House of Commons

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

Thursday 19 May 2011

The House met at half-past Ten o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

1. When he expects the green deal scheme to begin operation.

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

The Energy Bill, which was introduced to the House of Lords on 8 December 2010, contains the primary legislation of the new green deal proposal. Secondary legislation will allow the Government to implement and administer the requirements of the primary legislation and we intend to lay the secondary legislation before Parliament in March 2012 so that it will be in place to underpin the delivery of the green deal for October 2012. The timetable is naturally subject to the time taken for parliamentary scrutiny.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Secretary of State for his comments. What opportunities will the green deal provide for smaller, innovative and high-tech companies, and how many jobs will be available in that sector as a result of the green deal?

[Chris Huhne]

The green deal will, I think, be a real game changer. It will provide a framework that will enable billions of pounds of investment in retrofitting our homes and businesses across the country. Everywhere we have homes—that obviously means every part of the country—there will be new business opportunities. It is important to develop the supply chains in the energy saving industries, such as for solid wall insulation, and innovative products, as well as to reduce our dependence on imported energy. We are determined to ensure that small businesses can participate in the benefits that the green deal will bring.

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

The Secretary of State will know that his Labour predecessors, of which I was one, developed a similar ambitious programme for domestic energy efficiency, but because of the complexity of financing such deals, we believed that pilot projects were necessary and set them up, involving 500 homes. What has he learned from those pilots?

[Chris Huhne]

I pay tribute to the work done under the previous Government. The fundamental principles of the green deal are cross-party and I welcome that because it provides comfort to investors that they know there will not be a sudden change in the framework. I welcome the Opposition’s input on this.

On finance, we have had many discussions and looked at the results of pilots, including the British Gas pilot. The business model that we are proposing is particularly interesting because the key thing is that if some of the bigger players can get the cost of a substantial number of green deals off their own balance sheets they will be able to securitise flows in the bond market, which will provide a regular flow of cheap finance for all the green deal providers.

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

2. What steps he plans to take to ensure consumer confidence in the green deal scheme.

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

Consumer confidence will be vital for the green deal. In developing secondary legislation, we will support this by ensuring consumer protection and redress mechanisms are in place. For example, our licensing arrangements will require providers to work to a green deal code, which will require they use only accredited assessors and installers.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I recently met the National Federation of Roofing Contractors to discuss my Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill and people raised concerns about potential loopholes in the green deal, ensuring the right measures are selected for installation, ensuring the quality of installations, and accountability for the work. Will the Secretary of State explain what he is doing to close the loopholes in order to ensure consumer confidence?

[Chris Huhne]

My officials are in contact with a wide range of interests and I am happy to meet, and to ensure that my officials meet, the people the hon. Lady has mentioned. We obviously want to ensure that there are no loopholes and we have done a lot. The licensing arrangement and the green deal code, as I have mentioned, will be important. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 will extend to the green deal, and the golden rule that forms part of the green deal ensures that the expected savings will always at least match the costs. The Energy Bill includes strong requirements to disclose the presence of a future charge to bill payers and the accreditation process will also allow guarantees for the work carried out, for example. We will establish an independent advice line that will also support customers seeking redress. The hon. Lady should remember that all that is in addition to the normal protections for consumers through, for example, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that a number of places in the country, including Cornwall, are particularly ambitious to forge ahead with the green deal. Other than the constraints on the capacity of assessors and fitters, will any other impediments be faced by those parts of the country that particularly want to embrace this great opportunity?

[Chris Huhne]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. We are working through literally every possible impediment, as we are in other areas of the economy in which my Department particularly wants to see a transition to a low-carbon economy, to understand best what the impediments might be and to remove them. I am absolutely confident that when it comes to the launch of the green deal in October 2012 there will be enormous opportunities for Cornwall. The only constraint is going to be making sure that there are enough people who are trained properly to accredit, assess and install the green deal. I am confident that the finance will be available and it is important that we make as much progress as we can.

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

Consumer confidence is vital to ensuring that the green deal is a success. We know that Ministers were discussing possible incentives at around the time of the Budget to encourage green deal take-up and the Chancellor alluded to that in his Budget speech, but no concrete announcements have yet been made. Will the Secretary of State give us any further details today about how home owners and tenants will be incentivised in order for the green deal to meet the Government’s ambitions?

[Chris Huhne]

Under the terms of the energy company obligation in the Energy Bill, there is capacity for the companies that are subject to the ECO to bring forward incentives. The Chancellor has, as the hon. Lady pointed out, rightly made a commitment to consider incentivisation. She will also be aware that we made announcements on the Energy Bill’s Second Reading to bring forward some quite important incentives for the private rental sector, particularly for F and G-rated properties. All those measures will get the scheme off to a flying start.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

My hard-pressed constituents in Harlow will strongly welcome the green deal, but how will consumers be informed how to apply for it and how it will work?

[Chris Huhne]

I think we will have a lot of interest from consumers precisely because of the important golden rule that this will benefit consumers—that the energy savings as a result of the green deal will outstrip the assessed costs of the installation. I think there will be a lot of buzz around the green deal. A lot of potential suppliers, such as B&Q, are very interested. As people move house and go to B&Q and look at what they might do for their kitchen or bathroom, they might also, at that point, have the opportunity to sign up for a green deal. I think it will spread very quickly through word of mouth, and that is why it is so important to get consumer confidence.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

3. How much funding he expects to be made available to households in fuel poverty through the energy company obligation in its first year of operation.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

The ECO is being designed specifically to tackle fuel poverty and hard-to-treat homes. Although it is too early to set exact numbers for the scheme ahead of our consultation on the ECO in autumn I fully expect a far greater level of resource to be brought to bear on the fuel-poor than was previously the case under the carbon emissions reduction target or Warm Front.

[Nick Smith]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Parts of Blaenau Gwent are 1,200 feet above sea level and it gets cold in winter. Given the established relationship between excess winter deaths and low indoor temperature, and given that the UK has a higher rate of such deaths than Scandinavian countries, will he ensure that the ECO prioritises a reduction in excess winter deaths?

[Gregory Barker]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. As I also sit on the Cabinet Office’s Public Health Sub-Committee, I am very aware of the issue he raises. That is why we are absolutely clear that the ECO must be focused on the fuel-poor and hard-to-treat homes and why we must have an impact on exactly the statistic that he mentions in relation to his constituency.

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

We have just heard twice from the Minister that the ECO will be used specifically to tackle hard-to-treat homes and fuel poverty, but unfortunately this week we have heard worrying rumours that the ECO will not be used exclusively to tackle fuel poverty and hard-to-treat homes. Consumer Focus recently estimated that to tackle just over a third of non-cavity-wall homes in the UK would require an ECO investment of more than £7 billion. That underlines the scale of the challenge that the ECO needs to meet. Will the Minister guarantee today that the ECO will be used only to tackle fuel poverty and hard-to-treat homes and not to subsidise banks providing green deal finance?

[Gregory Barker]

I do not think I could be clearer than to say that the focus of this new measure, unlike the CERT programme brought in by the previous Government, which we had to reform considerably when we came to office, will be on fuel poverty and hard-to-treat homes. We are absolutely clear about that and the measure is going to be much more effective than any measure that the Labour party introduced.

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

4. What contribution he expects the renewable heat incentive to make to the Government’s targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

We expect installations in industrial and commercial buildings to achieve cumulative carbon dioxide savings of 44 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2020. It is harder to forecast reductions for the domestic sector, but we hope to achieve a cumulative reduction of at least 2.5 million tonnes by 2020 also.

[Stephen Mosley]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I have one concern about the renewable heat incentive. We are proposing to introduce the premium payment scheme in July, which will run for 15 months until it is replaced by the green deal and the RHI tariff next October. Will he reassure people who are considering taking out the RHI premium payment scheme that they will automatically qualify for the RHI tariff when it is introduced next October?

[Gregory Barker]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important point, not least because we hope that more than 25,000 people will take advantage of the premium payments. Providing that they comply with the terms of the payment, they will certainly be able to qualify for the RHI tariff.

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

The Minister will be aware that there is a sort of hiatus in the industry at the moment among consumers, as the previous question from the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) indicated, because they do not know what the tariff will be and we do not have an absolute commitment that its introduction will coincide with that of the green deal next October. Can he confirm that the tariff will definitely come in and, in the interim, at least let us have details of what it will be in order to restore confidence, the lack of which is currently holding the whole scheme back?

[Gregory Barker]

I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that the tariffs will kick in alongside the green deal in autumn next year and that we will publish the rates of the tariffs this September. Premium payments are a really good way of ensuring that we dovetail strong consumer safeguards while priming new technologies.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

5. What steps he plans to take to ensure that householders who participate in the green deal scheme have access to an appropriate redress scheme in respect of any inadequate work carried out.

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

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) some moments ago.

[Steve Rotheram]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Without proper consumer protections, the green deal will become a white elephant, so can he further outline how the Government will stop the scheme becoming a cowboys’ charter, with unscrupulous suppliers preying on the most vulnerable in society?

[Chris Huhne]

Mr Speaker, I think I tested your patience with the length of my previous answer to a similar question, so I will not go through the list again, but we have put in place a substantial set of measures that will allow redress, including an advice line and all the normal protections, such as the ability to go through the small claims court and to the energy ombudsman. All of those are available to consumers. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one key point: consumer confidence in this scheme will be absolutely crucial. We do not want any repeat of the sorts of examples there were when the Labour Government in Australia introduced a similar scheme, which was indeed a cowboys’ charter.

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

What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Office of Fair Trading, which will regulate green deal providers, to ensure that credit is only offered responsibly?

[Chris Huhne]

The credit will be regulated under the Consumer Credit Act, but the provisions are very clear. I do not think that my officials have had direct contact with the OFT, but it of course has an important monitoring role to ensure that those rules are observed.

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

Why, oh why, can the Government not learn from past success, such as what happened in Huddersfield and Kirklees with Warm Zone, which was a highly successful scheme? Why can we not take the best elements of that and put them into the current legislation to get the best possible option?

[Chris Huhne]

We are absolutely determined to ensure that, where a local authority wants to lead from the front with neighbourhood schemes of the sort the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, they are enabled, quite rightly, to go ahead. They will have access to the finance available under the green deal and I very much hope that go-ahead local authorities, whether in his constituency, in Cornwall or anywhere else in the country, will lead this exercise, because there are enormous opportunities. That is good for residents, for energy saving across the country as a whole and for local jobs.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the likely effect on investment in green jobs and technologies of the green deal and renewable heat incentive schemes.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

We estimate that the green deal could drive up to £20 billion of investment by 2020 and support more than 125,000 jobs across the supply chain. In addition, by 2020 the renewable heat incentive scheme should lead to up to £7.5 billion of new capital investment in heat technologies and potentially support 150,000 manufacturing, supply chain and installer jobs, not least in Worcester Bosch in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Mr Walker]

Following the welcome decision of the regional growth fund to approve investments of almost £18 million in the Worcester technology park project, the one remaining hurdle for the creation of thousands of new green jobs in Worcester is the approval of the board of Bosch. What message would the Minister send to that board and to other overseas investors about Britain’s commitment to green growth and jobs?

