secured a flexible tenancy while their children are living with them and those children then leave home. Is it possible that such a person could find themselves in court and being thrown out of their home because a local authority wants the house back? Is that honestly the situation that we are creating?

[Andrew Stunell]

No, someone’s fixed-term tenancy is subject to review at the end of the term. There is no automatic eviction; the tenancy is subject to review and the—

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Stunell]

I will when I finish the sentence, if that is all right.

The tenure standard will prescribe what local housing authorities can and cannot include in their housing strategy—[Interruption.] At the moment, as the Minister for Housing and Local Government is correctly prompting me, we have ever-growing waiting lists, with people unable to access the accommodation that they desperately need. This is a step towards dealing with that problem. It is not the only step and it will not be a quick step, but it is an important step towards the better allocation of housing.

15:45

[Ms Buck]

Going back to the Minister’s assurances that landlords will not adopt the minimum standards of tenancy and that the approach will be regulated, how does he explain the fact that Notting Hill Housing wrote to everybody in my constituency on the homeless waiting list saying that from 1 April it would immediately adopt short-term tenancies at the lowest number of years permissible?

[Andrew Stunell]

Fortunately, I do not have to take responsibility for the actions of that body—[Hon. Members: “You do!”] Let us be quite clear that letters can be sent out by anyone to anyone saying anything. However, they are enforceable only if they are consistent with the tenure standards set by the regulator and with the housing strategy derived from them. Registered providers will need to have in place a tenancy policy that is published and drawn up in consultation with tenants. It sounds to me very much as though the letter to which the hon. Lady refers has been sent in advance of any of those things being in place. It is therefore of no value or significance other than that it does something that concerns me a great deal about our debate on this issue: that is, it serves to whip up misunderstanding and fear among existing tenants that in some way they might be affected by these new proposals. That is absolutely not the case.

[Nic Dakin]

I thank the Minister for giving way, as he is being very generous. I think the answer to the question from my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), is that clearly somebody who has had a 10-year tenancy and brought up their family can find that when their circumstances change they lose their home. These are homes that people invest in; they are not simply utilitarian houses.

[Andrew Stunell]

No, that is not correct. Let us be clear that the tenure standards will provide specific protection for the vulnerable. We have already said that in our response to the consultation, and the consultation responses themselves show that the vast majority of landlords will provide longer terms.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister have any practical examples? He has talked about long waiting lists for family houses, but there are actually long waiting lists for pensioners’ accommodation, too. If a couple in their 60s, whose children have left home, were on a flexible tenancy, the local authority could ask them to move. If no pensioner accommodation was available, as bungalows are in very short supply in many areas, that couple could be forced to move into a block of flats where the majority of people were young single people or young couples with a completely different lifestyle. Is that the sort of situation that he envisages? If not, will he say precisely where in the guidelines it states that the regulator will stop a local authority or housing association doing that?

[Andrew Stunell]

The tenure standards will set that out, the housing strategy of the local housing authority will reinforce it and the tenancy policy of the provider, if it is not the housing authority itself, will also set it out.

I want to make some progress and move on to a second issue that is, I know, of real concern to Members: the provisions on homelessness. Much of the debate on our homelessness proposals started off from the proposition that landlords of private rented property are a rogue sector and incapable of offering decent quality accommodation to those families who might benefit from it. I made it clear in Committee, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government on a number of occasions, that the draft legislation includes a number of safeguards that together provide reassurances that an offer of private accommodation would be made only when it is reasonable to do so and when the accommodation is suitable for the needs of the household.

It is important to go back to why we are making the changes in the first place. It is not because we want to make the plight of homeless families worse, but because we want to make their situation better. In London, the average stay in temporary accommodation of resettled homeless families before they get a permanent offer of social accommodation is two years. The impact of that time on schooling, quality of life, health and stress is not acceptable and needs to be tackled. I agree with the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) that this probably is not a countrywide problem, and I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) does not have the problem, because he has 2,500 empty houses to begin with, but in places of high housing stress it is a real problem. That is why we are making these proposals.

In Committee and elsewhere, hon. Members have raised a number of concerns about the homelessness measures. Some of those focused on standards of accommodation in the private rented sector, the interplay that there might be with housing benefit changes and related issues of affordability. There were also concerns about the location of those private rented sector homes, and whether there might be some loophole in creating intentional homelessness. I want to respond to each of those points in due course.

[Mr Slaughter]

Before the Minister moves on, will he deal with two points regarding what he has said so far? First, how is it an improvement to go from an average two-year wait for permanent accommodation to never getting permanent accommodation and staying perpetually in the private rented sector? Secondly, I assume, but will he confirm this on the record, that in his definition of “suitable” he also means “local”? The biggest issue for my constituents is being placed far away from their friends, family, schools and jobs, outside London, based on the excuse of the cost of property. If that is for two years, it might be sustainable, but if it is for ever it will not be. Will he deal with those two points?

[Andrew Stunell]

Yes, I certainly will. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind if I do so in sequence, but I will respond.

We need to keep a realistic view of the private rented sector and the impact of welfare reform. I recognise that there are some concerns and I am prepared to consider further the need for additional protections for homeless households placed in the private rented sector. The Secretary of State already has powers to set out in secondary legislation the circumstances in which accommodation is or is not to be regarded as suitable and to specify other matters that are to be taken into account or disregarded when determining suitability. I am prepared to consider using those powers for the provision of additional protections on standards of accommodation or other matters.

Diligent readers of the Bill will know that there are already important safeguards. Any offer has to have regard to the health and welfare of the tenant, social impacts and affordability for the tenant. Existing legislation is already clear that any loss of income outside the control of the tenant cannot create intentional homelessness. That would be unintentional homelessness and so the duty to deal with that situation would remain with the local authority. The accommodation has to be suitable, or fit for purpose. On the point that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) made, existing housing legislation says that as far as the local housing authority is concerned location must be in the local district so far as is reasonably practicable.

[Ms Buck]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being extremely generous in giving way. In central London, which is obviously important to me as a central London MP, the changes in housing benefit mean that only 7% of the entire central London broad market rental area for housing benefit or local housing allowance purposes will be accessible to individuals on that benefit. How then can any central London authority obtain accommodation, as a reasonable discharge of duty, in the private rented sector when there is no accommodation to be obtained?

[Andrew Stunell]

The hon. Lady speaks of 7%. That was her figure; I do not know whether it is exactly right, but a proportion of the rental market will be affordable. Those who are in temporary accommodation in her borough or whose homelessness arises in her borough are being shunted around. We want to end that regime and have people permanently established in their borough in accordance with the legislation. We believe that our measure will achieve that.

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

My hon. Friend seems to suggest that there are protections in the Bill already for people discharged into the private rented sector, but there is a role that secondary legislation can play. When I pressed the point in Committee, in the context of the viability of a national accreditation scheme for landlords to ensure standards—not just in relation to suitability and size, but taking account of the types of lease offered and whether repairs are done in a timely way—the Government did not seem keen to pursue it. If that already exists de facto, can it not be brought together in a legal sense?

[Andrew Stunell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which he made in Committee. As he knows, there are a number of local accreditation schemes and in some boroughs it is a requirement that the landlords of tenants who receive housing benefit in their area are members of an accreditation scheme of one sort or another. I will take stock of his point. The Government are not minded to introduce a national scheme, but there may be aspects that he is rightly drawing to our attention for further consideration.

[Simon Hughes]

I was reassured by my hon. Friend’s words about the Government’s intention that people should not have to move outside the district or community. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has given a similar reassurance. There is particular concern in Greater London because of the acute pressure on property, property prices and so on. I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that his right hon. Friend has agreed, together with, I hope, the responsible Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions, Lord Freud, to meet to see whether, across parties and with the Mayor of London, the housing associations and local authorities, the remaining concerns can be alleviated. I hope my hon. Friend and his colleagues will give full assistance to that measure as the Bill proceeds from this place to the other end of the building.

[Andrew Stunell]

Yes. Perhaps my words were a little too opaque a little while ago when I said that we are prepared to consider the need for additional protections for homeless households. Clearly, what my right hon. Friend has just set out forms part of that process.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Two unitary county councils have been established in the north-east of England in the recent past which are now the housing authorities. The right of a tenant to stay within the housing authority area becomes meaningless in the context of a county that provides housing, because the county can be 40 or 50 miles from border to border. If no housing is available in the immediate neighbourhood, the right to stay within the county means that a tenant may have to move many miles away.

[Andrew Stunell]

I take stock of what the hon. Gentleman says. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) might want to make a similar point. Perhaps that is one for us to consider more fully.

The existing legislation requires local housing authorities to locate people within their district so far as reasonably practicable. The homelessness code of guidance sets out all the factors that it is right and appropriate for housing authorities to take into account. Those of us who see real life at constituency level know full well that when those families eventually get their social housing offer, it is seldom in the plum house on the smart estate. It is more likely to be the bottom flat in the hard-to-let block on the least desirable estate in town. I hope we do not have a starry-eyed vision of social housing, when compared with the private rented sector, that blinds us to the essential reality we are trying to tackle, which is that the average stay in temporary accommodation for homeless families in London is two years. That is unacceptable and this reform puts us on the way to ending it.

15:59

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not agree, however, that for many people the attraction of the housing association or council sector is security of tenure and the fact that they can settle, rather than living in the private rented sector, where they will always have a sword hanging over their head because the landlord may decide to end the tenancy at any moment? It is not just about the relative qualities of the properties, but about people’s sense of security.

[Andrew Stunell]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, but I think that it undervalues the history of tenants in the private rented sector. There is certainly a lot of churn, but there are also many people who spend long periods in very successful private rented sector accommodation. We must be careful not to generalise and should recognise that, if there is a need as a result of a tenancy breaking down, the duty on the authority to deal with that situation remains in the Bill and is part of the protection that tenants have.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could perhaps do a little more to look at other ways of encouraging the private sector to offer longer tenancies—for example, through more work on real estate investment trusts—so that people can invest in property in a way that is more long term, rather than having buy-to-let properties with one or two landlords, which I think is the sort of thing that concerns Opposition Members? That might offer some assistance and I would like the Government to do more on that.

[Andrew Stunell]

Yes, I entirely agree that there is scope for innovative solutions. It is by no means the Government’s position that in a majority of cases it will be appropriate for social landlords to follow this route, but where it is clear that there is an obvious disadvantage to tenants who are stuck in the temporary accommodation loop, it is surely right to take steps to deal with that more effectively, and I hope that the House will agree.

The homelessness code of guidance provides that the location of accommodation will be relevant to the suitability of the tenancy and that the appropriateness of the location relates to all members of the household, who must all be considered. Employment, schooling, and family and social connections are all relevant matters that will be taken into account.

New clause 3 and new schedule 1 relate to changes in the governance of arm’s length management organisations, and I hope that I can be helpful to hon. Members as far as that is concerned. New clause 3 would oblige all councils with ALMOs to undertake a statutory ballot of their tenants and seek the consent of the Secretary of State before an ALMO can be closed down. I have listened to the comments that have been made and read the amendment and the briefing from the organisation. I am sympathetic to a number of the arguments put forward, particularly the need to protect tenants and have a consistent consultative model for ALMOs in cases where local authorities are minded to change their status and take them back in house.

For those councils that hold a ballot before establishing an ALMO, it seems reasonable that they should hold a ballot when they are minded to wind up such an organisation. I understand that of the 61 ALMOs that are currently extant, around 30 were formed following such ballots. The principle of “ballot in, ballot out” does not seem a bad one to hold on to. For those councils that did not hold a ballot, our departmental guidance already stipulates that they should consult widely with tenants before an ALMO is wound up. It does not stipulate what specific format the consultation should take. I have asked my officials to look again at that guidance and the options for strengthening it so that all tenants can be assured of their rights.

[Stephen Gilbert]

I welcome the commitment to “ballot in, ballot out” in the disestablishment of ALMOs, but the principle should be to give the 50% or so of ALMOs that are left—the 30 to which my hon. Friend referred—as much power as possible to set their own destiny, rather than being buffeted about by the will of the local authority. May I strongly impress upon my hon. Friend the fact that a ballot for all ALMOs seeking disestablishment would be very welcome?

[Andrew Stunell]

I understand that that would be very welcome, but at the moment I am not convinced of the need for councils to follow that rule. I remind my hon. Friend that ALMOs are completely the creatures of local government, but the tenant participation in ALMOs is a positive feature. The ALMO covering my constituency works well and is well regarded, but even so it is a matter for the local authority. It is not appropriate for a Minister or the Secretary of State to get in the driving seat, but it is right for us to give careful consideration to the guidance, particularly on the ballot point.

[Mr Betts]

I follow the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) in his request for a ballot in all cases, because that would give us the security of a proper consultation. Changing so fundamentally the management of a tenant’s home is almost as important as changing its ownership, and we should give weight to that. If the Minister is not prepared to go that far, but is simply going to look at “ballot in, ballot out”, which at least would be a step forward, and again at the guidance on consultation, will he have a real look at how the guidance might be underpinned statutorily so that, before an ALMO is allowed to be changed and moved back into a local authority, the Secretary of State can insist that real consultation takes place and tenants’ views are listened to? That does not happen at the moment.

[Andrew Stunell]

Yes. It is important that we review the guidance—I just said that we should do so—and it would be an unusual local authority that disregarded it. I undertake to reflect further on the best way forward, and I hope that my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman feel that that is a step forward which allows them not to press their amendments today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) has tabled new clause 26, which relates to a specific situation for fully mutual housing co-operatives. By a quirk of the legislation, they are caught by the houses in multiple occupation requirement for licensing and, sometimes, planning permission. The Department has been lobbied by the Friendly Housing Action campaign group to secure an exemption for fully mutual housing co-operatives, and I am very sympathetic to the campaign, as such organisations were never intended to be caught by the licensing provisions.

We have to be careful to ensure that in granting an exemption we do not inadvertently allow other categories to slip through the loophole, so I am asking for further advice on how we might achieve that. I hope to return to the issue at a later stage, so I hope that my hon. Friends will not feel the need to press new clause 26 to a Division.

I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) for new clauses 25 and 24, which she and her hon. Friends have tabled. They both relate to cases in which courts made decisions that the common-sense man would not have expected. New clause 25 refers to a situation in which the housing allocation scheme was perverted—I think that is the right word—by an officer, and consequently the courts decided that, because of the nature of the current legislation, it was not possible to recover the properties that had been misallocated. I am certainly minded to take some steps in the right direction. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government recently launched a 10-point plan for tackling council fraud, and that included vetting staff. I hope that that means that it is very unlikely that the situation will recur, but we are going to look at how we might move forward. On a rather significant technical point, the place where Opposition Members have chosen to insert the words means that the provision would apply only to Wales; I suspect that that is not what they really meant to do.

New clause 24 deals with a situation where a death was concealed at the transfer of a tenancy and therefore a vital time line was missed and it then proved impossible to correct that. The new clause changes the time limit restrictions so that when a local authority seeks to repossess a property, the date at which it became aware of the change in circumstances, rather than the actual date of the circumstances, will be relevant. I fully accept the point drawn to our attention. We will explore the issue in more detail and talk to various local authorities and representative bodies with a view to tabling a Government amendment in the other place. I hope that the hon. Lady feels that that is a helpful way for us to proceed.

I cannot be so consensual on other amendments tabled by the Opposition. I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I must say that we have a considerable mixture of amendments of one type or another, to which I will perhaps respond in my final 16 seconds, if that is how it turns out. Some of them are direct negatives of our proposals in the Bill, some are wrecking amendments to one degree or another, and some are quite seductive in their tone, if not their impact. Several of them duplicate safeguards that are already in the Bill or even in legislation as it has stood for some time.

Some of the amendments seem to be based on an Opposition view that social landlords are even worse than they think private landlords are, with their principal business being to get people out of their homes as quickly as possible. Of course, that is not the primary purpose or intention of social landlords, which is to provide suitable accommodation for those who need it, as will continue to be the situation in future. Other amendments seem to be more about whipping up misunderstanding among vulnerable families than about making a contribution towards solving the heartrending problems of homelessness.

I urge hon. Friends and other Members to support the Government’s sensible and thoughtful proposals and to reject the many temptations offered by the Opposition.

[Alison Seabeck]

I repeat the declaration I made at the start of the Public Bill Committee, which is on the record.

I thank all those involved in Committee proceedings on this large and extensive Bill, including the two very patient Chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess). Although we had well-informed discussions in Committee—Members on both sides of the House are to be commended—I am left with the feeling that we could have done with significantly more time to debate the issues.

Yesterday, the Minister started by saying that the Committee was consensual—not so on the housing proposals, I am afraid. We debated more than 40 amendments and new clauses on this part of the Bill, and not one was accepted by Government Front Benchers. Although I welcome the moves that the Minister has made today on a couple of our proposals, I do not get a sense that he is giving any ground. Indeed, having listened to his speech and responses, I think he is rather digging in; of course, that is his prerogative.

The Opposition cannot let these proposals go unchallenged. I will therefore speak to amendments 269, 270, 273 to 276 and 360, new clauses 24 and 25, and amendments 13, 14, 271, 272, 277 and 278, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I flag it up at this stage, given that the Minister has not astounded us with a number of U-turns, that we will press for votes on amendment 13 on flexible tenancies and on amendment 271 on security of tenure.

16:15

New clause 19, which will allow local authorities to keep capital receipts relating to right-to-buy sales, is welcomed by the Opposition, although we would like to see more detail. We understand that it involves the removal of the ring fence around the proceeds from sales of land or property in that account. That raises the concern that that money could be moved away from meeting housing need.

The Government’s proposals on housing and homelessness are deeply damaging, and none more so than the proposal to end security of tenure in social housing. That will create two classes of tenant in social housing. There will be great uncertainty, because there will be different lengths of tenure and different levels of rent, with little rational relationship between the two. There will be a divide between those who have been fortunate enough to get security of tenure in their social housing, and those who have been made to wait for too long and will be granted a tenancy for as little as two years. Tenants whose financial circumstances improve above an arbitrary level will potentially be told to pack up and move on.

As a result of the complexity of the system that is being brought forward, which will be a bureaucratic nightmare, a household in a three-bedroom house could pay less rent and have greater security than a household next door in a two-bedroom flat. Frankly, that will be divisive. We all have people who come to our constituency surgeries and say, “We don’t understand why so-and-so has higher priority than me.” These proposals will add a further layer to that and will be problematic.

We heard in the run-up to the announcement on the military covenant—I digress a little, but this is housing-related—about how difficult it is for military families to have to move every couple of years. That often happens and I see it a lot at the naval base. Only this week in questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), said that he had spoken with the Minister for Housing and Local Government on this issue. The Under-Secretary has said in the past that this instability is unacceptable and that soldiers, sailors and airmen need and deserve help to protect the stability of their families’ homes and education.

However, the message from the Department for Communities and Local Government to all families in social housing is, “Get a better job and you will lose your home. Invite your partner to move in with you and start a family, and you will put your home at risk.” At a time when we want people to do their best to get on in life, and to build something better for themselves and their families, this is the wrong policy. Labour will stand up for people who strive and who put the hours in to better their lot. What will happen to people who fall foul of the new Tory rules and are told to leave their council or housing association home simply because they have worked hard, if they subsequently lose their job or fall ill and are unable to work? What will their entitlement be then? They will go to the back of the queue and start all over again. Where is the incentive to work and where is the fairness?

In Committee, we received a powerful submission from a young woman called Jessica Sim, who lives in social housing. Her experience will be mirrored by many other tenants. She said:

“To get an affordable secure home was a great incentive to pursue my career. I also spent a great deal of time and money improving my council home and garden…and getting involved in my community association to improve the area, knowing that we could stay.”

She went on:

“What if the people who are kicked out lose their job or get fed up being hardly better off working? Back on housing benefit, back in the queue, the bill will be enormous. Families have a better chance if they have a secure place to live. Moving people on does not solve a shortage of housing.”

She rightly identified that to solve the housing crisis, the Government need to build more homes. Their policy seems to be aimed at trying to solve the shortage of social housing by allowing everyone a year or two in a social home before moving them on. Ministers seem to have failed to realise that to house people we need not to give them shorter tenancies but to build homes.

What will be the consequences of that policy of limiting social housing so that it is not available to those who work hard to build something for themselves, or to those who invest in their homes and communities? What will happen when we reduce estates to being areas that people pass through at their most vulnerable point, and transitional communities of the most deprived? We will go back almost to the state of social housing in the first half of the last century, when access to it was limited by law to the “working classes”. That term was only ever defined once in legislation, in paragraph (12)(e) of the schedule to the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1903, as those

“whose income in any case does not exceed an average of thirty shillings a week”.

In today’s money, that would be an annual income of just over £7,000. Mean as the Government are, I do not expect them to set a threshold as low as that, which would make them comparable with Tory Governments of the late 19th and early 20th century. However, the message that their change will send is the same now as it was then: that social housing is for the poor. It is to segregate people from other sections of society that are seen as doing better.

It is more than 62 years since the House decided, without a Division, to accept that segregating social housing off for just one deprived section of society was entirely wrong. In that debate, Aneurin Bevan said—it is as true now as it was then—that it was

“entirely undesirable that on modern housing estates only one type of citizen should live…that from one sort of township should come one income group and from another sort of township another income group…if we are to enable citizens to lead a full life, if they are each to be aware of the problems of their neighbours, then they should be all drawn from the different sections of the community”.

The principle of mixed communities in social housing, in which the Labour party should take great pride, was welcomed at that time by the Tory Front-Bench spokesman, the Member for Hertford. He said:

“It is, of course very desirable that the black-coated workers”—

administrative workers—

“should not be shut out from the benefit of local authority housing accommodation.”—[Official Report, 16 March 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2126-38.]

I am only sorry that the wisdom of Churchillian conservatism, such as it was, has not carried through to coalition Cameronism.

Sixty years on, the idea that this country is stronger when its communities are more diverse, and that its society is more cohesive when it comprises a broad and mixed swathe of people, is no longer supported by the Conservative party. Nor is it supported by the Liberal party, whose MPs did not oppose the measures in this Bill in Committee despite trying to raise their concerns by tabling amendments. They consistently withdrew those amendments without a vote. Just where is their fabled voice in government and their backbone? We still believe in mixed communities in social housing, underpinned by security of tenure, which the Bill targets so directly.

[Ms Buck]

Earlier, the Minister assured us that there would be regulations to protect secure tenants—he mentioned a period of five years and, I believe, used the word “scaremongering”. May I share with my hon. Friend the letter from Notting Hill Housing that I mentioned, which I have now obtained? It states:

“The Government have recently set out their plans for the future of social housing. Up until now, this has been known as permanent housing. New homes will be let with fixed-term tenancies for a minimum of two years”.

It finishes:

“Since permanent housing will no longer be available, these changes will affect everyone seeking housing from April 2011.”

Does that not indicate that the Minister was completely wrong in the assurances that he gave?

[Alison Seabeck]

That is clear evidence of the case that we are trying to make. There is always a risk, when minimum standards are set, that eventually everybody will end up at that level. Clearly some people want to move more quickly than others in that direction.

Let us not forget that there is a stronger localist voice if a range of interests are represented in an area. Amendment 271 is intended to address the threat in the Bill to take security of tenure away from existing social tenants. That is something of a sore point for the Government, because the Bill represents just another broken promise. Before the general election, the now Prime Minister’s spokesman was briefing the media that the Tory party had no plans to alter security of tenure. The Liberal Democrat manifesto said nothing on the subject, and the Housing and Local Government Minister spent only about 10 minutes in the Chamber on Report.

[Clive Efford]

Some of us who fought very hard on the issue of secure tenancies and the future of rents at the last election were accused of scaremongering and lying. The Conservatives’ election manifesto explicitly states that they will

“respect the tenures and rents of social housing tenants.”

Ministers have made promises today on respecting the future of tenancies and rents, but how can we believe them when the Conservatives said that in their general election manifesto and wrote it off so soon afterwards in the coalition agreement?

[Alison Seabeck]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. During the general election, we fought and battled hard throughout the country to get those assurances from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, but they are now reneging on them. It is as simple as that.

[Simon Hughes]

I am very clear that secure tenancies are a good thing, that council housing is a good thing, and that housing association properties are often good things—they are not always as good as council properties. Will the hon. Lady confirm that the proposal does not affect secure tenants? Does she now accept that? Will she also confirm that the proposal affects people only in future, and that it gives discretion to local authorities? If there were any Government imposition on local authorities, I would not support the proposal for one second, but the proposal gives discretion.

[Alison Seabeck]

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall address some of those points later in my speech. I find the Liberal Democrat position quite extraordinary.

The Liberal Democrat manifesto said nothing on the issue, and as I pointed out, the Housing and Local Government Minister, who is, sadly, no longer in the Chamber—he obviously has more interesting things to do than listen to a debate on housing—said that

“there is no chance of, or way in which, a social tenancy can be broken or changed for anybody already in council or housing association homes.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2011; Vol. 524, c. 19.]

In November, I asked the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) whether he would give me his personal guarantee that secure tenancy rights would not be changed. He gave a brief, direct answer: “Yes.” If only the Bill that those Ministers now promote were consistent with their previous statements in the House.

The framework published by the Department is quite clear that tenancies will be secure only for tenants who have a secure tenancy before 31 March 2012. Therefore, tenants with a secure tenancy will lose their security if their family grows and they need to move to a larger home, or if a person wishes to downsize to a smaller home and the only properties available for re-let are offered on a flexible tenancy.

The Homes and Communities Agency is clear that the expectation is for both flexible tenancies and affordable rents in re-lets and new developments. In future, those families will have an absolutely impossible choice. Do they stay in a home that is no longer suitable for their needs, leaving them overcrowded but with the security they crave and a rent they can afford, or do they accept the move to a larger home, lose their security, and risk losing their home altogether if they are deemed no longer to meet the eligibility criteria for social housing, which could happen two years down the line?

[Simon Hughes]

indicated dissent.

[Alison Seabeck]

The right hon. Gentleman sits there and shakes his head, but there are enough questions about this measure. The Minister had four goes at answering those points in Committee, but his answers were not entirely satisfactory. I urge the right hon. Gentleman either to abstain on Government new clause 19, or to come into the Lobby with the Opposition.

[Simon Hughes]

I appreciate that this is very serious and I am listening very carefully to the hon. Lady—I do not doubt her commitment. I am open to correction, but my understanding is that in the circumstances she describes, when somebody needs to move from a council home because their family has grown, it does not necessarily follow that they will be unable to be offered a secure tenancy where they go to. If Southwark council kept secure tenancies for all its council stock, people would move to a secure tenancy if they moved to another council property. Will the hon. Lady please at least accept that that option will be just as possible next year as it is this year?

16:29

[Alison Seabeck]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a point about Southwark council, but evidence suggests that significant numbers of councils—largely Conservative councils, but no Labour councils—are already saying they want to introduce this proposal quickly. The system allows for discretion, but the evidence suggests that it will not be used, and that Hammersmith and Fulham, Westminster and other councils will simply say, “Sorry, no!” If someone chooses to move—the key point is the choice—they will probably find themselves with a higher rent and a shorter tenure. These proposals contain no guarantees and are inadequate, which is why we tabled our amendments. We need to consider the tenants. The council in Southwark could become a Conservative council in the future—

[Simon Hughes]

It’s unlikely.

[Alison Seabeck]

Perhaps, but the point is that there is clearly an appetite among Conservative councils for making use of this provision, offering the minimum they need to and removing security of tenure from people who choose to move.

It is not a choice I would wish on any family, and it will create disincentives to move within the sector by throwing sand in the wheels. We need to make it easier for people to move within the sector, yet the Government’s proposals will make it harder. If the Government press ahead and create this dog’s breakfast of a flexible tenancy, we want them to stick to their promise not to break secure tenancy rights of existing tenants, even if they choose to move. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends raised this issue with the Minister in Committee during the stand part debate on clause 132. He revealed that the previous guarantees given by his ministerial colleagues were worthless, when he said that the decision on whether tenants would keep their security of tenure would rest with the discretion of the landlord, but that

“if a tenant chooses to move to an affordable rent property, it is reasonable that discretion should be available to the landlord as to whether that remains in place”.––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 8 March 2011; c. 856.]

For us, that is simply not good enough. It does not retain security of tenure, and gives landlords a degree of flexibility that we think is negative for tenants. That is why we oppose it. I am disappointed that amid the 234 Government amendments and new clauses there is no amendment to match their rhetoric. That is why we tabled amendment 271. The Government might not be willing or able to stand up for the rights of existing tenants, but the Labour party certainly is.

Amendment 277 is similar to an amendment debated briefly in Committee at the end of a morning sitting. At the time, the Minister said that clause 134 was part of a cleaning-up exercise, to which I said we would leave things there and consider whether we needed to come back to the issue on Report. As the House of Commons Library rightly points out, the clause removes the statutory right of those other than spouses and partners to succeed to a secure tenancy. Currently, in the absence of a spouse or partner, the close relatives of a secure tenant who have resided in a dwelling as their only or principal home for 12 months prior to the tenant’s death also have a right to succeed to the tenancy.

Our amendment would extend statutory succession rights beyond spouses and civil partners, to those who have acted as live-in carers for at least one year and siblings who have co-habited for at least one year. Carers contribute an enormous amount to society and to those—almost always close family members—for whom they care. We will all know of cases in our constituencies in which family members have moved into their parents’ or other relatives’ homes to act as carers. It is an act of love that can place tremendous strain on the carers, and the commitment it requires should not be underestimated. Nor, on a more transactional level, should the amount of money they save the Treasury be underestimated. Age UK, in its submission to the Bill Committee, wrote:

“Given the contribution of carers, they deserve to succeed to a tenancy or have an offer of alternative social housing with a lifetime tenancy.”

[Andrew Stunell]

Does the hon. Lady accept that the Bill will give registered landlords the opportunity to have tenancy agreements that allow carers to succeed to a tenancy even if they are not related to the person holding the original tenancy? The Bill will give landlords that flexibility for the first time, not take anything away.

[Alison Seabeck]

Yet again, this is all about discretion and saying, “Trust us.” I am afraid that we would like to see something clearer in the Bill.

Live-in siblings are another group for whom there should be statutory succession. Once again, we can all look at our constituency experience. During the passage of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman said:

“It is profoundly unfair that carers and siblings who cohabit are disadvantaged on the death of one or other of them by being forced out of their home by their tenancy terms”.—[Official Report, 12 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 188.]

That legislation was the wrong place for that debate. This Bill is the right place, and our amendments would address the issue. Something else that ought to be addressed, and which we sought to address in Committee, is the right of unmarried couples. I am pleased that the Government seem to have shelved the idea of giving £2 a week—or whatever it was—to get married. However, the Bill gives newlyweds more succession rights to a tenancy than a cohabiting unmarried couple who have shared a home for decades, even when those newlyweds have cohabited for only a matter of days. That is not fair or appropriate. If passed unamended, clause 134 would not reflect modern family life for many families in Britain.

The Minister said in Committee that there was some tidying up to be done. I acknowledge that Government amendments 194 to 201 try to improve the provisions and address the succession issues. In so far as they represent a degree of Government movement since Committee, I welcome those amendments. I also welcome the Minister’s acknowledgment at the time that the Bill was far from perfect. A host of Government amendments have been tabled—more than the norm on Report—which largely reflects the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny that the Bill received and the rushed consultations.

I shall try to get through our remaining amendments as quickly as possible. On the right of tenants to complain directly to the housing ombudsman, we oppose clause 153 and seek to remove it with amendment 278. Clause 153 would require tenants to seek permission and approval from their elected representatives to complain about their social landlord to the housing ombudsman. We support the National Housing Federation position on this issue. Amendment 278 would allow tenants the right to complain directly, as they can now. The National Housing Federation represents landlords, who possibly have the most to lose from the change, yet they are very relaxed about allowing tenants that direct link.

New clauses 24 and 25 seek to clamp down on loopholes in housing law that can be exploited by fraudsters and to deal with the issue of fairness—on which the Minister, he say yes! I am grateful to him for acknowledging that we brought to his attention something on which he thinks he can build. I look forward to seeing further amendments in the other place. When it comes to fairness in the allocation of homes and the transparency of the process, we felt that the local authorities in the cases that we highlighted needed a right of redress. Neither case is sub judice. They were highlighted for us by Arden Chambers, and they are Birmingham v. Qasim and Newport v. Charles. We would be grateful if both cases could be looked at in detail and amendments brought forward.

There are a host of issues concerning homelessness that, given enough time, deserve to be debated properly on the Floor of the House. However, given the constraints on Report, it is neither appropriate nor possible to give them another airing or vote on them all, as we did in Committee. I am sure that a number of those issues will be raised again in another place, given the depth of expertise there. In Committee, we sought a requirement for better standards in the private rented sector—a point touched on by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert)—through proposals for an accreditation scheme. I would support any move in the other place to resurrect that and look at it in more detail.

[Stephen Gilbert]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for indicating her party’s support for such a proposal. It could be quite transformative if the Government, while discharging the homelessness duties into the private rented sector, were to become a big purchaser of services in that sector, and we could drive up standards through an accreditation scheme. Does she agree with me on that?

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree. I tabled the amendments in Committee proposing exactly that, so the answer is yes. We tabled those amendments because we wanted to see an end to homeless applicants being placed in sub-standard or unsafe accommodation. Sadly, the Government rejected those amendments, and we shall have to wait to see how the matter pans out in the other place.

In Committee, we also sought to improve the advice offered to people presenting as homeless, but that, too, was rejected, as was our amendment to ensure that the Government’s changes to housing benefit would not leave families intentionally homeless. The Government also rejected our amendment to ensure that any private sector accommodation into which homeless applicants were placed should be deemed to be affordable, although the Minister has mentioned taking affordability into account. An amendment seeking to prevent homelessness through better advice, with statutory guarantees on the quality of that advice, was also rejected. The hon. Members for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and for St Austell and Newquay expressed similar concerns, but sadly, they withdrew all their amendments and held the coalition line. I hope that we will be able to convince some Members on the Government Benches to join us in the Lobby today because of the Government’s failure to listen to the arguments that we and they made in Committee. I am sure that their colleagues in the Lords will also look closely at these issues.

More than 160,000 people presented as homeless last year, and I am disappointed that a Bill that will have a profoundly negative impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people has returned to the Floor of the House after its Committee stage, and after a lengthy pause, with no amendments to address the criticisms and concerns of charities and experts who deal with homelessness on a day-to-day basis. Two very good reports have been published in the past fortnight. One from Crisis, on single homelessness, flags up the areas in which the most can and should be done to prevent homelessness. The other, from the Homeless People’s Commission, points out that offering better advice will save the Exchequer money.

The Bill is a retrograde step. Homeless applicants found to be in priority need and unintentionally homeless will no longer be able to draw on the security and stability of a social home with security of tenure. Instead, they will be placed directly into the private rented sector and if they refuse an offer, for whatever reason, the local authority will no longer have a duty to house them. They would then have almost nowhere to turn for help. It does not take much to realise the circumstances in which an offer might be unacceptable to an applicant. The accommodation might be too expensive, too far away from their child’s school—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter)—or too close to an abusive ex-partner. It might also be damp, mouldy or unsafe—the list goes on. Key among all this is the insecurity that a private rented sector offer can sometimes bring. There was a very good article in Inside Housing this week, following a survey that clearly showed that a homeless person placed in the private rented sector was likely to face eviction very early, and to be turned around and around in a circle of homelessness.