[Gregory Barker]

My hon. Friend is a real champion of green growth, and I can tell him unequivocally that, although we have set an ambitious carbon budget, under this coalition decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation—far from it. We are committed to creating a framework for more advanced manufacturing jobs to power green growth and to make Britain once again a workshop of the world.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Why in the past year has Britain slipped from third in the world to 13th in terms of investment in green industry?

[Gregory Barker]

I am afraid that it will be very difficult to shake a legacy of 13 years of Labour government, and the hon. Gentleman will know that we slipped massively down the table of world manufacturing during his party’s time in government. We are having to put this country on a different trajectory, and that means a slight hiatus while we change course, but when we have changed course and our new measures are in place we will be primed for success and will turn around the miserable failure of the Labour years.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has for the future of carbon capture and storage; and if he will make a statement.

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

13. What plans he has for the future of carbon capture and storage.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

CCS has the potential to play a very significant role in our future energy mix. The Government are committed to public sector investment in CCS technology for four power stations, including both coal and gas. We aim to reach agreement on the first project and to launch the competition for projects 2 to 4 later this year. We will also publish a CCS road map this autumn.

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but is he completely confident that the introduction of a carbon floor price will not result in the collapse of future investment in carbon capture and storage?

[Charles Hendry]

The hon. Lady raises an extremely important issue. We are actively discussing that with the companies involved in project 1, and we believe that we can find a way through it to ensure that those plants have a long-term viable future, but I hope she agrees that we are right to be making the future price of carbon clear.

[Chi Onwurah]

As the former managing director of a risk rating agency, the Secretary of State must be well aware of the corrosive effect of uncertainty on any business, yet he refuses to give green energy the clarity it needs on carbon capture and storage. After the photovoltaic fiasco, the “carbon four” coup and the building regulation bombshell, has he lost all credibility among the green industries?

[Charles Hendry]

That is a quite extraordinary question. The Secretary of State has shown real leadership on those issues. In the course of a year, £1 billion not previously available has been made available for carbon capture; we have set up an office of carbon capture and storage to drive forward that work; we have set up a development forum with the industry; we have put in place a regulator framework; and we are putting in place a road map in order to know what needs to happen. In place of the rhetoric and ambition under the previous Government, we are delivering action.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the Isle of Wight’s eco island initiative.

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

I recently visited my hon. Friend’s constituency and met several businesses and individuals involved in the Isle of Wight eco island initiative. I applaud the initiative, which is showing real leadership in bringing the local community and businesses together, in reducing carbon emissions and in helping to build a prosperous low-carbon economy.

[Mr Turner]

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating David Green on the way in which he is moving the eco island initiative forward, and will my right hon. Friend visit the island again to see for himself not only the eco island project, but other green technology companies?

[Chris Huhne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As he knows, I can see the island from my constituency, and I suspect that another visit is not going to be that far off, but I certainly do join him in congratulating David Green. The Department of Energy and Climate Change has been very pleased to support carbon reduction on the Isle of Wight with a £500,000 grant, for example, through the low-carbon communities challenge, which has been used to install renewable measures in a number of properties in the village of Chale Green. I am very impressed by the way in which the whole initiative is beginning to take off and to have a real local impact.

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

9. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on any fiscal incentives to support achievement of the Committee on Climate Change’s target number of electric vehicles in 2020.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

Fiscal incentives are a matter for the Treasury, but DECC has a strong interest in encouraging the take-up of electric vehicles. We work closely with the Department for Transport, which has lead responsibility for the policy, but we regularly meet companies leading the development and deployment of cutting-edge low-carbon vehicle technologies.

[Andrew Selous]

Electric cars will play an important part in reducing carbon emissions, they are an important part of green growth, and they can reduce the costs of motoring for our constituents. The Committee on Climate Change has called for 1.7 million electric cars by 2020—quite a lot fewer than Japan and Israel. How does my hon. Friend see us meeting that target?

[Gregory Barker]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for this agenda and speaks with considerable authority. He will know that in the last comprehensive spending review we announced over £400 million of measures to promote the take-up of ultra low-carbon vehicles, in addition to exempting them from road tax, company car tax and the congestion charge, and now we have a consumer grant of up to £5,000 per vehicle and a £30 million investment in infrastructure. Then, on top of that, later this summer, in line with the coalition agreement commitment to mandate a national recharging network, we will be publishing a strategy for promoting the roll-out of charging infrastructure.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I will resist the temptation to ask whether it is easier to stay within the speed limit in an electric car. Instead, I will ask what is the best way to make electric cars more efficient in their use of energy given that the electricity still has to be generated and that we still rely on burning fossil fuels for much of our energy.

[Gregory Barker]

Ultimately, it will be the decarbonisation of the energy sector that will ensure that electric cars become genuinely low or zero-carbon vehicles. With the publication of the fourth carbon budget, we now have the long-term trajectory in place to ensure that we reach our ambitious decarbonisation goals.

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

10. When he expects to receive the recommendations of the independent fuel poverty review.

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

14. When he expects to receive the recommendations of the independent fuel poverty review.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked Professor Hills of the London School of Economics to lead the independent fuel poverty review and to provide interim findings by this autumn and a final report by early 2012 at the latest.

[Roger Williams]

I thank the Minister for that reply. I understand that the author of the report has been asked to demonstrate how fuel poverty can be removed entirely within 15 years. Many constituents of mine live in homes that are off mains gas and are hard to heat. Will the green deal have enough capacity to meet that target and eliminate this scourge of rural areas?

[Gregory Barker]

Absolutely. The rural fuel-poor, who for many years have been overlooked by fuel poverty policies, and who suffer particularly from high heating-oil prices and from hard-to-heat homes, will particularly benefit from the green deal and from the renewable heat incentive. Under the coalition, it is a double win for the rural fuel-poor.

[Mr Amess]

As the promoter of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, my hon. Friend will understand my disappointment that fuel poverty has not been eliminated. Will he take the opportunity, through the Committee and Report stage of the Energy Bill and through the green deal, to ensure that a clear delivery plan is enshrined in legislation to eliminate fuel poverty?

[Gregory Barker]

That piece of landmark legislation, which my hon. Friend got on to the statute book having had long experience in these matters, will be an important part of our strategy for delivering a green deal programme that will bear down on and eventually eliminate fuel poverty. I can assure him that unlike the Labour Government, who allowed the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 to languish on the statute book and be frittered away, we will ensure that the legislation is used effectively and that there is far greater co-ordination and collaboration between local government and us at the centre.

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

When the Warm Front scheme is closed down, it will be the first time in 30 years that there has not been a Treasury-funded scheme to tackle fuel poverty, which is a major problem in constituencies such as mine. Will the Minister do all he can to persuade the Treasury to take its fair share of the cost of cutting poverty so that the full funding burden is not regressively applied to energy bills, thus hitting the poorest hardest?

[Gregory Barker]

Sadly, we know that in the past Warm Front has not been effective. Let us face it, more than 90 Members from all sides of the House, including Labour Front Benchers, have written to me to complain about it. Were we to carry on relying on Warm Front alone, it would take more than 80 years to treat homes which, under the green deal, we expect to treat by 2030. I have to say to the hon. Lady that there is funding next year, the year after and the year after that for Warm Front, but the real driver for eliminating fuel poverty will be the green deal and the ECO that underpins it.

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

What action does the Minister propose to take to ensure that the energy company obligation does not put more people into fuel poverty, as a result of the effect that the imposition of the levy will have on their bills, than it takes out? Will he consider rising block tariffs as a method of imposing levies, rather than an imposition on standing charges, which would have a particular effect on those in fuel poverty?

[Gregory Barker]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority on this subject and is recognised as an expert, but we have considered block tariffs and do not believe that they are effective. The warm home discount is available, however, which will be worth more than £1 billion to the fuel-poor over the spending period. We expect it to help up to 2 million households a year. His point about levies is well made, and we have paid particular attention to that issue. That is why, unlike under the Labour proposals, the RHI will be funded out of general taxation, which we believe will be more progressive.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

11. If he will develop incentives to encourage the siting of wind farms offshore.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

Offshore wind is currently supported under the renewables obligation, and we have brought forward the banding review to determine future support to realise the full potential of this vital sector. Through electricity market reform, we are working on more enduring support for low-carbon electricity generation and we will publish a White Paper before the summer recess. I chair the Offshore Wind Developers Forum, which is working to identify barriers that need to be addressed.

[Mr Hollobone]

According to the Government’s figures, by 2020 they expect there to be 14 GW of onshore wind capacity and 13 GW of offshore wind capacity. My constituents and, I suspect, many Members in this House would like there to be far more wind turbines offshore than onshore, because it is windier offshore and offshore wind turbines do not despoil the British countryside.

[Charles Hendry]

My hon. Friend has picked up on one of the five or six scenarios that we put forward on how we can meet our 2050 targets. I understand his concerns, but we also have to take account of cost. Offshore wind costs about twice as much as onshore wind. We need to be aware of the interests of consumers, who have to pay the bills.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Committee on Climate Change has said that the Government should reduce by several gigawatts their target of a 13 GW capacity for offshore wind electricity generation by 2020, precisely because of that expense. Will the Minister assure the House that if that target is abandoned, he will do all he can to ensure that onshore wind farms are not blocked by nimbyism in Tory and Lib Dem-controlled councils?

[Charles Hendry]

The hon. Lady raises an issue that is of concern to Members from all parts of the House. There is a realisation about the impact of onshore wind farms. We want there to be more onshore wind farms, but we are determined to ensure that they are built in the most appropriate locations and that there is support for the communities that host them.

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

My hon. Friend will be aware of the good news that the Danish company, Vestas, has announced its intention to set up a wind turbine factory in my constituency, which will create 2,000 much-needed jobs. However, the project is conditional on a number of factors, including the Government delivering stability in the market, and long-term political and regulatory certainty. What assurances can my hon. Friend give Vestas to help us seal the deal and turn that good news into very good news?

[Charles Hendry]

My hon. Friend highlights one of the investment opportunities that is coming through as a result of our approach of wanting a supply chain industry to develop for the offshore wind sector in this country. That news is very encouraging. I reassure Vestas that the area of Sheerness has a dedicated and able work force, an absolute champion in its Member of Parliament, and a supportive Government who want to see this matter move forward.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The Opposition share the Minister’s ambitions on offshore wind, which is no surprise given that it is our policy as well, and on renewables generally. How does he react to the news that renewables investment in the UK plummeted by 70% last year under the coalition Government; that we have dropped from third to 13th in the global rankings for renewables investment; and that a report on the coalition’s green promises shows little or no progress on three quarters of its promises? What now for the greenest Government ever?

[Charles Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the funding mechanism of renewables obligation certificates that we inherited has a cliff edge in 2013, and we have tried to give investors certainty beyond that point. It is clear that in the case of many renewable technologies, people have been unable to build structures because the system was to change in 2013. They did not know what the regime was going to be afterwards. That is why we have brought forward the banding review—to give investors long-term certainty and introduce market reform at the same time.

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

12. What recent assessment he has made of the security of the UK’s gas supply; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

The statutory security of supply report, published in November, is a joint report of the Department of Energy and Climate Change and Ofgem. It gives a full account of the Government’s latest assessment of the availability of gas to meet the reasonable demands of United Kingdom consumers. It concludes that the outlook for gas supplies is broadly benign but not without risks. The Government keep security of supply under constant review and have proposed measures in the current Energy Bill to further enhance our gas security.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thank the Minister and accept that the gas supply is a vital part of our future energy needs, but will he reassure me and, more importantly, my constituents that their concerns and their safety will remain paramount considerations in decisions on gas storage sites?

[Charles Hendry]

I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that security and safety are priorities for the Government in developing gas storage facilities. We do need more such facilities; a number are under construction and a number more have been given consent. The planning process will ensure that safety issues are a priority in that work.

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

Does the Minister accept that the £2 billion robbery of taxation from the North sea oilfields is now threatening the gas supply from that area? Total has told me that it would not have invested in the west of Shetland area if it had known about that tax. The Treasury’s latest proposal to tax every flight that a person takes out into the North sea will further threaten supplies. Will he intervene with the Treasury to stop it robbing North sea oil?

[Charles Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman talks about a robbery. I assume that he is going around telling his constituents that he would rather the Chancellor had not reduced fuel duty and cancelled some of Labour’s planned rises. We are determined to ensure that there is ongoing investment, and there is discussion with the Treasury about field allowances. The helicopter issue that he mentions is in a consultation document, which will take its proper course.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

15. When he plans to publish the national policy statements on energy.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement yesterday, we are carefully considering Dr Weightman’s interim report on the implications for the UK of events at Fukushima. Subject to that, we intend to lay the energy national policy statements before Parliament as soon as possible.

[Damian Collins]

In the extra time that the Minister probably now has available, will he consider giving greater consideration to the local economic benefits of nuclear power stations in the site-specific report, with particular regard to Dungeness and Romney Marsh in my constituency?

[Charles Hendry]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of the case for Dungeness. We have examined carefully the evidence that has come forward, and we will publish it when the relevant documents are republished very shortly. He will have to be patient for a little longer, but I assure him that we have given every attention to the evidence that has been presented to us.

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

Yesterday we heard the Secretary of State say that the national policy statements would be published shortly, and the Minister has repeated that today. With the stringent targets in the fourth carbon budget and the previous three, businesses need certainty if we are to meet our carbon reduction targets. Will the Minister be more precise and tell us exactly when the Department is planning to publish—not just “shortly”, but a date?

[Charles Hendry]

The hon. Lady will be aware that given the nature of the report provided by Dr Weightman yesterday, it would be wrong to make premature and rushed conclusions. We have to go through the right process. We are in the current situation because the national policy statements that the last Government published contained a massive flaw that required them to be consulted upon again. We have had to go through that process, which has involved extra time and delay. However, we will bring them forward for full parliamentary scrutiny in the next few weeks.

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

16. What his policy is on onshore wind energy.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

Onshore wind energy is one of the most cost-effective renewable energy sources. The Government are committed to the growth of well-sited onshore wind in the UK as part of a diverse energy mix, but we will put greater emphasis on ensuring that investment goes where the resource is strongest and bringing more direct benefits to communities that host wind farms.

[Simon Hart]

The Localism Bill will allow communities in England to take a far greater part in the planning process. What assurance can the Minister give those of us in west Wales that the same opportunities will be open to us?

[Charles Hendry]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, that is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government. I hope that they will look carefully at the detail of the Localism Bill to see our determination to bring real benefit to communities through the planning changes in England, and I hope that they will decide which of the measures in the Bill might be appropriate to bring similar benefits to people in Wales.

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

17. What recent representations he has received on the level of consumer protection afforded by provisions of the Energy Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

Robust consumer protection is at the heart of the green deal, and will be enshrined in the Bill’s provisions. Further details will be spelt out in secondary legislation later this autumn.

[Diana Johnson]

I listened carefully to what the Minister said earlier about redress being open to individuals through, for example, the county court, but I am pleased to hear that he recognises the importance of good, strong consumer protection set out in regulations. I very much hope that the Government introduce that and provide robust protection for consumers.

[Gregory Barker]

The hon. Lady makes some very good points. I am pleased to say that although we will publish the details later in the year, before the Bill is in Committee, I shall place in the House of Commons Library a paper summarising our approach to regulation and send her a copy.

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

18. If his Department will undertake an impact assessment of the effect of energy regulation on the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

The Government intend that UK-based energy-intensive industries will play a full part in, and benefit from, the transition to a low-carbon economy. My Department is working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to develop measures to help to improve energy efficiency and reduce electricity costs for such important companies. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on Tuesday, further announcements will be made by the end of the year.

[Tristram Hunt]

I thank the Minister for that reply, and may I also thank the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who has responsibility for climate change, for the Government’s decision to support the ceramics sector in Brussels today?

Businesses in my constituency welcome the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills-Department of Energy and Climate Change working party on energy-intensive industries, but will the Minister ensure that it focuses on international competitiveness, because our energy-intensive businesses simply cannot pass on unilateral energy costs in a global marketplace?

[Charles Hendry]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and for the work that he is doing to raise those important issues in the House and in the new parliamentary Committee. Without any doubt, we are profoundly concerned about the risk of carbon leakage. It would be absolutely absurd for British companies to move overseas, taking jobs with them, only for us to continue to import those products and for carbon emissions to go unabated or even worse in other parts of the world. That is why there is such clear, joined-up thinking between DECC, the Treasury and BIS to ensure that we come up with a comprehensive range of measures to support those critical industries.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

19. What plans his Department has to generate tidal energy from the River Severn.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

Following a two-year feasibility study, the Government concluded that there was not a strong case for public investment in a Severn tidal power scheme in the immediate term. However, that does not preclude a privately financed scheme coming forward in the meantime, and we are actively talking to developers about their plans for various tidal energy schemes in the Severn.

[Jessica Morden]

The Government have decided against the Severn barrage, but it is important that we do not lose the impetus to harness tidal power in the Severn. Will the Minister give more detail on any discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly Government on alternative plans? How far advanced are they?

[Gregory Barker]

I cannot give details of commercially confidential discussions, but we are encouraging developers to come forward with a range of proposals and looking to be as helpful as we can. The primary barrier to the previous proposal was the £34 billion cost, which in the current circumstances just did not seem feasible. However, we are trying to create a constructive framework for other, private proposals, and I would be happy to discuss the matter in more detail with the hon. Lady.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

20. By what date he expects proposed legislation to enact the green deal to enter into force.

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

The Energy Bill, which was introduced to the House of Lords on 8 December 2010, contains the primary legislation for the new green deal proposal. Secondary legislation will allow the Government to implement and administer the requirements of the primary legislation. We intend to lay the secondary legislation before Parliament in March 2012, so it will be in place to underpin the delivery of the green deal for October 2012. That timetable is naturally subject to the time taken for parliamentary scrutiny.

If I may clarify the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), I am informed that some DECC officials have indeed spoken to the Office of Fair Trading about the provision of credit for the green deal, and we have an ongoing engagement.

[Christopher Pincher]

When the green deal is rolled out, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the green deal MOT on domestic properties focuses not only on insulation, but on smart metering and energy-efficient boilers, so that customers in my constituency and around the country get the most energy-efficient and bill-cutting green deal?

[Chris Huhne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because very substantial incentives to install renewable heat solutions are available under the renewable heat incentive, alongside the green deal. The green deal itself will deal with insulation, but I confidently expect that many of the providers will offer heat solutions alongside that, which is very important.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I am concerned about the delivery of the green deal, especially in the private rented sector. How does the Secretary of State expect compliance to happen in this sector, which seems to be quite evasive? For example, will he expect local authorities to keep a register of landlords in their area as part of the delivery mechanism?

[Chris Huhne]

We have announced that we intend to regulate the private rented sector so that there will be a clear prohibition on letting F and G-rated homes in the future, and that will provide a clear target for the private rented sector to go ahead. All of the normal means of enforcing this will be available through local authorities, but we will bring forward further measures in secondary legislation.

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

22. What his policy is on recognising national climate change legislation as a commitment under the United Nations framework convention on climate change.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

Domestic legislation is desirable and demonstrates political commitment at country level. However, the UK Government believe that an international treaty is still the best and most credible way of promoting ambitious mitigation action at a global level.

[Mr Stuart]

I thank the Minister for his answer and agree with the point he makes, but does he agree with me that it is important to encourage and recognise national legislative action and that the global legislators’ organisation, GLOBE, should continue to bring legislators together to catalogue and push for greater action at national level in lieu of international agreement?

[Gregory Barker]

Absolutely, and in the absence of a global treaty, the work that GLOBE does—and my hon. Friend does very valuable work as vice-president of GLOBE International and president of GLOBE UK—including its recent study of global climate change legislation, is extremely valuable, and we certainly support it and would encourage it to go further.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

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

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

My Department works to secure clean, affordable energy supplies and action on climate change. Last week, the Energy Bill received a Second Reading in this House. It contains provisions for the green deal, our flagship piece of legislation, which will deliver energy efficiency to homes and buildings across the land. On Tuesday, we announced the fourth carbon budget, setting an ambitious target for UK emissions reductions. We are now the first country in the world to publicly commit to cutting carbon well into the next decade, and I have today published the summary of conclusions of the Ofgem review.

[Tony Baldry]

Given the current drilling by Cuadrilla at Blackpool, is the Secretary of State confident that extracting shale gas in the UK will not lead to the contamination of water supplies?

[Chris Huhne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The UK has a robust regime and it is important to recognise that we intend to ensure that shale gas operations are carried out in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Shale gas exploration has been controversial, especially in the United States where regulation has not been well implemented, but here it is subject to a series of regulatory checks, including planning permission, health and safety checks, consultation with the Environment Agency and drilling consent from my Department. The Environment Agency in particular has scrutinised Cuadrilla’s plans thoroughly and does not consider that they pose a significant risk to the environment, including to water resources.

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

In the last period, lending to small and medium enterprises dropped by 2%, so Project Merlin is not delivering—the Prime Minister has spoken on this. We know the importance of the green investment bank and of the need to get green businesses to grow—that is the subject of cross-party agreement. So why will the green investment bank not lend to small businesses?

[Chris Huhne]

The exact remit of the green investment bank has still to be announced and I urge the hon. Lady to wait for that. We have said that it will be built up and able to borrow and lend from April 2015. That will be the most significant point, because at that point it will be able to provide finance for some of the biggest investments in the renewable sector in particular. My Department is acutely aware of the importance of encouraging small businesses and we intend to do so.

[Meg Hillier]

Once again, we hear warm words from the Secretary of State but no action. Many small businesses will be out of business by 2015 and we will have lost that opportunity for technological development in the UK backed by the green investment bank.

On a wider point, we have heard rumours in the newspapers about what the green investment bank will be and the Secretary of State has just talked about a future announcement. Will he announce it to the House himself, or will he leave to the Deputy Prime Minister to make a speech in some other place about what will happen with the green investment bank?

[Chris Huhne]

I should point out to the hon. Lady that the lead Department on the green investment bank is the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, so my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will be making the formal announcements. That will happen in due course.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

T2. Will the Secretary of State tell me a bit more about what he is doing to encourage and support the clean-tech industry, including the excellent companies around Cambridge, such as AlertMe, which monitors energy efficiency, Econovate, which is involved in sustainable construction, and Eight19, which is developing novel solar technologies?