The third biggest cause of statutory homelessness last year was the loss of an assured shorthold tenancy. As I said earlier, stability is vital in order to prevent what people have referred to as the revolving door of homelessness. With tenancies in the private rented sector being less stable and of a shorter duration, the risk of recurring homelessness is greater, so the need for stronger statutory protection increases. Amendments 273, 274, 275, 276 and 360, taken together, would extend the period within which the homelessness duty would recur from two years to five years when the applicant was placed in the private rented sector. They would also provide, during that five year period, that a household accepted as homeless should receive “reasonable preference” on their local authority’s housing allocation scheme.

Under amendment 269, the duty of local authorities to find temporary accommodation for a period that enables the homeless person to find accommodation themselves would be extended to intentionally and unintentionally homeless people who were not in priority need. It is important to note that this duty to accommodate for long enough to give reasonable opportunities to secure other accommodation is distinct from the main homelessness duty. Extending this provision to those not in priority need would help an individual facing a crisis who might just need some short-term accommodation to get back on their feet. It would give the individual and the authority the opportunity to work towards resolving their homelessness, perhaps outside the social sector, helping to ensure that no one faced a situation with no option but to sleep rough.

16:45

On that point, perhaps I can press the Minister to tell us whether the rumours on the street are correct—that his Department is considering announcing that no one should sleep rough for more than one night. Do these rumours have any foundation? If so, does he expect to table amendments in the other place to deal with the issue and what will be the additional funding alongside it?

I am sure that the Minister will have noted the story of Chris, a young homeless person in crisis in a recent Crisis publication, “The Hidden Homeless”. Told that he was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy of a social home in which he had been living and caring for his grandmother for 15 years up to her death—this brings me back to my earlier point about succession—Chris found himself homeless and without decent advice or support from the local authority. As a consequence, he slept rough, broke into buildings for shelter, ended up with a criminal record and no break from the cycle of homelessness. Something must be done to address this; the Government’s Bill falls far short of the mark. I hope the Minister will reconsider his position on our amendments to deal with the problem.

Amendment 270 would ensure that, whenever possible, any homeless applicant to be placed in the private rented sector is offered somewhere within the borders of their own local authority first. The point has already been made. For a family with children, this will be essential to avoid having to pull the children out of school, and it is always preferable for reasons of community and stability not to make people move out of an area, except where there are valid reasons such as domestic violence, when a placement out of district might be preferable. There are going to be pressures, given the changes coming to housing benefit, so I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions will bear that in mind.

If the Government are insistent that they wish to place homeless applicants directly into the private rented sector, it is only right for them to acknowledge the need to strengthen protections for the very predictable outcome of their choices. Evidence shows that homeless people housed in the private rented sector are more likely to be evicted.

Let me finish by saying that it is not just this Bill’s provisions that give cause for alarm, as changes to housing benefit will increase homelessness and rough sleeping. We have already seen homelessness increase by some 15% since this Government came into office. The Government’s consultation on statutory duties on local authorities has seen Tory councils like Hammersmith and Fulham viewing it as an opportunity to scale back their duties to homeless people, while Westminster council has been busy trying to ban soup kitchens.

If we had several days to debate this Bill on the Floor of the House, we could easily fill that time, as many issues deserve to be debated—not least issues of supply, whether or not the new homes bonus will work, and why the planning Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, yesterday brought forward an amendment at the behest of the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who is obviously getting desperate: houses are not being built and his new homes bonus needs a kick-start, so he is trying to buy planning permissions. We could have had an entire debate on that provision alone. As I say, many issues deserve to be debated and I have no doubt that my noble Friends in the other place will seek to pursue these areas when they eventually get their hands on the Bill.

Our new clauses and amendments are designed to defend mixed communities, to extend protections and advice to homeless people, to stand up for security and stability for low-income families and to prevent the segregation of those sections of our society that this Bill will surely deliver. I urge colleagues of all parties to join us in the Lobby on amendments 13 and 271, which we intend to press to the vote.

[Andrew Percy]

I wish to discuss amendments 13 and 271, and in doing so to draw on my experience of serving for 10 years as a local councillor in the city of Hull in east Yorkshire. I represented a large council estate, including the house in which my dad grew up, as well as the three-bedroom house in which my grandma lived until the day she died, because it was her home.

I have no problem with the concept of flexible tenancies, and I think that councils should be given tools enabling them to offer some form of flexibility. However, although I broadly support the Bill—an odd feature of this place is that Members tend to get to their feet when they are unhappy rather than happy about something, but I assure Ministers that there are plenty of provisions in the Bill about which I am perfectly happy—I should like to be given a few more details. The Bill states that local authorities may offer flexible tenancies, but I should like to see more commitment with regard to the proportion that they should offer, and also an absolute guarantee that they will continue to offer secure tenancies.

The Bricknell estate, which I used to represent, illustrated the importance of mixed tenure. We had some problems. People lived in three-bedroom houses long after their children had left. The worst experience that I used to have at my surgeries was being asked by people after someone had died, “May we please have their house?” People were literally on death watch trying to obtain homes. I do not pretend that there is not a problem with people living in homes that are too big for them. However, they should not be forced out of their homes, to which they have a sentimental attachment. I do not want some official from the local authority to turn up all of a sudden and tell people whose children happen to have left home that under the terms of their flexible tenancies their time is up, and they must move on and make a home somewhere else.

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

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point, but the fact is that many people downsize whether they are in social housing or not. They should not be forced out, but offering them alternative accommodation might be a solution.

[Andrew Percy]

My local authority had a clear policy. Housing officers would talk to tenants and try to encourage them to move into smaller, more appropriate accommodation if it was available, although of course it is not always available. There is nothing wrong with that, but I understood from the Minister’s response that people might end up in the courts when the terms of their flexible tenancies were enforced, and might effectively be forced out of their homes.

I am also worried about the two-year period. One of the problems on our estate was the difficulty of making people feel part of the estate and part of the community. A transitional arrangement, with people coming in for two years and then being forced out and different people coming in for another two years, does not help to maintain the sustainability and viability of the community.

[Stephen Gilbert]

My hon. Friend is making a number of excellent points. Does he agree that the Government cannot create a big society and increase community cohesion if we continue to move people around?

[Andrew]

Percy: I agree. We experienced several problems of antisocial behaviour in the community that I used to represent, but we dealt with them over a period. After a while, people who had moved in from outside the area started to appreciate the community in which they were living and became part of it. Children befriended other children at the local school, and their parents then befriended one another. The sense of community was protected, which had a major impact on what had been huge antisocial behaviour problems. We had a sustainable community in which people had invested and in which they wanted to remain. There is a risk here. If people are constantly moving after short periods of time, they might not look after their houses and gardens. That may sound a bit silly, but the condition of houses and gardens gives an impression of what a community is like. If people feel they have a personal investment in their homes, they will maintain their gardens and do work to their properties; they will have some pride in the house in which they live, because they see it as their home.

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case. Does he accept that because such rapid turnover of tenants will inevitably result in a lack of care for properties, lenders on housing association properties in particular will start getting nervous about their investment and may want to revisit their loan books and reduce their investment in certain properties?

[Andrew Percy]

That is an interesting point, and I hope all Members would want to avoid that, but it is a possible consequence of short-term tenancies. If authorities are to be allowed to offer flexible tenancies, I would prefer there to be a requirement on them to continue to offer secure tenancies as well so that people can work towards that and so that there is at least some tenure mix.

On the point about housing officers turning up at the end of a secure tenancy and suggesting to the tenant that it is time for them to move on, the issue of what independent advice will be available to tenants has been raised. I would not want tenants to go through a court process and, perhaps, end up being forced out of their home without ever having had access to the correct and appropriate advice.

If we are to take into account the structures of modern families, tenants cannot simply be told, “You have a three-bedroom house and two people have moved out, so you’re only using one bedroom,” because family members frequently move out and back in again. Where is the security for the parent and for the kid who pops off to university or to do a job somewhere else, or who moves out because they are in a relationship which then ends so they want to return to the family home? I keep using the word “home” because these properties are not merely a facility that belongs to the council—although I suppose legally they are that. They are much more than that, however, so where is the security for the young person who moves out and then wishes to return home? I have absolutely no doubt that these proposals have been made with the best of intentions. On the estate I represented we had huge problems with such patterns of occupation and young people not having a chance to get a home, but we do not want to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, but I have to say that young families who are seeking a home—very much like ambulance chasers, although I am not saying they are like ambulance chasers—come to my surgery. This issue works both ways, and unless my hon. Friend comes up with an alternative solution, the proposal before us has to be considered as a creative thought that is worth exploring.

[Andrew Percy]

The radical solution that I have always favoured—which is not very popular among my party colleagues—is that we should build more council houses, and I am pleased that Conservative-run East Riding of Yorkshire council in my constituency is, indeed, building more council houses in Goole, as it recognises there is a need there.

I think I did offer a solution to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), however. I said that I wanted better protection in the Bill so that we can ensure that secure tenancies are guaranteed and will continue. I have nothing against a proportion of council housing stock being made available for flexible tenancies, and as the Minister said, local authorities can certainly determine to do that. However, I fear that, particularly where there is high demand and limited stock, some local authorities will make decisions that will mean we end up with a situation where nobody can ever work towards having a secure tenancy. I would not want that at all.

We heard much about tenure standards from the Minister, and we had many assurances on that. Perhaps if he gets more than 16 seconds to respond to the debate, we can have a little more detail about those standards and how robust they will be. I agree there is a problem here, which is why I have concerns about amendment 13 on the basis that it takes out flexible tenancies entirely. Amendment 271 perhaps has more going for it.

17:00

I just hope that Ministers will be able to offer me more assurances that if, after careful consideration, they decide that something a little more robust needs to be put in the Bill to protect tenants, they will make the appropriate changes in the House of Lords, Senate or whatever it is going to become at the appropriate time. I am not convinced that we could not have a situation where somebody who has been living in their home for five or 10 years is then suddenly dragged before the courts and removed from their home. I am sure that that is not what Ministers intend or what any local authority would want to see, but I am not convinced that the protection is robust enough in the Bill. I am sure that Ministers are discussing how those protections can be put in place, and I look forward to the response at some point in the future.

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), the shadow Minister, for mentioning the new homes bonus, because people in Gateshead are considering what to do with the magnificent award of £68,000 that we have been given by the Government under the new homes bonus. That is approximately 28p per head of population to spend on the development of new homes within the borough of Gateshead. However, I do not want to discuss that today, because I want to talk about my new clause 23. I declare an interest, because I had assistance in drafting my new clause from staff at the Local Government Association, and I am a vice-president of that organisation.

New clause 23 proposes that the Bill should be amended to include a provision to support local authorities in reducing the level of littering from vehicles. The Bill provides an excellent opportunity to amend section 87 in part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to enable local authorities to deal specifically with littering from vehicles. Such an approach would help to reduce the high level of litter, not only at road junctions, roundabouts and exits from service areas, which are difficult to clean up, but in our streets generally. The new clause fits with the overall aims of the legislation, and with the specific new powers for local authorities to tackle persistent fly-posting and graffiti.

Anyone who wanders around the streets of Britain will notice that litter thrown from vehicles is a problem affecting the cleanliness of highways and roadside verges, creating cleansing issues for many local authorities up and down the country. Furthermore, many drivers and passengers feel that they are anonymous when they throw litter from vehicles. The introduction of a specific offence where the owner of a vehicle is held responsible for such littering, unless they can prove otherwise, would discourage drivers and their passengers from throwing litter. Such an offence would also provide a further means for local authorities to tackle the growing problems of roadside litter.

Littering from vehicles is a major issue for the public. In 2009, Keep Britain Tidy launched a campaign to encourage members of the public to report incidents of littering from vehicles. Although the campaign ended two years ago, more than 9,500 such reports were received from members of the public. We have all seen drivers who smoke depositing the contents of their ashtrays on the kerbside, usually not in their own street but in someone else’s or, as is common, around the country. We have all witnessed soft drinks containers, fast food wrappers, residue from fruit, half-eaten sandwiches and much worse being flung from moving vehicles or being deposited from a vehicle parked at the side of the road when a snack break is over.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. Is he also aware that those of us who cycle face a danger from unthinking motorists who open their window and throw rubbish out, and that is an assault on cyclists?

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, with which I wholeheartedly concur. I was going to come on to that. It is mainly cyclists, pedestrians and local residents who have to negotiate their way through the mess that is left. This selfish, antisocial and irresponsible activity must be curtailed.

In London, the power to tackle littering from vehicles was recently introduced by the London Local Authorities Act 2007. Section 24 gives a London borough council the power to serve a penalty charge notice on the registered keeper of a vehicle if any passenger throws litter from it. In that case, the use of a penalty charge notice rather than a fixed penalty notice means that that is a civil offence rather than a criminal one. Furthermore, due to defective drafting, the 2007 Act is not active until amending legislation has been given Royal Assent. I propose that the enforcement section of the Localism Bill should be amended to include a reference to vehicle related litter. That would follow on from the commitment to finding a solution to the problem made by Lord Henley, the Minister responsible for local environmental quality, at the national litter convention in December last year.

New clause 23 has legislative precedent and is in line with the legislation on other road traffic investigation and fly-tipping offences and the approach taken to littering from vehicles in the 2007 Act. The Government have a chance today to do something about the problem and I hope that they will do so. I am convinced that the vast majority of the public whom we serve would not regard new clause 23 as contentious in any respect whatsoever.

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

I shall be very brief, as I wish my colleagues to have time to make their quite important contributions. We have some concerns about the issues raised this afternoon.

Let me start with new clause 26, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I was pleased with the Minister’s response. The clause aims to free small fully mutual housing co-operatives from burdensome regulation and significant costs that they cannot and really should not have to shoulder in the same way as private landlords. This would obviously help to provide a more conducive environment for new housing co-operatives and would not cost the Government much money. I know it fits in well with the coalition Government’s agenda for community self help and a mutual approach. That and other innovative schemes will, I hope, emerge from the Bill.

I also want to endorse the amendments on arm’s length management organisations. I, too, urge the Minister to consider a ballot if there is a question of bringing things in house, whatever the circumstances. Poole Housing Partnership, which is an excellent and outstanding ALMO, has provided a lot for our local communities over and beyond good housing stock. I want to put that on the record.

Let me turn now to the key issues we have discussed this afternoon. Is there a place for flexible tenancies? We must ask that question. I think there is a place for flexible tenancies, but is there a case for two-year flexible tenancies? That question really needs to be addressed in the other place. I would hate to see the churn that might happen. I also think that the idea of a mix of tenancies, from a minimum of, say, five years through to secure tenancies, probably has quite a lot to offer. We should not need to be prescriptive from the centre. We ought to be enabling local authorities, but obviously some alarming information has been put before us today and that means that the regulatory side will have to be very secure.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Annette Brooke]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I would like to be brief so that my colleagues can get in.

I want to put on record my concern about the two-year tenancies. True, it is said that they will be exceptions but there is a big “but” once we start using the term “exceptions”. The Liberal Democrats want this issue to be revisited in the House of Lords. It is incredibly important to get it right.

Let me briefly address the homelessness issue. Having a roof over one’s head by having something in the private sector might be a good option. However, the point has been made—and I have to go along with it—that we must look at all the individual circumstances such as whether there has been domestic violence and whether there are children in the family who have to be able to access their current school. If they have experienced trauma, it is important that they stay in their school.

As yesterday, time is incredibly short and we are left with very important issues to address, which will affect people’s lives, and we have no time to get to the bottom of them. That is why it is so important that as we pass this Bill to the other place, we do so with a lot of questions.

[Mr Betts]

May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) on her effective criticism of the Government’s proposals on security of tenure? Her comments were excellent and I thoroughly support them.

I also give credit to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who made some very perceptive comments. The reality is that people will be dragged out of their homes at the end of a flexible tenancy and told, “That is no longer your home.” If people resist, they will be dragged in front of the courts and evicted. That is what is going to happen; there is no getting away from that. He was absolutely right to say that it changes the status of the offer that is made to someone at the beginning of a tenancy from offering them a home that will be theirs for as long as they want it, as long as they abide by the tenancy rules, to offering them a temporary residence. With that temporary residence comes the risk of temporary schooling, temporary communities and all the problems that the hon. Gentleman rightly identified, such as lack of community stability and the possibility of simply creating estates of people on benefits who are moved out as soon as they get off benefits and get a job because their tenancy is then brought to an end. That is not the sort of arrangement that I want to see.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. Is there not a strange contrast here in that Parliament is apparently about to vote to take away permanent tenancies for new council tenants but the Government would not dream of doing the same thing for owner-occupiers or others in our society? Why should we demote council tenants to this level of insecurity?

[Mr Betts]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. These measures are changing the status of council tenants, downgrading them almost to second-class citizens. That is what this effectively means, and it is creating a form of welfare housing. There will be people who are so desperate for security that they will over-extend themselves in trying to become owner-occupiers, which could lead to real problems. I say to the Liberal Democrats that they should not hide behind the idea that the measures are all right because existing tenants will not be affected or because local authorities will have to choose whether to go for these forms of tenancies. The reality is that, currently, as long as people abide by the rules, they cannot be evicted from council or housing association properties—they cannot have their tenancy ended by their landlord—but under the Bill that will be possible, and if Liberal Democrats vote for the provisions, they will be allowing that to happen.

Let me say one thing about the homelessness provisions. It might surprise some to hear that I am not, in principle, against local authorities being able to discharge their homelessness responsibilities by making an offer in the private rented sector, but I do want to see clear safeguards. If a house becomes available in my constituency, where some areas have very limited social housing, it is by no means apparent to me that someone who has just become homeless should get that property as opposed to someone who has been in the private rented sector waiting on a housing list for six years. However, if an offer is made, it has to be made with the standards of the private rented property being approved by the local authority, with the landlord or their agent being part of an accredited scheme—probably with regular inspections to make sure that the property is kept to a reasonable standard—and with a minimum tenancy length. I would certainly want those conditions to be included.

Finally, let me address new clause 3, which is in my name. I heard the Minister’s comments but I still feel that a ballot is the best way of ensuring that the views of ALMO tenants are really taken into account and that we do not simply have consultations in which the tenants say one thing and the local authority does another, which are already happening. A ballot is the best way forward, but if the Minister is saying that the same process that was used to set up an ALMO should be used to dismantle it, he must firm up the guidance and make it a statutory obligation for local authorities to comply with that. I see him nodding, and that is very good.

[Andrew Stunell]

I did give that assurance; we certainly are going to take a very close look at the point that the hon. Gentleman is raising.

[Mr Betts]

The Housing Minister has said that he is prepared to have a meeting with me and other officers of the parliamentary all-party group on arms length management organisations. The information we have got from the National Federation of ALMOs, with which we recently had a very good meeting, shows that, in a number of cases, local authorities have simply been flouting the correct processes. Councils are saying, “We are going to get rid of your ALMO; it doesn’t matter what you say—it’s going.” They are then putting factually inaccurate reports to housing committees. They are not offering people a real choice in the consultation, they are not explaining the facts, and they are not presenting balanced arguments. They talk about saving money on the general fund as one reason for getting rid of ALMOs. They do not refer to the new proposals on self-finance or the Government’s reforms.

All those facts are being kept from tenants in unbalanced, one-sided consultations. I hear what the Minister says. I shall not press the new clause, and I look forward to further discussions with him and his colleagues about the best way of constructing the measure to get the best deal for ALMO tenants and to ensure that in the end they make the decisions which affect their homes.

17:15

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

Like the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), I shall speak not about housing, but about litter, and I shall say a little about new clause 33. The new clause would extend street litter control notices to office buildings by amending the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Although this is only a minor amendment, it would have a major impact on the ability of local authorities to clean up their streets.

Four years ago I launched a project in my constituency called Litter Angels to highlight the nuisance of litter. The idea of Litter Angels—which has now applied for charitable status, so I suppose I should declare an interest as one of the trustees—is to work with our local primary schools to educate children about the harm that litter does to our local environment. We take the view that catching them young might encourage more of them to practise good habits as they get older.

More recently, Litter Angels launched a “Big Clean Up” campaign in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, which is encouraging local groups and individuals to commit to undertaking at least one project to clean up our local area. The “Big Clean Up” will take place during August, and I am proud that my constituency was one of the first in the country to embrace the national “Love Where You Live” campaign being run by Keep Britain Tidy.

It was Keep Britain Tidy which highlighted to me a particular problem with smoking-related litter, with which new clause 33 deals. Sections 93 and 94 of the 1990 Act give local authorities the power to issue street litter control notices on premises that have a frontage on a street and outside of which litter or refuse is causing a defacement of the land. The problem is that the legislation was originally envisaged to tackle fast food litter and other such rubbish, and pre-dated the ban on smoking in public buildings and places of work. The House might be surprised to learn that the latest local environment quality survey of England revealed that smoking-related litter is present on 76% of the sites surveyed and is the most frequently found litter type.

Much of that smoking-related litter can be found outside office buildings. Unfortunately, street litter notices cannot normally be served on office buildings unless they sell food and drink, whether or not for consumption on the premises—for example, from a canteen or snack kiosk. Extending the street litter notice provisions to include office buildings would provide local authorities with the means to deal with localised litter problems and would close an unintended loophole in the legislation. The new clause would also allow local authorities to require occupiers or owners of offices and non-food retail outlets to play a greater role in dealing with the scourge of litter and encourage members of the public to take increased responsibility for their litter.

It is worth pointing out that in June 2007 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs undertook a final regulatory impact assessment on the extension of street litter control notices. This was as a response to the potential impact of the smoking ban on littering and its extension to office buildings. That assessment confirmed that if local authorities were able to issue street litter control notices in respect of offices and other venues not currently covered by the provisions, it would give them the power to place a greater responsibility on the occupiers or owners of those premises to clean up, particularly the smoking-related litter in the area immediately around them, perhaps by installing appropriate disposal facilities where this form of littering is a significant problem.

The assessment noted that such a proposal was in line with changes introduced by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which followed the “polluter pays” principle by improving the powers available to local authorities to take action. A cost-benefit analysis undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in June 2007 calculated that such a proposal would result in a net benefit to society overall because notices would be issued only in a minority of cases and that costs imposed on local authorities and businesses would be relatively small and outweighed by the benefits associated with improved amenity, reduced cleaning costs resulting from preventive measures, and a reduced fire risk.

To allow notices to be issued in respect of any type of office premises, rather than the current limited number of offices, the new clause proposes to widen the definition set out in section 94(l)(a) in part IV of the 1990 Act by omitting reference to “commercial or retail premises” and inserting “premises other than dwellings”—I draw the House’s attention to a typing error in today’s amendment paper, which shows “premium” rather than “premises”. My proposal has a legal precedent in London, where street litter control notice powers are currently extended to office buildings by part III of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, which, in reference to the 1990 Act, explicitly omits the words “commercial or retail premises” and substitutes the words “premises other than dwellings” for notices issued in the capital. All I seek to do is extend that principle to other areas of the country.

Additionally, section 93(2) of the 1990 Act states that the local authority may serve a street litter control notice

“on the occupier or, if the premises are unoccupied, on the owner of the premises”.

As office buildings may have multiple occupancy, I propose an amendment specifying that notices may be issued on the owner of any premises where there is multiple occupancy. New clause 33 is uncontroversial and designed simply to close a loophole in the current legislation. I hope that the Minister will agree to include it in this important Bill.

[Mr Raynsford]

I draw attention to the interest I declared at the beginning of the Bill’s passage through the House and again in Committee.

It is, in my view, a sad day for housing when we come to consider this Bill on Report, as it involves a series of retrograde steps that are damaging to the future housing prospects of millions of our fellow citizens, weaken tenant rights and safeguards for homeless people, and undermine the future of social housing in this country.

It is particularly sad that we have had most of the debate during the extraordinary absence of the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who is responsible for this and yet graced us with his attendance for only a few minutes in a previous sitting and has made no contribution whatsoever to the passage of the Bill through the House. That is an extraordinary comment on his values. His approach, which the Government have adopted since coming to power last year, has been to cut drastically the funding for social housing, including a massive 65% reduction to the Homes and Communities Agency budget.

We are seeing individual rights cut back, such as tenant rights for homeless people. There is a curious element in this that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) hinted at in his impressive contribution. He rightly highlighted the fact that the Government are giving greater priority to the interests of the providers of housing than to the public, the customer and the user of services. That is not compatible with normal Conservative rhetoric, and we have heard, again and again, their attack on provider interests and their wish to support the position of the customer and the user of services, but not here. Tenants’ rights and the rights of homeless people are being cut back, and when we argue that point we get the answer, “Don’t worry, because the providers will do the right thing. They will look after the interests of tenants. They will give lots of security, they won’t undermine tenants’ security and they will look after the interests of homeless people. Trust the providers.”

That is an interesting stance for the Government to take in this policy area, because in almost every other we hear a completely different rhetoric—the rhetoric of increasing the power and the influence of the customer, of the user of the service. Indeed, this Bill contains a great many passages where exactly that has motivated the Government, so there is a curious disconnect between the Government’s rhetoric and what they are doing on housing. The only way I can explain it is by saying that they clearly have no interest at all in the future of social housing or in the interests of the people who live in social housing or depend on it for their future prospects.

[Andrew Stunell]

We do have a concern: it is for the 5 million people who are waiting for social housing, and about trying to make a better fit between the houses and homes that we have and the people who desperately need them.

[Mr Raynsford]

Were that true the Government would not have cut the Homes and Communities Agency investment budget by 65%. This Bill is the fig leaf presented by the Government to cover their embarrassment at their failure to provide adequately for the needs of social housing in the years ahead, and it is shameful that the Minister should try to cover that policy by pretending that they are acting in the interests of the homeless and the badly housed.

[Andrew Stunell]

I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says, but will he not acknowledge that at the end of 13 years of Labour government there were fewer social homes in this country than there were at the start? At the end of this period of government there will be more than there were when we started.

[Mr Raynsford]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. There is no way in which there will be more social homes, because he knows perfectly well that the only social homes provided will be provided because the previous Government funded them, and that most of the homes for which this Government will be responsible will be the so-called affordable homes—although that is a travesty of English, given that they are based on the principle of 80% of market rents, which will in many cases be a real test of affordability—and homes that are created as flexible tenancies under the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because we have debated it and I am sorry he cannot acknowledge it, that the previous Government inherited from their predecessor the most disgraceful backlog of poor condition housing in the social sector and rightly concentrated investment in the early years on putting that backlog right. A huge number of tenants now live in decent homes because of the Labour Government’s work, but that Government also allowed those tenants who wanted to buy their homes to do so, and that inevitably accounted for some reduction in the volume of social housing.

[Alison Seabeck]

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that in the five years between 2005 and 2010 the Labour Government built more than 250,000 affordable homes? In the five years between 2010 and 2015, we expect at most 150,000. Is that not pretty pathetic?

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point that I entirely endorse. It shows that the Minister’s claim was entirely incorrect, and he should be ashamed of making it.

The first amendment in my name, amendment 361, is about security of tenure. It is not the wrecking amendment that the Minister tried to pretend it is. It simply states:

“In preparing its tenancy strategy a local authority must ensure that to the greatest extent possible, tenancies granted in its area provide security of tenure so as to support and develop stable and confident communities.”

That is absolutely in keeping with the intelligent comments of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on how there is a place for flexible tenancies, but they should not take over, and to the greatest extent possible we should try to support security and help to build stable communities.

That is the purpose of the amendment, and I cannot understand why the Government are reluctant to accept it. I give the Minister one last chance. If he wants to be held to have any real credibility on the issue, he should accept it, because it would indicate that he is not simply performing a sleight of hand that will deny tenants security, but is genuinely interested in maximising the number of tenants who enjoy security of tenure. That would at least be a step in the right direction, and I hope that the Government will change their mind. I note, however, that he did not bother to respond to my question about why they have not accepted the amendment on a minimum of five years, so perhaps I might do a little better on this second try.

17:30

Amendment 362 is designed to safeguard the Government against embarrassment. As the Minister will know, because we debated it in Committee, this is about the incompatibility of the phrasing of the Bill with article 8 of the European convention on human rights, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in two recent judgments. The Supreme Court indicated that where tenants make representations against a possession action, the courts must have the discretion to consider whether it is proportionate to grant possession in the circumstances. That is clearly incompatible with the passage in the Bill that says that the courts must grant possession in all cases, without any doubt at all. I do not see how it is possible for the Secretary of State to have signed the statement saying that the wording of the Bill is compatible with article 8 when clearly it is not—or perhaps compatibility can apply only if it is put aside when cases come before the courts. It would be a rather odd position for a Minister to take if he was expecting the courts to ignore the wording of a Bill that he was putting before Parliament. In the interests of avoiding embarrassment for the Government, I hope that they will accept the amendment, which the Minister will know I have slightly amended to take account of one of the objections that he put up in Committee.

The Minister entirely misinterpreted my purpose in tabling amendment 363, which was not to weaken tenancy standards but to safeguard housing associations from the risk of reclassification as public sector bodies. This is a long and complex story, and I will not go into it, but it was debated at length when the legislation creating the Tenant Services Authority was going through Parliament. I took a similar line then, from the Government side of the House, which is that while we want to see frameworks in place that ensure proper safeguards for standards, we should be very careful about creating a chain that goes directly from a ministerial fiat to an instruction to a housing association which could lead to the view being formed that they are no longer independent bodies that can be classified as being in the private sector, or not in the public sector. If such a change were to take place and housing associations were to become classified as public sector bodies, they could no longer borrow from the private sector without that counting against public expenditure. That would, at a stroke, wholly undermine the programme of housing association investment, and it would cause considerable financial embarrassment to the Government.

I hope that the Government will think carefully about this. The individual, particular reference to standards would not necessarily, of itself, constitute sufficient grounds for the classification to be changed, but cumulatively the impact of an ever-increasing number of instances where the Secretary of State was able to instruct the Tenant Services Authority, or whatever body, to then instruct a housing association on how to act could lead to the view being formed that these are no longer bodies that are independent of the public sector. That is a very dangerous step. I tabled the amendment simply to advise the Government that this is a dangerous area that they need to think about carefully, because it could seriously undermine the whole funding of social housing in this country.

Now that I have explained my amendments, I hope that the Government will be more thoughtful and reasonable in responding to them than was evident in the line that the Minister adopted earlier. If there is no change, I sincerely hope that all Members of this House who care about the future of social housing will vote to safeguard the interests of the public, users of the service, tenants and homeless people rather than those of the providers.

[Simon Hughes]

I remind the House that one of the new clauses and amendments in this group is my new clause 38. The Minister did not specifically refer to that in his introduction. I had helpful conversations with Ministers before tabling it, and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic towards it. I understand that it may not be possible to agree to it today, but obviously there will be other opportunities if the principle is accepted.

My proposal deals with the straightforward point that, often, an existing occupier of land who is acting perfectly properly and within planning permission, such as a bakery, a print works or another business, is challenged by people who move in nearby—often it is residential occupiers, who in my constituency will have paid quite a large price for their property—who complain about the activity that was known to happen there when they moved in. People who had moved into Bermondsey street alongside the Ticino bakery, which has been there for decades, if not centuries, complained that there was a noise at 4 o’clock in the morning because people were baking bread. That complaint is completely unacceptable. People who had moved in opposite the print works on Surrey docks complained that vans came in and out in the middle of the night to deliver newspapers. That is not altogether surprising and is absolutely obvious. That complaint is therefore unacceptable. I could go on. People who move in next to farms complain about the cockerels crowing, people who move in next to churches complain about the bells ringing, and people who move in next to mosques complain about the imam calling people to prayer. Those complaints are all nonsense.

I want it to be clear that caveat emptor—or caveat mover-in—is the principle that we should apply. The important point is that such unacceptable complaints threaten businesses. They threaten the livelihood of the farmer, the baker, the print works or the night club. My constituency is regularly afflicted by people who think that they have a right to complain, even though they are the Johnny or Joanna-come-lately. I hope that that issue can be dealt with.

I will move on to the wider subjects in this group of amendments. I am very supportive of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who expressed her concern not that the Government are not listening, but that they may need to go further in the House of Lords to accommodate the points made by those of us who for years have had a passionate concern for social housing and council housing.

I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). I, like him, have an absolute commitment to council property, and think that we should have more, not less, of it. I think that local authorities should be encouraged to build it, not discouraged from doing so. He speaks from his personal and constituency experience. I think that I am still the Member of Parliament who represents more council tenants than any other Member in England, so this issue is hugely important in my constituency.

Of course we need to deal with under-occupying and with the fact that people may become council tenants when they are poor and then become very rich. It seems to me that the way to deal with that is not to evict them, but to ask them to pay more money for the property, so that rather than changing their status, the cost of the property reflects their ability to pay. Otherwise, communities are broken up. Social housing should provide people with a spare bedroom to deal with the flexibility of the household. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole referred to that issue. As they grow older, a couple may need two bedrooms rather than one. Somebody might need a carer or their family or friends to come and stay. I therefore hope that we will always assume that there should be a spare bedroom.

Lastly, I hope that while accepting the principle of flexibility, the Government will have a presumption that the stability and security of communities is what we are striving for. Every year, about a quarter of the electors in my constituency move on or off the electoral roll. They do not necessarily move in or out of the constituency, but sometimes within it. I appreciate that the position in inner London is more extreme than elsewhere. However, we must build communities, and that is done by having more, not less, security. That does not mean that there should be no flexibility or that councils and other providers should have no ability to have tenancies that are not secure, but security of tenure should be the presumption. I hope that as the Bill goes from this place to the other place, the concerns from across the House will continue to be considered. This is not just an urban issue, but a rural one.

I look forward to Ministers being positive about the noises that they have heard from Government Members, as well as from Opposition Members, this afternoon.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). There appears to be inherent conflict between different Bills that are proceeding through the House. I have been sitting on the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, and it seems to me that we are not looking at the whole picture. That Bill is concerned with, among other things, the amount of housing benefit that is paid out. There are concerns about the rising bill and what has to be done about it, and the Government are proposing measures to bring down the bill that will affect people up and down the country.

At the same time, there are proposals in the Localism Bill that would have the opposite effect. For example, it would create so-called affordable houses at 80% of market rate. However, the people who need those houses, the people everybody is wringing their hands about, will not be able to afford those properties unless they can get housing benefit, which means that the housing benefit bill will rise. The Government are cutting benefit for some people and making their lives more difficult, but at the same time creating measures that will inherently increase the housing benefit bill.

In the same way, increasing the use of the private rented sector for homeless families will have an effect on the housing benefit bill, because inevitably their rents will be higher than they would be if we could find genuinely and truly affordable homes for people. I am concerned that two parts of the Government appear to be proceeding in conflicting ways.

Another aspect of welfare reform that we hear about constantly, in the Welfare Reform Bill Committee and elsewhere, is the need to make work pay and get people into employment, which we all agree about. Flexible tenancies may well have exactly the opposite effect. I was not on the Localism Bill Committee, so it may have been different there, but I noticed today that the one issue related to flexible tenancies that the Minister was comfortable in talking about was the vexed question of houses that are under-occupied or overcrowded. We all know that that is a problem, and it is not a simple one to address. Flexible tenancies are not only intended to address that situation, but that was what the Minister wanted to talk about. Perhaps it is the slightly more cuddly side of flexible tenancies. It might make people think, “Oh, I can see the point of that. We have to get a bit of flexibility to get that changed.”

Actually, flexible tenancies are about much more than that. If they are implemented in the way suggested in some of the speeches that we have heard and the articles that we have read, it will mean that people who are trying to get back on their feet and have found jobs may be told that it is time to leave their home. What incentive does that give people to enter employment or work harder to increase their income?