[Chris Huhne]

Earlier this year, I visited the SmartLIFE centre in Cambridge and met almost a dozen clean-tech companies from my hon. Friend’s constituency. I was impressed not just by the pioneering technologies that one would expect from a city with Cambridge’s record on innovation, but by how these ideas are being turned into thriving businesses. I understand that the SmartLIFE low-carbon centre is expanding this year to provide the skills and training facilities needed for low-carbon qualifications. It is an exciting development.

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

T3. Almost one in four households in the north-east is living in fuel poverty, which is the highest proportion in England. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) said earlier that the energy company obligation will rightly focus on fuel poverty. However, can the Secretary of State rule out its being used to subsidise banks providing green deal finance?

[Chris Huhne]

There is absolutely no intention, and nor would it be possible, to use the ECO to subsidise banks. I am confident about that because unlike the Warm Front scheme, which Labour championed, the green deal provisions enable residents, having had a survey, not merely to go to the provider that did the survey, but to take that survey and get one or more alternative quotations. The introduction of competition into the process will guarantee that the subsidy goes to where it is needed—towards a reduction in carbon emissions and improvements in energy efficiency—not to providers, be they people in the industry or the banks.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T6. The Middlewich company, Convert2Green, in my constituency, recently won the East Cheshire chamber of commerce environmental company of the year award. It converts used cooking oil, which would otherwise go into drains or landfill, into biodiesel for use in vehicles and elsewhere. The 20p duty differential for biodiesel has helped it to develop its innovative processes. What assessment has the Department made of the contribution of the 20p duty differential to the UK’s renewable energy targets, and what are the Government’s future plans for the differential?

[Chris Huhne]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the company involved. The recent quarterly renewable transport fuel obligation report gives clear evidence on the effectiveness of the 20p duty differential for biodiesel derived from used cooking oil in assisting the Government to exceed their greenhouse gas savings target, and in increasing substantially the retrieval of waste cooking oil, which otherwise would literally be poured down the drain or go to landfill. The differential has therefore made a valuable contribution to the Government’s renewable energy targets and waste strategy, and to the growth of the low-carbon economy.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

T4. The Government’s announcement of a minimum energy efficiency standard for private rented homes is welcome, but the hundreds of tenants in Nottingham living in cold, damp F and G-rated homes should not have to wait until 2018 for it to be introduced. I heard the Secretary of State’s reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), but would the legislation not be more effective if a register of landlords was introduced so that they can be informed about the new standard and directed to information about the green deal and other measures that might help them to improve their properties?

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

The hon. Lady is right that we are taking action to ensure that the private rented sector enjoys the full benefits of the green deal, but she is wrong to assume that tenants will only learn about this from a council information leaflet or some regulated communication. The most powerful element in driving the green deal forward will be the market, the new competition, the big retailers and the new entrants into the market. That will create a huge wave of interest across the country in all sectors.

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

T8. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that in making the case for the green new deal, we must bring local communities with us. Onshore wind turbines are controversial in many rural communities. If we are not careful and if local authorities push ahead with wind turbines without considering other options, we run the risk of losing the support of some of our rural communities. Does he agree?

[Chris Huhne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. As the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) pointed out earlier, onshore wind is the cheapest source of renewable energy, and we have to take account of affordability. I should also say that there are many local communities the length and breadth of this country that actually want to install onshore wind turbines. It is not always the case that they are unpopular. Indeed, the most attractive and regularly visited tourist feature in my constituency is the Bursledon windmill. It is, admittedly, slightly older than many wind turbines, but it works on exactly the same principle. Bursledon windmill is beautiful, and many of the wind turbines that we are installing are beautiful too.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

T5. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Renewable Energy Association has described the proposed tariff changes for solar photovoltaic installations over 50 kW as an “horrendous strategic mistake”. If he goes ahead with the changes, how do the Government intend to support decentralised local community energy generation in future?

[Gregory Barker]

I am afraid that the horrendous strategic failure was made by the last Government, who failed to put any sensible financial controls on the feed-in tariff scheme. There is plenty of scope for new innovative community schemes to take shape. Indeed, I visited one only last week in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), and I look forward to visiting many more. We want a big push forward in decentralised energy schemes. Solar is a great technology, but it has to be affordable. We need proper controls that do not blow the budget, which is what would have happened had we not taken action.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Most of the climate change debate tends to focus on mitigation and decarbonisation, but it is also important to work on adaption, such as how we respond to pressures on water supply. What plans are the Government putting in place at home and abroad to cope with the increasing pressure and also to promote new water filtration technologies, such as that promoted by FilterClear, an innovative company in my constituency that is creating green jobs and British exports, and promoting the more efficient use of water?

[Gregory Barker]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There are opportunities for green growth and innovation right across the economy, and a lot that we can do in the water sector in particular. However, that is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is looking carefully at how we develop the green deal. Indeed, it is possible that we could see a similar programme offered in due course—perhaps a blue deal—to ensure that water-saving measures are funded in the same way. However, she is absolutely spot-on in realising the huge potential that exists.

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

T7. Has there been any discussion about the geographic spread of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects? The Minister will be aware that there are a number of proposals in Scotland. Is it possible that two or even three of them might be allowed to go ahead?

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

The hon. Lady raises an extremely interesting point. Clearly there is an interest in sharing infrastructure, rather than everybody rebuilding their own, for CCS to go forward. We are putting forward seven schemes to the European funding mechanism —the NER300—which is more than any other country in Europe. Some schemes are geographically close to each other and some are further apart. However, they will be chosen on their merit, and there is a lot of work being done to ensure that the infrastructure costs are shared wherever possible.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Ofgem’s retail market review finds that many consumers are not getting nearly as good an energy deal as they could, and that includes too many of the poorest and most vulnerable. We have a diverse and dynamic market. That is a good thing, but it also means complexity, with more than 300 different tariffs available, 50% more than a year ago. Does my right hon. Friend agree with Ofgem’s proposal to simplify things and make it easier for consumers to compare prices and get a better deal?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The questions are becoming too long and they need to be shorter.

[Chris Huhne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am extremely enthusiastic about the thrust of the question. I am delighted that Ofgem is looking at this issue, because as we have known ever since the middle ages—if not before—if a market is to work effectively, we need common weights and measures, so that people can compare prices in the marketplace properly, and that is exactly what tariff simplification would enable them to do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call John Robertson. Not here.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Fifty per cent more CO₂ emissions savings could be made in the transport sector by adopting Greener Journeys’ ONE Billion challenge for a modal shift. Will the Minister look into the efficacy of the scheme and discuss the proposal with his counterpart at the Department for Transport?

[Gregory Barker]

I am not familiar with the details of the scheme that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I will certainly look into this and I would be happy to communicate with my colleagues at the Department for Transport.

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

Can the Secretary of State remind the House how much energy was contributed to the grid by onshore and offshore wind last December—one of the coldest periods of time on record?

[Chris Huhne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. What he is really asking is: does wind help when it is not blowing? Any Energy Secretary has to deal with the nightmare possibility of six cold, still days in February when the wind is not blowing but we all still need electricity. It is important for him to remember, however, that the energy sector has always had to deal with variable demand. That is why plant is often built to back up other plant. An example of the enormous variation in demand is when we all go and put our kettles on during the advertising break in “Coronation Street”. At that point, we need to bring on massive amounts of electricity generation. That is exactly the same principle, so my hon. Friend’s point is by no means a killer criticism of wind. Wind has a very important contribution to make to the national grid, and we intend to ensure that it continues to do so.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Compliance with environmental legislation places a huge burden on companies such as Rio Tinto Alcan in my constituency. It will wipe out profits in excess of £50 million, come 2013, and it could jeopardise 650 jobs. What measures are the Government putting in place to protect jobs in that type of industry?

[Chris Huhne]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this matter. It is crucial that we bring forward proper measures to deal with energy-intensive industries of the sort that he mentions. In fact, we have had contact with Rio Tinto Alcan, along with many other energy-intensive industries, on exactly these issues. As I announced earlier this week, we are committed to working jointly with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to bring forward a package of measures to ensure that energy-intensive industries have a thriving future in this country. There are a number of ways in which we can help, including free allocation under the emissions trading scheme or conversion to biomass, which is also an important option.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

11:32

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to explain her decision not to ban the use of wild animals in circuses.

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

I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is on ministerial business elsewhere. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for her question, because it allows me to draw the House’s attention to the written ministerial statement laid by my right hon. Friend at 9.30 this morning.

During oral questions last Thursday, and in the written ministerial statement on Friday, my right hon. Friend and I referred to a current case against the Austrian Government relating to their ban on circuses. However, we now understand that the initiation of court proceedings against the Austrian Government has been delayed, although a case is in preparation and proceedings are expected to commence shortly. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I would be very happy to clarify the confusion that we might have caused. This does not, however, affect our policy to introduce a tough licensing regime. The very strong legal advice that we have received, which is consistent with the case being prepared against Austria, is that a total ban on wild animals in circuses might well be seen as disproportionate action under the European Union services directive and under our own Human Rights Act 1998—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must hear the Minister’s response.

[Mr Paice]

We believe that to have pursued a ban in the light of that legal advice would have been irresponsible.

[Mary Creagh]

As the Minister has said, the Secretary of State told the House at DEFRA questions last Thursday that

“the Austrian Government have been taken to court by a German circus company because of a breach of the EU services directive.”—[Official Report, 12 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1347.]

Her written ministerial statement the following day repeated that allegation, yet today’s statement has confirmed that no legal challenge exists. The DEFRA big top is spinning out of control on these legal cases that do not exist, and hiding behind human rights legislation—

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Pathetic!

[Mary Creagh]

It is the Department that is pathetic.

Given that everything read on the internet should not be trusted, for the future avoidance of doubt will the Minister place in the Library the evidence and the legal advice he has received? The Austrian embassy in London confirms that there was a legal challenge against Austria by the Commission, but it was closed in 2005. The European ombudsman closed the case in 2010.

This House relies on Ministers giving us accurate and timely information, so will he take the opportunity to apologise for misleading the House and the British public and will he stop hiding behind some circus owners who, after six years of failed national and European legal challenges, might well bring another case? That provides no reason not to ban wild animals in British circuses.

There is a further point. The Minister wants councils to license circuses, but there is a problem: circuses move from place to place, so conditions might be adequate in one town, but not in another. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government proposes to remove the powers of local authorities to prosecute owners for animal cruelty as part of his so-called review of the “burdens” on local authorities. He is proposing a scheme that gives authorities the power to license, but no ability to prosecute owners if cases of animal cruelty are discovered.

This is another all-singing, all-dancing disaster from the worst-performing Department in government. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs briefed the Daily Express on 3 April that the Department wanted a ban; the Minister’s Back Benchers and the rest of the House want a ban: it is time for another DEFRA U-turn and a ban on wild animals in British circuses.

[Mr Paice]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s record of events is somewhat distorted. We have not claimed that the case brought by the European Commission was anything to do with our decision. I referred specifically to a case that we understand is being prepared, as I have explained, by the European Circus Association against the Austrian Government. I can assure her that my officials have spoken today to the lawyer acting for the European Circus Association to confirm the validity of that. As I have said, we also received advice from our lawyers that the ban could be inconsistent with the provisions of the EU services directive. The hon. Lady has to ask, first, if this is so critical, why did her own Government not do it; and, secondly, if she were a Minister, would she be prepared to override the advice of her own lawyers and risk being taken to court for it, and subsequently having to withdraw the legislation she introduced?

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

In 1997, the all-party animal welfare group, of which I was then the chairman, produced a report on performing animals in circuses. I handed the report personally to the responsible Labour Home Office Minister. In the ensuing years, the Labour Government took no action whatever, so I do not think we need to take any lessons from Labour Members on this subject. That said, there is no case for performing wild animals in circuses. Given this stay of execution, will my right hon. Friend revisit the issue with a view to a total ban?

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend rightly reminds us that the real issue is the welfare of animals in circuses. That is why our policy remains as it was clearly announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Friday. A strict licensing regime has the potential to reduce or eliminate the use of wild animals in circuses if the owners cannot meet the tough standards that we will require, on which we will consult. That can be done quickly, whereas a ban would require primary legislation—and we are all well aware of the time scale that involves.

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

The Minister talks about human rights, but what about animal rights? Do this Government not care about the welfare of wild animals, which have no powers whatever to exert for their own welfare? Would not the best possible course of action be for the Government to impose a ban and cope with any complications if they arise later? What we want is action from the Government, not subordination to lawyers.

[Mr Paice]

It is a sad but important fact that although this House passes laws, as indeed does the European Union, it is for the courts to interpret those laws. If the advice of our lawyers is that the courts might well interpret a ban as unlawful, we must heed that advice. That is what we have done, and that is why we have produced just as tough a regime through the use of licences—which, as I have said, could well mean that animals do not stay in circuses if their owners cannot meet the standards required.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I must tell the Minister that this is just not good enough. Hiding behind 13 years of Labour failure is not a justification for maintaining the present position.

Last Friday, DEFRA—the Department for error, failure and rotten administration—issued a statement that was not correct, and I am not prepared to go along with the clarification that attempted to involve Austria. Does the Minister not accept that this barbaric activity has no place in civilised society?

[Mr Paice]

I am more than happy to confirm my personal view that wild animals do not belong in circuses. The real point, however, is that we are taking action that we can take now and as a result of which, I suspect, few if any wild animals will remain in circuses. If people are really so opposed to the use of wild animals in circuses, I suggest that they do not go to the circus.

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

The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) is wrong. In 2009, when I was Minister of State at DEFRA, we initiated a consultation, in response to which 94.5 % of people said that they wanted the use of wild animals in circuses to be banned. We gave a commitment that we would do that if we were returned to office. The Minister is also—[Interruption.] Will Members allow me to ask my question?

In 2005, the European circus proprietors took action against the Austrian Government at Commission level. When that action failed in 2007, they invoked the European ombudsman, who found in 2009 that the Commission had been correct. I have been told by the Born Free Foundation, Animal Defenders International and the RSPCA that the Austrian Government said yesterday that no legal action was pending. Will the Minister clarify the position?

[Mr Paice]

I can confirm that officials from my Department have spoken to the attorney acting for the European Circus Association, that it is developing a case, and that it expects to issue proceedings against the Austrian Government in the next few weeks.

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

I am delighted to report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently visiting the Pickering “slowing the flow” project at the request of North Yorkshire county council.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that there will not be a knee-jerk reaction banning all wild animals in circuses until we have taken the best possible legal advice? Is it not a little hypocritical of Parliament to receive, in the House of Commons, performers from circuses that use wild animals, and then to reject those very performers?

[Mr Paice]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Any Government must take serious heed of the legal advice they are given. Any Ministers who wilfully ignore such advice and risk the Government’s being taken to court and losing are, in my view, neglecting their duty. We have made the right decision: we have taken swift action to deal with the issue of the welfare of circus animals, and I believe that that is the right course.

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

We are well aware that many Members on the Government Benches like torturing animals, but is the Government’s position that if someone in Europe challenges an issue, this Government—this Parliament—cannot act? I find it unbelievable that the Minister would take such a position.

[Mr Paice]

The fact is that we are part of the European Union, and we are obliged to comply with European Union law. If the hon. Gentleman does not like that, it is a matter for him. As I said earlier—to some ridicule from Opposition Members—our own Human Rights Act has an influence on the position, and it was passed by the Labour party, which ought to know what its legislation says.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I believe that a majority of my constituents would want a ban on wild animals in circuses. Will the Minister update the House on how many wild animals he estimates are in circuses, and whether the number has been increasing or decreasing in recent years?

[Mr Paice]

The latest estimate is that there are 39 such animals. Following the recent press exposure, there are now no elephants in our circuses. The last one, Nelly, who we saw being very badly treated, is now in a home.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Last Thursday, the Minister clearly stated to the House:

“There have been recent press reports that the Austrian Government have been taken to court for their attempt to ban wild animals in circuses, so our Government can hardly recommend something that might not be legal.”—[Official Report, 12 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1344.]

There are only two possibilities: either the official gave him wrong advice, which I regret to say is not uncommon and in which case the official should go, or the Minister made the wrong judgment even though he had the facts, in which case the Minister should go. Which is it?

[Mr Paice]

What I said, as quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, is entirely correct. There were, or are—[Hon. Members: “Were!”] At that time, there were such newspaper reports, as I reported to the House, so that was a perfectly accurate statement. It now transpires that those newspaper reports, and therefore my comments, were incorrect. That is why I have come to the House to clarify the fact, which I have done.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to zoos in this country, which have steadily improved conditions for wild animals? For example, Twycross zoo in my constituency has wide open spaces for elephants, lions, tigers and giraffes.

[Mr Paice]

I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about the measures taken by our zoos. If animals cease to be allowed in circuses, or if circuses are unable to meet the licensing conditions, I suspect many animals will move to zoos.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. While paying absolutely no disrespect to zoos, may I request that we return to the subject of circuses?

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

I have to say that I think the Minister’s position is an extraordinarily cowardly one. May I remind him that there was legal advice against a seal ban—a ban on the import of seal products—yet the courage of member states led to that being overturned? There was also legal advice against the ban on the import of cat and dog fur, but, again, the courage of individual member states led to that being overturned. May we have a bit of spine from this Government, and will they respect the wishes of the vast majority of people in this country and ban now these wild animals in circuses?

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Lady needs to reflect on the proceedings she has just mentioned, because they are very different from that which is under discussion now. Those situations involved European member states taking action at European level, whereas this situation involves a single member state, and we believe that if we take this action we may well be infringing European law, to which we are committed.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

A reference in Friday’s statement to the legal context of a ban is relevant only if the Department had been seriously considering a ban. Will the Minister therefore enlighten the House about that and tell us whether the Government would review the situation and consider an outright ban if the legal impediment could be overcome?

[Mr Paice]

I assure my hon. Friend that we considered all options, because we had the benefit of the consultation that the previous Government had initiated and the responses to it. Clearly, however, on the basis of the information and advice we received, we believed a ban was not the right way to proceed. We wanted to be able to act swiftly, and we can do that through a very strict licensing regime. I must repeat to the House that very tough standards will be imposed on how these animals can be kept, and it is possible that circus owners will not be able to meet those standards, in which case we will have achieved a ban without having to pass primary legislation.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The people in my constituency who protested when the Bobby Roberts circus appeared there would be stunned by the pathetic defence the Minister has put up today. Quite apart from the fact that he got the name of the elephant wrong, can he tell us why we should rely on his defence when he cannot tell us which bit of the Human Rights Act enshrines the right to be cruel to animals?

[Mr Paice]

That question does not really deserve an answer. The hon. Lady knows full well that no bit of the Human Rights Act says that, but other bits of the Human Rights Act could be infringed by a ban on wild animals in circuses.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I urge the Government to think again. A performing circus is simply no place for magnificent wild animals such as lions and tigers and the public overwhelmingly agree. The Minister mentions the possible obstacles of primary legislation and legal challenge. May I put it to him that if he took the bold step of proposing a total ban, he would find a great deal of cross-party agreement for that primary legislation? Indeed, were there to be subsequent legal challenges in the courts, he would also have the support of the House.

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. Of course I appreciate, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that there is very strong public support for a ban as well as support across the parties in this House, but Ministers must take all the issues into account, including the legal advice to which I have referred and on which we believe that we have acted.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

If the Minister will not introduce a ban, will he at least consider extending the provisions of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 so that circus animals have the same rights and protections as zoo animals?

[Mr Paice]

I am happy to agree to consider that. Circus animals are, of course, covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which enshrined the five freedoms, but if further issues arise from the 1981 Act I am more than happy to consider them. While I am on the subject of licensing, Mr Speaker, may I say that although the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) referred to local government, this is not a local government issue? The inspectors would be DEFRA inspectors appointed by us.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I hope that the Minister understands the frustration of Members and our constituents when it seems sometimes that the script of prevarication is written by officials and does not change, whoever is in government. Will the Minister at the very least publish the legal advice on which this decision rests?

[Mr Paice]

I am happy to discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who must make that decision.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

On whose authority did the official at DEFRA phone up the lawyer of the European Circus Association to find out whether there was a preparation in the pipeline to make a legal challenge? Will he confirm that if that challenge continues to be in the pipeline, his Department will continue to do nothing, which gives the association a perverse incentive to make it last as long as possible?

[Mr Paice]

The answer to the first question is that my noble Friend Lord Henley is responsible for this policy within the Department. The answer to the second question, which is completely fallacious, is that we are not doing nothing. We have already made it clear that we will introduce a tough licensing regime soon.

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

Is the Minister not aware that advisers, including legal ones, advise and Ministers decide? In reaching this decision today, he appears weak-kneed. He has agreed to see one of his hon. Friends afterwards on the question of legal advice, but perhaps he could include an Opposition Member in that meeting. There can be nothing in the legal advice that is remotely binding on this issue and he is failing to respond to the feeling in the country and in the House, which goes way beyond the number of animals involved. It is a question of principle.

[Mr Paice]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, and of course Ministers must make the final decision. We accept that responsibility. Advice to Ministers can sometimes be fairly evenly balanced and sometimes pretty heavily balanced in favour of one side or the other. The outcome of the ministerial decision is likely to depend on that.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is usually a great pleasure to hear the right hon. Lady, but I fear that she was not in the Chamber at the start of these exchanges, so we will have to wait to hear her views on a subsequent occasion.

Business of the House

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

11:54

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be:

Monday 23 May—Opposition day (16th allotted day). There will be a debate on “Sentencing”, followed by a debate on “Policing and Crime”. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.

Tuesday 24 May—Motion relating to eurozone financial assistance, followed by a pre-recess Adjournment debate, the format of which has been specified by the Backbench Business Committee. The business for this day has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Colleagues will wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 11.30 am on this day.

The business for the week commencing 6 June will include:

Monday 6 June—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 7 June—Second Reading of the terrorism prevention and investigation measures Bill.

Wednesday 8 June—There will be a debate on an humble address relating to the Duke of Edinburgh’s 90th birthday, followed by Opposition day (17th allotted day) (half-day). There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

Thursday 9 June—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Postal Services Bill, followed by a general debate on the Munro report and its implications for child protection.