[Alison Seabeck]

My hon. Friend is making some very strong points. Does she—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Could the hon. Lady turn around, so that the microphone picks up her voice and the whole House can hear her?

[Alison Seabeck]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does my hon. Friend share my surprise at the fact that the Minister has signed a number of early-day motions on the subject, including one clearly saying that is he a supporter of security of tenure, for all the reasons that we have been giving?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly find that extremely surprising given what is in the Bill.

We have to ask the Government why they are moving in different directions in different legislation and why they cannot get their act together. Surprisingly, however, there is an underlying similarity between the two Bills—they are about shrinking the welfare state and leaving only residual provision, whether it is residual housing for the poorest and neediest or residual benefits for the most vulnerable. That illustrates the difference between the Government and Opposition, about which we must be clear. There are inconsistencies in the Bills, but at the same time there is a united theme to which we are opposed. We are concerned that in four or five years, the welfare state will have shrunk out of all recognition.

17:44

[Dan Rogerson]

The key to social housing is longer-term tenure, which gives families, and particularly those with young children, confidence that they have a home for their family for the future. That is why we need to focus on the fact that social housing is meant to be not for short-term crisis accommodation but for family homes.

I should preface my remarks by saying that I absolutely accept that my hon. Friend the Minister’s intention is to tackle the waiting list problem, which is a huge—[Interruption.] I hear an Opposition Member say, “Build more homes,” but as we all know, the waiting list is longer than it was when the Labour Government took office 13 years ago. We can therefore take that with a pinch of salt.

I absolutely understand the Government’s aspirations to increase the availability of social housing, but we need to look at how we can increase and stretch shorter-term tenancies in the private sector, rather than reducing social housing tenancies to equivalent levels.

I also accept that the Government are saying that the minimum level would not be an expectation, but, as we have already heard, some providers of social housing are taking it as such. Good councils and the better registered social landlords will not do that, but some will be waiting to implement that measure, which concerns me. I am worried about tenants when providers take that proposition seriously.

We have more second homes than council houses in my area. The previous Government failed to tackle that huge problem, but I hope that this Government listen to what Cornwall Members and Members for other rural areas say about it. We need to look at how to ensure that those who are fortunate to get a social tenancy can have confidence that they can raise their family without fear of being moved on. People live in fear of being pushed into assured shorthold tenancies in the private sector, where they might be asked to move on every six months or so. We must avoid that situation.

Although my hon. Friend the Minister’s intention is to provide good local authorities with the flexibility to use the measure when that might help, my worry is that the measure is not robust enough to stop others misusing it and making it the norm. That is where my concerns with new clause 21 lie.

This is not Third Reading, but I should say that I am very keen on many aspects of the Bill. However, I am very concerned about the provisions on tenure. I should like a great deal of reassurance in that regard from those on the Treasury Bench before I join the Government in the Division Lobby.

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

In two minutes, I shall try to make three points. I apologise for not being in the Chamber throughout the debate. I was here at the beginning, but then I attended a debate in Westminster Hall and chaired a meeting elsewhere.

My first point is a warning, and it comes from the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). He asked whether tenants will be evicted when councils come round to inspect a property. The answer is that they will be—that is what will happen. Just as universities increased fees to £9,000, the bulk of councils will seize upon the two-year tenure rule. As a result, we will see the invidious inspection of properties to see how much people are earning, and there will be evictions. I give this warning to hon. Members: if this measure is enacted, MPs will be the first people those tenants will come to. On Monday, I tied to prevent a constituent from being evicted from a private rented property. She was being evicted not because she had not paid the rent and or because of antisocial behaviour, but simply because the landlord wanted the property back so that he could re-let it at a higher rent. That will happen time and again, and those who are evicted will come to our surgeries. I warn Members to be careful what they vote for tonight. The measure will cause untold suffering that will land on our doorsteps.

My second point is a statement. The reality is that tonight is the end of council housing as we know it. The argument has been made that there is a turnover of 5% a year in tenancies. If so, within a generation nobody will be given a secure tenancy. We need to be aware of what voting for this legislation would mean: let us admit that it is the end of council housing.

Thirdly, as someone who is proud to have been brought up in a council house in a thriving community, I do not understand why council tenants should be discriminated against in this way. We are not a different type of people: we, too, want secure accommodation; sometimes when our children grow up and leave, we enjoy that extra bedroom, or when things go wrong and they want to come home, we want them to be able to do so—but above all people want security. This is discriminatory legislation, and to be frank it discriminates on class grounds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, it is as though council house tenants are second-class citizens, yet their rents cover the costs of their properties—in fact, they subsidise others because of the amount they pay in relation to the cost of the property itself.

For those three reasons, people need to think very carefully before voting tonight. People will interpret this measure as an attack on a large number of people, some of whom are vulnerable, and it will undermine the basis of housing in our country for a long time to come.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I will be brief, because many of my points have been made already. Indeed, I could have written the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for him. If he needs a speechwriter, I am readily available. My speech will contain some repetition, therefore.

The Government’s aim not just in the Bill, but in all their policies, is to build and strengthen communities, but strong communities mean strong, stable and settled communities. I have a concern about the Bill, so I put this simple question to the Front-Bench team: how will the Bill and the tenancy provisions build stronger, more settled communities? I am afraid that I remain unconvinced. It has been said that people grow attached to their homes. They are not just bricks and mortar; they are homes, not houses. I suppose, in one sense, I speak from experience, because I was brought up in a council house. I can vaguely remember moving from Fuller street in Cleethorpes at the age of 5 to a new-build council house in the centre of Grimsby. No doubt that was under the enlightened Conservative Administration at the time and the targets determined by Harold Macmillan.

I cannot get my head around the aim of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole used a line I gave him during one of his interventions: more flexibility for the landlord means more inflexibility for the tenant. What happens when children who have left home want to come back has not been satisfactorily dealt with. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that a spare room for carers or returning children should always be available in a home. Ministers know of my concerns. I raised them with three Ministers in Committee and on Second Reading—I am sure that my Second Reading speech was bedtime reading for all Front-Bench Members—but to sum up: how will shorter tenancies help to achieve stable communities?

[Andrew Stunell]

I certainly have longer than yesterday, but not quite long enough to answer all the points raised.

I start by saying that we absolutely and emphatically refute the argument that we are ending security of tenure for social housing tenants. We are not doing that. This is not the end of council housing or social tenancies. On spare rooms, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) that the under-occupation figures that I quoted were for properties with more than one spare bedroom.

The amendments are wide-ranging, but at their heart they are about not permitting a flexible tenancy arrangement at all, and about under no circumstances transferring families for whom the council has accepted a homelessness duty to the private rented sector. To my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who have raised concerns that there might be unscrupulous public landlords as well as unscrupulous private landlords I would say that the point of having a housing regulator and tenure and mobility standards is to provide a solid framework for the decisions that providers make when they draw up their housing strategies and tenancy policies, which they will be required to do in consultation with tenants too. There is a legislative framework, and there will be tough rules and guidelines. There is also the guide on homelessness, which sets out the factors that must be taken into account.

Let me say to colleagues on both sides of the House that the Government are trying to help homeless families to get into satisfactory accommodation sooner, not handicap them. In relation to those who require social housing, our reform and the introduction of flexible tenancies will be one way of improving the fit and getting more of the 5 million people who need council housing into council housing. There are various myths, one of which is about the insecurity of the private rented sector. In fact, in the past three years only 8% of low-income households in the private rented sector moved because the tenancy was ended by the landlord. The other 92% moved because they wanted to move. We need to keep the facts of the case in proportion and try not to overdo the mythology.

Let me deal with some of the other issues raised. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) for her kind words about our views on new clause 26. I have already responded to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on the ALMOs legislation. To those who have raised their concerns about tenure security let me say that the guidelines on tenure standards will be available for inspection shortly.

Let me deal now with those Members who have made specific proposals. I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that I am making “sympathetic noises”—I think that is the correct phrase—even if the neighbours are not in his case. On new clause 23 and 33, let me tell the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)—who was speaking, I thought, on behalf of the LGA—and to one of my hon. Friends who made the same point in relation to a separate amendment that we will certainly look carefully at the matters that have been raised.

I am under strict instructions to stop promptly. I apologise to the House for not responding in the depth that I would have liked to the many points that have been raised. I have been listening, as have my colleagues, and we will obviously take forward the views that have been expressed and ensure that they are not overlooked when the Bill is considered in the other place in due course. I urge my hon. Friends to support the Government amendments this evening and to resist the Opposition amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 19 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 130

Flexible tenancies

Amendment proposed: 13, page 114, line 36, leave out clause 130.—(Alison Seabeck.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

17:59

Division 281

Ayes: 223

---

Labour: 213
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2
Independent: 1

Noes: 298

---

Conservative: 255
Liberal Democrat: 42

18:13

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 17 May).

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

Amendment proposed: 271, page 115, line 7, at end insert—

‘(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply to a secure tenancy if immediately before the tenancy was granted the person who became the tenant under the tenancy, or in the case of joint tenants, one or more of them was—

(a) a secure tenant of the same or another dwelling-house, or

(b) an assured tenant of a private registered provider of social housing or a registered social landlord (otherwise than under an assured shorthold tenancy) in respect of the same or another dwelling-house.’.—(Alison Seabeck.)

Question proposed, That the amendment be made.

18:13

Division 282

Ayes: 227

---

Labour: 214
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Liberal Democrat: 3
Conservative: 2
Independent: 1

Noes: 294

---

Conservative: 255
Liberal Democrat: 38

Clause 134

Succession to secure tenancies

Amendments made: 191, page 121, line 36, at end insert—

‘(1A) A person (“P”) is qualified to succeed the tenant under a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—

(a) at the time of the tenant’s death the dwelling-house is not occupied by a spouse or civil partner of the tenant as his or her only or principal home,

(b) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person other than such a spouse or civil partner of the tenant to succeed to the tenancy, and

(c) P’s succession is in accordance with that term.’.

Amendment 192, page 121, line 37, after ‘(1)’, insert ‘or (1A)’.

Amendment 193, page 121, line 39, leave out ‘(whether or not the tenant’s spouse or civil partner)’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 135

Succession to assured tenancies

Amendments made: 194, page 122, line 40, at end insert—

‘(1ZA) Subject to subsection (1B), in any case where—

(a) there is an assured periodic tenancy of a dwelling-house in England under which—

(i) the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing, and

(ii) the tenant is a sole tenant,

(b) the tenant under the tenancy dies,

(c) immediately before the death, the dwelling-house was not occupied by a spouse or civil partner of the tenant as his or her only or principal home,

(d) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person other than such a spouse or civil partner of the tenant to succeed to the tenancy, and

(e) there is a person whose succession is in accordance with that term,

then, on the death, the tenancy vests by virtue of this section in that person (and, accordingly, does not devolve under the tenant’s will or intestacy).’.

Amendment 195, page 123, line 10, at end insert—

‘(1ZA) Subject to subsection (1B), in any case where—

(a) there is an assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England for a fixed term of not less than two years under which—

(i) the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing, and

(ii) the tenant is a sole tenant,

(b) the tenant under the tenancy dies,

(c) immediately before the death, the dwelling-house was not occupied by a spouse or civil partner of the tenant as his or her only or principal home,

(d) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person other than such a spouse or civil partner of the tenant to succeed to the tenancy, and

(e) there is a person whose succession is in accordance with that term,

then, on the death, the tenancy vests by virtue of this section in that person (and accordingly does not devolve under the tenant’s will or intestacy).’.

Amendment 196, page 123, line 11, leave out ‘or’ and insert ‘, (1ZA),’.

Amendment 197, page 123, line 11, after ‘(1A)’, insert ‘or (1AA)’.

Amendment 198, page 123, line 14, leave out

‘(whether or not the tenant’s spouse or civil partner)’ and insert ‘(and, accordingly, does not devolve under the tenant’s will or intestacy)’.

Amendment 199, page 123, line 19, leave out from ‘housing’ to end of line 20.

Amendment 200, page 123, line 23, at end insert—

‘(4A) In subsection (5) after “(1)(b)” insert “or (1A)(c)”.’.

Amendment 201, page 123, line 26, after ‘subsection’, insert ‘(1ZA), (1AA) or’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 139

Repairing obligations in leases of seven years or more

Amendments made: 202, page 125, line 11, at end insert ‘that—

(i) is not a shared ownership lease, and

(ii) is’.

Amendment 203, page 125, line 12, at end insert—

“(1B) In subsection (1A)—

“assured tenancy” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Housing Act 1988;

“secure tenancy” has the meaning given by section 79 of the Housing Act 1985; and

“shared ownership lease” means a lease—

(a) granted on payment of a premium calculated by reference to a percentage of the value of the dwelling-house or of the cost of providing it, or

(b) under which the lessee (or the lessee’s personal representatives) will or may be entitled to a sum calculated by reference, directly or indirectly, to the value of the dwelling-house.”’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 152

Powers of the National Assembly for Wales

Amendment made: 204, page 130, line 4, leave out clause 152.—(Greg Clark.)

New Clause 22

Pre-commencement consultation

‘(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply for the purpose of determining whether there has been compliance with—

(a) a requirement for consultation imposed by this Act,

(b) a requirement for consultation which applies in relation to things done under an Act amended by this Act, or

(c) a requirement (whether or not imposed by this Act) to do something in connection with a consultation under a requirement within paragraph (a) or (b).

(2) The fact that a provision of this Act was not in force when consultation took place or anything was done in connection with a consultation is to be disregarded in determining whether there has been compliance with the requirement.

(3) The fact that consultation was carried out by a body from whom functions are transferred by this Act, or anything was done by such a body in connection with a consultation, is to be disregarded in determining whether there has been compliance with the requirement by a body to whom those functions are transferred.

(4) Subsection (3) is without prejudice to any other provision of this Act that applies to the transfer.

(5) References in this section to a requirement imposed by this Act include a requirement imposed by another Act as a result of its amendment by this Act.’.—(Greg Clark.)

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Clause 201

Orders and regulations

Amendments made: 221, page 166, line 4, leave out first ‘or’ and insert ‘, the Treasury or the’.—(Greg Clark.)

Amendment 222, page 166, line 6, leave out first ‘or’ and insert ‘, the Treasury or the’.

Amendment 223, page 167, line 14, at end insert—

‘(10A) A statutory instrument that contains an order or regulations made by the Treasury under Schedule [Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions] is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 202

Power to make further consequential amendments

Amendments made: 224, page 167, line 41 , after ‘sections’, insert ‘8,9,’.

Amendment 225, page 167, line 41, after ‘Parts’, insert ‘1A,’.—(Greg Clark.)

Schedule 24

Repeals and revocations

Amendments made: 226, page 381, line 13, at end insert—

Part 1A

Fire and rescue authorities

Reference	Extent of repeal
Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004	Section 5.
	Section 19.
	Section 62(3).’.

Amendment 227, page 381, line 30, at end insert—

‘	In section 18— (a) subsections (4) and (5), and (b) in subsection (6) the words “in Wales”.’.

Amendment 228, page 382, line 5, at end insert—

‘	(aa) in subsection (2ZA) the words “in Wales”,’.

Amendment 229, page 382, line 6, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

‘	(b) subsection (2A)(a) and (b),’.

Amendment 230, page 382, line 13, at end insert—

‘	(da) in subsection (10A) the words “in Wales”,’.

Amendment 231, page 382, line 14, leave out from ‘subsection’ to end of line 16 and insert

‘(13)(aa) the words from “by virtue of” to “England) or”,’.

Amendment 232, page 382, line 16, at end insert—

‘	(ea) in subsection (13)(c) the words from the beginning to “in Wales”,’.

Amendment 233, page 382, line 17, leave out paragraph (f).

Amendment 234, page 382, line 25, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

‘	(a) in subsection (3) the words from “(in the case of a local authority in England” to “Wales)”, (b) in subsection (6)(a) the words from “section 236” to “2007 or”, (c) subsections (10) and (11), and (d) in subsection (12) the words “in Wales”.’.

Amendment 235, page 382, leave out line 29.

Amendment 236, page 382, line 31, leave out ‘Section’ and insert ‘In section’.

Amendment 237, page 382, line 31, at end insert ‘—

(a) in subsection (1)(b) sub-paragraph (ii) and the word “or” immediately preceding that sub-paragraph, (b) in subsection (2) the words “or providing a copy of the document to a relevant partner authority”, (c) in subsection (6) in the definition of “exempt information” the words “section 246 of the National Health Service Act 2006 or”, and (d) in that subsection the definition of “relevant partner authority” and the word “and” immediately preceding that definition.’.

Amendment 238, page 382, line 32, at end insert—

‘	In section 21F (as inserted by the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011), in subsection (1) the words “in Wales”.’.

Amendment 239, page 382, line 33, after ‘21F’, insert

‘(as inserted by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010)’.

Amendment 240, page 382, leave out line 34 and insert ‘In section 22(12A)(a) the words from “, or under” to “section 21B,”.’.

Amendment 241, page 382, leave out line 36.

Amendment 242, page 382, leave out line 37.

Amendment 243, page 382, leave out lines 38 to 42 and insert—

‘	Section 31.’.

Amendment 244, page 382, leave out lines 43 to 48 and insert—

‘	Section 32.’.

Amendment 245, page 382, leave out line 49.

Amendment 246, page 382, line 49, at end insert—

‘	In section 33ZA the words “in Wales,”.’.

Amendment 247, page 382, line 50, leave out from ‘33A’ to end of line 51.

Amendment 248, page 384, leave out line 27.

Amendment 249, page 384, leave out line 29.

Amendment 250, page 384, line 33, after ‘it),’, insert—

‘	(ab) subsection (2),’.

Amendment 251, page 384, line 37, leave out ‘paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and’ and insert ‘paragraph’.

Amendment 252, page 384, line 42, at end insert—

‘Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011 (nawm 00)

Section 36(1)(b) and (c).’.

—(Greg Clark)

Clause 205

Extent

Amendments made: 253, page 168, line 20, at end insert—

‘(aa) section [Tax] and Schedule [Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions],’.

Amendment 254, page 168, line 26, after ‘Sections’, insert ‘[Tax],’.

Amendment 255, page 168, line 26, after ‘207’, insert

‘, and Schedule [Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions],’.—(Greg Clark.)

Clause 206

Commencement

Amendments made: 256, page 168, line 38, leave out paragraph (f).

Amendment 257, page 169, line 2, leave out paragraph (j).

Amendment 258, page 169, line 2, at end insert—

‘(ja) section [Applications for planning permission: local finance considerations],’.

Amendment 259, page 169, line 4, leave out paragraph (l).

Amendment 260, page 169, line 6, after ‘7,’, insert ‘except section168(3)(e) and (f) and (4A),’.

Amendment 261, page 169, line 17, leave out from ‘it’ to end of line 18 and insert ‘is brought into force by subsection (4)(f) and (fa),’.

Amendment 262, page 169, line 21, at end insert—

‘(3A) The following provisions come into force on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by order appoint—

(a) section8(1) so far as it inserts—

(i) new sections 5A and 5B so far as relating to fire and rescue authorities in Wales,

(ii) new sections 5C and 5CA so far as relating to power of the Welsh Ministers to make orders, and

(iii) new sections 5E to 5K,

(b) section8(2) so far as relating to fire and rescue authorities in Wales,

(c) section8(2A), (4A) and (4B)(a) and (c),

(d) section8(4B)(b) so far as it inserts new section 62(1A)(a) and (d),

(e) section8(4B)(b) so far as it inserts new section 62(1A)(b) so far as relating to power of the Welsh Ministers to make orders,

(f) section9(1) to (3) and (4) so far as relating to fire and rescue authorities in Wales,

(g) section9(3A),

(h) the following so far as relating to fire and rescue authorities in Wales—

(i) in Part 1A of Schedule24, the entries for sections 5 and 19 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, and

(ii) section203 so far as relating to those entries, and

(i) in Part 1A of Schedule24, the entry for section 62(3) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, and section203 so far as relating to that entry.’.

Amendment 263, page 169, line 30, at end insert—

‘(ea) section [Provision of advice and assistance in relation to community right to challenge],’.

Amendment 264, page 169, line 32, at end insert—

‘(fa) sections [Provision of advice and assistance in relation to land of community value in England] and [Provision of advice and assistance in relation to land of community value in Wales],’.

Amendment 265, page 169, line 42, at end insert—

‘(ma) section [Tax] and Schedule [Transfers and transfer schemes: tax provisions] so far as they confer power on the Treasury to make regulations or orders,’.

Amendment 266, page 169, line 43, after ‘sections’, insert ‘[Pre-commencement consultation],’.

Amendment 267, page 169, line 46, leave out ‘or (3)’ and insert ‘, (3) or (3A)’.

Amendment 268, page 170, line 12, leave out ‘section 65’ and insert

‘sections 65 and [Provision of advice and assistance in relation to land of community value in Wales], and Chapter 4 of Part 4 so far as it confers power on the Welsh Ministers to make regulations or orders,’.—(Greg Clark.)

Third Reading

Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.

18:28

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

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

I shall keep my remarks brief because many hon. Members are anxious to attend the funeral of our late colleague, David Cairns. It is appropriate that everyone who can attend that funeral does so with the good will of the House.

Let me begin by thanking Members who have taken part in the scrutiny of the Bill on Second Reading, in our 24 Committee sittings and during the past two days on Report. The level of interest in the Bill across the House and during the 80 hours of scrutiny that it has received so far is testament to its importance and significance in the future of our national life. As well as paying tribute to members of the Committee, who laboured long in the Committee Room upstairs, I thank in particular my ministerial colleagues for all their hard work in preparing and speaking to the Bill, as well as the Whips of both parties who kept us in order and made sure that we considered every clause without needing to curtail our deliberations. I thank my parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), whose seminal paper, “Open Source Planning”, was the source of inspiration for many of the policies in the Bill. I pay tribute to all my officials and to Officers of the House who have worked hard on what has been a very long and detailed Bill to get us to the state we are in today. I pay tribute to all the efforts that went into that.

I am sure that I speak for everyone who served on the Committee when I pay tribute to the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who chaired the Committee sittings with aplomb and expertise, thereby making for very good-humoured and good-tempered scrutiny. I think that I speak for every member of the Committee when I say that we have enjoyed scrutinising the Bill in Committee and in the House. It is fair to say that there was never a dull moment. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), sadly, is not in his place—perhaps he has gone ahead of us to the funeral I mentioned—[Interruption.] He has gone to the Dog and Duck, it is said; I know that is a favourite place of his. He treated the Committee to a tour of British history from the Magna Carta to the Chartists. We enjoyed that and were grateful for his contribution.

The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) offered some historical perspectives of his own, some of which were drawn from his experience of introducing the measures we then went on to repeal. The fact that he mostly kept his composure during that time, I think we acknowledged. He had a flair for simile, we noted, comparing Ministers and the Secretary of State to everyone from Draco to Henry VIII to Dr Pangloss and everyone in between. A phrase that might have gained his approval is one that we were not able to offer as frequently as he would have wished—“I agree with Nick.” Perhaps, there will be other opportunities for that. [Interruption.] I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington is now back in his place.

In Committee, we had contributions of passion and deep experience of local government and community leadership from both sides of the Committee. It would be invidious for me to single out individual members, but the representation on the Committee of people with long experience of local government and civic and community leadership marked the Committee out as having been selected particularly appropriately and well. The Chamber tends to produce more partisanship than is often the case in Committee or below the surface. Of course we have had our disagreements during the past two years, but I do feel that we were able to make substantial progress with the Bill in Committee. It is a landmark Bill.

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

Let me continue in that spirit of partisanship. The Welsh branch of the Minister’s party had a manifesto commitment in the recent National Assembly elections to devolve planning power over energy stations up to 100 MW—up from the current 50 MW level. Will he include that pledge, which was made to the people of Wales only last month, at this late stage of the Bill?

[Greg Clark]

We have a national system for consenting to major infrastructure projects. I have had meetings with Welsh Assembly Ministers on that and no doubt we will have meetings following the election of the new Assembly. I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and Ministers from the Welsh Assembly Government to discuss that point.

As Members know, the main features of the Bill are to establish a general power of competence for local government, to increase opportunities for members of the public to participate directly in local democracy, especially via referendums, to vest in communities new rights to challenge the way in which services are provided and to own assets of importance to their communities, to reform the planning system to remove the regional tier, to permit neighbourhood planning and to establish a new duty to co-operate at the strategic level. We have clarified the functioning of local democracy in London with a degree of consent, as was pointed out earlier today, and we have introduced new flexibilities into the housing system so as to house people more reliably.

At the beginning of our deliberations, on Second Reading and in Committee, I gave a commitment to respond positively to constructive debate and I hope that the House believes I have done so. An hon. Member was kind enough to mention yesterday that I have taken a listening approach, and I expect that to continue when the Bill goes to another place. I have not regarded my task as being simply to carry the Bill through Committee unamended and without influence from the House, and that continues to be my view as it progresses through Parliament.

Thanks to our proceedings in Committee and in the past couple of days we have introduced safeguards over the use of the general power of competence and we have strengthened the duty to co-operate. We have substantially improved the provisions on neighbourhood planning to make them more open and more representative and allow them to cross neighbourhood boundaries. Those are some examples of the progress that we have been able to make.

In a centralised system it is necessary, however paradoxical it may seem, for the centre to lead on localist reform. It does not happen without a positive programme, but the centre should do so in a spirit of co-operation. I will disclose to the shadow Chancellor, who I know is fond of his dividing lines, that the discussions that I have had with the Opposition Front-Bench team have been very constructive. Even where we have not been able to agree totally, we have been able to reach a better understanding of each other’s position and to make improvements as a result.

I had hoped that that might be reflected in both sides being able to support the Bill tonight. We will see in a few minutes, but I am led to believe that that might not be the case, and I regret that. Although we may disagree on some of the particular measures to implement the vision of localism, I think localism is a cause whose time has come. It attracts support from across the political divide. What unites us in this place on localism is greater than our points of difference, which the House of Lords will no doubt continue to pursue.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Greg Clark]

I will not, because I made a commitment that Members would be free to go to our late colleague’s funeral.

It is a shame that, although the Opposition say they support localism, they have hit upon an ingenious solution to oppose it in practice, which is to seize on any instance in which central Government intervene to pass down power and to focus on that intervention, rather than on the transfer of power which is its purpose. But the blindingly obvious fact is that the Bill is overwhelmingly decentralising. It favours the local over the central. Like the movement en masse on a Thursday afternoon of Members from this place to their constituencies, so the effect of the Bill is to see power leave Westminster and go where it is better vested, in local communities, and to give them their head.

This is a significant Bill. I hope we will make continued progress in the House of Lords. I believe that we will look back in 10, 20 or 50 years and see today as a turning point. The tide of centralisation has turned, not just because of the Government’s decentralising measures, but because communities across the country are demanding change. That change is already under way. The Bill will speed up the process and establish it in law. For its part in that change, I commend the Bill to the House.

18:37

[Barbara Keeley]

We have had more than 70 hours of debate and evidence during the Commons stage of the Bill, but I say to Ministers and Government business managers that to have only 90 minutes or so on Report to discuss groups containing 70 new clauses and amendments, as we did yesterday, was not satisfactory. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said that the Government had allowed a shameful amount of time for the debate, and for once we agree with him.

I, too, thank all members of the Committee for their work on the Bill, and particularly Opposition members who, I think we agree, carry a heavier work load. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) for their excellent work and for leading the debates on our amendments.

I should mention the staff of our shadow ministerial team who worked long hours on speaking notes. Our work was supported immensely by the wise counsel of Sarah Davies and her team in the Public Bill Office. I join in the thanks to our two able Committee Chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess).

Sadly, we still have concerns about and objections to a number of the Bill’s proposals. We object most strongly to the 142 extra powers that the Secretary of State wants to take to himself, the most toxic of those being the Henry VIII powers in part 5 which we discussed yesterday. Our amendment 37 proposed limits to those powers to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply any statutory provision.

Ministers still do not understand the alarm and consternation they have caused by introducing these powers and the way they are conducting the review of the statutory duties of councils. I hope they will reflect on the debate and do more in the Bill’s later stages to limit those excessive powers. We disagree profoundly with the proposal to impose shadow mayors on 12 of our largest cities, a proposal that Ministers spent months denying they intended to introduce. It enjoys almost unanimous opposition from political leaders in the cities affected, such as Bradford and Leeds. The Institute of Local Government Studies at the university of Birmingham stated in a recent article:

“It takes quite a determined political masochist to design a policy that unites in opposition to it 100% of those most immediately affected, regardless of party. Yet Communities Secretary Eric Pickles would seem to have pulled it off with his Localism Bill’s elected mayoral package”.

I strongly urge Ministers to look again at their proposal to impose shadow mayors when the Bill goes to the other place.

On pay transparency, we welcome Ministers indicating that they will look at expanding their proposals to include low pay, but they have not gone far enough. Fairness and transparency must be applied to the private sector wherever staff are being paid from the public purse. Ministers can be assured, however, that our opposition on a number of other issues not tested in Divisions is as implacable now as it was in Committee.

We reject the Government’s proposal to levy EU fines on local councils, which we think will prove unworkable and hope will be thrown out when the Bill is debated in the other place. Ministers have talked about reducing burdens on local councils, but they are creating new duties and financial responsibilities at a time when councils are struggling with the challenge of dealing with the Government’s swingeing, front-loaded cuts. Most importantly, we still have serious concerns and objections to their proposals on planning and on homelessness and social housing tenure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, the Government have not moved far enough on the duty to co-operate. Worse than that, the additional changes to planning announced in the Budget and Government new clause 15 have created, as my hon. Friend suggested yesterday,

“confusion, chaos and nothing short of a car crash.”—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 276.]

I hope that it is clear to Ministers after yesterday’s debate that there are grave concerns about Government new clause 15, which allows financial matters to be a material consideration in planning applications. This effectively means that planning decisions could be for sale. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, the new clause poses a threat to the integrity of the planning system. The national planning policy framework should have been made available so that it could be part of our consideration. The Minister says that it will be launched for consultation later, but that is not good enough in the context of a Bill that makes such radical changes to the planning system.

The Opposition want to give communities a say over the future of their high streets. I hope that our new clause that proposes bringing in a retail diversity scheme will find favour in the other place after Government Members rejected it yesterday.

Ministers did not listen to our concerns or objections on their proposals on homelessness and tenure reform in social housing, and there was no consensus on these proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View made it clear that there is much in the Bill’s housing proposals with which we cannot agree, from the Government’s plans to weaken the homelessness duty to their plans to remove security of tenure, which would act as a brake on aspiration and a barrier to employment.

On security of tenure, the Bill will cause instability and insecurity for tenants. We are concerned about the Government taking away the rights of existing tenants. Their proposals to put homeless people straight into the private rented sector could lead to a cycle of evictions and further homelessness. We hope that scrutiny of the Bill in the other place will achieve important changes, including an accreditation scheme for the private rented sector.

In more than 70 hours of debate, we have worked hard to improve the Bill, but much more needs to be changed and revised. A Bill should not be rushed on to the statute book when it was not ready to start with, when it was not subject to adequate consultation and when Ministers have rejected many sensible amendments put forward during this and earlier debates. Therefore, we will vote against the Bill, because we want to send the message that much more change and improvement is needed.

18:45

[Andrea Leadsom]

I wish to speak very briefly on behalf of my constituency of South Northamptonshire. I and my constituents thoroughly welcome the Bill, because at last it gives people the chance to allow communities to determine the fate of their own environment. For so long, Northamptonshire has been subject to a regional spatial strategy that has dumped housing all around its green spaces, and people have not been able to have a real say over what happens.

We have the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation, which was given planning powers to see through those developments, yet we have not had the section 106 money, and we do not have the infrastructure, roads or even school places and GP surgeries to cope with the amount of centrally determined housing that has been foisted on Northamptonshire.

On behalf of my constituents, I thoroughly welcome the Bill, but some questions remain, particularly in my area, about how we get from where we are today to where we want to be. Surely bodies such as the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation and the West Northamptonshire joint strategic planning committee, both of which the previous Government foisted on us, have to be removed in a post-Localism Bill world. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will listen to that very carefully.

Finally, on wind farms, we are desperately keen to see local people able to influence the siting and number of them in their area.

18:45

[Stephen Gilbert]

Before I move on to my remarks about the Bill, I should like to join colleagues from all parts of the House in paying tribute to David Cairns, the former Member for Inverclyde. I understand that Opposition Members want to finish in order to attend his funeral, and that is perfectly understandable, so I will be as brief as I can.

Overall, this is a landmark Bill that should be welcomed on a cross-party basis. Taking Whitehall out of the town hall has been a key feature of the double devolution that the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) has spoken and written about. It will help enable the big society, the vision of our country described best by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and it is a huge step in the right direction of the community politics that Liberals and Liberal Democrats have articulated for many a year.

The Bill frees councils, enables councillors and empowers local communities. For the first time, councils get the power of general competence: the ability to act in any area where they think that that is in the best interest of their local communities. They get extra financial freedoms, and the housing revenue account, long hated by councils and councillors, is being reformed. We are seeing increased rights and responsibilities for councillors, and the end of the ridiculous notion that having an opinion on a local issue before going into a meeting to talk about it will predetermine how they act. We are seeing the right of communities to buy assets, which might have been lost to those communities without this Bill. We are seeing local organisations have the right to challenge badly performing local authorities for contracts, and through the ability to hold referendums we are seeing additional democratic checks placed in our community.

For 13 years we have seen that increasing centralisation—an increasing reliance on a top-down approach to our communities—does not work. We know that centralised systems cannot display initiative or difference, because they are too big to fail. By dispersing power throughout the country, we are going to have a plethora of different approaches to service delivery, reflecting the particular needs of local communities, and that will be healthy for the communities concerned and for the country as a whole.

Briefly, I should like to turn to my concern, which we were not able to debate yesterday, about the asymmetry of the planning process. Colleagues will be aware that I tabled new clause 4, which would have introduced a limited community right of appeal. I am quite clear, however, that the other 18 Members who signed that new clause are keen to see work proceed to ensure that developers no longer have the whip hand on planning applications, and I know that the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), gave assurances on plans to address that concern in the national planning policy framework. It was, after all, a manifesto commitment of both coalition partners.

I pay tribute to my fellow members of the Bill Committee. It seemed like a marathon session over many months, and indeed it was. I pay tribute to the Clerks who supported us in our deliberations, and to the officials, who are already making an early exit from their Box. I note that we managed to keep them awake for the past two days. I hope that our noble colleagues at the other end of the building are equally able to keep them on their toes. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who so ably chaired our discussions, which were broadly non-partisan—although we saw a little bit of opportunistic opposition from Labour Front Benchers this evening.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

18:50

Division 283

Ayes: 300

---

Conservative: 256
Liberal Democrat: 43

Noes: 216

---

Labour: 209
Plaid Cymru: 3
Independent: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Friday, a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs written statement said that there would no ban on exotic animals in circuses, as had been expected. On Monday and Tuesday, I sought to ask an urgent question on that, and made a point of order on Monday. It transpires that there is doubt as to the accuracy of Friday’s statement. Is it possible for a Minister to come to the House to clarify that statement, because it is almost certainly wrong?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

No Minister has notified me that they wish to make a statement on this matter, or indeed on any other matter, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard exactly what the hon. Gentleman says.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

European Union Documents

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

Mechanisms for Control

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. PE-CONS 64/10, relating to a Draft Regulation laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, which was agreed by the Council and Parliament at First Reading and formally adopted by the European Council on 14 February 2011; and supports the Government’s approach to ensure Member States can examine and scrutinise fully implementing acts before they are adopted by the Commission.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

Question agreed to.