Friday 10 June—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 9 June 2011 will be:

Thursday 9 June—A debate on the Scottish Affairs Committee report on postal services in Scotland.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. After the performance we have just witnessed from the Minister at the Dispatch Box it seems pretty clear that DEFRA is a Department in special measures. I begin by asking whether we may have a statement on the improvement plan that the Government plan to put in place to improve its performance?

On the terrorism prevention and investigation measures Bill, assuming that this is the Bill that will provide for an extension in the period for which people may be detained, will the Leader of the House assure us that the promise that there would be full consultation with the Opposition on the drawing up of the Bill has been kept?

On the date of the next Queen’s Speech, following our recent exchanges, will the Leader of the House at least assure us that it will not take place during purdah next April? I ask because it is now becoming increasingly clear that deciding on a date has difficulties for the Government, which might explain why the week before last the Leader of the House decided to answer a question about the date of the Easter recess that I had not asked.

Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Bill will be introduced to enshrine the commitment to give 0.7% of our national wealth in aid to those living in poverty, and will he explain why the Prime Minister has clearly failed to persuade his Defence Secretary that that is the right policy? Is it a sign of what the Tories really think about development? Will the Leader of the House also join me in condemning the remarks of the former head of the armed forces, Lord Guthrie, who was reported yesterday as calling for aid spending to be switched to defence, adding:

“We have not got time to muck about”.

Helping to save children’s lives is not mucking about.

We see that the other place will have a debate on the proposals for its reform published this week. Are the Government planning to have a debate in this House before the summer recess and in Government time?

May we have a debate on child poverty following the warning given this week that 300,000 children will be pushed below the poverty line in the next three years because of the Government’s spending cuts? The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that after falling to its lowest level in 25 years—that is the difference made by a Labour Government—child poverty is likely to rise sharply owing to the Chancellor’s decision to cut benefits and tax credits.

When will the Justice Secretary clarify the Government’s policy on rape and sentencing following the utter confusion of the past 24 hours? Having toured the TV and radio studios yesterday, offending more and more people with every interview he gave, should he not come to the House to apologise and explain what on earth is going on?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister categorically denied any link with Mark Britnell, the man who last weekend said that the national health service

“will be shown no mercy".

Will the Leader of the House therefore explain why it is reported that Mr Britnell was invited to attend a meeting of senior experts in Downing Street earlier this month by none other than the Prime Minister’s own special adviser on health?

May we have a statement from the Health Secretary following the comments made over the weekend by Professor Steve Field? He was asked by the Prime Minister to review the NHS plans—I take it that does make him an adviser—and his conclusion is damning. Professor Field told The Guardian that the Bill’s proposals are “destabilising”.

When will the Prime Minister clarify exactly who is now deciding the Government’s policy on the Health Bill? This week, the Deputy Prime Minister issued an ultimatum regarding his own Bill—that really is a first. He said that the responsibility of Monitor for competition will have to be dropped. Indeed, in a Lib Dem policy document that he has signed, the Deputy Prime Minister says that

“the decision to establish Monitor as an ‘economic regulator’ was clearly a misjudgement”.

That is extraordinary from someone who cleared the Bill, put his name to the Bill and voted for it on Second Reading. Meanwhile, the Health Secretary, who was apparently cheered to the rafters at last night’s meeting of the 1922 Committee, says the very opposite. He told the King’s Fund yesterday that

“real choice, means that providers will be…competing for patients.”

It is now clear that the longer the Government’s pause lasts, the more uncertainty there is about the future of the NHS. Nobody knows who is in charge or what is going on—it is a complete shambles. When is the Prime Minister going to get a grip?

[Sir George Young]

We are committed to legislating on the 0.7%—something that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government never did. We are the first Government in history—and, indeed in the G20—to set out clear, specific plans for achieving that 0.7% from 2013, and that commitment will be enshrined in law. That was the commitment we made and we propose to keep it. We are keeping our word and that has brought us respect throughout the world. I hope that we will have support from the Opposition when we introduce the Bill.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood which Bill we are introducing on our first day back. It is the Bill that replaces control orders with temporary terrorism prevention and investigation measures; it is not the Bill on the period of detention. Of course, we want to consult the Opposition on the Bill. The measure he referred to is in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, which is currently going through the House.

I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the subject of the House of Lords. Labour was in office for 13 years but failed to deliver its manifesto commitments. Now that we are doing that, I hope that we will have Labour’s support. We will have a debate in Government time on the proposals and I very much hope that instead of sniping from the sidelines and making cheap political points, the Opposition will engage with the issue and help us to deliver not only our manifesto commitment but Labour’s.

On child poverty, I reject the assertions that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. There will be an opportunity when we debate the Welfare Reform Bill to have a longer discussion on that subject.

On the issue of rape, the right hon. Gentleman will know that his party has chosen the subject of sentencing for debate on Monday. Rape is a very serious crime with appalling consequences for victims. The Justice Secretary did not intend to give the impression otherwise and that is why he has written to the Radio 5 listener to apologise for his comments and to invite her to a meeting. We will set out in the debate on Monday the way in which we are determined to drive up the conviction rate for rapists and the support that we are giving to rape centres throughout the country with an extra grant of £3.5 million annually for the next three years, giving rape support centres the certainty that they need.

On health, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman chose to raise this subject in the week when a National Audit Office report has revealed the systematic waste of money on Labour’s disastrous NHS information technology projects in the previous Parliament—£6.4 billion with very little benefit to patients.

On the other issue of differences between the coalition parties, it is worth reminding the House of the vicious battles that were fought within the Labour party between the former Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, and the then Chancellor, which threatened to destabilise the entire Government and which left the then Health Secretary, according to the extraordinary testimony of one of his Cabinet colleagues, “annihilated”. From a party that annihilates its own Health Ministers, I am not minded to take any advice on the resolution of differences of policy.

Finally, there is growing concern about how comfortably the right hon. Gentleman has taken to the Opposition Benches. In a recent interview with The House Magazine, when he was asked what it was like not being a Minister, he replied:

“You learn to adapt very quickly. I’m not pining.”

Has Labour realised that there is little prospect of any return to office?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye but I remind the House that there is pressure on time with a further statement to follow and two important and well-subscribed debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, so there is a premium on brevity.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On Report of the Localism Bill this week, Back Benchers had about 40 minutes to debate the first group of amendments, in which there were eight new clauses and 156 amendments, and 25 minutes to debate the second group, which contained a similar number of measures. When we were in opposition my right hon. Friend was the first to criticise the Government for allowing such an appalling lack of time for debate on Report. What is he going to do to address the shameful amount of time being allocated to such debates?

[Sir George Young]

I remind my hon. Friend that in the last Session of the previous Parliament, not once did we get two days to debate the remaining stages of a Bill. The Government allocated two days for the remaining stages of the Localism Bill and we are going to do exactly the same with more Bills that are in the pipeline. We are determined to allow the House adequate time. I say to my hon. Friend that I understand that the Public Bill Committee had the opportunity to discuss all the amendments and new clauses and to conclude its deliberations slightly ahead of time.

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

Until recently, Back Benchers have been allocated roughly one day a week of time in the Chamber, which has almost always been on a Thursday, but I will leave that for another day. In the past couple of months, for various reasons, we have had nothing like one day a week and as a result quite a long list of interesting debates is stacking up. I know that the Government will be as keen as we are to hold those debates on the Floor of the House, so will the Leader of the House tell us what allocation will be made available to Back Benchers for debates in the Chamber between now and the summer recess and how he plans to let us catch up a little on Back-Bench time in the Chamber?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and for her work in chairing the Backbench Business Committee. I remind the House that the coalition Government introduced that Committee—something that the previous Government failed to do. I stand by the commitment we made to implement Wright in full and allow 35 days a Session, which works out at roughly one day a week. That remains my intention and that will apply to the longer Session, so there will continue to be roughly one day a week. There may be a few weeks of famine but there may then be a few weeks of flood to compensate. She mentioned Thursdays, but we have allocated her a Tuesday next week.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

May I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that Back-Bench time is not taken up by any more debates about MPs’ pay and expenses? However, I would welcome further clarification from him about the written statement he made today about Members’ pay. Will he urge the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to be mindful of the point that we have voted for a freeze in MPs pay to put us in line with millions of public sector workers across the country? That must be at the centre of any determination of discussions going forward.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The background is that had we not had that debate back in March, we would automatically have received an increase. The House voted unanimously to reject that and to resolve that it should have no pay increase for the next two years. We have now implemented that part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and have handed over responsibility to IPSA. I have no doubt that it will have in mind the strong view of the House that our pay should be frozen for two years.

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

The finance director of AssetCo resigned on Tuesday, its share price has dropped by 90% to 5p and the general view is that it is going into administration. AssetCo owns the engines of the London fire service and is also part of the consortium bidding to train firefighters. What is happening could put fire safety in London at risk, so may we have a ministerial statement urgently to see what Government measures are being put in place to protect Londoners?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises a serous issue that I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. One of his top priorities, in relation to the London fire service, will be maintaining safety.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the Cultural Olympiad arts festival, which the brilliant IF festival in Milton Keynes is supposed to be part of? There are concerns that the Olympiad festival will be increasingly based in London. Does the Leader of the House not agree that such a festival should be open to the whole United Kingdom?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a forceful point and might like to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who will respond to him.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is reported this week that Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former adviser to Tony Blair during the Iraq war, has taken up an advisory consultancy post with the oil industry in Iraq. He was advised to delay doing so for six months but started work after three, in clear breach of the rules governing former civil servants taking up business interests. A number of former Ministers have also taken up lucrative jobs in industries for which they used to be responsible in government. May we have a full debate on the revolving door and how we can stop it revolving?

[Sir George Young]

On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, the ministerial code was tightened last May. Former Ministers are not allowed to lobby for two years and are bound to accept the advice of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the remarks about Sir Jeremy Greenstock.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Last night, with fellow Warwickshire MPs, I met members of the Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce. One of the overriding issues discussed was business regulation and red tape. Although the business people were extremely heartened by the proposals put forward in the Budget to reduce regulation and red tape, they were dismayed by the current proposals to extend paternity rights. If we are to continue to drive new job creation through businesses, is it not time for tangible reductions in business regulation and red tape and will the Leader of the House consider a debate on reducing business regulation?

[Sir George Young]

On the question of paternity rights, there will be legislation in due course to change provision and my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to comment at that stage. We are reducing the stock of regulation through the red tape challenge. I was interested to hear about his meeting with the Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce. We have an ambitious programme to reduce the flow of new regulation and are inviting the public to suggest existing regulations that could be scrapped or improved and then Government Departments will have to review their entire set of regulations.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House refer his colleagues in the Department of Health to the situation of Southern Cross Healthcare, a company that owns care homes for the elderly, as 30,000 elderly people now face a very uncertain future? The company is in a parlous financial condition. It would be intolerable to see 30,000 elderly people put out on the streets. We need to know that the Health Ministers know about this situation and have a plan B.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The top priority must be the continuing welfare of the residents in the homes to which he refers. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary and his Ministers are in contact with Southern Cross Healthcare. He will continue to keep in close touch with the situation and will work with local authorities, the Care Quality Commission and other providers to ensure an effective response that delivers protection to everyone involved. We know that the speculation in recent days has been stressful for those in the homes concerned and their relatives. We will do all we can to maintain the quality of care to which they are entitled.

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

I warmly welcome the confirmation from the Leader of House that the House will have a debate on the draft Bill on House of Lords reform. Given the Bill’s enormous constitutional importance, will he please confirm that when we come to debate it we will consider it in all its stages on the Floor of the House without any guillotine?

[Sir George Young]

It will certainly be constitutional legislation and it will certainly be taken on the Floor of the House, so I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He has not been in the House quite as long as I have, but he will know that at times debate can be protracted and that on certain occasions it is necessary to curtail debate in order to make progress with the rest of a Bill, so I cannot guarantee that at no stage in the process of scrutiny of constitutional legislation will the House be invited to come to a decision. I rest on what I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). We are determined that the House should have adequate time to consider serious legislation and believe that we are already performing far better than our predecessors in that respect.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Following two damning reports from the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, may we have an urgent debate in Government time on the unsatisfactory situation facing S4C, the Welsh language TV broadcaster?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to develop the argument further when considering the Public Bodies Bill. Debates on Select Committee reports are now the province of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, so he may like to present himself at 1 o’clock on a Tuesday afternoon at her salon.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will the Leader of the House give time to discuss the important matter of the process of recruiting a new Clerk of the House of Commons? As a member of the Administration Committee, I received a copy of the advert for that post yesterday. At a time when the Government are bearing down so hard on salaries and bonuses in the public and private sectors, when there are job losses and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to approve all salaries in excess of that of the Prime Minister, I wonder whether the appropriate assessment has taken place of the roles involved in the Clerk’s job and whether, in fact, the residence, the uniform allowance and the £200,000 salary should be subject to some sort of discussion, along with an assessment of the criteria, rather than there being an automatic assumption about that.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have now seen the advertisement to which she refers, which I understand was approved by you, Mr Speaker. The salary of the Clerk of the House and chief executive is linked to judicial salaries and is in the permanent secretary band, which reflects the Clerk’s position as independent constitutional adviser to the Speaker and the House. The Clerk is appointed by the Crown, by Letters Patent, and is not an employee of the House of Commons Commission. However, it is right that all public bodies, including the House of Commons, should take robust decisions on their expenditure at the current time and I support any steps to do that.

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

Further to the earlier question on Backbench Business Committee debates, on 4 February the House stated clearly that it wanted the Government to consider action on legal loan sharking. On 14 February, 20 Members from across the House wrote to the Ministers responsible to ask for a meeting to make progress on the matter and to look at how we could clarify the intention. Despite repeated requests and letters, nearly three months later no response at all has been received from the Department responsible. I know that I cannot ask the Leader of the House for help to get Wonga-man to account for his actions or to get the Wellcome Trust to account for its actions in investing in this high-cost credit industry and the impact it has on my constituents in Walthamstow and those in communities across the country, but I hope I can ask him for a new debate on holding Ministers accountable for their behaviour towards MPs on such matters and their continued refusal to protect the poorest consumers in Britain.

[Sir George Young]

If the hon. Lady, along with other MPs, has asked for a meeting with a ministerial colleague, my view is that she is entitled to have it. I will convey that view to the ministerial colleague concerned, the identity of whom she very tactfully withheld.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

We have a Prime Minister who is committed to the health service, a Health Secretary who is the most experienced Member of the House on health matters and a Bill before the House that has been approved by the Cabinet, yet we have Ministers who seem to be opposing what they originally supported. May we have a statement on collective responsibility and whether it applies only to Conservative Ministers?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very helpful question. In my response to the shadow Leader of the House I drew attention to discussions on a health Bill that took place within a one-party Government. I think that it is entirely legitimate when there is a coalition for the two parties to have a discussion. There is a pause in the legislation. The Bill will be going ahead on Report once that consultation is concluded. We will adhere to the broad principles set out in the coalition agreement on the future of the health legislation. I remind my hon. Friend that we have decided to put more money into the NHS—there are now 2,500 more doctors in the NHS—whereas the Labour party is cutting the NHS in Wales.

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

Further to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) about the inadequate time made available on Report of the Localism Bill, may we have a debate in Government time about the financial cost and the implications for democracy of the Secretary of State’s appalling plans to impose a non-elected executive mayor on the people of Birmingham without a shred of evidence that they support such a form of dictatorship?

[Sir George Young]

That particular issue was debated on Report, so the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to discuss it.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

Yesterday the associate parliamentary group on manufacturing held a discussion with the Skills Commission on how we can reduce the skills gap in the sector. In my constituency we have access to an excellent apprenticeship scheme through Warwickshire college, and we have two world-class universities nearby, Warwick and Coventry, but we need to do more, so will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate about how we can close the skills gap and encourage young people to take up careers in manufacturing in order to bring about sustainable economic growth?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and very encouraged to hear what is happening in his constituency. Manufacturing is vital to economic growth, and the Government are taking a number of steps to support that growth, including, for example, through apprenticeships, with 250,000 more available over the next few years. We are also funding an organisation called STEMNET, which provides resources for students, teachers and professionals. We are determined to rebalance the economy, to drive up the role of manufacturing and to build on the measures that we have already announced.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Professor Steve Field is carrying out an independent listening exercise on the NHS and reporting to the Prime Minister. The Health Committee, of which I am a member, would like Professor Field to come to give evidence, but I understand that that has been fiercely resisted if not vetoed by the Department of Health, so I should be grateful for the help of the Leader of the House in resolving the issue and answering the question of whether Professor Field acts independently and is therefore able to come to the Select Committee, or whether he is an agent of the Department—which then calls into question the independence of the listening exercise. We really need to get to the bottom of this.

[Sir George Young]

The normal routine is for Ministers to appear before Select Committees, because they are ultimately responsible for policy. There were certainly occasions when the previous Government asked Ministers to appear before a Committee despite the Committee asking for somebody else, but I will make some inquiries about the issue to which the hon. Lady refers, contact my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and draw her concern to his attention.

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

Following the tragic death of my constituent Ricky Burlton, aged 20, at the hands of a driver who had no legal right to be in the country and no driving licence, but who was able to procure insurance without the insurance company undertaking or being able to undertake any checks for a licence, will the Leader of the House please find time so that we can debate the matter and see what steps we can take to resolve this rather fatal flaw in process?

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry to hear about the loophole to which my hon. Friend refers and of the death of his constituent. I will draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport and ask him to write to him. I cannot provide time for an immediate debate, but he may like to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall to explore the issue further.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The Finucane family have spent the past 22 years in unbearable grief, not knowing why Pat Finucane was shot 14 times in front of them. Given the historic visit of the Queen to the Republic of Ireland, would it be possible for a statement to be made to the House on when there will be an independent inquiry into Pat Finucane’s murder?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and understand her concern. I will pass her question on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and ask him to write to her.

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

My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the widespread concern throughout the UK about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s proposals to modernise the coastguard service, and today we have seen a lot of speculation in the press. Will he invite the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House to make a statement?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern and, indeed, other Members’ concern about the future of the coastguard service, something that has been debated on several occasions. The Transport Committee is currently visiting Stornoway, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will want to reflect on its report. The review of the service started under the previous Administration, and the Government are understandably reluctant to comment on the speculation in the press. We will respond in due course, have another look at the reorganisation proposals and reveal our conclusions to the House before the summer recess.

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

May we have a debate about this country’s ability to respond effectively in the event of a major terrorist incident? On Tuesday I called a debate in Westminster Hall about the future of Forensic Science Service, something the Leader of the House may remember me raising at previous business questions. MPs from all parts of the House who attended the debate raised many serious concerns about the Government’s plans to wind down the FSS, plans that I believe would leave the country without the capacity to deal effectively with the aftermath of a major terrorist incident and would weaken the fight against crime. The Government simply need to look again at the issue.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity on the first day back, when I have announced a debate on the Second Reading of a terrorism Bill, to raise his concerns, or he may be able to raise them in a debate on Monday dealing with police and crime. I hope that he will have an opportunity to share those concerns with the House quite soon.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts to clear Parliament square? Is he aware that the lawn there is now completely clear of demonstrators for the first time in 10 years, so when does he expect the square to be open to the general public and what is happening about the pavement?

[Sir George Young]

I applaud my hon. Friend’s continuing concern about Parliament square. He will know that the Greater London authority was successful in clearing the green, which is now being restored, and that Westminster council is now taking action to remove the encampment along the pavement, which I hope produces some results. The real answer, however, is the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which is now in another place and provides for the necessary powers to achieve a better balance between freedom of expression on the one hand and the right to protect Parliament square on the other. I very much regret that it is becoming increasingly like a shanty town, and I hope it will not be too long before we can restore its iconic value.

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

Will the Leader of the House urgently consider more attention and debates on China? China has—many people think—a malign influence on the world economy, treats its citizens barbarically and locks up even artists. Is it not about time that we took China, and its implications for world order, seriously?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity at Foreign Office questions on 14 June to raise his concerns. The Government are concerned about the treatment of Weiwei: we think his detention without charge is unacceptable, and we have made representations through the Foreign Secretary. It is important that China observes the proper standards of human rights to which all civilised countries ought to be signed up.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

The Oasis Academy Shirley Park in my constituency is one of the most improved schools in the country. May we have a debate about the extension of the academies programme under this Government, in line with Tony Blair’s original vision, as it is improving the life chances of young people from deprived backgrounds in all our constituencies?

[Sir George Young]

I welcome the progress being made with the establishment of academies, following the legislation that we put on to the statute book. I should personally welcome such a debate, which I hope would have cross-party support, given that many people who were in the Labour party strongly support our academies programme. I hope also that all hon. Members will support those schools in their constituencies that are in the process of becoming academies.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May we have a debate in Government time about Government policy on singing “Jerusalem” at weddings? If a heterosexual couple get married in church, many clergy will refuse to allow it to be sung, because it is not a hymn addressed to God; if a straight couple get married in a civil wedding, they are point blank not allowed it, because it is a religious song; if, however, a gay couple have a civil partnership, under Government plans they will be allowed to sing it. So can we make sure that “Jerusalem” is not just reserved for homosexuals?

[Mr Speaker]

I want to hear the Leader’s reply!

[Sir George Young]

I think that “Jerusalem” should be sung on every possible occasion.

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

How do you follow that?

May we have a statement about the future of the NHS Blood and Transplant service in view of the campaign to suggest that the Government are looking to privatise it? As I suspect that this is yet another myth that is being pushed out about the NHS, it would be helpful to have a statement to put it firmly back in its box.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is right. This is a myth, as there are no plans to privatise the NHS Blood and Transplant service, which will remain in the public sector.

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

McMillan nursery in Hull, which has been rated outstanding by Ofsted, will close on 10 June because of the cuts to children’s centres by the Lib Dems. Can we have a debate in Government time on the reality of the policy that the Government keep talking about—early investment in our young people and children—and what it is doing for our poorer communities around the country?

[Sir George Young]

The Government have put in enough money to maintain the network of Sure Start centres. I understand that the hon. Lady’s party is now in control of Hull city council, so perhaps she would like to address her remarks to that council.