Abduction (Devlan and Caelan Spooner)

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

19:06

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I should like to present the petition of my constituent, Miss Alice Bramall, of Newton Blossomville, which is similar to one signed by 500 of my constituents.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Milton Keynes,

Declares that Mr Ken Spooner’s children, Devlan and Caelan, were abducted to Zambia by their mother; notes the existence of a High Court Order requiring Devlan and Caelan to be returned to the UK.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that the High Court Order in the case of Devlan and Caelan Spooner is enforced.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000922]

Power Line Technology Devices

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

19:07

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to introduce this timely and important debate in the House. Hon. Members who are intrigued by the title will perhaps read the first paragraph, so I should sum up the debate by highlighting my concern, and that of many organisations: Ofcom, and indeed successive Governments, have adopted a reactive approach to the increasing interference from power line technology devices. We urge the Government to take a more proactive approach.

The area that I represent could be deemed to be the home of radio communication. Milton Keynes, which includes the famous code breakers’ base Bletchley Park, was integral in intercepting enemy messages during the second world war. The city is surrounded by listening stations—one of which, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Hanslope Park, continues to protect our country to this day.

Radio is paramount not just in preserving national security; nor is it merely the preserve of outposts around Milton Keynes. Across the world, such technology remains essential to all communication. The spectrum is invaluable in so many ways: to television, radio, mobile phones, the emergency services, the military and security services, hospital pagers, pilots’ landing systems, and many more.

Shortwave radio has proven time and again to be a vital back-up when other communication systems crash in the aftermath of natural disasters or terrorist attacks. For example, radio was used in the immediate aftermath of the attack on New York on 9/11, and in 2005 radio was used to co-ordinate the relief effort following Hurricane Katrina. However, there are fears that the efficiency of radio communication is being jeopardised by the development of new technologies, specifically those known as power line telecommunication devices. PLTs use a home’s mains electricity wiring to route internet and television around a household without using a data cable. As electricity wiring was not designed to carry radio signals, an unwanted by-product—interference—is emitted. That rasping hiss has the power severely to disrupt radio communication.

GCHQ, the BBC, the Civil Aviation Authority and even NATO are some of the bodies that have spoken out about PLTs’ power to interfere with, and therefore impede, their highly essential work. We and our constituents might never have heard of PLTs or the noise they emit, but every single one of us is affected by, and relies on, radio, so this debate is relevant to us all.

As I said, PLT devices use the radio spectrum to send data signals via mains electricity supplies, and tend to come in the form of large mains plugs that can share the internet between computers or high-definition television between rooms, providing an alternative to lots of cables in the home. Most commonly they are provided by BT Vision packages, and it is estimated by the regulator Ofcom that there are about 1.8 million pairs of the equipment in use. In fact, the UK is one of the biggest users of in-home PLT devices in Europe. As mains wiring was not designed for carrying radio signals, PLTs cause it to leak radio signals into the air. All appliances leak interference to some extent, but when electric wiring is used to carry broadband, the levels of interference become a significant problem.

I have met constituents who are experts in the field. They can walk down the street with a radio and pinpoint which households are using PLT devices just from the noise emanating from the buildings. We are talking about the pollution of the 21st century. In previous centuries, we have fought smog with campaigns for clean air, and now we are seeing a battle for clean airwaves. My constituents are not alone in their concerns. As I said, there is a chorus of consensus on this issue. The Civil Aviation Authority has expressed concerns about the threat posed to its instrument landing systems. One briefing note states:

“The CAA is concerned that interference originating from the legitimate operation of PLT could adversely impact aeronautical critical systems. Furthermore, it appears that should this occur, it may not be possible to resolve in a timely and safe manner.”

Even if the effects of the PLT are mitigated—I will come to that later—the probability of interference is reduced to 1%, which might sound low, but in aeronautical terms it is still a significant safety risk. The threat posed to aircraft safety by radio interference has been taken very seriously in the past. For example, in October 2009, in my neighbouring constituency of South West Bedfordshire, Ofcom paid a visit to 12-year-old Nickie Chamberlain in Leighton Buzzard. His TV booster aerial, which was faulty, was emitting interference that caused pilots at nearby Luton airport to complain. Ofcom acted quickly.

Even NATO has investigated the effects of PLTs on its equipment. One report states that the noise coming from PLT devices

“has the potential to cause problems for military HF (high frequency) radio communications and communication intelligence in all NATO countries”.

The Radio Society of Great Britain has been highlighting concerns about PLTs’ unwanted noise for 10 years. It clearly states that

“it will not be possible to recover the damage done to the spectrum unless action is taken very quickly”,

and that this “invaluable natural resource”—the spectrum—

“is being consigned to history”.

The BBC has also commissioned investigations into the effects of PLT devices. The most recent, published in March, described the “tearing” sound of the PLT, which at best was annoying and at worst made a broadcast programme incomprehensible.

However, the most damning indictment so far has come from GCHQ, which deemed PLTs

“likely to cause a detrimental effect to part of the core business of this Department.”

In a statement issued on 10 March, it concurred with others’ view that the interference from these devices

“was likely to pose a safety of life risk”.

It concluded that PLTs

“should not be available for sale/use within the EU”.

However, when I asked, in a written question, for the Minister’s opinion on that statement, I was informed that it had, intriguingly, been withdrawn. Just as PLTs have an odd effect on surrounding radios, the issue has had a curious effect on the associated authorities. GCHQ, as I said, expressed an unequivocal stance on the issue, but then withdrew it. Ofcom, too, is behaving rather strangely.

All electronic devices must adhere to the essential requirements—the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 2006—which are based on the European electromagnetic compatibility directive. Ofcom was advised in a report it commissioned by ERA Technology in September 2008 that:

“It is considered that the Ethernet Power Line Adapters do not meet the Essential Requirements of the EMC Directive; emissions could potentially cause interference to communications equipment.”

However, Ofcom maintains that PLTs are not in breach, because it has investigated 227 complaints, and all but one have been resolved by BT engineers. There are, however, many problems with this methodology. First, these are isolated cases and small-scale investigations. However, the report bases findings on results from scientific experiments in the controlled conditions of electromagnetic compatibility test laboratories.

Secondly, as I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will agree, complaints tend to represent the tip of the iceberg. If one receives 10 complaints about an issue, they are likely to be indicative of scores of other qualms. Thirdly, what has happened shows that Ofcom is taking a reactive and not a proactive approach. Rather than heeding its own commission’s report, which says that PLTs do not comply with the directive, and then seeking out breaches, it is relying on people to approach the regulator. Why is Ofcom judging PLTs’ compliance not by the results of scientific experiments, but by the number of complaints that it has received? What other industry would prove the regulatory compliance of its products in that way?

The crucial point for my constituents is that Ofcom says that there are no relevant standards when it comes to PLTs and that it is waiting for the EU to formulate a “harmonised standard”. The Minister recently told me in answer to a parliamentary question:

“The Regulations do not set specific levels of interference”.—[Official Report, 10 March 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1199W.]

However, there is a standard: EN 22022, which is listed under the EU electromagnetic compatibility directive—or EMC directive—for controlling interference from data communication products such as PLTs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned health and safety on a number of occasions in his presentation to the House this evening. Does he see local government as having an enforcement role in responding to health and safety issues?

[Mark Lancaster]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that perhaps the Minister will address when he winds up.

The EN 22022 standard includes a threshold that has been agreed internationally for decades, and the ERA test report said that PLTs exceeded it. In fact, the acceptable level of interference was surpassed by 30 dB. I am told that that equates to 1,000 times the interference power that any other domestic product is permitted. Why are we waiting for a new standard when there is already one in place?

Another problem is that Ofcom is basing its stance on the current situation, not future projections. However, the interference caused by PLTs is set to get worse, for various reasons. First, more and more people will sign up for television and internet packages that use PLTs, which are set to figure highly in the YouView package due to be launched next year. One report, which I will discuss shortly, estimates that the number of PLT users per square kilometre will increase from 159 in 2010 to a massive 703 in 2020. Secondly, as different PLT manufacturers compete to provide better services the interference will get worse, because they will be using a greater part of the spectrum. They are already veering into the very high frequency range, which has reportedly increased interference. Thirdly, PLT devices are being discussed as a way of communicating information about energy usage as part of smart grid technology, or as a way of providing data-linking between appliances around a house.

Ofcom’s stance on PLT devices is also at variance with the conclusions of a report that it commissioned PA Consulting Group to undertake in June 2010. Ofcom claims that the current situation is acceptable because there are fewer complaints, in spite of a higher uptake of PLT units. Conversely, however, the PA report said:

“there will be a high probability of interference to some existing spectrum users…if PLT device features do not change from those currently implemented”.

PA recommends that in future, inference will be staved off only if devices are manufactured with mitigating features such as power control. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether that has been put in place. PA also says:

“notches in the VHF aeronautical radio navigation bands should be mandated”.

Does the Minister know whether that has taken place? If mitigation is so essential, what does Ofcom propose to do about devices that are already in use—the ones that are circulated second hand or manufactured abroad, none of which will have mitigating technology? The PA report warns:

“it should not be assumed that the existing installed base is traceable or could be updated to incorporate these features”.

Moreover, what investigations have taken place into the efficacy of notching, considering that it is disputed whether this technique actually works? The Radio Society of Great Britain says that these technologies are “unproven” and that

“in the home their effectiveness in reducing interference to radio services will be much reduced”.

I would like to know whether the Minister has liaised with his colleagues heading up the excellent Digital Britain initiative. The current fibre-to-the-cabinet broadband upgrades that are being rolled out—some in my constituency, which is very welcome—share part of the same spectrum as PLTs. A report by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute showed that PLTs can interfere with this new technology. BT may well be rolling out products that do not work alongside each other.

The problem is not without precedent. Every time a new technology is introduced, it impacts on existing technology, not least in the world of radio communications. In the early 1890s, spark transmitter radios were all the rage, until the cacophony became overpowering and legislation had to be introduced. Fifty years later, when cars and televisions were new and exciting inventions, people’s television pictures could be distorted by the spark plugs of a passing car. Soon after, suppressors were introduced for all cars.

In 2011 we are replete with electronic devices. We want to do everything faster, and simultaneously. We want to watch our high-definition televisions while surfing the net and using our smartphones. The radio waves are crowded, competing with one another. We have an electromagnetic compatibility directive that has hitherto kept interference in check. The Department says that the directive does not specify acceptable interference levels, but the standards that it lists do, and experts in the field have been using them for many decades. The aforementioned ERA report shows that PLTs inherently breach that threshold.

Ofcom seems to place great importance on the fact that the complaints have been received from users of shortwave broadcasts and hobby radio users, but the security services can pick up the shortwave broadcasts of terrorists, pilots use shortwave broadcasts to help them to land their aircraft, and ships have sent distress signals half way across the world using these frequencies. We need to clear the way for such essential radio messages to be made or traced, and not allow their paths to be blocked by radio pollution.

Will the Minister acknowledge that this is an issue of great concern? Will he promise to base his stance on PLTs not merely on the number of current complaints, but on the results of scientific experiments, on the conclusions of expert reports based on well-established interference limits, on the strength of feeling from experts in the field, and on the projections for the future number and usage of these devices? Will he also instigate some form of market surveillance? Instead of reacting only to individual complaints, will he initiate a holistic assessment of the proliferation of PLTs? Will he reconsider the fact that there are thresholds in place for interference, and that PLTs currently do not meet those standards? Finally, will he liaise with other Departments to press for category 5 broadband cables to be installed in all new homes as standard? This whole issue strikes me as a result of short-termism, with homes having to be retrofitted with technology. There is no reason why we should not plan ahead and create a suitable data infrastructure, rather than continuing with unsuitable piggybacking on existing technology.

19:22

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) not only on securing this important debate but on his highly informed speech. I will try to respond to the specific points that he has raised, but perhaps it might help the House if I first set out some background on power line technology products, the Government’s policy on this matter and the potential impact for the radio spectrum.

The main applications of power line technology are in home networking—we are all familiar with local area networks—as well as smart metering, with which we are becoming increasingly familiar, and home automation. This is a global technology, responding to consumer demand, and we see it being used not only here in the UK but in the rest of Europe, in the United States and in Australia. The use of PLT enables the increased delivery of digital services, including broadband access, smart metering, and television services from companies such as BT. One of the practical benefits of PLT is that it frees the user from a fixed location.

It is acknowledged that as PLT moves to higher frequencies, above 30 MHz, there is increased potential for interference, although as my hon. Friend pointed out, this is the case not just with PLT but with a wide variety of new and emerging electronic systems. Experiments by the BBC indicate there is some potential for localised interference. In practice, however, the evidence from people using the devices suggests that this problem is negligible. There are 1.8 million devices in service in the UK, but the number of complaints has been confined to a couple of hundred over the past three years. I shall turn to those in a moment. It is worth bearing in mind that those complaints are centred on a specific group of users, principally hobby radio amateurs, including those using citizens’ band radio. That is not to say that this group is not important, but it suggests that the nature of the problem is confined. The experience in the UK is reflected elsewhere. For example, following complaints in Germany, the authorities investigated the situation, but declined to ban any products. In Austria, following a product challenge brought by the official regulator, the courts rejected the claim of non-conformity.

In common with most electronic products sold in the UK, power line technology equipment is required to comply with the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 2006, which are based on the European electromagnetic compatibility directive of 2004. The essential requirements, which I know the House will want to understand, are that PLT equipment, to quote that regulation,

“shall be designed and manufactured, having regard to the state of the art and good engineering practice, so as to ensure that the electromagnetic disturbance generated does not exceed the level above which radio and telecommunications equipment or other equipment cannot operate as intended.”

The current regulations, as we have heard, do not set specific levels of interference; rather, they set objectives to ensure that properly designed radio systems will operate when other electrical equipment, such as PLT apparatus, is in use. The regulations are trying to remain flexible as this technology develops and adapts. Equally, not imposing a mandatory fixed standard allows the regulatory environment to adapt as experience of the use of this new technology emerges.

My hon. Friend referred to EN55022, and I am sure most Members are no more familiar with it than many Ministers have been over the years. Let me explain that, following discussions between the European Commission, member states and the industry, it was agreed that this standard could not apply to PLT equipment for a variety of technical and administrative reasons. The Commission has therefore asked the European standards organisations to adopt an appropriate standard. Until such time as a standard is available—it is logical that it will affect both the UK and the wider markets in which British manufacturers work—manufacturers will need to design products that meet the objective, taking into account key issues such as the extent of knowledge, the requirements of other users of the spectrum—an important principle—good engineering practice and the state of the art. This does mean that, for a period, there will be a lack of absolute certainty as to what is acceptable. Let me be clear, however, that should products be placed on the market that do not meet the objectives of the regulations—in other words, they cause unreasonable interference—those manufacturers should expect enforcement action to be taken.

Let me explain how enforcement works before coming on to the specific issues about GCHQ and others. In the United Kingdom, enforcement of protection of the radio spectrum for radio amateurs is now the responsibility of Ofcom, while the BBC is the relevant enforcement authority for interference with commercial broadcasts. Ofcom takes a proactive approach to its enforcement role, but it can take action, like any regulator, only where non-compliance can be shown.

As my hon. Friend has already stated, in June last year Ofcom commissioned an independent study, “The Likelihood and Extent of Radio Frequency Interference from In-Home PLT Devices”, better to understand the technical aspects behind its impacts. The study broadly concluded that, provided that PLT equipment entering the market continues to advance technologically—this is the key point—there will be a “negligible” probability of interference to the majority of spectrum users in the coming 10 years. We all need to bear in mind that these advances in technology are often driven by consumer demand, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, and by the desire to produce more energy-efficient and therefore cheaper devices.

Mitigation techniques include fixed notching—limiting transmission to a part of the radio spectrum; smart notching—an automated scanning of the spectrum for free space; and power saving. In response to concerns raised by amateur radio users, including CB users, their bands are subject to fixed notching. As the use of PLTs and higher frequencies becomes more common, this situation might be revised and additional mitigation techniques such as smart notching could well become more prevalent and be applied more widely. This is likely to coincide with the development of a European standard.

Let me deal now with complaints. Between July 2008 and March this year, Ofcom received 228 complaints that were attributed to PLT devices. To be fair, this needs to be seen in the context of about 1.8 million pieces of PLT equipment supplied here. All the complaints about PLT have been referred to the supplier for resolution and all except one have been resolved. Furthermore, I am advised that all the complaints were received from hobby radio amateurs. Ofcom rightly points out that amateur radio licensees do not have an absolute legal right to an absolutely “clean spectrum”. It is also worth noting that the number of complaints received over the last 12 months has been significantly less than during the previous 12 months—from 147 down to 53—even though, as my hon. Friend said, there has been an increasing rate of supply of this equipment.

My hon. Friend mentioned his constituent in the Bedford area. Reference to problems caused by television aerial boosters serves to remind us that many products in common use do cause problems. In this instance Ofcom was able to take prompt action, which I think is a sign that it is not being merely reactive.

Let me now deal with more serious issues relating to GCHQ and the Civil Aviation Authority. The GCHQ statement was issued by a staff member without proper authority, and contained inaccuracies. It has therefore subsequently been withdrawn. I am advised that the statement does not reflect the position of GCHQ, which has informed my Department that PLT is not currently affecting its capability.

The CAA has now specifically stated that it does not endorse or support the comments in the withdrawn GCHQ statement to which my hon. Friend referred. I accept that it is important to safety in aerospace, which he rightly mentioned, for all potential risks to be considered carefully, and the Government are clear about that. The CAA tells me that at present it has no evidence that a problem exists, but this is a new technology, and I can tell my hon. Friend that the CAA intends to undertake further testing as the higher-frequency products emerge on the market.

When I looked into the issue in preparation for the debate, I was encouraged to learn that the Ministry of Defence, the police and the fire and rescue, ambulance, coastguard and lifeboat services have all reported no complaints about interference. That breadth of evidence seems to me to support the conclusion that the problem is limited to a particular group of people. It is not a case of complacency; it is, as I know my hon. Friend will understand, a case of trying to judge the proportion of the risk.

My hon. Friend raised the important question of co-ordination in the context of the development of category 5. The Digital Britain team emanated largely from my Department, and we have close links with it as well as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Transport. Ofcom tells me that it regularly consults all the relevant public and private stakeholders, including GCHQ, the CAA and the Radio Society of Great Britain.

My hon. Friend asked whether category 5 broadband cables would be installed as standard practice in all new homes. I am advised that that initiative was part of the programme of the Digital Britain team. It must be said that although dedicated cabling may be the best engineering solution, it is not generally practicable to install it in existing homes without significant cost or disruption. For new build and rewiring it may make sense, but the rising cost of copper may make it prohibitively expensive.

As with all potential sources of interference in the radio spectrum, users, especially those with the potential to affect security and safety-critical systems, we take our responsibilities seriously. The current regulatory regime is more flexible than some users may wish it to be, but that is for a good reason. As I have said, it must be able to adapt to changes in technology and its use. The Government intend to monitor the situation carefully, principally via Ofcom. Ofcom will continue to address any complaints that arise, but so far it has concluded that the technology complies with the requirements of the legislation, and that the few instances of difficulty should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

The Government will continue to pay attention to the concerns of complainants, but we believe that a ban on PLT products would be wholly disproportionate. Let me put it simply: our approach is to be vigilant in monitoring the situation and proportionate in enforcement.

Question put and agreed to.

19:35

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 18 May 2011

Communities and Local Government

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Audit Commission: Government Procurement Card

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 26 April 2011, Official Report, column 195W, on the Government Procurement Card, which Audit Commission transactions on the Government Procurement Card in (a) 2008-09 and (b) 2009-10 were made by each director and board member of the Commission.

[Official Report, 10 May 2011, Vol. 527, c. 1175-77W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Robert Neill:

An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on 10 May 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Robert Neill]

This is an operational matter for the Audit Commission and I have asked the chief executive of the Audit Commission to respond to my hon. Friend direct.

Letter from Eugene Sullivan, dated 10 May 2011:

Your Parliamentary Question has been passed to me to reply.

The following table lists transactions made on the Government Procurement Card for 2008/09 and 2009/10 by the Audit Commission's Chief Executive and Chairman. No other directors or Commissioners hold cards.

No transactions were made between January and March 2010.

[Robert Neill]

This is an operational matter for the Audit Commission and I have asked the chief executive of the Audit Commission to respond to my hon. Friend direct.

Letter from Eugene Sullivan, dated 17 May 2011:

Your Parliamentary Question has been passed to me to reply.

The following table lists transactions made on the Government Procurement Card for 2008/09 and 2009/10 by the Audit Commission's Chief Executive and Chairman. No other directors or Commissioners hold cards.

No transactions were made between January and March 2010.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 18 May 2011

[Mr David Crausby in the Chair]

Human Trafficking

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

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

It was only four short years ago that the United Kingdom reflected on the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807. At the time, among all the self-congratulatory celebration, I suggested that our renewed focus should be on refreshing our resolve to tackle the modern equivalent of slavery—human trafficking. Human trafficking involves the recruitment, transfer and harbouring of men, and particularly women and children, so that they can be exploited for forced labour, sexual services or domestic servitude. It is the most unpleasant by-product of globalisation in the labour market and now scars each and every constituency.

The modern-day slaves that human trafficking has created are voiceless and vulnerable. They are stowed in the untouched shadows of our communities. They exist not just in the seedier corners of my central London constituency or of Manchester, because the backdrop to their exploitation can equally be the sprawl of suburbia, the fields of our countryside or even the beaches that line our shores. The means of their subjugation are varied. Sometimes, there is violence, but traffickers might equally threaten to harm a victim’s family; they might enslave people through debt; they might reduce them through shame; or they might manipulate them through deception.

As illicit ways to make money go, trafficking can be perceived as comparatively low risk. A busy brothel with five to 10 girls in central London, for example, can make £20,000 a week, without the violence and risk associated with the illicit drugs trade. As for those with even baser motives, trafficked victims working outside the established sex trade are attractively difficult to detect.

In putting my speech together, I was aware of the imminent publication of the Home Office strategy on human trafficking, which was promised in the spring, but which may now be released in June, owing in part to pre-local election purdah. I hope that the debate will prove timely and will, along with the strategy, help to create momentum by raising public interest and reigniting the will to tackle trafficking more robustly. I also hope that it will serve to clarify what progress the Home Office has made since October, when a number of Members, including some in the Chamber, raised legitimate questions about the Government’s strategy in the debates marking anti-slavery week.

A debate that took place as recently as last Monday helped to raise the issues before us, and I hope that the Minister will not find this morning’s proceedings too repetitious. I put in for this debate some weeks ago, but, alas, the unquenchable enthusiasm of the 2010 intake makes securing a Westminster Hall debate these days far trickier than it was in the past. Nevertheless, last week’s debate focused primarily on the European directive on human trafficking, so I hope that we can cover some new ground today.

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

I apologise, Mr Crausby, for not being able to stay until the end of the debate. In last week’s debate, a point was raised about there being an independent voice for children. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that there is an independent voice to support children in legally challenging the UK Border Agency, the police and other statutory or voluntary agencies, when the actions being taken are not in a child’s best interests?

[Mr Field]

I have particular sympathy with that point, not only because children are particularly vulnerable, but because having people acting in loco parentis in the way in which my hon. Friend has described is a well-known legal process.

It is important that we do not simply use the debate as an opportunity to produce an hysterical portrayal of the problem or to condemn Governments, past or present, for a lack of progress. I accept that this is an immensely complicated issue; it obviously has legal bearings, as my hon. Friend has suggested, and it touches on many parts of our system from policing to immigration, justice, housing and social services. I wish, however, to encourage a measured debate about how we can best create an environment that is hostile to traffickers. I also want to send out a clear message that we are firmly on the side of the victims.

In discussing human trafficking, I want to pay tribute to parliamentarians past. The erstwhile Member for Totnes, Anthony Steen, has probably done more than anyone to raise the profile of trafficking at the parliamentary level. He founded the first all-party group on the issue in 2006, and he continues to work as the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which is based at Blackfriars in my constituency. I played a small part in bringing Anthony together with the City of London corporation to ensure that the foundation was based in a high-profile place in central London. I cannot hope to emulate Anthony’s incredible passion for, and knowledge of, this subject, which he displayed in an extremely detailed debate that he led in the dying embers of the previous Parliament, but I hope that our discussion pays homage to some of his work.

Whenever we approach a subject such as trafficking, people inevitably demand numbers, so that they can grasp the scale of the problem. Unfortunately, as we all know, reliable statistics are difficult to come by. Some people contend that the number of trafficked victims is very low, while others contend that the figures are grossly underestimated. As a covert crime, trafficking is inevitably incredibly tricky to measure.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on this important debate, and we have had numerous debates on this issue in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Government strategy that will soon be published, and I do not condemn the Government for having a strategy, but it is action that we need. Children in the United Kingdom are being sold on the streets at £15,000 or £16,000 a time, which is an utter disgrace. We surely need action and some serious penalties for these crimes.

[Mr Field]

I entirely agree. In fairness to the Government, it is important that we have a framework in place, but, as the hon. Gentleman has said, any framework is pointless if action does not follow. One hopes that the robust measures that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will form an integral part of what the Government propose shortly.

There is no uniform story for those who have been trafficked. Some of the markets in which they circulate are closed to outsiders. Victims are often disconnected from mainstream society, so they find it incredibly difficult to seek help. Others may fear the consequences of coming forward, whether that is punishment by their oppressor or, indeed, the UK authorities—many victims are illegal immigrants and fear deportation, for example. Migrants do not always understand that they have been trafficked, or they may be reluctant to reveal to strangers the full picture of their ordeal. Of course, some also embellish their experiences in the hope that their case will be looked on more kindly by the British authorities.

The most recent study of the number of women trafficked into off-street prostitution, Project Acumen, released its findings last August. Conducted by the Association of Chief Police Officers, it aimed to improve our understanding of the nature and scale of the trafficking of migrant women for sexual exploitation. It estimated—as I have said, we must always include a caveat with any figures—that 30,000 women are currently involved in off-street prostitution. Of those women, 17,000, or more than 50%, are migrants, with 2,600 believed to have been trafficked. Most were not found to have been subject to violence, but many were debt-bonded and strictly controlled. A further 9,600 women were considered vulnerable, but fell short of what police officers regarded as the trafficking threshold.

Acumen examined off-street prostitution in part because it is relatively easy to identify. Its organisers have to balance subtlety with the need to advertise their “product” in a competitive marketplace. Nevertheless, criticism has been levelled at the study from some quarters. As a result, I do not intend to use it as an unimpeachable benchmark, but rather as the best, and probably the most recent, research we have in what, as I have said, is a shadowy sphere.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as me about other statistics, which estimate that 80% of the 8,000 women who work in off-street prostitution in London alone are foreign nationals, many of whom started to work as prostitutes, or were indeed forced into prostitution, when they were still children?

[Mr Field]

I am very concerned about that issue, and I will come to it a little later. As the hon. Lady will understand, my speech focuses on my constituency, and I have become aware of the extent of this problem through my dealings with local councillors and local police in central London.

As I have said, the figures are pretty sketchy, and the grim reality of the experience tends to smack us in the face only when a case comes before the courts or because a raid has taken place in our constituencies. A recent example here in London is the grizzly ongoing case of a five-year-old Nigerian boy, who was identified only in March, 10 years after his murder. We believe that that tiny child was trafficked from Germany before being drugged and sacrificed in a ritual killing, his torso dumped in the Thames. Lucy Adeniji, a Church pastor, has been recently sentenced for trafficking two children and a 21-year-old woman to work for her as domestic slaves, locking them up and regularly beating them.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I apologise for being able to stay for only half the debate. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that with the various policing reforms we will lose some of the more targeted approaches to prosecution and the identification of victims, such as Pentameter 1 and 2 and Operation Golf, which were very effective in these difficult and complex areas of prosecution?

[Mr Field]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which bears witness to what I said earlier about this not simply being a policing matter but one with a focus on justice and social services, housing and the work of local authorities. The most important thing to learn is that solving the problem needs a multidisciplinary approach.

A pernicious trend emerged in my constituency of vans depositing women and children by Knightsbridge tube station in the morning to be picked up in the evening after a lucrative day’s begging. A couple of years ago, police raided properties in the constituency of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) to crack down on Romanian and Bulgarian gangs who had trafficked children to pick the pockets of Londoners in my constituency and beyond.

Tackling adult trafficking is co-ordinated, as the Minister knows, by the UK Human Trafficking Centre, which was set up five years ago to bring together a range of stakeholders—police forces, the UK Border Agency, non-governmental organisations and so on. It acts alongside UKBA as one of the competent authorities for the national referral mechanism.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Government have signed up to the directive on human trafficking, which is good news, but they have refused to appoint an independent rapporteur who would have overseen it and ensured that they fulfilled their obligations. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that should be done as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Field]

I confess that I do. It is important, and I hope that the Minister will specifically pick up that point, because in this shadowy world beyond what one might regard as the normal scrutiny of the political process, it is all the more important that the voiceless are given a distinct voice of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has described.

The national referral mechanism is a framework for identifying victims of human trafficking and ensuring that they receive appropriate care. It essentially means that if the police, social services or NGOs believe that they have encountered a trafficking victim, a referral is made for a decision on whether they qualify for a place in a Ministry of Justice safe house for 45 days. The 45-day period is designed to allow the referred person to recover and reflect on whether they wish to co-operate with police inquiries, return to their country of origin or take other action to get their life back on track.

The situation with child trafficking victims is slightly different in having its focal point with the trafficking unit of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. Its work is assisted in the London area by Paladin, a dedicated team of Metropolitan police officers and UKBA staff based at Heathrow, who are tasked with stopping child trafficking through the entry points into London. Profiled compellingly by Bridget Freer in April in The Sunday Times magazine, Paladin is an absolutely tiny team with an enormous remit.

There are many deep concerns about the effectiveness of the approach being taken. UKHTC has been absorbed into the Serious Organised Crime Agency, a move criticised on the basis that the sheer size of SOCA dilutes the sense of purpose in dealing with human trafficking. With SOCA due to be replaced by a national crime agency, where do we anticipate UKHTC being placed?

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and I, too, must apologise that I have to leave before its end. Does he agree that the reorganisation has exacerbated the problem of the re-trafficking of victims, which needs to be urgently addressed? So many victims, who are initially secured in a safe house, are returned and re-trafficked by the very people from whom they were saved.

[Mr Field]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. One difficulty, even with the 45-day cooling-off period, is that a probably tragically high proportion of those who go through that process become known to the authorities later for other human trafficking matters.

The NRM has been rightly condemned for the quality of the decisions, the poor impression given to victims, the lack of an appeals process and the failure to gather comprehensive data on the scale of the problem. There is concern, too, that insufficient resources are directed at policing teams. In April 2009, for example, the Home Office decided to discontinue funding for the Met’s human trafficking unit—the only specialist police human trafficking unit in the country. The Met has since allocated a portion of its own budget to continue its trafficking work and to set up specialist crime directorate 9, which is the human exploitation and organised crime unit. I recently met Detective Superintendent Mick Duthie to discuss his work. There are now 38 people in his team, but their remit takes in not only trafficking, but a range of other street problems, vice, kerb crawling, casino fraud, money laundering and obscene publications, which, as one might imagine, are massive problems in their own right in the mere 6 square miles of my constituency. One wonders whether the other problems are crowding out trafficking.

We all appreciate that these are times of great financial austerity, and there is no realistic expectation of huge additional funding any time soon. The SCD team tries to be creative by setting up joint investigation teams and applying for EU funding streams, for example, but there are huge budgetary pressures, not least as trafficking investigations tend to be complex and lengthy, with overseas elements adding substantially to the costs.

Detective Superintendent Duthie is convinced that more must be done to educate police officers, local authorities and health workers to spot the signs of trafficking. Sometimes, the different teams that come into contact with victims do not get the right information from them or pick up the trafficking indicators.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend has referred to local authorities, and one local authority department that has an eagle eye on what is going on in property is the planning or development control department. Perhaps we have missed a trick in not involving them in the partnership working of locating properties in which such activity is happening.

[Mr Field]

My hon. Friend is right. She has a background as a lawyer, and I am sure that she dealt with such problems on a day-to-day basis in her former career. As I see in my constituency, the reality is that agencies are generally only alerted to these issues when there is a tip-off from local residents—for example, we have all been contacted by people who live next door or very near to a brothel. I suspect that a significant number of safe houses—safe from the perspective of traffickers—operate for months or years without being detected.

[Fiona Bruce]

Those properties are often residential properties in which a business is being run, and if that happened with many other types of business, the local authority would take immediate action due to the contravention of planning legislation. More initiative and activity from planning officers in that respect would greatly assist us.

[Mr Field]

My hon. Friend’s point is well made, although, without wishing to defend the planning officer fraternity too much, I suspect that the phenomenal financial constraints that most local authorities find themselves under mean that they are not necessarily prioritising this area, but it is important that we put those concerns on the record.

[Tom Brake]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He has discussed different organisations needing to be educated about the problem, so that they can tackle it more effectively. Does he agree that when the elected police and crime commissioners take responsibility for policing, it will be essential for them also to understand the importance that people place on tackling human trafficking? That should not be neglected.

[Mr Field]

I am not sure that I want to go too deeply into concerns about precisely where that legislation goes, not least given yesterday’s comments by the Deputy Prime Minister, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. If one considers the populist element of electing police commissioners, I hope that everyone—not only MPs, but interested residents, constituents and citizens—will make it plain that the problem needs to be tackled; indeed, it might be part and parcel of the manifestos of would-be candidates for such a role.

The Government have declared human trafficking to be a coalition priority; I mentioned earlier that we await a new strategy that will shortly step up our efforts in that regard. We recently put our name to the EU directive on trafficking, so the UK has signed up to various obligations. Nevertheless, and without wishing to pre-empt the strategy, I want to put some of my thoughts to the Minister.

It is quite clear from my work on the subject that the current disparate, multi-agency approach has a multitude of fundamental flaws. I have alluded to some of those flaws, which others also recognise. Some are the result of the inherent difficulty in dealing with such a complex and varied problem. However, the Government should consider making a few reasonably small improvements.

The notion of a one-stop shop was put to me by Detective Superintendent Duthie as a means of improving the treatment of trafficked victims and the collection of intelligence. Victims tend to have a variety of needs, and at the moment they are dealt with by a huge range of organisations based in different places. A one-stop shop—a human trafficking centre, as it were—might assist in dealing with health, housing, legal aid, counselling, immigration, repatriation, family reunification and more. I wonder whether the Minister would let us know his thoughts on that idea.

When researching the subject in advance of this debate, I was struck by the poor information available on the internet of all places. If I were a trafficked victim, the first resource that I would use to find a way out of my situation would be the internet. Although a one-stop shop might be seen as too expensive, has the Home Office or any other body considered setting up a presence on the internet that would provide easy, comprehensive and readily available advice to trafficked victims on how to report their experience and, more importantly, how to escape? As things stand, information is dotted across a range of sites, which is incredibly confusing.

Earlier, I mentioned Paladin, the police unit tasked with identifying trafficked children at London’s ports. Concern has been raised by the recently ennobled Baroness Doocey about alternative trafficking routes. Her fear is that Paladin’s vigilance at Heathrow and other points of entry might persuade traffickers to use other routes; in particular, she is concerned that there are no specialist child protection officers working full time at St Pancras, even though that station is within Paladin’s remit.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He has touched on routes into the UK. Does he agree that we also need to establish the source from which many of the unfortunate victims of trafficking come? If it includes the small number of nations that have recently joined the EU, we need comprehensive discussions and negotiations with those member states to ensure that the tap is switched off at source.

[Mr Field]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It would be wrong to suggest that the entirety of the problem is caused by the 10 nations that joined the EU over the past seven years, particularly Romania and Bulgaria, to which I referred earlier. However, it is clearly a substantial problem, and the relatively open borders in much of the EU play a part.

I was discussing St Pancras. Eurostar has relatively lax controls, and children under the age of 12 can travel unaccompanied from Brussels and Paris, so long as they have a letter from the parents or guardians. Have the Government considered making points of entry more robust, not only at St Pancras but in those parts of the country not covered by Paladin?

Turning to the EU directive, one of its key requirements is to provide every trafficked child with a court-appointed guardian to look after their interests. That idea, which was championed by Anthony Steen, was referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. I note from last Monday’s debate that the Minister is not convinced of that route, believing that local authorities are best placed to fulfil the guardianship role. With local authorities under the most enormous budgetary pressure, how will the Minister ensure that that duty is being fulfilled, and can he convince all stakeholders that the Government are not merely absolving themselves of responsibility?

I am reminded of the problems encountered by my local authority, Westminster city council, where there was a marked increase in homelessness following EU enlargement in 2004 and 2008. It had terrible difficulty extracting additional funds from the Home Office to deal with the localised effects of a national policy. As a quick aside, I secured a debate here some four years ago and the Home Office—at that juncture we had a Labour Government—mysteriously arrived an hour before the debate with cheque in hand. I accept that these things can happen—

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I hope it happens again.

[Mr Field]

That is wishful thinking. It would probably have to be the right hon. Gentleman making the speech.

In a similar way, the matter of trafficked children is probably bearing more heavily on certain local authorities. For example, I imagine that the London boroughs of Hillingdon and Hounslow take a great number of the children that come through Heathrow. If the guardianship role is to be taken on by local authorities, will the Minister assure hon. Members that, if there is evidence of certain areas being badly affected, those local authorities will be adequately funded and not be forced to choose which of the competing aspects of child protection to fund?

I have referred to the Government’s commitment to making human trafficking a coalition priority, but there is concern that the slipping time scale for producing a robust anti-trafficking strategy is pushing some of the best experts away. The Minister may have seen a report by Mark Townsend in The Guardian this weekend on the loss of key UK staff in this area—it is an excellent piece. A former police officer, one of the most senior figures involved in investigating trafficking, reportedly stated that one of his greatest concerns is the lack of continuity in the Home Office team. Mr Townsend also highlighted concerns that the inter-ministerial group on trafficking has met only once. I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s response to these specific criticisms.

Does the Minister believe that an independent rapporteur to track our progress on tackling trafficking—such an appointment was suggested last Monday by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—might prove useful in reassuring those who criticise the Government by introducing a genuine sense of accountability?

In last October’s Westminster Hall debate, it was suggested that we should have a Pentameter 3, Pentameters 1 and 2 being two police operations to raid brothels, massage parlous and private homes where trafficking was suspected. The idea is that Pentameter 3 would send out the message that we are and continue to be tough on traffickers. The fact has been highlighted that precious few operational police units specifically target trafficking. I appreciate that those matters are essentially operational police matters, but I wonder whether the Home Office has had discussions with the police teams.

Yet more issues could be covered today, such as the role of the Crown Prosecution Service, the responsibilities of local authorities and details of how the UKHTC operates. Unfortunately I do not have time to touch on them, as others wish to speak.

Without being able to assess accurately the extent of the problem, I accept that it is difficult for any Government to be sure of the level and type of resources that are best suited to tackling it. It is all too easy to ignore trafficking. In short, if we do not go looking for the victims, we can too easily pretend that they are not there. When money is tight, the problem can only get worse. I sincerely hope that today’s debate will give some small voice to that forgotten group of the most vulnerable in our midst, and that it will provide the Government with an opportunity to reassert their commitment to rooting out this most despicable ill.

09:58

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) on securing this debate and on making an excellent speech. I should make it clear at the start that I consider this an all-party matter, but the fact that it is an all-party campaign does not mean we should let the Government off the hook.

I have been enjoying reading the Foreign Secretary’s biography of William Wilberforce. There are some parallels. Wilberforce started his campaign to eradicate slave trafficking in the late 1780s. It took a long 20 years—with ups and downs such as fighting a little war against Napoleon, and having to divert money to other causes—before the legislation came into effect, and a number of decades passed before other countries followed suit.

We are at the start of a long campaign, and certain fundamental issues must be addressed. I invite the Minister, who has a wholly responsible approach to this matter, to reread his speech to the House of Commons in 2008 in which he made a powerful plea for guardianship, an increase in resources to the Human Trafficking Centre, and more joined-up work between local authorities and the police—all the points that were made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. It was a compelling speech in which he attacked and criticised my right hon. and hon. Friends who were then in the Home Office.

Sadly, the Minister is now in the position of having to resile, deny and turn back almost everything that he called for at the time. We have shut down the UK Human Trafficking Centre. Pentameter is no more, and we will not appoint a guardian. After six months of campaigning—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) for that—we have signed up to the EU directive, but without the core element in it of a rapporteur. However, we cannot sign up to a directive without finding the resources to give effect to it. Moreover, it requires us to work collaboratively across the European Union. There again, for good or ill, we have a Government who prefer not to work collaboratively to build a stronger EU and stronger cross-border policing and judicial procedure.

The hon. Member for Derry—[Interruption.] Forgive me—given my particular Irish descendancy, I cannot easily stick “London” in front of “Derry”. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said that we must be robust with the new EU member states and any others that may be trafficking people into this country. I agree with him, but is not the real robustness that we need on the demand side? These women—girls, children even—are here only because honest British men think that if they put down £20, £30 or £50, they have a God-given right to the use of a woman to put their penis into at will. I am sorry to use such strong language, but we must face up to the fact that unless we tackle demand, the supply will continue to increase, and all the words that the Minister will say—I do not for a second doubt his sincerity and I understand that he is working within terrible financial constraints—will come to nought and we will be having this debate next year and the year after that.

We have laws. Without opposition from the Minister, who was in his shadow post at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and other former Ministers changed the law to say that it is a crime to pay for sex with any person who may have been coerced or forced to work as a prostituted woman. To my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected, there has not yet been one single arrest, prosecution or conviction using that new law. The police have the ability to go into massage parlours and brothels—they are not that hard to find; a couple of phone calls and they can find where to go—and challenge the men and put them in front of magistrates courts. Those men should be named and shamed. It is not just a certain French gentleman in New York who should attract all the attention—and yes, I know that he is innocent until proved otherwise. There are hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of British men who are clients of this trade. They are providing the demand and the money. The police must be asked why they have not used their powers.

I regret the shutdown of the different police agencies dedicated to trafficking and their absorption within the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which is to face a further dilution. The police are there with every energy in the world to tackle driving offences and to find out how many points somebody has or has not got on their licence, and to take part in other worthy investigations. None the less, the language of Government should be the choice of priorities. I put it to my colleagues here and to the Minister—not in a critical way—that the police have not focused hard enough on this matter. We do not know the figures and I do not want to enter into the figures debate. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster cited some that were available, but as he acknowledged, they have been widely criticised by other expert groups. We could have a row on figures, but suffice it to say that we are talking about a substantial number; it is not just one or two people, as this odd organisation the English Collective of Prostitutes claims, with occasional support from journalists as well.

We need a rapporteur. Appointing an individual and giving them a task to achieve can change policy. We need to have a guardian for each child taken into care. I can produce the figures on the children who disappear from care. Children are put into care in Hillingdon, from Heathrow; their traffickers come round, and out they go through the door—obviously we cannot lock up a child—to work as sex slaves.

Moreover, we must change the culture of making the victims of trafficking into associate criminals. The approach of the Home Office and the UK Border Agency is to catch and deport. The figures can then be produced. It happened under Labour because of the mass hysteria from some organisations and the right-wing press. Almost any foreigner in Britain was unwelcome; it was said that there were too many of them. We have this tick-box culture of wanting to report the numbers that have been deported. Of course, women are the most vulnerable; they are easy to catch and deport.

[Margot James]

The right hon. Gentleman makes some good points about how the system treats children. Is it not a scandal that according to ECPAT, children are more likely to be convicted of offences—often they are forced through their trafficked status to commit offences such as growing cannabis—than the perpetrators themselves?

[Mr MacShane]

It is a scandal, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. This question of criminalising the victims is one that should shame us. I know that it is hard because everybody loves to kick the immigrant, the asylum seeker, the economic migrant and the person here without papers, and they are easily victimised. We even had the noble Lord Glasman saying in Progress Magazine that Labour lied about immigration. He is a Labour lord accusing the Labour Government of telling lies. We may have got some things wrong, but he was expressing the notion that Ministers had lied. That was the language of the election and it is a culture that we need to change.

In his 2008 speech, the Minister eulogised the work of Eaves and its POPPY project, which was a standard-bearer and a model. The Conservative party was right behind it and called on the Government of the day to give it more resources. I am now extremely distressed to find that Eaves is being shut down and its money handed over to a religious organisation that has its proselytising and evangelising duties. I have worked closely with many church charities, so I am not condemning it. None the less, we now have a mono-religious organisation, the Salvation Army, being told that it must be in charge of women from different cultures and different faith backgrounds. I am not criticising the Sally Army for one second; it is a great outfit. However, it is not appropriate for it to replace the Eaves organisation and its POPPY project.

The Salvation Army wrote to MPs—I do not know if it wrote to all MPs or just those who are interested in combating human trafficking—to say that it is now going to transfer hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds to an outfit called STOP UK. I have tried to find out about STOP UK. It has a website, but that is all. It has no publications and there is no board of directors. It has a chief executive whom I think works in the Serious Organised Crime Agency. One of the big problems with victims of human trafficking is that they need to be dissociated from potential police and criminal investigations for being prostituted women. STOP UK has a couple of people with mobile phones, and I tried to call them. It has an office somewhere in south London. I do not doubt the sincerity of the outfit, but it is almost virtual and the Government, having shut down the support for Eaves and the POPPY Project, are now potentially giving it hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds. I put it to the Minister gently—I respect him—that that is opening the way for a scandal further down the line.

I also worry that the National Register of Unaccompanied Children, which was set up in 2004, has been shut down. Why? We have still got children leaving care—in Rotherham, Hillingdon, London and elsewhere—and we also have the problem of unaccompanied minors coming into the UK. My view is that no airline should be allowed to fly somebody under the age of 14, possibly even under 16, if they are unaccompanied. There is also the problem of St Pancras. We had the remarkably complacent answers in the Lords from the noble Earl Attlee, saying, “Oh, there’s no problem, they’re all checked when they get on the train and go through passport control in Paris or Brussels.” For heaven’s sake: any of us who have gone through the maelstrom of getting people on to the Eurostar train as quickly as possible know that the notion that the hard-working officials in Paris or Brussels—I do not criticise them—are spotting potentially trafficked children is ludicrous. It is exactly that complacency that is the problem.

I will finish there, as other colleagues want to speak. There are other points that I want to make, but I think there will be further debates on this issue. My sense is that the House of Commons is seized of this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—I call him my hon. Friend and my colleague—is not here in Westminster Hall today, but he is one of my heroes because he is working so hard on this issue, as did Anthony Steen. Indeed, Anthony Steen is still continuing his work on combating human trafficking. I have visited his offices down at Puddle Dock, and I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster for helping to arrange those very good facilities there.

I put it to the Minister that the debate on this issue will continue, and I invite him to make a name for himself on it. I also invite him to read the Foreign Secretary’s biography of Wilberforce, and to try to put himself in the shoes of that great Yorkshire MP at the end of the 18th century. Everybody, independently of party affiliation, will appreciate it if there is substantial change on human trafficking on this Government’s watch. However, as is apparent from the points I have made, I am concerned that we are going backwards, not forwards, on this issue.

10:13

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

Thank you, Mr Crausby, for calling me. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I want to start by applauding the work of Members—current and former—from all parties in this House who have championed the fight against human trafficking. I was elected just over a year ago, and there have been many opportunities since then to debate this issue and to raise concerns with the Minister responsible for dealing with it.

As was outlined by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) in his excellent opening speech, the slave trade was abolished in our country 200 years ago, but another form of slavery has emerged since then. It is a more clandestine and underground form, but it is just as insidious and brutal. Unfortunately, it is also pervasive in modern Britain.

Thousands of vulnerable people, mostly women and children, are being trafficked into our country this year. As the hon. Gentleman said, we do not have a grip on the figures for the number of people involved. Nevertheless, behind the figures are real lives. Tragically, many of these women and children come to the UK on the promise of a better life, only to find on arrival that they are imprisoned and forced into slave labour or prostitution. The criminal gangs and pimps who trade these women consider them to be like second-hand cars—like a commodity. According to some estimates, each sex trafficker earns an average of £500 to £1,000 per woman per week. It is the most unimaginable treatment of one human being by another, that they should think of people and treat them in this way.

The Observer recently highlighted the case of a 17-year-old woman, Marinela Badea, who was abducted from Romania, trafficked to Britain and forced into prostitution. She was repeatedly raped, violently abused and held captive. Her experience is indicative of what happens to thousands of trafficked women in our country and across the developed world. It is a great victory that her traffickers are now serving the longest sentence for human trafficking ever imposed in British history, but it is extremely rare for the perpetrators of this horrible and hateful crime to be caught and brought to justice. Prosecution rates are pitifully low, and proactive policing operations to root out trafficking, such as brothel raids, are apparently being scaled down.

Like other Members, in all parties, I am concerned that the Home Office is not doing enough to tackle this most egregious human rights abuse. The new anti-human trafficking strategy, which was promised earlier this year, is late. Can the Minister explain why there has been a delay, and say when we are likely to see it? I echo the comments of Members from all parties: the words in that strategy and in the new EU directive on human trafficking, which the Government have finally opted into, are welcome. However, it is the actions taken because of those words that count, and by which we need to judge them.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made such an excellent opening speech that I fear I might repeat some of the points he made. Nevertheless, I want to echo what he said about the concern, expressed in recent reports, that key specialists in this field have left the Home Office human trafficking team. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is real concern at the lack of continuity among the staff taking on this important issue. Moreover, the inter-ministerial group on human trafficking has met only once since the election of the present Government. What does that say about this Government’s resolve and seriousness regarding human trafficking?

There is also evidence to suggest that many victims escape their traffickers but are then classified as “illegal immigrants”—a problem outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). We must ensure that that does not happen. Can the Minister reassure the House that something is being done to ensure that victims are properly identified and treated as such, rather than being put down as “illegal immigrants” when they are in fact brought here, often against their will, and forced into the most horrendous type of work?

I want to say more about the protection of victims, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham also mentioned. I am deeply concerned that the POPPY project’s funding has been withdrawn and given to another organisation that I am not sure has the project’s specialism and experience in helping the victims of trafficking. Human trafficking is a hugely complex issue, and it is sometimes very difficult even to help these women talk about their experiences, because they have been so violently abused. I worry about the rationale for withdrawing the funding for the POPPY project. Can the Minister explain why the funding was stopped for that organisation, which has great expertise in this field?

I turn to the Olympics. International sporting events are a magnet for pimps and traffickers—that is the evidence from elsewhere in the world when there have been Olympics or World cups. Can the Minister say what measures the Government are taking to ensure that the rise in demand for prostitution as a result of London’s hosting the Olympics next year—and, therefore, the rise in human trafficking that will also unfortunately happen—will be dealt with? Have the Government considered whether they could work with hotels and, if so, how? Hotels often turn a blind eye to prostitution, and the Government could raise their awareness of the fact that many women in prostitution have been brought across borders and forced into it.

Now, 200 years after the abolition of the slave trade, this Government and future Governments have a great responsibility to root out this modern, pervasive form of slavery. I would like reassurance from the Minister that the Home Office and the wider Government are taking the matter seriously enough.

10:19

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I compliment the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) on his excellent analysis of the issues, particularly of prostitution, and of the scale of the problems we face in dealing with what is a very well organised, multinational business in the criminal fraternity. Sometimes that business has technologies way beyond those available to even the forces of Government.

No community is untouched by the problem. Small, peripheral communities on the edges of cities are very attractive to people who are trafficking and setting up brothels. It is amazing where brothels pop up, and how ill-equipped the police are to distinguish between communal living by immigrant workers and the very common phenomenon of people being used for sexual exploitation—people who go into the cities in the evenings to ply their trade and come back to live in houses of multiple occupation.

The debate is about not just prostitution but all types of human trafficking, and I will make my speech in that context. The question for me, and for the Minister, is: are the Government equipped to carry out the responsibilities that they are about to take on by opting into the human trafficking directive and signing up to the directive on sexual exploitation and abuse of children? There are very serious concerns about that. In a debate in the House on 9 May, the Minister said:

“We are confident that the UK is compliant with those measures.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 977.]

He was talking particularly about measures to do with trafficked children, and I want to challenge him on that statement. I do not believe that the UK, using local authorities under the present arrangements, is equipped to deal with the problem of the trafficking of children, many of whom are trafficked for other reasons but many of whom, sadly, are trafficked for sexual exploitation of various kinds.

I refer Members to the article in The Sunday Times of 3 April 2011 about a woman who was multiple-trafficked—three or four times—in and out of the UK and back to her home country. She was treated as a criminal and not as a victim, and that also happens with children. On Sunday 15 May 2011, The Observer highlighted something that we have been aware of in the all-party group on human trafficking: the collapse of the Home Office structure to focus on human trafficking. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster talked about the specialist police force, which has been absorbed—some say swamped—due to the changes that the Home Office is making.

The all-party group had a meeting last week, during which we were supposed to be addressed by the director who was setting up the response from the Home Office and the UK Border Agency, but we received an apology saying that he had been sacked seven weeks previously as part of the cuts in the Home Office. So the person who is organising the team has gone, and the people who are supposed to be in it have gone. Where are the Government travelling? They are travelling in one direction, because of political pressure, into the EU directives, but in the other direction they seem to be stripping away the very facilities we require, and that troubles me.

ECPAT UK is very keen on having formal guardianship that is not just a local authority’s social work department being given charge of young people and putting them into what Barnardo’s referred to, when it spoke to the all-party group two or three weeks ago, as “just bed and breakfasts”. The young people are not supervised, and many of them run away and are picked up and trafficked into some other environment.

There is a huge ring in the Chinese community. Respectable Chinese businessmen that we meet in our business community meetings often use people who have been trafficked from mainland China, and do not pay them. One man, who came to see me after a speech, had been trafficked out of mainland China 11 and a half years previously. He lives in communal housing. He has been moved all over the UK and now lives in a house in Armadale in my constituency—now that I have said “Armadale”, he will probably be whisked away somewhere else. He does not receive wages; he is told that he is still paying back the cost of his trafficking. There are thousands like him: every time one of my local restaurants is raided, trafficked people are found. The industry is massive, and we are not equipped to deal with it with the facilities that we have.

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

My hon. Friend makes a compelling argument for the Government looking seriously at the issue of a formal guardianship programme for children.

Some of the statistics have worried me. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the 2007 ECPAT UK report that found that of 80 children trafficked over an 18-month period 56% had gone missing from the north-east, the north-west and the west midlands. That shows the scale of the problem, and although the report is from 2007 I do not believe that things have improved much since. A 2009 Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre—CEOP—report identified 325 potential victims, 23% of whom have gone missing without trace. It is unacceptable to carry on with that situation.

[Michael Connarty]

If we had the facilities and the teams, those statistics would pop up in any region in the UK. Voluntary organisations that are in touch with such people, but are not formally responsible for them, can give a large number of worrying figures.

ECPAT UK points out that children from China, Vietnam and Nigeria are consistently ranked highest in CEOP national referral mechanism statistics, but there have been no trafficking convictions of people who traffic child victims from any of those countries, and there are no specialist child trafficking police units left. More trafficked children have been convicted by the courts for cannabis-related and other offences than have child traffickers for trafficking, as the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) said earlier. CEOP, the only Government agency to produce reports on child trafficking, has disbanded its child trafficking unit, and the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre has never published any reports on child trafficking. The Government say that they are going to go in and match the best in the EU, if not the world, but they are ill-equipped to do so.

I wish to refer in more detail to something I have mentioned a few times in debates: the report of Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People. Despite being a commissioner in Scotland, the commissioner is part of the UK structure. I hope that the Minister has read the April 2011 report, because it has recommendations for the UK Government. It expresses deep concerns about having multiple responsibilities in the UK Border Agency, and states that with guardianship there is conflict regarding the responsibilities of local authorities.

The report recommends that the UK Government should have a rapporteur and go and look at other European countries that have such people to look at Governments’ performance and oversee whether they are just all talk and no action. It also recommends a guardianship scheme, and clearly refers to the overarching responsibility that we have because we signed up to the Council of Europe convention on sexual abuse and exploitation of children. We have, however, not ratified that convention, and can therefore avoid doing anything. We have put a signature on paper, but have not followed it up with resources.

I hope that many of the report’s recommendations will be considered, including that for an independent rapporteur on trafficking. The report also suggests that the Government should consider the values of the guardianship scheme being run as a pilot by the Scottish Refugee Council and the Aberlour Child Care Trust and seek a guardianship that satisfies ECPAT’s expectations without necessarily being as burdensome as the Government think it will be.

Apart from words on paper, will the Minister give us some examples of why the Government believe that they are capable of dealing with child trafficking and some indication that we can train police forces to see it not as an extra but as fundamental to their duties? They must see trafficked children as victims—I mean children up to the age of 18, not just children of four or five, or as young as Baby P—and treat them as victims, which means looking after them properly.

10:30

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

As is usual on this subject, we have had an excellent debate with a great deal of consensus among Members of all parties. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) for bringing this subject before the House once again. As he pointed out, it was an accident that we discussed it only last week, but it is often helpful for Members of Parliament to be able to follow up on a previous debate. Some issues in the last debate were not resolved, and I hope that when the Minister responds, we will hear some of the answers that have been re-requested during this debate.

I welcomed the hon. Gentleman’s call for a multi-agency, one-stop approach. I agree that we need a strategy: not just broad aims, but specific commitments. In order to deliver that as the House and society would want, we need a rapporteur of sufficient independence for everyone to have confidence in the information that they produce. I welcome all those aspects of his remarks.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) reminded us that to tackle trafficking, we must have an effective strategy for driving down demand for the products of trafficking. I was concerned to hear his remarks about STOP UK, and I hope that the Minister will deal with that in his response.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) reminded us that the women and children involved in trafficking are treated as commodities, like used cars. It is not enough for us to say the right words across parties; we need action to tackle the problem, and specifically action to prevent the threat from coming to London along with the Olympics in a year’s time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) remarked on the Home Office’s problems in managing the process and advised us of the opportunity to consider whether what Scotland is doing on child guardianship can provide models or lessons for the rest of the United Kingdom.

In my view, we are a little complacent about our quality of victim care. I was rather shocked to read a research report by the London School of Economics and the university of Goettingen suggesting that the United Kingdom was less effective than Albania at tackling human trafficking. The reason why the report came to that conclusion involved our treatment of victims. Most of the study was done while the POPPY project, which we all admire, was providing victim services, but the researchers felt that the UK habit of convicting the victims of trafficking—we have heard about children being convicted of cannabis cultivation, for example—means that the quality of our trafficking strategy is less good than that of many countries that we would expect to outperform.

[Mr MacShane]

My hon. Friend mentioned the London School of Economics. Is she aware of its feminist political theory course, taught by Professor Anne Phillips? In week 8 of the course, students study prostitution. The briefing says:

“If we consider it legitimate for women to hire themselves out as low-paid and often badly treated cleaners, why is it not also legitimate for them to hire themselves out as prostitutes?”

If a professor at the London School of Economics cannot make the distinction between a cleaning woman and a prostituted woman, we are filling the minds of our young students with the most poisonous drivel.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I share my right hon. Friend’s view about those attitudes. I hope that the LSE provides sufficient contest to Professor Phillips’s frankly nauseating views on that issue.

To return to victim care, one of my absolute concerns is that victims should be supported to be identified as victims. I am anxious that the national referral mechanism requires a referral, through a multi-tick-box questionnaire, by an appropriate authority, does not accept all attempts at referral and does not always make good decisions. During our recent debate, I asked the Minister whether he would ensure that the new victim care organisations—the Salvation Army and its subcontractors—were supported in challenging decisions under the national referral mechanism if victims were not initially identified as such, and that they were funded to support those people. The experience of the POPPY project is that many trafficked victims were not originally given reasonable-grounds decisions or conclusive decisions on their trafficking status.

The Minister reminded me that

“support providers are asked to, and helped to, provide information about victims’ experiences and circumstances to the competent authority precisely to ensure that the correct NRM decision is reached”.—[Official Report, 9 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 994.]

I hoped, in the cut and thrust of debate, that that was a positive answer, but my view on reflection is that it is not. I would like a specific commitment from him today that if an organisation supporting a victim helps that victim challenge a decision by the NRM, it will be funded to support the victim. One of the tasks of such organisations, if they believe professionally that someone is a victim of trafficking, is to advocate on their behalf with the competent authorities. I hope that he can give us that assurance.

In addition, I am concerned, as are other hon. Members, about the transparency of the process. The Serious Organised Crime Agency has not produced an annual report since Jacqui Smith was Home Secretary. We do not have any compelling data about decisions under the NRM or enforcement actions taken by police. One reason for calling for a rapporteur is to ensure that such data exist.

The Minister suggested that the role of rapporteur could properly be fulfilled by the inter-ministerial group, the NRM and the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre. At the moment, that is not happening. Will he make a commitment during this debate to a specific mechanism for ensuring transparency? Unless we have a formal rapporteur charged with providing that transparency, we cannot properly interrogate what the Government are doing.

A specific example is the disappearance of children from care, which Members have mentioned. If we believe that local authorities are providing adequate guardianship services, can we please have a national study of how many trafficked children are in local authority care and of which local authorities lose children and how many, and a report to Parliament on how those issues are handled?

The Minister makes a reasonable point when he says that it is possible for the directive’s guardianship requirements to be fulfilled by local authority responsibilities. I think that that could be possible. I am not saying that his decision to do that is mere penny-pinching—although it obviously is, partly because of pressure on funds—but it cannot be done under the present arrangement, because so many local authorities are, frankly, incompetent in this area. We do not know how many are involved or which ones are making good progress. I hope that the Minister will commit to that, because without that kind of transparency, any claim to fulfil a rapporteur-type function is unfounded.

My final concern relates to the role of the police. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned how Vic Hogg was invited to address the all-party group on the trafficking of women and children, but did not turn up because apparently, at the last moment, he did not have a job. I have spoken to representatives from civil society organisations involved in this field. They feel that meetings with the Home Office to discuss the strategy have been frustrating, disorganised and unclear.

I do not believe that the Minister wants a disorganised and unclear strategy—I am not accusing him of a deliberate policy. Nor do I believe that he wants to exclude those excellent organisations—ECPAT UK, the POPPY Project, the Salvation Army, the Medaille Trust and so on—from contributing to the strategy. I am concerned, however, that there is a real risk, because the former strategy was extremely specific and connected police operations, which have been the most powerful way of discovering the extent of trafficking.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has pointed out how the research is not very good, because the subject is an illegal activity. Actions by the police have been more effective. They have illustrated more powerfully the range of trafficking and where it is to be found, and have led to some successful prosecutions. I am concerned that, at present, we do not have any nationally directed operations, and that the consequence of that will be that we will lose expertise among the police.

I hope that the Minister can reassure us that, even if the Home Office does not wish, at present, to direct police forces to mount those kinds of national operations, it will support and enable them to do so. Without Operation Golf, the excessive trafficking of children from the town of Tandarei in Romania, many of whom were trafficked into my constituency, and the grotesque profits made by criminals in that town, would have continued unabated.

Strategic national interventions that are properly directed can protect people more effectively than a strategy and the warm words that we are able to produce in this Chamber. I believe that we are all on the same side, but we need a strategy to ensure that the shared ambition to eradicate this modern form of slavery actually works in practice.

10:43

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) on securing this debate, which, interestingly, follows a previous debate on this issue. I should point out that it was not an accident that the Government called that previous debate, because I made a commitment that we should have proper scrutiny when we decided to opt in to the European directive.

This is a matter of undeniable significance to both Houses. Many thoughtful points have been raised today, along with one or two slightly less thoughtful ones. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to Anthony Steen—it has become almost compulsory and certainly de rigueur to pay tribute to him in debates such as these—for all his work. I also thank the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who speaks for the Labour party, for her extremely constructive and thoughtful contribution. She and I disagree about individual details, but what she said at the end of her speech is exactly right. We all need to be—indeed, we all are—fundamentally on the same side on this issue. We are discussing how best to eradicate trafficking as much as possible. My hon. Friend said in his introductory remarks that it is much better to conduct this debate in terms that are not hysterical, which, as we progress, will be important not only for our debates in this House, bur for debates among wider groups that are concerned about the issue.

A wide range of issues have been raised this morning. Members have reflected on the complex nature of tackling human trafficking. Many have acknowledged the challenges inherent in tackling this appalling crime. Britain has a good record, under Governments of all hues, of tackling it, and this Government intend for that to continue. I am, however, happy to acknowledge that we can always improve. Indeed, it is striking that, while many Members have paid tribute, as do I, to the work of the POPPY Project, the hon. Member for Slough produced a report that says that Britain is doing worse on victim care than Albania. I think that that point was designed to gain an effect rather than to offer a truthful analysis of what is going on, but it illustrates the complexities and difficulties.

The Government are rising to the challenge of developing more sophisticated ways of tackling traffickers in the changing landscape of organised crime, while continuing, of course, to care for the victims of this trade in human misery. I listened eagerly to many of the contributions. It is clear that the subject of trafficking is close to the hearts of many Members. I acknowledge the point that our work should be transparent and responsive to criticism, when that criticism is well founded.

[Mr Field]

Does the Minister accept that one of the key problems that we all face in our efforts to raise the profile of this issue is that, to be brutally frank, there are no votes in it? All too often, some of the people who suffer most are regarded by many of our constituents as a troublesome problem. It is, therefore, all the more important that we utilise this opportunity. I hope that the Minister does not see politics as a platform for his views and that he can try to do something fairly constructive. I hope that he will keep that in mind as he continues his speech.

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. This is not an issue that tends to gain huge headlines or create partisan politics, and nor should it. This is, therefore, an opportunity for Ministers and Governments simply to seek to do the right thing by some very vulnerable people.

Let me move on rapidly to address all the individual points that have been made by my hon. Friend and others. I reassure him that the work that was done by the UK Human Trafficking Centre will continue unaffected. The UKHTC plays an important role in our overall efforts to combat trafficking, and the Government are committed to ensuring its continued success. When it became part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, much work was done to ensure that the UKHTC retained its unique role, character and identity. That includes its focus on victim care and its competent authority role in identifying victims as part of the national referral mechanism. Merging the UKHTC into the national crime agency will not affect its important work or change its focus in any way. Specifically, as part of the NCA, the UKHTC will benefit from being able to draw on the resources and intelligence of the wider organisation, while retaining its focus.

During the debate, it struck me that two contradictory demands were often made in the same speech: first, that we need to work much better across different parts of the police, between police forces and between the police and different agencies; and, secondly, that specialist units should be set up. There is clearly a tension between those two entirely legitimate demands. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties recognise that.

[Michael Connarty]

The Scottish commissioner identified that dealing with trafficking is seen as additional work within police forces. If specialist organisations are absorbed inside larger police forces, dealing with the matter will clearly become a marginal activity, particularly for those forces that are currently being slashed and are losing 20% of their resources.

[Damian Green]

That is precisely why it needs to become a mainstream activity, which is what the strategy is designed to achieve.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster has referred to the national referral mechanism, as have other hon. Members. The NRM is a framework designed to make it easier for agencies—the police, the UK Border Agency, local authorities and non-governmental organisations—involved in a trafficking case to co-operate, to share information about potential victims and to facilitate their access to support. The framework is designed precisely to achieve the kind of coherence that we are seeking.

The expert decision makers—the competent authorities—are based in the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre and the UK Border Agency, and we are committed to ensuring that there are multi-agency working arrangements in both. I recognise that victim identification is an area that can always be improved, and the NRM was set up by the previous Government for that purpose. In the first 21 months of its operation, more than 1,250 potential trafficking cases were referred to the NRM by a range of front-line agencies, and our expert decision makers went on to grant a period of reflection and recovery in 65% of the cases decided. We remain committed to working with partners to ensure that our arrangements for identifying and protecting victims constantly improve.

My hon. Friend recommended having a one-stop shop to gather intelligence and care for victims. I will obviously think about that but, at the moment, the strategy has been to draw on the expertise of anti-trafficking groups to develop a support system that offers victims a more diverse range of services and enables more providers to support victims of this crime. That has been the basis of the approach up to now. The new victim care arrangements, which have been referred to, will mean that the Salvation Army is responsible for the co-ordination and contracting of victim care and will ensure that all identified victims receive support based on their individual needs. Those arrangements continue to be in line with the standards set out in the Council of Europe convention.

It is important to bear in mind that victims must not be compelled to share information with the police in order to access support services. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) has referred to the POPPY project. I reassure her that money has not been taken away. A new contract is being let and we are having a different model. Rather than one provider doing everything, the Salvation Army will act as a gateway to other providers, so that a wider range of expertise is available.

[Emma Reynolds]

Is it not the case that the resources available for that contract are much reduced compared with what was given to the POPPY project?

[Damian Green]

Straightforwardly, no. That is simply not the case. It is one of the areas that has been protected. While I am talking about the Salvation Army, I strongly reject the comments about that organisation made by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). As he knows, I agree with many of the things that he said, but his attack on the Salvation Army was deplorable. He seemed to suggest that a faith-based organisation could not deal adequately with victims of other faiths or of no faith. That is a disgraceful thing to say. If he is saying that a Christian-based organisation is not capable of fulfilling such a role, that is anti-Christian bigotry and he really should be ashamed of himself.

[Mr MacShane]

For heaven’s sake! The Minister is rather spoiling a good debate. I am appalled at the bigotry against the Eaves organisation—the POPPY project. Yes, I do believe that an organisation based on women is best suited to help trafficked women from different faiths. That was my point. I said on the record that I have nothing but praise and respect for the Salvation Army. It is the decision to remove the money from Eaves and the POPPY project that is deplorable.

[Damian Green]

When he reads the record, the right hon. Gentleman will wish to reflect on what he actually said about the Salvation Army.

The separation between sharing information with the police and access to services is important in ensuring that victims can reflect and recover, and to engage with law enforcement if and when they feel safe enough to do so. The strength of our approach to tackling human trafficking lies in its diversity and in having the UKHTC as our repository for collecting data and the NRM to draw together all those who may be involved in a trafficking case to make the right decisions on victim status. However, I recognise the importance of ease of access to the information that is available to victims of trafficking on how to report their experiences, as a number of hon. Members have mentioned. In that regard, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster recommended having a website for all the relevant information. I suggest that, given the situation in which many victims find themselves, access to a website may not be the most useful solution. Victims of forced prostitution might be locked in basements and will not have access to any basic services, let alone the internet.

In response to my hon. Friend’s points about the Metropolitan police’s human trafficking unit, the previous Government decided to discontinue that funding, which was provided on a time-limited basis, because they believed that trafficking work should be mainstreamed into the Metropolitan Police Service budget, as it is core police business. The team’s expertise was therefore not lost and reorganisation ensured that it retained its capability to support victims and mount investigations against trafficking.

I agree with my hon. Friend in congratulating the team that runs Operation Paladin, which acts as a point of expertise and guidance for all UKBA officers and Metropolitan police officers. It is important to note that although Paladin is a Met-UKBA joint operation, advice is not only restricted to the ports in London. Paladin offers an advisory service and routinely offers support to officers outside the London area. A specific point has been made about St Pancras. Of course, all passengers arriving at St Pancras have been cleared for immigration purposes at juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium. If there is any suspicion that a child arriving at St Pancras is at risk, UKBA will refer to the appropriate authorities. Specifically, Operation Paladin’s coverage extends to St Pancras.

[Michael Connarty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have many points to respond to that were made in the debate.

The issue of re-trafficking has been discussed. That is precisely why, as a key part of our new strategy, we will be working much more in the source countries—the sending countries. I am sure that we all accept that prevention is better than cure. That has been lacking, and it is something that we will address in the new strategy. Much criticism has been based on the lack of provision of information across agencies, and another key part of the new strategy will be to improve our performance in putting information around the system.

The right hon. Member for Rotherham has mentioned STOP UK, which is indeed one of the organisations that will be part of the Salvation Army’s supply chain. It has satisfied the procurement requirements so far but, obviously, I will take what he has to say seriously. The hon. Member for Slough asked about NRM decisions and support providers. As I have said, support providers advocate for victims in the provision of care and ensure that competent authorities receive the information that they need to make the right decision. Although there is no appeal system for the NRM, the decisions can be judicially reviewed.

Let me move on to child guardians and the national rapporteur. I know that hon. Members found the previous debate useful. We will, of course, be applying to the European Commission to opt into the directive. The directive contains a number of important provisions on the issue of child guardians. Local authorities already have a statutory duty to ensure that they safeguard and promote the welfare of children. So it is not, as some hon. Members have suggested, an additional burden on them. Can local authorities do it better? Absolutely. I have no doubt that some of them can and should do so.

Stillbirth

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Westminster Hall

11:00

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I have never been in this situation before, so I hope that you will treat me gently in the course of the next half an hour.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise this important issue in Westminster Hall. Stillbirth is a sensitive, painful subject that has a lasting effect on thousands of people each year, and I am not convinced that enough is being done to support the families of stillborn children. I am concerned that the UK seems to be failing to reduce the number of stillbirths that we have each year.

A few years ago, a couple who are good friends of mine were joyfully awaiting the birth of their second child. The mother had what can only be described as a normal pregnancy. When the baby was full term, she had some intense pain in her stomach and decided that it would be wise to head to the hospital. Rather than being admitted, she was sent home. When she returned a day or so later, she was told that the baby she had been carrying had died.

Who knows what might have been different, had the circumstances a day or so previously been different? That is not the point of this debate, but what happened then made up my mind that, should I ever be elected to this place, I would do my best to ensure that, in future, no parents would have to suffer the same fate as my friends. Unfortunately, due to staffing problems, the couple were sent home on that day, with the deceased baby still inside the mother. They were asked to return after the weekend for the delivery of their son.

Clearly, that is not an acceptable or humane way to treat someone who has received the worst of all news. It was, and still is, impossible for any of us here to know or have the slightest clue about what my friends were feeling at that time, and what so many parents like them go through each day. It is not a small number of families who go through this. Recent research shows that 11 babies are stillborn every day in the United Kingdom, averaging out as one in every 200 babies born, or 4,100 babies a year.

Some parents I have spoken to have had only the nicest things to say about how they were treated following the stillbirth of their child. Others have stories that are not so good, which is why I have been trying to secure this debate for months. I want to impress on the Minister, whom I know is very sympathetic, the need to help spread best practice across the health service when it comes to stillbirth. Sands, the stillbirth and neonatal death charity, has developed comprehensive guidelines for professionals. However, I am not confident that that best practice is used across the whole of the NHS.

I acknowledge completely that we have come a long way in how we deal with stillbirth. There is a lady in the Public Gallery here today, Angela, who has, alas, experienced some of the worst of what used to happen not so many years ago. She created a group, I Have Rights Too, to help other parents after her baby, Natasha, was born and passed away almost immediately. Born a Catholic, Natasha was denied the last rites, and her parents were not allowed to hold her. At least one of her organs was removed without her parents’ knowledge, and she was buried in a mass grave. That is what some would call a legacy case, and I would appreciate it if one of the Minister’s officials helped Angela finally to get the answers she needs as a mother, in order to come to terms with what happened a few years ago.

Some of the things that happened to Natasha no longer happen. The Human Tissue Act 2004, the Human Tissue Authority Codes of Practice (2006), which apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006, which applies in Scotland, mean that parental consent is required before any organs are removed from a stillborn baby. In most cases now, funeral arrangements for a stillborn baby are a matter of decision for the parents, or by the relevant health or local authority if the parents are unable to meet the cost. However, public graves for the interment of stillborn and young babies remain to this day in some areas.

Another matter that causes great anxiety to parents who have a stillborn child is certification. Parents I have been in contact with have been very distressed that they cannot legally register the birth of a baby born before 24 weeks who did not breathe or show any signs of life. While I understand that some parents would be distressed at the possibility of having to do that, I wonder whether we could have a more flexible system whereby parents have the choice of a formal birth certificate, a local certificate issued by the hospital or—if they chose it—nothing. In modern society, I believe we have the ability and sensibility to deal with the matter of certification, which is very important to most of the parents I have spoken to, because it is a simple process of formally naming their deceased baby.

Parents should be actively encouraged to see, hold and care for their stillborn child. From all the various examples I have heard, while heartbreaking at the time, it seems to help parents come to terms with their loss much quicker than they would otherwise have done. One of my correspondents on this subject has suggested that where parents do not wish to do that—with the emotions running through them at the time, some parents feel confused and do not know how to deal with these matters—staff should take photos of the baby while it is being washed and dressed, so that, should the parents change their mind at a later date, pictures of their child are available.

Without a doubt, the hardest thing for anyone to do when a family member passes away is to say goodbye. Saying goodbye in these circumstances should be done in the parents’ own time and in their own way, and they really should have expert support to help them decide what is best for them. Leaving the hospital, without the baby the parents expected to be taking home, is a terrible thing for anyone to go through. From what I gather, most maternity units now deal with this in a professional and responsible fashion, and should be commended for the way they handle this circumstance. Invariably, in the weeks after a stillbirth, the parents have to go back to the hospital where their baby was delivered for check-ups and medical tests. Many parents have suggested to me that more consideration should be given to subsequent hospital visits, and that space for those appointments should be made available away from the maternity unit. Quite often, parents have to go back to the place where they have just had such a distressing occurrence.

I would like to thank Melanie Scott, whose son, Finley, was stillborn, and who received a lot of quality support. She has written a book about her experience, and feels that the support she received allowed her and her family to heal at the time, and to continue to heal. She now helps other families who have had the same experience.

Finally, I would like to come back to the issue of the number of stillbirths that occur each year. As I mentioned earlier, more than 4,100 babies a year are stillborn; that is 11 a day. That number is simply too high. I have been told that approximately 30% of stillbirths remain unexplained, and that various factors play into the deaths of the remaining 70% of those babies. I know that the Minister is concerned that the UK is slipping down the league table. According to a recent study in The Lancet, the UK has one of the worst records for stillbirths, ranking 33rd out of 35 high-income nations. While it is important to acknowledge that all women are vulnerable, we need to work out why the women in our nation may be at a higher risk of stillbirth, and what we can do to change that fact. There are some troubling regional differences in the percentage rates of stillbirth across the UK. How can we explain the 33% difference between the south-west, with the lowest rates, and the east midlands, of which my constituency is a part, which has the highest rates?

I have had discussions with people who point out that in recent years, Britain has become one of the unhealthiest nations in Europe. We are the most obese nation in Europe, and we are the heaviest drinkers. As life expectancy has increased, more British women are waiting until later in life to become first-time mothers. Those could all be contributing factors to the horrid statistic of 11 stillbirths a day.

What research has been done into the reasons behind our high stillbirth rate? Why is there so much regional variation? More than anything, I want the Minister to assure me and the House that the Government have an ongoing commitment to reducing the number of stillborn children throughout the United Kingdom, and that he will do his best to ensure that best practice, which does exist, gets spread through the whole NHS, so that eventually, fewer parents need suffer this terrible fate.

11:10

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on securing this important debate and on the sensitive way in which he commented on a deeply distressing set of circumstances that, sadly, affect far too many families in this country. My hon. Friend has an active interest in this area, with his support both for his constituents who have suffered the tragedy of stillbirth and for the I Have Rights Too campaign, to which he alluded.

My hon. Friend asked for help from Department officials in an individual case. If he is kind enough to contact me with further details, I will be more than happy to ask my officials to look into what could be done to help. I cannot prejudge what might happen—there are too many unknown quantities—but he has my assurance that we will see whether there is anything we can do to help. I would certainly like to provide help if that is humanly possible.

For most people, having a baby is the most profound and important event of their lives. It is a time to make plans and look forward to a future with all the joys that having a child can bring. To lose a baby, at birth or shortly afterwards, is devastating for parents and the wider family. Anyone who has been fortunate enough not to have undergone such a tragic circumstance cannot fully appreciate the depth of devastation and despair of such a family; nothing could be worse in family life.

It is important for parents who have lost a baby to receive immediate and ongoing support and information at a time that is appropriate for their needs. Parents might find it helpful to talk to their GP or community midwife who, as well as providing support, can provide advice on the bereavement and counselling services available locally, such as those provided by specialist bereavement-support midwives.

To support the NHS in the provision of such services, in 2008 the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published “Standards for Maternity Care”, which sets out clear standards for the levels of care that should be provided to help patients and families whose baby is stillborn or dies shortly after birth. Comprehensive guidelines for professionals, on “Pregnancy Loss and the Death of a Baby” have been developed by Sands—the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Charity. For parents, the pregnancy care planner on the NHS Choices website provides information on stillbirth, to complement information provided locally, and signposts other sources of help, including Sands, which I hope individuals find helpful at what is a difficult time.

Forms and certificates are often greatly valued by parents as a way to acknowledge and commemorate the life of their baby. The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, as amended, provides for the registration of babies born dead after 24 weeks’ gestation, which is the legal age of viability. A certificate of registration and a certificate for burial or cremation are issued.

Parliament supported a change to the stillbirth definition from “after 28 weeks” to “after 24 weeks” in 1992, given a clear consensus in the medical profession at that time that the age at which a foetus is considered viable should be changed. The medical certificate of stillbirth records the name of the mother and details such as the weight, the estimated duration of pregnancy and when the child died—before labour or during labour—as well as the cause of death and whether a post-mortem has been or might be carried out.

Some parents find it deeply distressing that they cannot legally register the birth of a baby born before 24 weeks, as my hon. Friend mentioned; the definition involves a baby born before 24 weeks who did not breathe or show any signs of life. However, it is important to recognise that some parents would be distressed at the possibility of having to do so. When a baby is born dead before 24 weeks’ gestation, hospitals may issue a local certificate to commemorate the baby’s birth.

The devastating effect of any stillbirth cannot be overestimated, and we recognise the distress that parents might face when having to deal with the further impact of a post-mortem examination. The Human Tissue Act 2004, which applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, established the Human Tissue Authority to regulate the removal, storage, use and disposal of any body parts, organs and tissue. Consent is the fundamental principle underpinning the Act.

The HTA has issued codes of practice that provide practical guidance and lay down expected standards in relation to activities within its remit, such as the carrying out of a post-mortem examination. The code on post-mortem examination recognises the particular difficulties involved when pregnancy loss or stillbirth has occurred, and emphasises the need for sensitive communication and the provision of further advice and guidance for parents when necessary. That is especially important when the pathology results have implications for future pregnancies.

The funeral arrangements for a stillborn child are a matter for the parents, or for the relevant health or local authority if the parents are unable to meet the costs. Individual local authorities decide what burial facilities to offer, but public graves for the interment of stillborn and young babies remain in some areas. In many cases, sections of the cemeteries may be set aside for the burial of babies, and that can provide some comfort for bereaved parents. Whatever arrangements are made, we expect them to be provided with dignity and sensitivity.

I turn to the UK’s record. My hon. Friend made a number of valid points. He alluded to a recent series on stillbirth in The Lancet, which ranked the UK stillbirth rate 33rd worldwide, below many other high-income countries. Since 1999, there has been a small reduction in the stillbirth rate for England—from 5.3 per 1,000 total births, to 5.2 in 2009. However, over the past 50 years the rate has declined significantly; for example, in 1960 the figure for England and Wales was 19.8.

Historically, there has been a step in the right direction, but I fully understand the validity of my hon. Friend’s point: even if the rate has declined in the past 10 years, the difference is marginal, suggesting that considerable work has still to be done to bring the rate down further and to minimise the number of occasions on which families have such a traumatic experience. The Government want to improve health outcomes, which is a key focus of our NHS reforms. We have made the reduction of perinatal mortality, including stillbirth, an improvement area under domain 1 of the NHS outcomes framework for 2011-12.

What can be done to reduce the risk of stillbirth? First, every unexpected death of a baby should be investigated. The National Patient Safety Agency has published a pro forma for the review of intrapartum-related perinatal deaths, for use by health professionals, and it may also be used for the review of all perinatal deaths. The aim is to find any avoidable factors, to identify any lessons to be learned, and then to develop and disseminate an action plan to deal with issues arising from the information. Secondly, it is imperative that we continue to drive forward improvements in maternity and new-born services, so that all women and their children have access to safe, high-quality and locally led care.

In recent years, there have been encouraging improvements in antenatal care. The Care Quality Commission’s survey of women’s experiences of maternity services was published in December 2010, and found that 92% of women rated their maternity care as good or better. We should be proud of that, but more can be done and needs to be done to improve care during pregnancy, labour, birth and the postnatal period. It is important that women access maternity services at an early stage; we believe that that is one of the most fundamental characteristics of high-quality maternity care. We therefore included the maternity 12-week early access indicator as one of the measures for quality in the NHS operating framework for 2011-12.

Encouraging early access to maternity services will enable women who can be identified as being at increased risk of stillbirth to receive additional support and monitoring. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence will develop new quality standards on antenatal care, the management and care of women in labour and delivery, and postnatal care. Based on the best available evidence, the standards will play a key role in the Government’s vision of an NHS focused on improving outcomes for patients.

We believe that there should be more accountability within the NHS, and the outcomes framework will be used to hold the NHS to account for the outcomes that it delivers through commissioning health services from 2012-13. We also believe that the availability of a full range of services, as close to home as possible, is fundamental to safe, high-quality maternity care. To help to achieve that, we have made extending choice in maternity services a key priority for the NHS. Maternity provider networks will help to make safe, informed choice throughout pregnancy and in childbirth a reality, and will facilitate movement between the different services.

I am pleased to announce that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Public Health plans to host a meeting on stillbirth later this year. It will consider the issues in more detail and consider what more can be done to help reduce the number of stillborn babies and provide an opportunity for all pregnant women to receive accurate and timely advice on risk factors and simple measures to reduce risk—for example, stopping smoking.

Pregnancy is a vital time for health promotion. Parents are motivated to do the best for their children, so they are particularly receptive to information and advice. That means that maternity services, when delivered well and with a holistic approach, can help to tackle some of the biggest public health issues facing us as a nation, to do with nutrition, physical activity and health inequalities—not just for infants and children, but for all of us.

My hon. Friend asked about research in the Department and the NHS, and I shall briefly address that issue. First, the Department of Health continues to invest in research in this important area. The Department’s National Institute for Health Research in Cambridge has an ongoing programme to look at women’s health. A major focus of that research is understanding the factors linked to stillbirth, and to use that information to improve the clinical care of pregnant women. I hope that that goes some way to reassure my hon. Friend that research is ongoing and that we take the issue extremely seriously because of the implications and level of the problem in this country, given its high income and standard of living compared with other nations around the world. We can do better, and we must do better.

I want to speak about another issue that my hon. Friend did not raise specifically, but I hope that he will find it useful in the context of this debate. Financial support is of great importance to families who may have a financial problem when they suffer the devastation of a stillbirth or early birth. Information on financial support is made available through the “Money made clear” leaflet on

“Late miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal death: financial help available”.

It collates the information that parents may need from a range of cross-Government organisations and the voluntary sector. The leaflet contains information on whether, following late miscarriage, stillbirth or neonatal death, parents are eligible to receive free prescriptions and dental treatment, Healthy Start free vitamins and vouchers, statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance, statutory paternity pay, child benefit, the child trust fund and child tax credit.

That document is easily accessible in its format, so people do not have to be referred from pillar to post to find information and answers to questions that may be relevant to them, or uppermost in their minds when seeking a solution. It is worth putting that on the record so that people have an opportunity, when it is applicable or when they are suffering difficult financial circumstances, to be able easily to ascertain where and what they may do to access help at what is always a difficult time.

I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend for calling this debate. The issue is important simply because of the utter devastation, despair and misery that it causes to far too many families in this country. We take it extremely seriously, as I hope my hon. Friend recognises from the activities and actions that I have outlined and that the Department of Health and the NHS are pursuing. We continue to give the matter the highest priority, because we must do more to help families who face such a devastating and terrible loss.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

Waste Reduction

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Westminster Hall

14:29

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I am glad to have secured this debate, and that at least some hon. Members are hoping to contribute. This is a timely debate given the Government’s review on waste policy. It is also real nappy week; later, I will explain my reasons for referring to that. There is a pressing need for action. When launching the Government review, the Environment Secretary stated:

“There is an economic and environmental urgency to developing the right waste strategy.”

Or, to adapt the Prime Minister’s own words in another environmental context, the house is burning down. Given my views on incinerators, that is perhaps not the best analogy.

Waste is a pressing problem. One could refer to many of its aspects, such as the unrequired and/or excessive use of materials in packaging, the ubiquity of single-use items to which we seem to be addicted, or products that cannot be repaired, reused or used in a different way. Some products are difficult to recycle because of their complex use of materials. When preparing for this debate, I read about changes in the automotive industry where the use of plastics has been simplified so that recycling is easier. There are problems of inefficient energy recovery, and of waste being disposed of when it could have been treated differently.

As hon. Members will recognise, there is a hierarchy of waste disposal methods that runs from the most favoured options such as prevention or the preparation of something for reuse, through to recycling, other methods of recovery including energy recovery, and finally disposal. Much of the emphasis in the media and popular discourse concerns recycling, and in particular hitting—or missing—recycling targets. Such issues have obsessed us; I will refer later to targets in the context of Wales.

The popular debate also looks at inefficiency and the mystifying use of recycled materials. Some hon. Members will have seen pictures of ships full of plastics being sent to China. There is public disbelief that such things happen, but it is a relevant issue. I have also heard rumours about compostable material going straight to landfill. Last night, one of my constituents called me to say that compostable material in my local authority was being carried by lorry to Skelmersdale for dumping. I checked this morning with my local authority, and I was assured that that was not the case.

Controversies surround issues such as incineration and overflowing landfill sites, and when new landfill sites are proposed there are often local protests. I recently had experience of that in my constituency because a large quarry had been used for waste disposal for many years, and some people argued that it had been leaking into a local stream. That site has now been capped and closed, but finding a landfill site for the short period before another permanent site is found has been fraught with difficulty. I hope the problem has now been solved.

Much less popular attention is given to reducing the amount of waste generated by producing and using a product—from source to end of life—and I would be glad if the popular press gave that issue more attention. Less attention is also given to the construction industry, for example, which generates a large amount of waste. On a more positive note, efforts have been made by some areas of industry to achieve significant reductions in waste—I referred earlier to car manufacturers that have taken steps to reduce the numbers of plastics used, thus simplifying recycling.

Hon. Members may raise other issues this afternoon, but I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on what the Secretary of State described in her statement as

“new approaches to dealing with commercial waste and promoting ‘responsibility deals.’”

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He spoke about businesses disposing of waste. I have found that despite paying business rates, local businesses in my constituency are often asked to pay more and discouraged from recycling things such as paper, which we probably recycle automatically when throwing out our household waste. Because of the financial penalties, businesses are actively discouraged from taking a full part in recycling and reuse.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. We should not discourage recycling, but that should not necessarily be the first choice; generating less waste in the first place might be a wiser course of action. Some local authorities have withdrawn their charges for waste produced for the reasons mentioned by the hon. Lady.

I want to look at how we can prevent waste in the first place and at reuse, and I intend to use the example of real nappies—it is real nappy week. First, however, I will look broadly at the waste review, and it will be useful to refer to Wales as well as to England. I am a Welsh MP, and as hon. Members may know, in some respects Wales is well ahead of the game as far as the UK is concerned. The Welsh and UK Governments can learn much from each other, and the waste review provides an opportunity for that.

What happens in one country is bound to have an effect—perhaps a profound effect—on the country next door. I hardly need point out that incinerators in Wales near to the border are bound to raise concerns downwind. For decades, farms in Wales suffered from the effects of the wind that blew from Chernobyl, and farms in my constituency suffered restrictions for many years. The wind blows as it pleases.

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way again. He talks about incineration, and hon. Members from all parties will know constituents who feel passionately about that issue once an incinerator is proposed on a nearby site—I am thinking of Shepshed in my constituency, where Biffa wants to place an incinerator. A couple of weeks ago, an article in the Sunday Express stated that the Health Protection Agency is going to work with researchers from Imperial college in London to look at the health effects produced by incineration and the health worries felt by those who live downwind from an incinerator.

[Hywel Williams]

Again, the hon. Lady makes an excellent point. We have long experience of such things in Wales. In the south-east an incineration plant caused tremendous worry to local people for many years because of the release of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. As I understand it, there are proposals to place a large incinerator in Merthyr Tydfil. There is also talk of an incinerator in the Wrexham area, which is upwind from large English conurbations and could have implications for people outside Wales. There has been much controversy over those plans and the possible health effects, and any research on the subject will be welcomed.

I want to refer to a recycling partnership that exists in my constituency between the local authority and social enterprises, and to the employment opportunities that that has provided. The Government have said that they have two ambitions: to have a zero-waste economy and to be the greenest Government ever. Obviously, tackling waste offers an opportunity to create a more resource-efficient and competitive economy, to create jobs and to save money.

It is gratifying that the generation of household waste continues to decrease and that the public’s enthusiasm for recycling is clearly growing. Recycling sites now rival garden centres at the weekend as places to socialise—I had a peculiar experience in that regard the other day. The recycling rate in England is 40.3%, according to the latest figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, that figure is behind the best in Europe—our ambition is to be the best, and the best rate in Europe is 70%-plus. The rate for Wales in the third quarter of 2010 was 45%, so in Wales we are slightly ahead of the game as far as England is concerned. The figure for the last quarter of 2010 in Wales was 42%. Of course, there is a drop-off in the winter months because there is less garden waste, but in Wales we are still somewhat ahead.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I want to refer back to a point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier. Does he not think that a more appropriate measure for any Government, be they a devolved Administration or the UK Government, involves consideration of waste arisings, rather than recycling? As he said, the issue is avoiding waste going into the waste stream in the first place, whether it consists of products for recycling or otherwise. For example, rather than recycling products through recycling banks, one could take part in a bottle deposit scheme, as I do in respect of my doorstep milk collections; reusing bottles rather than recycling them is surely a better option than simply measuring recycling rates.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Of course, there are questions about the durability of the bottles being recycled. Will we get the right bang for our buck by recycling? There are questions about transportation, the weight of glass and so on. However, the thrust of the point is excellent. I am old enough to remember getting a penny, or a penny ha’penny, back on a bottle of lemonade and I look back to those days with—well, I am showing my age now.

The targets for Wales are 70% recycling by 2025 and zero waste by 2050, so they are very ambitious. Without praising the previous Plaid Cymru-Labour Government too much, I shall say that Wales is the first country in the UK to adopt statutory recycling targets for municipal waste, following a Measure passed by the Assembly. It was one of the first measures that the Assembly managed to pass on its own. The Waste (Wales) Measure 2010 received royal approval in December. The first statutory recycling target set under that Measure is 52% by 2012. Clearly, therefore, there is a pace of activity in Wales that I am sure will be interesting to people over the border.

Wales is also the only country in the UK in which every local authority offers a separate food or food and green waste collection. That is the case throughout the country. It was the first country to introduce the landfill allowance scheme and it looks as though it will be the first to introduce a carrier bag charge, in October 2011. We will see, of course, but that is the intention and it has widespread support. My local authority, Gwynedd, achieved a recycling rate of 44% in 2010-11 and, I hope, will achieve the target of 52% in 2013.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us a little about how the clearly more progressive, more advanced policies in Wales are being received by the general public? What binds the general public to those higher aspirations?

[Hywel Williams]

Speaking generally, I think that there is a political consensus in Wales anyway. In the recent election, it was sometimes difficult to see the difference even between a party of government and a party of opposition. There is a consensus on these issues and there is a tradition. I was talking to someone about this the other day. We used to call the rubbish not the rubbish, but the salvage—what we would be salvaging from rubbish. There is a long tradition of that. I have no idea what the basis is for what the hon. Gentleman refers to, but perhaps what is important is the outcome—a higher recycling rate.

My local authority is introducing weekly food collections. There had been concern about bi-weekly collections and possible dangers to health. The authority is bringing in weekly food collections, with a target for the amount collected by 2013. As I said earlier, it works with two third-sector organisations: Antur Waunfawr and Seren. They sort high-quality plastics and will be moving to lower-quality plastics quite soon. They also collect textiles. Those activities produce not only an income stream for the organisations involved, but 35 jobs for people with learning difficulties at Antur Waunfawr, so it is a win-win situation.

Antur also runs a furniture recycling scheme and a confidential waste shredding scheme for 450 customers throughout north Wales, including MPs such as myself, and it is now employing five young people on apprenticeships in recycling. There is a great deal of progress. The chief executive of Antur, Menna Jones, recently said to me—I am translating—“I don’t know about the big society, but small social enterprises are achieving a lot.” There is a good deal to emulate over the border.

At the same time, Friends of the Earth is pressing for another approach—halving residual waste by 2020. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that. Targeting the reducing of residual waste—black bag waste that cannot be recycled—would reward waste prevention, reuse and recycling, as well as reducing the use of landfill and incineration. Friends of the Earth argues that zero waste must not mean zero waste to landfill, with some being diverted to incineration. It points out the inverse correlation between incineration and recycling.

Denmark has a very high level of incineration but a low level of recycling. There might be a causal relationship there. Friends of the Earth points to other European examples. Flanders has a ban on landfill or incineration of unsorted waste; it also has a very big network of reuse shops. Irish local authorities can levy a charge on waste incineration, and similar taxes exist in Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. There is a great deal that can be learned not only over the border within the UK, but from other European countries.

I said earlier that this is real nappy week; indeed, that is what led me to apply for the debate in the first place. Earlier this year, I visited a small company in my constituency called BabyKind. I should say that I have no particular interest in that company, but I was impressed by its enterprise, by its commitment to its products and customers and by its enthusiasm for the wider cause of promoting environmental sustainability.

Some people might think that my referring to real nappies in this debate is eccentric or even frivolous. However, the waste produced by throwaway nappies is a significant burden. The Nappy Alliance says that 3 billion nappies are thrown away every year—8 million a day—making up 4% of household waste. That is a huge amount—a huge negative contribution to the mountain of waste. Throwaway nappies that go to landfill add to the problems that we all recognise: the increased pressure on landfill sites, the waste of land, the potential water pollution and the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane.

The Nappy Alliance also states that, according to the Environment Agency, the decomposition time scale for some of the materials and chemicals used in throwaway nappies is more than 500 years, so we are storing up problems for the future. In that respect, throwaway nappies are clearly misnamed when they are called “disposable”—they are far from disposable.

Debate on this matter has been distorted, although some would go further and say that it has been plagued by misinformation, unintended or otherwise. On Monday this week, an article in a national newspaper criticised local authorities for spending money on promoting real nappies. It claimed that

“taxpayers’ money was poured into real nappy campaigns even though the notion that re-useable nappies are better for the environment was discredited years ago.”

It further claimed that there was “overwhelming evidence” in 2007 that such campaigns “were pointless”.

I believe that that claim refers to the well publicised Environment Agency life cycle analysis report on nappies in 2006, which some Members might recall. The report was prominent in the press at the time—in 2006, not 2007—and it made similar assertions, if in a less striking way. However, when the report was revised in 2008, it showed that reusable nappies could be about 40% better for the environment than throwaways. News of that revision seems to have escaped the notice of Monday’s newspaper—although I am sure that it is simply the result of a busy journalist not doing his homework.

Real nappies will directly solve much of the landfill problem, being reused and even passed on to be used by other children, as recently happened in my family. Their use offers local authorities an excellent cost saving. According to the Nappy Alliance, the cost of disposing of throwaway nappies in England is £90 million per year. Real nappies also fit into the waste hierarchy at a much higher level than throwaways, which are poor fuel for incineration and tend to go for disposal. They are also higher in the hierarchy than recycling, and that too should be borne in mind, given that some look to incentivise recycling while ignoring waste minimisation and reuse. That is another point for the future.

I realise that I have ranged fairly broadly in my speech, but it is necessary to set the matter in context. However, I draw the Minister’s attention to the question posed by Friends of the Earth about the definition of zero waste. Is it zero to landfill, or is it in fact zero? I would also like to know what his Department is doing to promote the reuse of real nappies.

[Andrew George]

Before the hon. Gentleman draws his remarks to a conclusion, I wonder whether he would like to comment on the opportunities for business in recycling. For example, scrap metal merchants will be found in all constituencies and those who remember the Corona bottle referred to earlier will remember that licensed totters on every municipal site regularly recycled items. Those are honourable professions, but they are often pushed to the margins of society and treated badly. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that those people and professions should be harnessed and given a central place in our business response to the need to reduce the waste stream?

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The Steptoe image is way out of date; indeed, it was out of date in the 1960s. There is clearly a huge market for reused materials, and if the constabulary keep an eye on our manhole covers I would be very much in favour of continuing with it.

Will the Minister assure the House that his Department is working closely with the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Administration, as well as on a wide range of matters in the European context? There is one small niggle, but others might raise it. Welsh authorities are doing rather well—for instance, Anglesey and Denbighshire are now recycling 57 %—but there is a sneaking suspicion that this might lead other authorities to slacken in their drive to reach 50% by 2020. I hope that that does not happen.

14:54

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

I wish to raise four matters that relate to my constituency or are of personal interest. I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on securing this debate; as he has said, coming in real nappy week, it is timely.

The first of the four matters is landfill. I represent a west London constituency that still has considerable open spaces. It covers a large geographical area. For the past 40 years, it has been a site for gravel extraction, the gravel being used by the construction industry in London and the south-east. I have appeared at every planning inquiry for gravel pits in my area for at least 35 years, and only once did we prevent a gravel application from going ahead. Usually, the extracting companies are offered a five-year term for operating the site, but as more gravel is discovered, so permission is renewed and renewed again. In some areas, a whole generation can be blighted by mineral extraction.

Following extraction, the holes are used for landfill. Putting to one side the traffic and noise caused by gravel extraction, the landfill exercise generates more traffic, more noise and more pollution, particularly air pollution and dust. In that respect, I have had considerable problems in my constituency over the last 30 years. For instance, the Stockley site operated for a number of years after the second world war and into the 1970s, and we were plagued with dumping, which can be associated with illegal dumping, and then with methane fires under the ground. Because of such problems, we need to include stricter controls on the development of landfill sites. Under the Localism Bill, greater authority will be given to local authorities, councils and communities to have a say in refusing landfill developments.

The second matter is incineration, a subject which has already been mentioned. Planning permission was given to an incinerator at Colnbrook, which is outside my constituency but adjacent to it. In recent years, the site was given an extension. The prevailing wind means that pollution from the incinerator is blown across my constituency. I have often raised questions in the House about the health impact of the pollution from incineration during my 14 years as a Member.

Research has been undertaken into the high level of birth defects, most of which was refuted by the Department of Health, yet researchers still come up with increasing evidence of the association between incineration and local health problems. I urge the Government to use the review to ensure that the Department of Health supports additional research into the implications of incineration on the health of communities that live down wind. We heard earlier about the research that is being undertaken. It is still relatively small-scale, and I would welcome additional funding going to primary care trusts, or whichever body results from the health legislation, to assist them in undertaking research in areas with incinerators where pollution could have an impact on local communities.

The third of my concerns is about council provision. We have heard about excellent examples of recycling in Wales, but there is an inconsistency of approach between local authorities. We are all in favour of localism, but it would be welcome if the Government were to consider standardising the opportunity to minimise waste as well as recycling it. For example, there is still an inconsistency in my area in the number of recycling centres, and we do not have a food waste service, which is another inconsistency among the London boroughs. I hate to use the phrase, but there is a postcode lottery for policy on waste and for access to facilities to minimise waste or to recycle food waste, compost and so on. In my area, the figures are still significant. In my borough of Hillingdon, 44,644 tonnes of waste is recycled and 64,566 tonnes is disposed of either through incineration or landfill. Therefore, we are still disposing of more waste than we recycle. No attempt is being made to assess what could be achieved through minimisation and prevention, which leads me on to a personal campaign. I support the Nappy Alliance, which is a representative organisation of the reusable nappy sector.

My youngest child was in reusable nappies 15 years ago, which is when I became an advocate of reusable schemes, working through the National Childbirth Trust. It is blindingly obvious that we would have a big impact on the environment if we could promote the use of reusable nappies and provide disincentives for the use of disposable ones.

The Nappy Alliance has brought forward its own charter, which I support. It believes that there should be a 1p tax on disposable nappies to try to prevent the harm that they do to the environment. We should urge the Government to exhort local authorities to work with local community organisations to see what can be done to support the development of reusable nappies. We have seen the figures about the impact on the environment and the savings that could be provided.

The cost of disposing of disposable nappies is estimated to be around £100 million. If the promotion of reusable nappies leads to a 10% reduction in disposable nappies, we could save £10 million, which is worth considering. The savings could be significantly more as people begin to understand the benefits of using reusable nappies.

I urge the Government to enter into discussions with local authorities, the voluntary sector and private industry to see whether we can promote local schemes for reusable nappies. In that way, we will assist in reducing landfill, incineration and overall pollution.

[Hywel Williams]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if this is to be a long-term change, there needs to be a cultural change among young parents? It has taken many years for people to get out of the habit of using the old-style terry nappies. Therefore, we need a sustained effort by third sector organisations, charities, local authorities and central Government to achieve such a change.

[John McDonnell]

It requires a sustained effort, of course, but it should not be an arduous task. In fact, it could be a relatively easy exercise of advocacy. We could make use of the various mechanisms that already exist, particularly to improve the level of parenting. For example, the Sure Start centres and our local nurseries and schools could be used. The task could be relatively easy, if there were a concerted effort by local authorities and community organisations.

It is not like the old days, when we had to swill nappies around in buckets. The design of reusable nappies has moved on dramatically since then. Once parents have been introduced to them, they will see the benefit of them. Parents of younger children often look to see what wider goals there are in life. They want to ensure that they preserve the planet for their children, and they are just at that period in their lives when they are open to the arguments about waste prevention, the protection of the environment and overcoming climate change.

We need clear statements from national Government that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed and from local government about what can be done in the local area. They need to work together on a national plan that can be rolled out on a local level, with the support of the local voluntary sector as well as the private sector industries.

In my area, there are increasing pressures on our local environment as a result of illegal dumping. In their waste review, the Government must look at every measure they possibly can to minimise waste rather than putting the pressure on recycling. Certainly they must do everything they can to prevent landfill and incineration. In the past, I have been a supporter of the landfill tax, but I can see how that has resulted in further illegal dumping.

With the M25, M4 and the A40 all passing through my west London constituency, a large number of illegal dumpers have been able to take waste from central London, drive along the A40, the M4 or the M25 and then fly-tip the illegal rubbish in my constituency. No matter how much we put in place by way of detection and legal action against fly-tippers—some of the legislation that the previous Government introduced was excellent in giving us the tools to do that—the real solution is about minimisation and preventing the build-up of waste products. The disposable nappy might seem a small matter, but if we minimised its use and transferred to reusable nappies, we would be making a major contribution to the future waste policy of this country.

15:06

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on securing this debate. These are vital issues that deserve much greater attention than they currently receive, and the need for action in this area is pressing. Let me also say that it is a pleasure to face the Minister again. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has made some interesting and compelling points about the issues facing his own constituency.

As the father of four children, the youngest of whom is five months old, I have to say that nappy week poses a real challenge in terms of trying to convince people of the benefits of moving towards more sustainable nappy use. The Minister knows that he will have my support and the support of Opposition Members when the Government seek to do the right thing. None the less, one year into this Conservative-led Government, we can see that environmental policies do not rate highly on their agenda. Regrettably, over the past 12 months, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has become a struggling Department. It has been described as being in special measures. It has settled for the biggest departmental budget cut across Whitehall; it has struggled to articulate policy; and it has been forced into a series of U-turns. It is a picture of absolute chaos. I genuinely regret the fact that the Department that is meant to be the custodian of the green agenda is in such a poor state.

In his recent review of the Government’s environmental record, Jonathan Porritt summarised the situation most succinctly.

15:07

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:18

On resuming—

[Mr Reed]

In an excellent piece of work undertaken for Friends of the Earth, Jonathon Porritt reviewed the Government’s environmental record one year in:

“the bad and the positively ugly indisputably outweigh the good…It is…unavoidably depressing to see just how rapidly things have gone backwards since May 2010.”

Few would disagree with that assessment, and the ongoing inertia over waste policy illustrates the point further, with the Government routinely being accused of lacking ambition, as long-running disputes between DEFRA and the Department for Communities and Local Government continue—disputes that usually end with an outright DCLG victory.

The hon. Member for Arfon is right that waste policy must be based on a whole-systems approach. That means that it should concentrate not simply on recycling, but on reusing resources and reducing the resources used by society. In short, it should consider how we use the resources available to us in the most sustainable, environmental and economic ways possible, and not simply how we deal with the waste produced by utilising resources.

The Labour Government’s record in this area was very good and was widely recognised as such. The Independent reported last year that

“waste management was one of the real success stories of the last government, which in a mere decade managed to raise the amount of household waste going for recycling…to nearly 40 per cent”.

Next month is the publication of the Government’s much vaunted and much delayed waste review, which has so far, regrettably, failed to set the political world alight. That is a mutual regret for everyone involved in this policy area. There are issues about the review to raise here, and no doubt there will be more issues after the report’s publication. Will the Minister confirm that it will be more than a “series of case studies”, as some within DEFRA have briefed? Building on that, will the waste review replace the 2007 waste strategy? If so, what is the time scale? Local authorities, businesses, communities and individuals require certainty on this, and they are not receiving it now.

On the subject of certainty, I hope that the Minister will enlighten the Chamber on the recycling targets for local authorities in England. Will the waste review cover the targets and, more importantly, does DEFRA believe in such targets for local authorities in England? Can he guarantee that the waste framework directive will apply to England as well as to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all of which have significantly more ambitious recycling targets than the mandatory 50% by 2020? Is he content for Britain’s minimum 50% target to be met by home nations other than England exceeding that minimum requirement?

Surely the Minister does not want England to lag behind, but wants to enable the English regions to benefit from the economic opportunities that the waste industry presents, which the devolved Administrations seem to acknowledge and enthusiastically pursue. Will he state categorically today that, however it is achieved, England will meet the minimum requirements of the directive? If DEFRA has rolled over again because the Department for Communities and Local Government has once again trumped it, and recycling targets for England are to be abandoned, will he assure us that the UK will meet the directive’s minimum target?

What is the future of the joint municipal waste management strategies, which currently require local authorities in two-tier local authority areas to work together? What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the strategies’ removal on recycling rates and other performance goals? The fear among non-governmental organisations, environmental activists and others who care about this area is that political dogma is being placed above real outcomes, results and improvements to our environment, which is distorting environment and waste management policy.

The economic opportunities that effective resource management present are significant. The hon. Member for Arfon is right about the discourse in the country at large in all the nations of the UK. We need to change the terms of the debate and the frame of reference, which is a common responsibility for both Government and Opposition Members. Friends of the Earth estimates that 50,000 new jobs might be created across the economy, if recycling rates were to rise to 70%.

The CBI is even more optimistic about the benefits of a comprehensive approach to resource management policy. It recently warned the Government about the timidity in their approach to waste policy, and it rightly identified a series of quick wins that the country might secure if the Government were bolder and more ambitious—if they choose to show that boldness and ambition, we will certainly support them. The CBI identified providing massive business opportunities, meeting climate change targets, bolstering energy security and unlocking infrastructure investments from the private sector as just some of the benefits of a comprehensive waste policy.

As 300 of the UK’s largest existing landfill sites have to close, the CBI estimates that it will require £1 billion of investment in approximately 2,000 new waste management plants over the next 10 years to meet Britain’s minimum waste framework directive targets. We have fewer than 10 years in extraordinarily difficult economic circumstances to find an average of more than £1 billion a year to invest in the infrastructure that we need to meet our targets. That will require private and public investment, so how, credibly and specifically, do the Government intend to achieve it?

Where is the detailed Government strategy that sets out the investment required by and the roles and responsibilities of the public and private sectors? Will the Minister provide us with details of how the change will happen and what discussions he has had with the Treasury about the contribution that it will inevitably have to make towards the effort? The issue needs effective project management, not political abandonment. Will he also update the Chamber on the infraction proceedings caused by the Government’s late transposition of the waste framework directive into law?

The Minister is aware that energy from waste is an incredibly exciting policy area, so will he spell out Government policy? Many hon. Members have mentioned it, but can he be clear about what, specifically, Government policy on waste incineration is? Ambiguity is not an option. What assessment has his Department made of the impact that the review of feed-in tariffs is having on investment in energy from waste projects? I was fortunate enough to visit a multimillion pound anaerobic digestion plant on a farm in Haselmere only yesterday—it is a superb scheme which I urge him to visit. It is clear to me and to others that continued uncertainty is damaging confidence in investment in the sector.

I know that the Minister is a good man and wants to do the right thing. We both know that the Government have relegated their environmental policy concerns. I have asked specific questions, and I look forward to specific answers now.

15:19

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on securing such an important debate.

The Government are reviewing all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England, including how we can encourage waste prevention and reuse. The review’s findings will be published in June. As waste is a devolved issue, the review focuses on England only, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that my officials meet regularly with those from the Welsh Administration and other devolved Administrations to learn about experiences elsewhere. I congratulate him on the good case studies he shared with us today of Welsh local authorities that are achieving fantastic results for recycling, and in other environmental areas. We can learn from those and from the good case studies in England. What is important is that we are all keen to prevent waste where we can.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the hideous spectacle of recyclates being placed on ships to China, and I entirely understand where he is coming from, but the first thing we need to consider when we think about that is that it is better that that is happening than that they are buried. If recyclable material can be constructed into something useful, there is a business opportunity, and to make recycling work, we need business opportunities. We obviously want to reduce the number of recycling miles, but it is not an entirely bad story if we are exporting materials that get used, and those materials fit in with the import-export structure of our shipping industry. There are new approaches to business waste, which will come out in the review. There is also a lot of good news on the co-responsibility deals the hon. Gentleman discussed.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned that it is real nappy week. I would like to be able to stand in front of the House and say that I, as a father of five, was entirely virtuous and forced my poor wife—wives, if I am being perfectly honest—to use terry nappies, but I did not. I believe that I played my part in that function of parenting, but both wives would probably disagree. Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves whether we want to impose reusable nappies on future generations of parents. I think that the point made by the hon. Members for Arfon and for Hayes and Harlington is that this is a question of education and incentives.

Of course, reusing nappies is not a total-sum game. If we managed to persuade many more parents to reuse nappies, there would be increased use of water and possibly increased use of non-biological washing powders. So, it is not a total-sum game. Nevertheless, it is much better than burying large amounts of disposable nappies, which of course contain chemicals.

I want to give the hon. Member for Arfon an absolute assurance about what we mean by zero waste. Zero waste does not mean that no waste exists—we are all realists. It means a society where resources are fully valued, financially and environmentally. One person’s waste is another person’s resource. Nothing is actually wasted over time; we get as close as we can to zero landfill; and there is a new public consciousness about waste. That is how we define zero waste.

On the subject of nappies, it is also worth considering the work that the Government are doing with the clothing sector. In the UK, we buy some 2 million tonnes of clothing a year. That has a huge impact on our environment right through the supply chain—from production to the end of a product’s life. We discard 1 million tonnes of unwanted clothing a year; 50% of it ends up in landfill and only 24% is reused or recycled. The clothing sector in the UK produces about 3.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, about 1 million tonnes of waste and 70 million tonnes of waste water. However, those sums are minimal compared with the impact of the clothing sector overseas, where 90% of the clothing that the UK consumes comes from. When we talk about waste, it is important that we understand the breadth of what we are dealing with.

The hon. Members for Arfon and for Hayes and Harlington both mentioned incineration, as did the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who said that he wants a very clear statement about how incineration fits in with our waste policy. That will be clearly defined in the waste review; that is its purpose. However, I can say today that incineration is part of the mix and part of the waste hierarchy, as all hon. Members will know well.

The question a lot of people ask about incineration is on the public health aspect. I can tell the hon. Member for Copeland that in 2009 the Health Protection Agency reviewed the scientific evidence of the health effects of modern municipal waste incinerators. I want to emphasise the word “modern”, because there have been problems in the past with incinerators. The HPA’s report on incinerators is available on its website. It concluded that although it is not possible to rule out completely any adverse health effects from incinerators, any potential damage from modern, well-run and highly regulated incinerators is likely to be so small as to be undetectable. I know that that will not make many of the protesters against incineration schemes go away quietly, and there are many other factors to be taken into consideration in siting an incinerator in a certain place. However, the fact remains that modern incinerators are highly regulated. They are not monitored monthly or weekly, but all the time. The Environment Agency is extremely strict in ensuring they are safe. One incinerator recently opened in Sheffield, and another in Bristol. They are a very important part of how we deal with waste, in a society that simply cannot afford to bury it any longer.

We have made great progress in this country in increasing recycling rates, but the best thing we can do with waste is to prevent its arising in the first place. In accordance with the waste hierarchy we have just discussed, and which is now enshrined in UK law, preventing waste helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to save money. It helps us to conserve scarce natural resources and it reduces damage to the environment. Through our waste review, we have engaged widely with individuals, communities and businesses, and we have received more than 300 responses to our call for evidence. Many of those who responded supported our view that we need to focus more on preventing waste from occurring in the first place. Waste prevention covers many types of activities and behaviours. It means improving production efficiencies in business; designing products so they work efficiently and last for as long as possible; repairing products when they are broken; reusing products to give them a second life; and not buying products we do not need.

The Government cannot deal with waste prevention alone. The public, private and voluntary sectors need to work together to make it easy for people to do the right thing. A great example of that is the existing work on food waste prevention. Food is a valuable resource. Every tonne of food that ends up in landfill damages the environment by producing the equivalent of four tonnes of CO₂. UK households throw away more than 8 million tonnes of food every year, most of which could have been eaten. Preventing that food waste could save the average family £680 a year.

The “Love Food Hate Waste” campaign is run by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ delivery body, the Waste and Resources Action Programme in England. WRAP is working with businesses, householders, civil society groups and local authorities to reduce the amount of food wasted. More than 300 local authorities in England are running “Love Food Hate Waste” initiatives to help local residents buy the right amounts of food and to make the most of what they buy. I have seen such initiatives myself, working locally, and they are excellent schemes. Between 2007 and 2009, all these actions reduced food waste by more than 380,000 tonnes a year, saving consumers more than £860 million and preventing more than 1.6 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions a year.

We want to do even more to prevent waste by working with businesses and consumers. For example, WRAP has recently collaborated with Hovis to examine why consumers waste £1.1 billion of bread and bakery products each year, and to consider how manufacturers can help consumers to waste less of their products. Organisations such as FareShare, which is a social enterprise, also make an important contribution to preventing food waste. They work with industry to redistribute good quality surplus food that would have been wasted by giving it to people who might otherwise go hungry.

The Courtauld commitment, a voluntary initiative with retailers and manufacturers in the grocery sector, has also helped to reduce food waste. Phase 2, which was launched last year, aims to encourage further significant reductions in food waste. However, the Courtauld commitment is not only about food waste. It is a key contributor towards our efforts to reduce packaging waste and the carbon emissions associated with packaging production. Packaging makes up between 18% and 20% of household waste, and about 10% of commercial and industrial waste. Reducing packaging can have both economic and environmental benefits. By using only as much packaging as is necessary to protect goods, businesses can save money on raw materials and transport costs. Less packaging means that local authorities and businesses have less waste to deal with. For example, B&Q has just announced that it has swapped the cardboard packaging it used to use to transport kitchen components for a reusable packaging system. That has prevented 435 tonnes of cardboard waste and saved the company about £80,000 per year.

WRAP supports and encourages innovation in packaging design, with the aim of ensuring that packaging uses as little material as will do the job, and that it can be reused and recycled easily. We are looking not only at the packaging that surrounds products, but at the products themselves. We need to encourage companies to design products differently to avoid waste. Products need to last longer—to be upgradeable, repairable and reusable. Working with WRAP, we are helping organisations to develop new business models for a greener economy.

For example, under the sustainable clothing action plan I referred to earlier, more than 40 organisations are now taking voluntary action, including reducing production and packaging waste. If an unwanted item is still in good condition, it does not have to end up in landfill; it can be reused. Civil society organisations play a vital part in preventing waste through the reuse of goods. Charity shops and reuse organisations enable individuals to donate and buy items that other people no longer need, which provides social and environmental benefits. For example, the London Waste and Recycling Board is setting up a reuse network for the benefit of households across London.

There are lots of things that householders can do to prevent waste and to reuse products, but we know it is not always simple to do them. That is why the waste review will consider how we can make it easier for people to do the right thing.

The hon. Member for Copeland made a number of points, and I say just this: he is rapidly running out of ideas with which attack to this Government, because each time he does so we cut him off at the pass. He will have to eat his words about the greenest Government ever because, given the publication of the natural environment White Paper, the ecosystems assessment, the biodiversity plan and the many other documents— including the waste review, which has the environment absolutely at its heart—he sounds increasingly shrill in his rather weak attacks. It is simply not good enough to posit something utterly nonsensical to the House as if it were fact. He says that there are endless disputes between my Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government, and I can assure him that that is not the case. The two Departments are working together very closely—on a great many areas, including the Localism Bill, which is currently being debated in the House—and we have a good, sensible, hard-working relationship, which brings benefits both to the environment and to many other areas of our work.

I return to the important, and I hope bipartisan, issues that unite us. Waste prevention is not just for householders; it is for businesses to take action on too. More than 600 organisations have signed up to WRAP’s halving waste to landfill commitment for the construction industry. The signatories have committed to reducing the amount of waste they send to landfill, and they are well on track to halving it by the end of 2012.

With the help of the national industrial symbiosis programme, more companies are able to use other firms’ by-products as resources in their own businesses, diverting 35 million tonnes from landfill, eliminating 1.8 million tonnes of hazardous waste and saving businesses £780 million. We cannot afford to miss out on the opportunities offered by waste prevention, and we are working towards a waste prevention programme, which will be in place by the end of 2013 at the latest. We will set objectives to help us deliver economic growth while reducing waste and its negative impacts. We look forward to saying more when we have published our waste review. I can assure hon. Members that if I have not been able to answer their questions today, a cursory look through that comprehensive document, which will set forth before the House a strategy for the coming years, will do so.

Waste prevention can help us to make progress towards a greener, zero-waste economy. It conserves natural resources, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and saves local authorities, businesses and householders money, and the waste prevention programme will help us to achieve those goals. The Government look forward to working in partnership with others to tackle this important agenda, and I urge hon. Members to look at the waste review when it is published and see the value of a proper strategic cross-government approach to this very important issue.

15:42

Sitting suspended.

Manufacturing Sector

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to have secured my first Westminster Hall debate on this important subject, and to serve, as a fellow north-west MP, under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. Before I say anything about manufacturing, its status and its role, I want to explain that I did not apply for this debate so that we could have a party political row. I want to get into some of the specific technicalities of what the Government are doing in relation to manufacturing. I hope that the Minister will take what I have said at face value and that he also wants to engage with the issues, not the party political stuff that we often get caught up in.

I want to concentrate on two specific aspects of manufacturing. I want us to acknowledge that this is a time of opportunity for manufacturing. Over the past decade, we had a relatively high pound—sterling was riding pretty high. Now it is lower, which offers an opportunity. I also think that strategic changes in the global economy to do with the cost of fuel and transportation and the price of carbon offer us real opportunities in the supply chain. At this time, we as politicians must weigh in behind manufacturing as a sector. I hope that everybody present agrees with that sentiment.

The first aspect that I want to look at relates to career choices, young people and reputation issues for manufacturing, but my real focus will be on the second aspect, which relates to exports, UK Trade and Investment and Government support. There is much else to be said about what manufacturing in Britain needs, but I am sure that we will address those at other times in the House.

First, on reputation, less than 3% of people in London work in manufacturing, but many people work in the media and are journalists, so when it comes to talking about the presence of manufacturing businesses in Britain, the popular media gives us an unfortunate feeling and sense that Britain does not make anything anymore. I know that hon. Members present know that that is just not true. If anyone doubts that, let me put on the record how wonderful it is for me as a constituency Member of Parliament to visit Unilever, where we make a huge range of products that people buy every day in supermarkets. Those products are made in Britain, in my constituency, and we are very proud to have them. Not far from my constituency, Airbus makes the wings for the A380. It is inspiring for young people in Wirral to see my constituents go to Airbus and make those amazing aircraft, which are sold all over the world. Every time someone gets on an Airbus aircraft to go on holiday, they are likely to be on an aeroplane whose wings were made by some of my constituents. I say this to all Members: let nobody tell us that we do not make things in Britain; we do. We make amazing things. One reason why I applied to secure this debate was to start a discussion about how we can get that story told in a better way.

The situation is having an impact on young people and employment. Throughout the country, young people feel that their options are limited. They are limited not only because it is a tough time for our economy, but by knowledge. Without getting into the whole debate about careers, I think that young people face some difficult choices and are not necessarily aware of the opportunities that exist for them in manufacturing. I do not blame teachers for that. Teachers have a huge amount to do, and we cannot possibly ask them to know the latest data about manufacturing opportunities as well.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the Manufacturing Institute’s “Make It” campaign, which has run successfully in the north-west—without much public subsidy, I might add—and with the support of partners including Jaguar Land Rover, Siemens, Tetra Pak, Cogent, Robert Wiseman Dairies, James Walker, Chemicals Northwest, Aircelle, C-TEC and many others. Those are all fantastic companies and they are working with the Manufacturing Institute to engage young people and give them real skills.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. The sentiment that she has expressed is most welcome, and I am sure that all hon. Members want to do their bit to increase the profile of manufacturing in this country. Will she join me in supporting the associate parliamentary manufacturing group’s “Made in Britain” competition? It will seek to showcase the best that we have to offer in manufacturing and, as a by-product, encourage young people to do the same. A career in manufacturing is an excellent way forward.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his steadfast support in Parliament for manufacturing. The associate parliamentary group is incredibly important to this discussion. The competition that he has mentioned is fantastic. We should all get behind it and make sure that people see that some of the things that are made in this country are fantastically diverse. It is not about telling a story about our past, but about telling a story about what is going on now.

A company in my constituency makes the chemicals that are sent to Korea to help make iPhones. How cool is that? I think that young people from local schools who visit the company are genuinely inspired about where a career in science could lead them. That is about making the things that we have and use now. It is not about old-style factories from many years ago. I should also mention the work of General Motors in engaging schools. It has one of the most productive car plants in Europe in Ellesmere Port. Showcasing our high level of technology not only helps abroad—we will talk about exports later—but helps to inspire young people so that they can see that they have a future in this country and in making things that we all need.

Will the Minister agree to meet me and the Manufacturing Institute at some point to discuss how we can advance its ideas for the “Make It” campaign? It has been particularly successful in the north-west, and I would like to see those opportunities widened to people elsewhere in the country. The approach to schools has to be business-led. We cannot ask heavily-laden head teachers to do any more than they are already doing. We have to enable businesses in manufacturing to take the lead and to assist head teachers.

Something else that we might want to consider as a country is how we can get more business leaders from manufacturing to become school governors. There are a couple of examples on my patch that I think are particularly successful. It enables that body of knowledge to be used by schools and young people as a natural link that does not have to be forced.

The second issue that I want to address relates to exports and Government support. UK Trade and Investment recently produced an interesting strategy, and all of us who care about UK manufacturing and exports need to pay attention to it. It is an important document, because UKTI is in the lead now in terms of exports from this country. That could not be more important at a time in which we are seeing financial difficulty throughout Europe and in this country. I have said that I do not want a party political debate, but we have decided to change the structure of regional support in England. The Government have decided that regional development agencies were not the answer, and we now have local enterprise partnerships. I am grateful for the one that has been set up in my area, in the Liverpool city region. There is a changing picture and we need to work out how UKTI’s strategy will work. I have a few questions about that, which I will ask the Minister in a moment.

Before I do, I want to say briefly that one of the biggest opportunities in manufacturing right now is the supply chain. I mentioned in my opening remarks the place of sterling now compared with what it was some years ago and the business case for the supply chain shifting to the UK in the light of fuel and other transport costs. Some work could be done on that. I hope that businesses around the country and the Government are working to make that business case because it could go unnoticed; for many years, people have had an assumption that the best thing for any business is to source overseas because labour costs are cheaper elsewhere.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I could not agree more when she says that the perception is sometimes that this country does not make anything anymore. Part of the reason for that is past changes to supply chains; people perhaps think that we do not manufacture anything at all. How can we get a wider understanding of how the supply chain works? The example that my hon. Friend gave from her constituency of how one specific part of manufacture leads to a much bigger picture was powerful. On the whole, manufacturing is a very successful story for this country.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a difficult story to tell. When a journalist or somebody from the media is taken to Vauxhall Motors or any number of big, exciting manufacturing locations, they can see what is happening. However, in the future, there will increasingly be smaller, more specialist suppliers. In addition to fuel costs, the quality of the product is another driving factor behind the business case for moving the supply chain closer to sites of production.

As we move towards higher-tech production and try to meet some of the challenges of the greener economy, we need a better quality of product. In terms of quality control, we might be looking at smaller, more specialist producers. It is difficult to tell that story, but it has to be done. As the BBC moves northwards, I hope that there will be lots of opportunities for those of us from the north-west to get these stories out there. It is a difficult challenge, but it is about telling a story of high quality.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate and I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. On the supply chain issue, I represent a manufacturing area so I know that it is important to consider the green economy, particularly renewables. Much of the investment in renewables will come from the Government and electricity bill payers. We need to have the imagination to ensure that those jobs come to the UK and to invest in the supply chain, which my hon. Friend has mentioned adroitly in her presentation.

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend’s intervention is important. I will come to some of my specific questions for UKTI, about how it recognises not just the sectors that are already successful at a high level, but the sectors that are strategically placed for the future, even though they might be small at the moment. Green energy is certainly one of those. How are we going to ensure that Britain is selling green energy technology to Brazil, Russia, India and China in the future? We do not do much of it at the moment, but do we want to do it in the future? That is an important question to ask in terms of strategy.

I shall shift away from the supply chain specifically and on to UKTI’s strategy, which is contained in an interesting document that is important for all of us. I want to ask the Minister the following questions. The strategy identifies five groups with subsectors relating to five parts of the economy, one of which is manufacturing. Of those five groups, what will the resource balance be across UKTI?

It is easy to say that what we want is success and to drive resources towards the bits of the economy where we already have success in exporting parts abroad. We might also say that if we are really going to rebalance the economy, we need to take somewhat more of a risk with our resources and invest in those things with which we might not have had a history of high-level success over the past 10 or 15 years but in which we know we need to invest for the future. I would be interested in understanding a bit more about resource balance.

On monitoring, when we develop the strategy, how will we watch what happens and who will feed back to Parliament and to businesses on the ground? There has sometimes been a bit of a disconnect in terms of understanding to whom UKTI is responsible, who its customers are and how it feeds back successes. When will that happen? We do not want to spend all our time bearing the costs of monitoring, with a thousand tick boxes and charts.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this valuable debate. As the owner of a manufacturing business, I have an enormous interest in everything that she has to say. One question that I would like to add to her list of things to mention is about cash flow. Although that is not a new problem, small manufacturing businesses are suffering from badly extended payment terms, with the average number of days until payment being around 88. That is astonishing and is affecting some good local manufacturers in a very bad way—some have been forced out of business. A European late payments directive has come into force, but it does not seem to be addressing the issue. I hope that she agrees that that matter needs addressing.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is absolutely right. She has reminded me of an important point that I wanted to make about UKTI—how we check its work and ensure that we, as Members of Parliament, have full oversight. She is right about payment times; they can be absolutely make or break. I have seen that with companies in my constituency.

If there is a European directive, we, as a country, need to make Europe work for us. I suggest that in the British civil service, there has been a culture of applying directives absolutely to the letter in a way that is very formulaic, rather than saying, “Great, we’ve got this European system. How do we make this work for us?” I gently suggest that other European nations have done rather better than us. We need to see Europe as an opportunity. If there are such directives, that is fantastic—let us make them work for business, rather than just accepting them being handed down and administering them to the letter without watching what impact they have on the ground for business. It is important for us, as a community of politicians, to watch that. Businesses often point out to me how British civil servants tend to treat the rules on state aid and state intervention differently from how civil servants do in other countries. That is an important issue to watch because we can disadvantage ourselves without even meaning to.

Aligned to that is the matter of how the UKTI strategy will affect different parts of the UK. I mentioned that only nearly 3% of people work in manufacturing in London, whereas one in 10 in the north-west and more than one in 10 in the north-east do; there is clearly a differential need. Many more people work in manufacturing in places close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage). We must recognise that if we have one strategy for the whole UK, we have to continue to watch how that helps different parts of the UK with different needs.

The strategy mentions working alongside the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the London Mayor on their plans for exports. That is fantastic and I support that approach. However, we obviously need UKTI to work with somebody in the English regions—the city regions. If UKTI is not working with regional development agencies, it needs to be working with local enterprise partnerships, which do not have anything like the same resources. They also do not have the same staff to call on the services of UKTI.

I have a final question. How will we check that we are not disadvantaging those parts of the country that do not have their own Parliament or Assembly? How empowered will UKTI staff be to add resources to the parts of the country that need them? I have heard anecdotal evidence that in the past UKTI has been quite centralised around Whitehall. It would be much better to see that service as a network of people embedded in local economic clusters. I hope that the Minister will support less bureaucracy from the centre and more empowerment to people working alongside companies to deliver the strategy. That is important.

In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those specific questions—if not now, at a later date. Manufacturing has a huge amount to offer this country. I know that the Government agree and I am grateful for that support. There is every reason to think that now is the time for a new impetus. Strategically and globally, we are well placed to improve our manufactured exports. They have a huge amount to offer the country—not just next year, but in the next 20 or 30 years.

In recent years, we have seen manufacturing go through a high level of productivity improvements, so we are very well placed at the moment to maximise impact. However, if we leave things to chance and have a do-nothing option, it will be business as usual and only the sectors that are already strong and influential will be so. I hope that we can all take this opportunity not to have business as usual and to empower both UKTI and the rest of Government really to work alongside manufacturing.

16:21

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

May I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing the debate on this important subject? I gather that this is her first debate in Westminster Hall. It is about an excellent subject.

The hon. Lady pointed out that in her constituency, as in others, modern manufacturing is crucial. She mentioned Unilever. We have learned about the role of GM Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port and that of Airbus nearby. All are at the cutting edge in their own fields. They are all businesses of which we should be proud and I know that they are directly important to her constituents. She is right to say that manufacturing should be a non-partisan issue. I share fully her desire to ensure that manufacturing is at the heart of Government policy. We are determined to ensure that we establish a more resilient economy so that when we face, as we will, different shocks and challenges, we have a broader economy. Manufacturing plays a vital role in that.

I would like to put on the record my own encouragement and support—my private office will regret this, no doubt—for the associate parliamentary manufacturing group, which is very important. It is absolutely right that hon. Members across the House should feel that they can play a part in promoting this vital part of our economy, and I happily commend the group’s work.

As the hon. Lady said, some would have us believe that we are not in the business of making things. They are wrong. In fact, this country remains one of the world’s leading manufacturing nations. Manufacturing generates approximately £140 billion of our economy—some 11% of gross value added. On exports, to which she rightly referred, manufacturing represents 55% of everything that we export to the rest of the world. Encouragingly, in the past year we have seen an increase in that programme—approximately 19% on a year-on-year basis. That is good news.

Let me turn to the specific points that the hon. Lady raised about the profile and status of manufacturing. In a sense, that is a broader and longer question. There are two issues. The first is to tackle head-on the outdated perceptions of what modern industry means. The second is how we equip people, so that industry gets the calibre and range of people that it needs.

Changing those negative perceptions—the hon. Lady is right about the media—will be a challenge; some of them are deeply embedded. For example, in 2009, the number of graduates in science, technology, engineering and maths actually represented 43% of those leaving our universities. Only 5%, however, go on into industry. Clearly many young people who have the potential skills that industry needs are going elsewhere. They have not seen industry as something for them. That is the mindset that we have to change. We have to show young people what is the case, rather than what they might think—to fire up their imaginations and ensure that they can see that there are genuinely rewarding careers in industry.

I would like to highlight the work of the Manufacturing Institute, to which the hon. Lady referred. I would be more than pleased to meet its representatives and the hon. Lady. They have already met officials in my Department, and I strongly commend their organisation’s work. I suspect that some of that work coloured my own views on what we needed to do when I was asked to take on this role a year ago. When I started, I wanted to showcase, in the large reception area in the Department, what we make. We have already been able to show a wide range of products, through a series of exhibitions.

The hon. Lady referred to the composite wings. After some challenges, not least having to take the door down, we installed one of the composite wings into the reception area to demonstrate what we make. We also exhibited the first zero-carbon motorbike made in this country. There are many other products that we want to exhibit and we are building up that programme so that people across business, and the wider public, can see what we do.

We want to go further. We have announced open days across industry so that factories, and those who work in them, can show their neighbourhood what they make. Rather than telling people, it is often wiser to show them; that is the heart of this argument. That will change perceptions. GM Vauxhall and Jaguar Land Rover are among the many automotive businesses who have signed up to this, which we are calling, “See Inside Manufacturing”. We will roll that out now over the whole manufacturing sector so that we can engage people and show those who have never stepped into a modern factory what it is really like.

We want to ensure that we tackle the myth about low salaries. As the Manufacturing Institute points out, there is a misconception. According to the Office of National Statistics, the median salary for professional engineers is just more than £36,000 a year, which is in the top 30% of UK salaries. As people’s careers develop, that rises to a median level of £55,000 for a skilled engineer, which is in the top 10%. Most people do not realise that, and that is the mindset that we are working with industry to change.

I am aware of the time, so I will just touch on the issue of skills and then move on to the issue of exports. The issue of skills is crucial. If we fire up the enthusiasm of the next generation of engineers, we need to ensure that they are equipped to do the job. We have focused on university technical colleges, so that we can deal with the vocational desire that many young people have while still at school age—14 and onwards. They will be able to get their hands dirty and do practical things that they can learn from. That is what UTCs are all about.

That needs to be harnessed by going further, so we are expanding massively the whole apprenticeship programme. There are excellent examples—I am aware of the one in Wirral, the Wirral Apprenticeship Scheme, which local businesses take up. We are looking to put £180 million, from the last Budget, on top of what we have planned for, so there will be approximately 250,000 additional places in the next four years. That will take the perception of young people through to equipping them with the skills that can benefit industry, too. We need to deliver on that through-thinking.

In the few moments I have left, I will touch on exports and the supply chain issue. The five-year plan set out by UKTI is crucial. The hon. Lady is right; if it were to be run from London without any genuine local roots, whether in Merseyside, Manchester or the midlands, it would fail in its task. We have made sure that UKTI is working with local enterprise partnerships across England, as well as our good friends in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so that they have a strong national voice abroad, but deep local roots in terms of local knowledge and information. In particular, that means that the international trade directors, who are the local keys to this, are already developing strong working relationships with local enterprise partnerships.

The hon. Lady mentioned the supply chain, which is very important. The automotive sector is crucial. In the past 12 months, I have pushed the industry and worked with it. We have now developed a road map. The industry has identified £1 billion-worth of goods that it currently imports to use in the vehicles that it assembles, and which it would be happy to procure in this country. That is a good example of how we can develop, and I want to build on it if I can.

In conclusion, I endorse totally the points raised by the hon. Lady. We need to ensure that people understand modern manufacturing and recognise it as a rewarding career. That is why we have been showcasing leading products and producers, promoting the benefits of STEM subjects, and working with industry to show that there are good and valuable careers. There is a lot more to do in this field, but this is a welcome debate and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House, across the political parties, can work together—not just in Parliament, but with the rest of industry as well.

Policing Costs (Football Matches)

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Westminster Hall

16:19

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Crausby. I am particularly grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this debate on contribution to the costs of policing football matches by premiership clubs. It is my first Westminster Hall debate, as it was that of the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who secured the previous debate.

To set the parameters of the debate, my proposals this afternoon only relate to premiership football clubs. Policing costs are associated with other sporting events, including lower league football matches. However, premiership football matches require a uniquely heavy police presence, because of the number of fans involved and the rivalries. The policing requirements of Wimbledon, the Ashes at Lord’s or even an international rugby match at Twickenham are much lower compared with those of premiership football. In general, sports spectators are not violent or confrontational, and other sports do not have the same problems as football and hence do not need to separate fans or have strict alcohol laws.

Premiership games require a huge police presence, and I am challenging the idea that the taxpayer should pay for the adverse effects of one party on another. My contention is not that all sporting fixtures should pay for the costs of policing their matches, because at the poorer end of the scale that could wipe out the profit made on a small-scale fixture. However, with the average salary of a premiership footballer now estimated at £55,000 a week, and with some earning as much as four times that amount, or a salary of more than £10 million a year, the affordability of premiership football clubs paying the full costs of policing their highly profitable businesses cannot be questioned in any way. My simple contention is that the total police costs attributable to the policing of a premiership football match should be met by the clubs and not by the taxpayer.

To give some background, the provision of policing at a football match, or at any other commercial event such as a music concert, is a special police service. Special police services are governed by section 25 of the Police Act 1996:

“The chief officer of police of a police force may provide, at the request of any person, special police services at any premises or in any locality in the police area for which the force is maintained, subject to the payment to the police authority of charges on such scales as may be determined by that authority.”

In effect, special police services are extra that police officers provide for security at commercial events. The event organiser must pay for the service at a price determined by the chief constable. If the cost is not met, the organiser can be denied a safety certificate and therefore cannot hold the event.

In 2008, the Association of Chief Police Officers made a submission to the Home Office about the Green Paper on the future of policing, calling for the introduction of full-cost policing. Full-cost policing would extend the definition of special police services beyond the so-called footprint of the event to include consequential policing: policing that is provided beyond the event itself, at train stations or town centres, to deal with crowds arriving at and leaving a commercial event. How is that ACPO submission currently viewed in the Home Office? How would a similar submission by ACPO today—for recovery of full-cost policing from football clubs—be regarded by Home Office Ministers?

Under current arrangements, football clubs are only legally obliged to pay for the policing in their footprint, which usually means inside the stadium and the surrounding car parks. However, the provision of consequential policing outside a football match—for example, at the nearest railway or tube station, in nearby pubs and bars or even in the city centre—is currently the responsibility of the police and is provided at their discretion and their cost. Clubs do not have to pay for that extra service, so the cost is paid for by the taxpayer. That has led to a disparity between what the police estimate the total cost of policing a football match to be, and what the clubs currently pay. In the 2007-08 season, it was estimated that the policing of 13 premier league football clubs cost the police £3.2 million in consequential policing. That difference was met by the taxpayer.

The disparity is the result of current case law—in particular, the case of the chief constable of Greater Manchester v. Wigan Athletic—but also of Home Office guidance on charging for the policing of football matches. The result, according to a report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on this issue in July 2009, is that

“some forces recovered less than half, some as much as two thirds of the costs of policing football”.

The current disparity, therefore, is between what the clubs are legally obliged to pay in policing costs and what the police actually estimate those costs to be, and it stems from grey areas in the current legislation and Home Office guidance. Can the Minister address that issue in his response, and ask his officials to look into clarifying such an important area?

What are the actual costs? Sunita Patel, the London correspondent for the Wolverhampton Express & Star, has recently submitted freedom of information requests to the West Midlands police on the issue. Her story, published yesterday, revealed some interesting results. Data obtained from the West Midlands police show that the force estimated costs of £1.14 million to police Aston Villa and West Bromwich Albion’s home fixtures in 2008-09. However, the force was only reimbursed £875,655, leaving a shortfall of £266,111. That quarter of a million pounds alone would pay for 10 police constables or seven sergeants. In essence, the police are recovering only three quarters of the costs of policing Villa and West Brom.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the biggest challenge is the lack of transparency—that a freedom of information request had to be submitted? Coupled with that, if he was granted his wish and football clubs in effect had to pay for their own policing, surely they should also have a greater say in how that policing is carried out.

[Mr Burley]

That is a fair point. One of the challenges to such arguments is that defining the cost of consequential policing is difficult. Is a fight in a bar at midnight between two guys wearing football shirts, a long time after the match, the responsibility of Villa and West Brom or of the police only? However, my argument, and what we found in the FOI figures, is that the police calculate such costs quite accurately. They know the costs for policing in the ground—the footprint—and outside, because we have obtained those figures under the FOI requests. A simple test would be to ask a police force what its extra deployment would be if there were a home match on a Saturday. The police would tell us straight away: they would have an extra 10 coppers at the station, a sergeant to oversee, and everything else. Those officers would not otherwise be deployed, so it is quite easy to calculate the extra costs.

Further figures obtained by Miss Patel for the most recent season, 2009-10, showed that West Midlands police recovered £1.23 million for policing the home games of Wolves, Aston Villa and Birmingham City. That is an increase of 40% on the previous season because of an extra west midlands club being in the top flight—I accept that that might change by the end of the week if Wolves or Birmingham go down. If the policing costs outside the football club premises went up by the same ratio, the taxpayer bill for the 2009-10 season would be an estimated £372,555. Extrapolated across the country and the 20 premiership clubs, that would equate to £2.5 million, which is equivalent to 106 police constables or 68 sergeants—at which point, such figures start to appear rather significant.

ACPO itself, in a BBC news article in October last year, estimated that it costs the police up to £25 million to deal with all football matches, but that they only recover £12 million to £15 million a year from the clubs. That is for all football matches, whereas my proposal is for premiership clubs only. Hammersmith and Fulham council estimates that the total cost of policing football matches in its borough, which, uniquely, has three premiership clubs, will be £5.69 million a season. Either way, the cost of policing football matches ranges from £2.5 million to £5.6 million to £15 million, depending on how many clubs and matches are included, and according to the different estimates by different forces of policing their local games. However, one thing from all those figures is abundantly clear. The taxpayer is subsidising wealthy football clubs to the tune of millions of pounds a year, and my simple question to the Minister is: why?

There is an issue and a principle. The issue is the disparity between what the clubs are legally obliged to pay in policing costs, and what the police estimate those costs to be. The principle is that the polluter pays. On the taxpayer subsidy provided to clubs through extra paid-for policing, my personal feeling is that the estimated consequential costs are far higher than freedom of information figures from the west midlands suggest. Let us consider three recent examples.

At the derby match involving Arsenal and Spurs on 31 October last year, a large group of hooligans smashed up several pubs after their side’s 3-0 defeat, causing thousands of pounds of damage. Because of the nature of the derby rivalry at the previous year’s game, the police classified it as high risk, and almost tripled the number of officers on duty from 180 to 560. In the north- east alone this year, British Transport police has already overspent its football budget by around £400,000. In April, a dozen arrests were made after a town centre pub was forced to close when Wigan Athletic, Sheffield United, Barnsley and Manchester United fans turned violent, and the police again had to call in hundreds of extra patrols to deal with the disturbance.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on calling this important debate. As he is aware, British Transport police does not police football grounds—it is completely separate from that—but it estimates that in 2009-10, policing premiership games on Saturdays alone cost £8 million and involved deploying more than 300 police. That, as I say, excluded matches between Mondays and Fridays, and on Sundays. That is all extra expense for the public purse.

[Mr Burley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is difficult to know how far the footprint goes. People catch trains to football matches, and one sees them at all the stations. That is why I contend that the consequential policing cost is far greater than we think. Whatever the figures, it is clear that it costs more than we recover from the clubs, and my question is: why?

We have all seen the extra police in tube stations and town centres on match days. They are there for one reason: because it is match day. They are doing their job of safeguarding the community, preventing trouble from occurring, and dealing with scuffles and fights between fans. My simple question is: why are the clubs not being billed for those extra policing costs?

In other walks of life there is a principle of, the polluter pays. A constituent, Nigel Clempson, runs a successful shop-fitting company in Rugeley. I am grateful to Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail for highlighting his case in the national press. He said that my constituent

“is the kind of businessman upon whom Britain’s recovery depends.”

His team of craftsmen work seven days a week, mostly at night, refurbishing shops and banks. All the debris that they strip out of the buildings they are refitting is taken back to the firm’s yard at Rawnsley, near Cannock, where it is dumped in a large skip to await recycling and disposal. Because of the nature of the firm’s business, the yard is accessible round the clock, and the skip attracts the attention of local rag and bone men and groups of Travellers who sort through it in search of salvage.

Nigel Clempson has never had a problem with scavengers, who are looking for scrap metal and other materials that they can sell for a few bob, but recently he had a visit from a police officer and an inspector from Cannock council’s environmental health department. The police had seen some Travellers loading scrap from his yard into a transit van, and he was told that he needed a licence to transport industrial waste. He assured them that his company was fully insured and licensed, but was told, “Ah, but the Travellers aren’t.” Nigel was informed by the police that it was his duty to ensure that anyone taking material from his premises had a waste transfer certificate.

We all know that Travellers come and go at all hours, so how was Nigel expected to keep track of everyone, and make sure that they were carrying the correct permits? The police said that that was up to him, but that if any of the material was fly-tipped and traced back to him, he would face a hefty fine. People might ask why the onus should be on Nigel, and not on the Travellers themselves, who probably do not tax their own vehicles, so they are hardly going to bother getting a waste disposal certificate. The principle is that a local businessman from the west midlands has been told that it is his personal responsibility to make sure that a gang of Travellers do not remove stuff from a skip, so he has reluctantly spent £2,000 on a special cage to encase his skip. My question to the Minister is: why are the same police not telling their local premiership football clubs that it is their responsibility to make sure that the local community is safe, that the streets are cleaned, and that the train stations are protected from damage as a result of their businesses?

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, and I thank you, Mr Crausby, for chairing it. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s principle, but I would like to hear his thoughts on some of the wider issues. He seems to have drawn a harsh line, although he has tried to address that, and my question is: why just premiership clubs?

A recent English Defence League demonstration in Blackburn on 4 April cost a fortune to police. The hon. Gentleman asked why taxpayers are paying for premiership matches to be policed, but what about the EDL demonstration? What about other demonstrations that cost local taxpayers a fortune? What about large community events that must be policed? Where is the line to be drawn? Will he explain why he is referring only to premiership clubs, and why that is fair?

[Mr Burley]

I am more than happy to do that. I framed my debate narrowly to premiership clubs. In essence, the direct answer is that there are two reasons. First, they are unique in the intensity of policing and number of police required for their entertainment activities, which is very different from the number of police at Glastonbury, an athletics meeting or at Wimbledon. So one reason is the number of police involved and the regularity of matches, and the second is the clubs’ wealth. ACPO figures suggest that if the premiership clubs paid the total cost of policing their matches in the whole country, that would amount to some £15 million a year. I understand that Wayne Rooney is paid £10 million a year, and he is one striker in one club. Clearly, the clubs can afford it.

There seems to be a fundamental inconsistency in our messages to local businessmen and to premiership football clubs. Is that because it is easier to pick on small businesses than on giant football clubs?

[Graham Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burley]

I must carry on to my conclusion. At the heart of this debate is a disparity between what clubs are legally obliged to pay in policing costs, and what the police estimate those costs to be. That stems from grey areas in current legislation and Home Office guidance. It is not clear to what extent football clubs and other holders of commercial events are liable for policing away from the footprint, and that leads to the disparity between the full cost of policing a match, and what the clubs believe they are liable to pay. There is also an issue of principle. If people like Nigel Clempson are being told by the police that they are responsible for putting cages on skips, why on earth are premiership football clubs not being similarly told that they are responsible for the policing costs incurred by their businesses?

Finally, the reality of the wider economic situation is that the police must make savings of up to 20%. We know that they are finding that a challenge, and officers in many forces are being retired after 30 years, while police community support officers and police staff are being lost. West Midlands police alone must save £125 million over the next four years. Why not provide extra revenue from a source that can afford it? That would help to mitigate the massive cuts being made to deal with the record deficit bequeathed to us by the last Government.

10:58

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) on securing this debate on an issue that is important in itself. As a season ticket holder at Reading football club, and after last night’s play-off results, I hope to be taking a personal interest in premier league policing next season.

First, I will comment on the vital role played by the police in ensuring the safety of the public at all football matches, not just those in the premier league. Levels of football violence and disorder have fallen consistently over a number of years, particularly since the introduction of tough banning order legislation and the associated radical football disorder strategy in 2000.

Last season, total attendance at regulated football matches in England and Wales exceeded 39 million people, mostly in the premier league. Over the same period, football-related arrests fell by 10% and levels of football violence and disorder continue to be low. However, a lingering threat remains—it is perhaps more than lingering in some cases—and the police continue to play a crucial role in ensuring public safety. Let me take this opportunity to thank them for their continued hard work and dedication.

As my hon. Friend is aware, premier league football matches are policed on a public order basis where the aim is to prevent or deter trouble. Police adopt a visible but low-friction approach. They will intervene in stadia as appropriate—usually at an early stage to prevent escalation—and defuse, detain or eject anyone who is engaging in violent, disorderly or antisocial behaviour. Such policing is intelligence-led and based on a dynamic risk assessment. It means that football clubs and police authorities are able to agree on an appropriate level of policing in advance of each match, based on the level of risk as determined by the latest available intelligence. That ensures that the policing service provided is proportionate to the risk.

The provision of policing at a premier league football match, or any other commercial event such as a music concert, is considered a “special police service”, and it is governed by section 25 of the Police Act 1996. Special police services are those provided beyond the normal line of duty, such as when extra officers are deployed at a site to reduce the risk to public safety during an event. Where the event is seen as commercial—such as a premier league football match—the event organiser is responsible for meeting the costs incurred by providing that service. The cost of policing an event is determined locally by the police authority in negotiation with the event organiser, and not by the Home Office. That system allows flexibility and permits police authorities to take into account any benefits and the ability to pay of the event organiser when determining charges at a local level.

Should an organiser be unwilling to pay for the level of policing deemed necessary to ensure public safety, the chief police officer can refuse to provide policing services. That may mean that the event organiser is denied a safety certificate by the relevant local authority, and without that certificate the event cannot take place.

Although the Home Office does not have formal powers to mandate charging or the level of charging, guidance has been provided in the form of circular 34/2000. Chapter 13 of that guidance deals specifically with the policing of football matches. The Association of Chief Police Officers—ACPO—produced guidance on charging for special police services in 2005, as well as in the 2008 document referred to my hon. Friend.

Football clubs are currently required by police forces to pay only for the policing of their so-called “footprint” area. That usually refers to the area inside the stadium and, for example, the surrounding car parks or streets. In latter case, however, costs can be recovered only when there is an express or implied request from the club for that service to be provided. The provision of “consequential policing” outside a football match—for example, at a railway station or town centre—is currently the responsibility of the police. It is provided at their discretion and at a direct cost to them. Football clubs are not currently required to pay for that extra service, as my hon. Friend has made clear.

I appreciate that in some cases that ambiguity has led to a disparity between what a police authority estimates as the total cost of policing a football match, and what the football club actually pays. It is clear that there is considerable depth of feeling about the extent to which football clubs, particularly those in the premier league, should cover the full policing costs incurred, and there are strong arguments on both sides. The police argue that policing a football match results in extra expense, regardless of whether their presence is on the club’s “footprint” or not. The football clubs argue that the distinction is not so clear cut, and that if they neither require nor request police presence away from their “footprint”, they should not be liable for the cost of police services elsewhere.

[Mr Burley]

On that point, is not the distinction rather more clear-cut than the football clubs would have us believe? As I mentioned earlier, an inspector for an area with a premiership football club that holds matches on Saturdays will sit down with their team and decide to deploy a certain number of extra officers at tube stations, trains and town centres. They know how much that extra deployment will cost and that such costs are the direct result of the match that afternoon—if there were no match, the extra deployment would not be needed. It is not confusing, because the extra costs are clear-cut.

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend would be right if the number of police officers needed in anticipation of a particular crowd, disorder or other problem that might require special policing measures were unambiguous. I am afraid, however, that that is not the case. The police already provide a policing service, which is their job, and deal with crime and disorder in town centres, railway stations and so on. It would be easier if the situation were as clear-cut as my hon. Friend has suggested, but I do not think that it is.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Last year, the Metropolitan police said that 18,000 police had been deployed over the year to police premiership football. Have the Government looked at the impact of that on other crimes that take place while those policemen are deployed ferrying supporters between railway, bus and tube stations?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend has made an interesting point, but the logic behind that argument is that we should stop holding big public events that might excite emotion or violence, because there will always be a knock-on effect on police costs. We have a police service so that people can go about their normal business, and for many people in this country, attending football matches is just that. I am not sure that it should be regarded as an alien imposition on the wider community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made the ACPO case for full cost recovery, but football clubs play a key role in local communities and do a lot of good work in education and health. I am keen for them to remain in a position that enables them to provide those benefits to the community, and I do not want to tie them up with more red tape and obligations.

This issue will not go away, and it is clear that many people feel strongly about who should pay for policing premier league football. We must make progress on that. I recognise that the disparity between what premier league clubs are required to pay for policing and what police forces estimate the full costs to be could be interpreted as a form of subsidy. I argue, however, that that interpretation is too simplistic. It is important to remember that the provision of special police services extends beyond premier league football clubs to all organisations, both sporting and otherwise, that require such services. That includes non-profit-making local and community-led organisations, which must not be prevented from their activities by prohibitive policing costs.

[Graham Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have little time left. Having such a wide range of parties with an interest in policing makes the situation even more complex. As a result, a solution to the case of premier league football matches cannot be reached overnight. I agree, however, that increasing the clarity and consistency of existing guidance in the light of case law—such as the recent cases of Wigan Athletic and Greater Manchester police—could help to ensure a more reasoned approach to charging for special police services. That would help reduce the prevalence of disputes between event organisers, including premier league football clubs, and police authorities, while maintaining the all-important principle of local discretion.

I reassure my hon. Friend that Home Office Ministers are considering carefully all options to ensure a mutually beneficial resolution to the problem. We are not there yet, but an increasing body of evidence will enable us to get close to a solution that I hope will square the very difficult circle, and allow our successes in policing football over the past few years to continue, so that people can carry on enjoying football just as much.

Question put and agreed to.

17:00

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Written Statements

Wednesday 18 May 2011

Local Enterprise Partnerships (Gloucestershire)

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

I, together with the Minister of State with responsibility for decentralisation, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), would like to inform the House that today we have written to the proposed Gloucestershire local enterprise partnership inviting it to put in place governance arrangements.

Local enterprise partnerships see a real power shift away from central Government and quangos and towards local communities and the local businesses who really understand the barriers to growth in their areas. This announcement brings the total number of partnerships so far invited to put their governance arrangements in place to 34. Taken together these represent 1.9 million or 94% of all businesses (active enterprises) in England, 22 million employees (employee jobs figures) or 94% of all employees in England and a population of 49 million or 94% of England’s population. We will continue to work with other areas with a view to establishing further local enterprise partnerships across England.

Review of Intellectual Property and Growth

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I together with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to inform the House that Professor Ian Hargreaves has today presented the Government with findings of their independent review of intellectual property and growth.

We welcome this timely report and its identification of the IP system as a high-stakes issue and of innovation as the key element in economic growth from intellectual property.

Intellectual property has an enormous impact on individuals, businesses and industries and on the UK as a whole. It affects what we can and cannot do in business, in education and in our daily lives. The Government want to see a future where technological innovation, successful creative businesses and strong international brands go hand in hand.

The Prime Minister asked Professor Hargreaves to focus on the Government’s top priority, growth. The Hargreaves recommendations have the potential to add between 0.3 to 0.6% to annual GDP and to cut the costs of doing business with IP by £750 million a year by 2020.

The review presents us with opportunities to support dynamic UK businesses that will deliver innovation, growth and jobs in the years to come, it offers us the chance of a future where there is a thriving market for Britain’s creative talent, where the value of innovation and research outweighs the fear of piracy and counterfeiting and where we as customers are surprised and delighted by what digital technology offers us, not worried or confused.

This report is the culmination of six months of diligent inquiry by Professor Hargreaves and his panel of experts, and we thank him and his colleagues for their hard work.

The Government will aim to publish their substantive response before the parliamentary recess.

Copies of the “Hargreaves Review” have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Review of Offender Learning

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Written Statements

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

I am publishing today “Making Prisons Work: Skills for Rehabilitation”, the report on the review of offender learning that I commissioned last summer. The document sets out our reform programme for offender learning. Our plans mark a departure from existing practice. The means of managing the system and measurement of outcomes will change dramatically and, consequently, so will the allocation of resources.

“Making Prisons Work: Skills for Rehabilitation”, which has been developed jointly with the Ministry of Justice, takes careful account of the Government’s plans for reform of adult learning and skills over the remainder of this Parliament, plans for reform in the criminal justice system and the 98 responses to our call for evidence. I thank all those who took the time to submit their views.

The plans also reinforce our public service reforms, shifting power away from the centre of Government into the hands of front-line staff and the partnerships that operate at a local level to deliver services.

The link between recidivism and the failure of ex-offenders to find work is clear. If those in prison acquire the skills needed to gain employment on release from prison there is a good chance that they will turn their lives around.

We are determined to make prisons places where people learn skills to build lives beyond crime. And the authenticity of what is taught and tested will be assured by its relationship with further learning and employment. Plainly, skills acquired through prison education must make ex-offenders more employable. In these terms prison must be made to work. Those closest to the effects of their decisions on the funding and management of learning provision should be responsible and accountable.

Some of the previous reforms to the skills system inside prisons have brought about improvements: certainly, we have increased prisoner participation in learning and skills. However, we are still failing to ensure prisoners continue their progress on release in terms of further learning or employment. To address this, we will place a much greater focus on developing the vocational skills demanded by employers in the areas to which prisoners are to be released, making offender learning an authentic part of the wider skills system. That sharpened focus will also enable us to support the drive towards prisons increasingly becoming places of meaningful work. As responsibility is devolved to those closest to the effects of their decisions, accountability will be assured through measurement of outcomes.

We will reflect the Government’s focus on payment by results by introducing outcome incentive payments: providers’ payments will be based, in part, on their success in helping get people into jobs. Our new emphasis on decentralised control and accountability means we will change the distribution of resources between prisons, supporting our determination to put in place the right skills offer for the offender while they are within the justice system. That will be framed by a significant change from the current system, introducing a focus on clusters of prisons between which prisoners tend to move and with wide implications for the way people work together.

To put these changes in place, we shall re-procure the offender learning contracts for delivery in adult prisons in England.

For offenders in the community, supervised by the probation service, we will place a new collaborative emphasis on the skills system in helping offenders gain the competences that will help them into work.

My Department will not be able to do all of this alone. The interaction between the Department for Work and Pensions, especially the Work programme and Jobcentre Plus’s other employment support, and the skills system will be critical to our success in making sure that offenders use their newly acquired skills to secure work. Just as important is the need to engage sectors, social enterprises, charities and voluntary organisations whose dedication and expertise makes such a positive difference to so many lives.

“Making Prisons Work: Skills for Rehabilitation” is available on the BIS website at http://www.bis.gov.uk/ and copies will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

ECOFIN (17 May 2011)

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 17 May 2011. The following items were discussed:

Economic governance

The Council took note of a report from the presidency on progress in negotiations with the European Parliament on a package of legislative proposals on economic governance. The presidency took on board the views of member states and agreed to take these forward during further negotiations with the European Parliament, which are ongoing, with a view to finalising legislation by the end of June.

Short selling regulation

The Council agreed a general approach on the draft regulation on short selling and credit default swaps. The intention of the regulation is to harmonise short selling requirements across the European Union and harmonise the powers that regulators may use in exceptional situations where there is a serious threat to financial stability or market confidence. I ensured that the Commission and the Council, thanks to a written statement, would work during the trialogues to find a solution taking into account the concerns expressed by member states in the ECOFIN Council regarding the powers of ESMA in article 24.

Savings taxation directive

The Council held an orientation debate on how to proceed with a proposal aimed at strengthening the provisions of the EU’s directive on the taxation of savings interest. The Council agreed to continue working on reaching agreement.

Financial sector taxation

The Commission updated the Council with an interim report of financial sector tax and regulation. The Council also received a report from the Economic and Financial Committee, providing a factual overview of financial levies and taxes. Ministers took note of the reports. The Commission was asked to produce an impact assessment on various options of financial sector taxation. The high-level working party on tax will continue work on this subject and report back as appropriate.

Nomination of the President of the European Central Bank

The euro area member states, in Council, adopted a recommendation on the nomination of Mario Draghi (Italy) as President of the European Central Bank, to succeed Jean-Claude Trichet, whose term of office expires on 31 October 2011. The Council’s recommendation will be submitted to the European Council, which will consult the European Parliament and the ECB, with a view to adopting a final decision at its meeting on 23-24 June 2011.

Financial back-stops

The Council approved a draft statement on guiding principles on financial backstops, for financial institutions which are shown to be vulnerable by this year’s EU-wide stress tests. The presidency confirmed that bank stress test results will be published later this year.

Review of economic adjustment programme for Ireland

Finance Ministers adopted a decision to modify the conditions underpinning financial assistance to Ireland under the European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM), in order to prepare the disbursement of a second loan instalment. This follows a review by the IMF and the Commission, liaising with the European Central Bank, of progress made by Ireland in implementing its economic adjustment programme, which was approved last November.

Financial support to Portugal

The Council adopted a decision allowing for €26 billion of financial assistance to Portugal under the European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM), part of an overall €78 billion package of assistance. This will also comprise €26 billion of loans under the euro area-only European Financial Stability Facility and €26 billion from the IMF under its Extended Fund Facility. The EFSM loan will have a maximum average maturity of 7.5 years and a margin of 215 basis points on top of the EU’s cost of funding. The aid will be provided on the basis of a three-year policy programme for the period up to mid-2014, which was negotiated with the Portuguese authorities by the Commission and the IMF, in liaison with the European Central Bank.

The economic and financial adjustment programme includes;

structural reforms to boost potential growth, create jobs, and improve competitiveness;

a fiscal consolidation strategy, supported by structural fiscal measures and better fiscal control over public-private-partnerships and state-owned enterprises, aimed at putting the gross public debt-to-GDP ratio on a firm downward path in the medium-term and reducing the deficit below 3% of GDP by 2013;

a financial sector strategy based on recapitalisation and deleveraging, with efforts to safeguard the financial sector against disorderly deleveraging through market-based mechanisms supported by backstop facilities.

Financing climate change

The Council adopted conclusions on climate finance. These conclusions outline the key issues and next steps in international climate finance. The Government welcome these conclusions.

Information on the Informal ECOFIN meeting

Ministers received a summary from the presidency on the issues that were discussed at the Informal ECOFIN which took place in Budapest on 7-8 April 2011.

Draft general budget for 2012

The Commission presented its proposed general budget for 2012 to the Council, which included a 4.9% increase in payments. I made it clear that this proposal was completely unacceptable. In line with the agreement made between the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland in December 2010, the Government’s opinion is that growth in the EU’s annual budget must be curbed, in order to reflect difficult economic conditions and tough measures taken by national Governments to cut spending.

Dialogue with EU candidate countries

Ministers held an informal meeting with their counterparts from the EU candidate countries: Turkey, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Iceland. The meeting focused on the candidate countries’ economic policies.

AOB: Purple File

This item was added to the agenda at the request of Poland. They raised their concerns with the Purple File, which sets out procedures to follow when a member state seeks a flexible credit line from the IMF. The UK believes that the procedure needs to be identical for both euro and non-euro area countries, whereby the Economic and Financial Committee is informed of, and given the opportunity to discuss, any request for financial assistance by any EU member state.

European Stability Mechanism

In an inter-governmental meeting preceding ECOFIN, it was agreed that member states could forward a draft of the inter-governmental treaty (between euro area member states only) creating the new, permanent European stability mechanism to national parliaments. I will write to the chairs of the European Scrutiny Committees with the draft text.

Identity Assurance

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Written Statements

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

The Government agreed on 14 March 2011 to the development of a consistent, customer-centric approach to digital identity assurance across all public services. This will allow service users to log on safely to digital public services in a way that ensures personal privacy, reduces fraud and facilitates the move to online public services.

Today I am setting out the context and vision for this delivery programme and will explain how my Department will draw on expertise from organisations in the public and private sector to agree the design for this new approach. NO2ID and other privacy advocates are being kept closely informed of developments and given the opportunity to contribute and comment. This is a cross-departmental initiative and the approach will be introduced in the near term through major Government initiatives such as DWP’s universal credits, NHS HealthSpace, HMRC’s one click programmes and the Skills Funding Agency.

Online services have the potential to make life more convenient for service users as well as delivering cost savings. However, currently customers have to enter multiple log-in details and passwords to access different public services, sometimes on the same website. This involves significant duplication, is expensive to operate and is highly inconvenient for users. It acts as a deterrent to people switching to digital channels, hampers the vision of digital being the primary channel for accessing Government information and transactions, and provides an opportunity for fraudsters.

Our intention is to create a market of accredited identity assurance services delivered by a range of private sector and mutualised suppliers. A key improvement will be that people will be able to use the service of their choice to prove identity when accessing any public service. Identity assurance services will focus on the key imperative to ensure privacy. My Department is leading the project to develop the design and the creation of the market within the private sector. By October 2011 we expect to have the first prototype of the identity assurance model to test with transactional Departments and public sector identity assurance services, with a date for implementation from August 2012.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council Agenda (19 May 2011)

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will be held on 19 May in Brussels. Andy Lebrecht, UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU will represent the United Kingdom.

This will be a single-issue Council on the subject of Roma integration. On 5 April, the European Commission published a communication on an EU framework for national Roma integration strategies up to 2020. Based on this, the presidency has invited the Council to hold an exchange of views and adopt a set of Council conclusions and an opinion from the Social Protection Committee.

The UK will agree that Roma in many parts of Europe experience extreme poverty, discrimination and exclusion and that the primary responsibility for tackling this lies with the member states. We will therefore welcome the fact that the conclusions represent a clear political commitment by EU member states to take concrete steps to improve the situation of their Roma nationals, while recognising that the situation in each member state is different.

We will outline the fact that in the UK we have a strong and well-established legal framework to combat discrimination and hate crime and that this protects all individuals, including Roma, Gypsies and Travellers, from racial and other forms of discrimination and racially motivated crime. We will also acknowledge that the UK’s Gypsies and Travellers none the less experience inequalities and we will summarise the action being undertaken in the different parts of the UK to deal with this.

We also acknowledge the importance of co-ordination between member states to tackle organised crime, particularly trafficking, which can affect Roma, especially Roma children.

We will note the opportunity that EU funds provide to member states to add value to their policies to improve the situation of Roma and other disadvantaged people.

And finally, we will underline the importance of sharing good practice between member states and of ensuring that any EU activity complements, rather than duplicates, that of other international organisations.

UK/Iraq Bilateral Agreement

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

I wish to inform the House that the UK/Iraq training and maritime support agreement that has provided naval training and maritime support to Iraq will conclude on 22 May 2011.

British Forces have been involved in this important task since 2003 and, under the agreement signed in 2009, Royal Navy trainers have developed the capacity of the Iraqi maritime security forces to protect their territorial waters and offshore oil platforms, which are vital to Iraq’s economic revival.

Having successfully completed their mission UK personnel deployed to Iraq under this agreement will now leave the country.

This will mark the formal conclusion of Operation Telic but it is not the end of our bilateral defence relationship with Iraq. We will: continue to train members of the Iraqi security forces at UK training establishments; continue to contribute to the NATO training mission in Iraq; and continue to engage with the Government of Iraq at the highest levels on defence and security issues. Finally, we will maintain defence capabilities in the wider Gulf region as part of our enduring contribution to Gulf security.

I pay tribute to all UK service personnel who have served in Iraq over the last eight years and to the sacrifices made by so many for the benefit of the people of Iraq and our national security.

Fukushima (Interim Report)

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

Today I have laid before the House the chief nuclear inspector’s interim report on the events at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear site in March.

Dr Mike Weightman, supported by his colleagues in the Office for Nuclear Regulation, produced this independent report which examines the immediate lessons learned for the UK nuclear industry. The final report is due in September.

Safety is and will continue to be our number one priority. We take the incident at Fukushima very seriously. Although the plant is stabilising, the situation remains critical. However, progress in securing the site is being made; and the operator, Tepco, has outlined a roadmap to recover the plant during the next year.

Dr Weightman believes that there is sufficient information available for his interim report to reach a number of conclusions and recommendations, which have concentrated on potential lessons for the nuclear power reactor sector. However some of his recommendations are relevant to all sectors. His final report will cover all of the nuclear industry in more detail.

Dr Weightman has drawn a number of conclusions. He states that the direct causes of the nuclear accident—a magnitude nine earthquake and associated 14-metre high tsunami—are far beyond the most extreme events the UK could expect to experience. In this respect he concludes there is no reason for curtailing the operation of nuclear power plants or other nuclear facilities in the UK. Nevertheless Dr Weightman notes severe events can occur from other causes, and that learning from such events is fundamental to the robustness of our nuclear safety arrangements. I can therefore confirm that once further work on the recommendations is completed any proposed improvements to safety arrangements will be considered and implemented in line with our normal nuclear safety regulatory approach.

The interim report also identifies various matters that should be reviewed to improve the safety of the UK nuclear industry. I consider it an absolute priority that the regulators, industry and Government act responsibly to learn from the 26 recommendations in the report; and to respond to them within one month of today’s publication.

Dr Weightman’s recommendations require the review of a wide range of nuclear safety matters, including international and national emergency response arrangements, public contingency planning, communications and the review of flooding studies, site and plant layouts, electricity and cooling supplies, multi-reactor site considerations, spent fuel strategies and dealing with prolonged accidents. I very much welcome this approach, and I believe it is vitally important that the regulators and industry continue to adhere to the principle of continuous improvement for all existing and future nuclear sites and facilities. The interim report does not identify any implications for the strategic siting assessment of new reactors and I do not believe the final report will either.

In taking this important work forward Dr Weightman deserves our thanks. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recently noted that the UK has a mature, transparent and independent regulatory system, an advanced review process, and highly trained and experienced nuclear inspectors. The reputation of the UK’s regulatory regime is further endorsed by the appointment of Dr Weightman to head up the IAEA’s review of events in Japan. I would like to congratulate him on his appointment, which reinforces our belief that he is the right person to consider the lessons learned for the UK’s own nuclear industry.

In the light of the events at Fukushima, we have agreed with our European colleagues that the safety of existing nuclear sites and equipment in the EU should be subject to “stress testing”. We believe these stress tests will supplement the UK’s already robust regulatory regime. The scope of the stress test is currently being developed by the European nuclear safety regulators group and the European Commission.

My officials will review carefully the interim report, but from my discussions with Dr Weightman I see no reason why we should not proceed with our current policy: namely that nuclear should be part of the future energy mix in the future as it is today, providing that there is no public subsidy.

This policy has recently been supported by the Committee on Climate Change in its “Renewable Energy Review” which states that

“nuclear should play a key role in taking Britain towards a clean prosperous future as it is a safe power and the lowest-cost, large-scale, low-carbon electricity source”.

Subject to careful consideration of the detail of Dr Weightman’s interim report, I intend to bring forward for ratification as soon as possible the energy national policy statements, which are principally about the planning guidance on energy infrastructure for the IPC but will also include a list of potential sites for nuclear power stations.

Any further implications from the final report can be taken on board subsequently. Regulators and industry will continue to work together to take forward the generic design assessment process. They will need to factor into this work the recommendations outlined in the interim report. We encourage them to work together in setting out their timeline for conclusion of the process.

I strongly welcome Dr Weightman’s interim report. I encourage the regulators to work closely with industry and other partners to take the recommendations forward, and I look forward to receiving the final report in the autumn.

Annual Report of the Veterinary Products Committee and its Sub-Committees 2010

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Written Statements

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

I have received the annual report of the Veterinary Products Committee and its sub-committees 2010, which has been published today.

Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

I am pleased to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Veterinary Products Committee and its sub-committees and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

Single Payment Scheme

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Written Statements

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

In my statement of 31 March, Official Report, columns 35-36WS, I outlined the measures the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) was taking to speed the flow of the remaining payments to farmers under the 2010 single payment scheme (SPS).

The introduction of those measures, including making manually validated payments in some circumstances, ensured that RPA exceeded its revised payment profile in April. Some claimants who the agency had estimated could be paid in that month were not, often because they were linked to others through a complex web of entitlements transfers. Apart from a few exceptional cases, RPA has either telephoned or written to all those affected to explain the position and will look to prioritise their payments where possible over the coming month. The agency kept above profile overall by managing to resolve issues preventing payments on some claims that had been estimated to be paid in May or June.

As of Friday 13 May, the total value of payments made to some 101,176 farmers had reached £1.63 billion (94.54%). The number of eligible claimants left to pay at that point was estimated to be 3,177. The agency remains on course, therefore, to meet the EU benchmark to avoid late payment penalties; that is, making 95.238% of the total value of payments, by the end of this month. The RPA oversight board, which I chair, will continue to monitor progress to ensure that, wherever it is legally possible to do so, these remaining payments reach farmers by the end of the regulatory payment window on 30 June.