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

May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the Olympic legacy? This week it was announced that the Olympic torch will travel through the country and stay in many cities and towns overnight. Alas, the county of Northamptonshire is missing from that list. We are feeling a bit sorry for ourselves because not too much of the Olympic legacy is flowing our way, and I would very much like to debate that in this place.

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s disappointment that the proposed route does not go through his constituency or, apparently, his county. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Olympic committee that is responsible for the route and see whether there is any chance, at this late stage, of amending it.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The regional development agencies provided an effective and timely response to sudden localised challenges in the economy. With the demise of the RDAs, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to spell out how the Government will respond to such challenges in future?

[Sir George Young]

We have debated on several occasions the Government’s plans to replace the RDAs with local enterprise partnerships, so there have been opportunities to have that discussion. I hope that the LEPs will respond with enthusiasm to projects in his constituency that deserve support and that they will be more nimble-minded and flexible bodies than the RDAs.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

May we have a debate on falling unemployment? In Harlow in the past three months, 200 more jobs have been created and unemployment has fallen to 2,400 from a peak, under Labour, of well over 3,000. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to bring jobs back to Harlow and elsewhere is by boosting apprenticeships and cutting taxes for businesses, rather than the policies of Labour Members?

[Sir George Young]

I agree. I am sure the whole House will welcome the drop in unemployment that was reported yesterday, and I am pleased to hear what is happening in Harlow. We have undertaken a number of measures to reduce youth unemployment, in particular. We have announced a new innovation fund with £10 million a year to fund organisations working with young people through social finance models and a package of additional support for 16 to 17-year-olds’ jobseeker’s allowance, including more adviser support, access to work clubs and work experience. I hope that we can build on these measures and make much more progress in Harlow and other constituencies.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I should like to ask a further question regarding Baroness Warsi. Business before pleasure, however, and I must ask about the impact of compulsory water metering on gardeners—the water tax. Last Thursday, I asked the hapless Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs why she was even considering compulsory water metering, and her reply completely avoided the subject. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week—the week, incidentally, of the Chelsea flower show—in which the Secretary of State can categorically rule out compulsory domestic water metering?

[Sir George Young]

I will draw the right hon. Gentleman’s concern to my right hon. Friend’s attention and ask her to write to him about our policy on compulsory water metering. I am sure that he shares the concern of Members on both sides of the House about doing all we can to drive down water consumption and conserve water, and I hope that he will not rule out measures such as the one that he has touched on.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Last weekend, my youngest son went on his first cubs camp, and I went along as a helper. However, I was not able to stay at the camp overnight because I do not have an up-to-date Criminal Records Bureau check for the cubs. That is a pity, as I have helped out at the same Cheshire cubs branch, which my older son went to, for the past seven years. May we have a debate on the over-the-top CRB requirements that can be such a disincentive to volunteering?

[Sir George Young]

I would like to find time for such a debate, and perhaps the Backbench Business Committee could provide it. One of the unforeseen consequences of trying to protect children by introducing CRB checks is that fewer people are then able to help children through voluntary organisations such as the scouts. We have to try to get the right balance that gives children the protection to which they are entitled but does not discourage volunteers such as my hon. Friend from playing an active part in their activities.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

If the Government are to help to make substantial progress at the United Nations framework convention on climate change in December, they will have to get their submissions in before the summer recess. May we have a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House before the recess to discuss the UK’s contribution to Durban?

[Sir George Young]

We have just had Energy and Climate Change questions; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to ask that question then. I will certainly undertake to ensure that any submission is made in good time, and I will pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the role of the private sector in job creation—an issue that goes to the heart of the Government’s strategy for sustainable growth? Given that the Office for National Statistics has announced 77,000 more jobs in the private sector, it seems a timely moment to discuss the progress being made to rebalance the economy.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Private sector employment increased by 449,000 between December 2009-10, and public sector employment fell by 132,000, so that rebalancing is beginning to take shape. If my hon. Friend looks at the Office for Budget Responsibility report, he will see that it forecasts an increase of 900,000 jobs over the next four years, with 1.4 million in the private sector, which more than counterbalances the fall in employment in the public sector. Rebalancing is on its way.

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

An answer to a recent parliamentary question highlighted the fact that more than 1,200 young people under the age of 18 serving in our armed forces had sustained some form of injury during a 12-month period. In the light of this and other concerns about the recruitment of under-18s, can we find time to have a debate on this, either in the context of the Armed Forces Bill or in another way?

[Sir George Young]

I did not announce the business for the rest of June, but I anticipate that we will take the remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill, when there will be an opportunity for the hon. Lady to make her point.

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

Small parish councils remain very concerned about the decision by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to force them to pay their parish clerks through the pay-as-you-earn system. May we have a debate about how we can exempt small parish councils from this legislation?

[Sir George Young]

Like my hon. Friend, I have a large number of small parish councils in my constituency. It is very important that they are not discouraged in any way by unnecessary bureaucracy. I will share his concern with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and ask him to write to my hon. Friend outlining our policy on PAYE and parish clerks.

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

The Leader of the House will be aware of the concern about the activities in protest groups of undercover police officers such as Mark Kennedy. A review is being carried out by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a statement to the House once that report becomes available?

[Sir George Young]

I will give my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice who is replying to Monday’s debate on the police notice that the hon. Lady has raised this issue and see whether we can deal with it in the opening or closing speeches.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

On Monday, the Government published the long-awaited report on the process of compensation for Equitable Life policyholders, thereby honouring another part of our pledge properly to compensate those people who were so scandalously treated by Labour. However, that weighty tome has given rise to several concerns among MPs in all parts of the House, and I wonder whether there will be an opportunity for a statement or a debate in the House so that the Minister can respond on the record to those concerns for the benefit of the wider public.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern of policyholders to which my hon. Friend refers. I cannot find time for a debate, but it strikes me that he could raise the issue at the next round of Treasury questions or put in for a debate in Westminster Hall, where there have been several debates on Equitable Life. I am sure that several other colleagues would like to attend such a debate.

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

Further to the right hon. Gentleman’s answer to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on the coastguard review, the consultation closed earlier this month, but was extended by the Secretary of State for Transport to allow the Transport Committee to carry out its investigation, which is very positive. However, it is clear from speculation in The Times this morning and from the reassuring statements in Westminster Hall from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has responsibility for shipping, that the proposals will not proceed in the form in which they were consulted on. May we have an updated ministerial statement on what conclusions have already been drawn and an assurance that the original decision to report back to the House before the summer recess will be adhered to?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has responsibility for the coastguard service, will be giving evidence to the Transport Committee in the relatively near future. That will be an opportunity for such questions to be answered.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will Her Majesty’s Government table their amendments to the Armed Forces Bill in good time, and will the Leader of the House confirm that those amendments will enshrine the military covenant in law, as the Prime Minister wishes, and not simply beef up the report on the covenant, as the Ministry of Defence is seeking to do?

[Sir George Young]

We had a statement on that matter this week, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will have read that exchange. Of course the Government will want to table any necessary amendments in good time for the House to see them and, if necessary, for Members to table their own amendments.

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

Given the poor response to the Deputy Prime Minister’s puny reforms of the House of Lords, may we have a debate on whether it would be better to pass this matter to another Minister who can make more progress?

[Sir George Young]

No.

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

May we have an urgent debate on trends in employment, as it is clear from the latest figures that the overall situation is far more complex than the headlines might suggest? In my constituency of North West Leicestershire, there are currently 1,513 claimants, who make up 3.3% of the economically active population. There has been a welcome fall of 10% in that figure over the last year. It would be helpful if the debate compared the overall fall in unemployment in the quarter to March this year with the number of people on jobseeker’s allowance.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is right to say that one has to drill down into the figures to get a truer picture. The rise in JSA payments, to which he referred, was due in part to new measures to move single parents whose children are attending school off employment and support allowance and on to JSA. The important figures are the continuing fall in unemployment and the continuing rise in employment.

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

A 19-year-old constituent of mine, Paul Lawrence, has been on remand since February. He is autistic and has been diagnosed with Asperger’s. He has tried to hang himself and has taken an overdose while in prison, and yet he has been kept locked in his cell, until recently in isolation, and is only let out for meals. His mother is constantly worried about his safety. May we have a debate about how vulnerable people are treated while on remand?

[Sir George Young]

There will be a debate on sentencing on Monday, during which the hon. Lady may have an opportunity to debate that matter. Some of the decisions on whether somebody should be on remand are decisions for the courts, and it is important that they retain their independence.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House and colleagues for their co-operation.

McNulty Report and West Coast Rail

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

12:43

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the publication today of Sir Roy McNulty’s independent study into value for money in the rail industry, and to update the House about the west coast franchise process.

Sir Roy’s report notes that UK rail has enjoyed a revival in recent years, with strong and resilient growth in overall passenger numbers and in passenger satisfaction, and huge improvements in reliability and safety. The Government want Britain’s railways to continue to prosper and have demonstrated by their actions their commitment to them. Despite the difficult fiscal climate, we have allocated funding to complete Crossrail and Thameslink, and to support the upgrade of the London underground. We have announced electrification on the great western main line and in north-west England. We have resumed the intercity express programme to improve reliability, comfort and journey times on the east coast and Great Western main lines. We have given the go-ahead to the Ordsall chord project in Manchester and the Swindon to Kemble redoubling. We have confirmed the purchase of more than 2,000 new rail vehicles for Thameslink, Crossrail and other franchises, and the cascading of 100s more. Last but not least, we have begun the High Speed 2 consultation process.

But Sir Roy made another, less welcome, finding. Spending on the passenger railway has increased by 60% in real terms since 1996-97—that is more than £4 billion—and despite significant passenger growth, unit costs in 2009 were almost exactly the same in real terms as in 1996. Therefore, UK rail is now up to 40% more expensive per passenger mile than the railways of our European competitors. Allowing for unavoidable differences, Sir Roy estimates that UK rail costs are 20% to 30% higher than they should be, and that potential savings of between £740 million and £1.05 billion a year could be found by 2018-19 without any reduction in services. Those savings, added to the savings that Network Rail is committed to achieving up to 2014 and the savings that Sir Roy expects the regulator to seek from Network Rail over the period to 2019, should largely close the efficiency gap.

Many of Sir Roy’s recommendations are directed to the industry, and the open and inclusive process that the study adopted means that some of them are already being implemented. The industry has come together to form a rail delivery group to provide the leadership that Sir Roy noted was lacking in the past. Network Rail has announced its plans to devolve significant autonomy to route managers across the network, starting with the Wessex and Scottish regions.

Sir Roy’s remit, which was set by my predecessor and the Office of Rail Regulation which co-sponsored the study, was narrowly focused on the cost base of the railway. He makes a large number of recommendations. Over the coming months, the Government will consider the recommendations that are directed to them, and they will deliver their response later this year. Many of the recommendations on franchises reflect the changes that the Government have already announced. In addition, I can confirm today that my Department will accept Sir Roy’s recommendation that it should conduct a full review of fares policy, which will include addressing anomalies in the current system and the potential for much greater use of smart technology. In parallel, the Government are developing a wider rail strategy to ensure that we have an affordable, sustainable, safe and high-quality railway that delivers a better deal to taxpayers and fare payers. It will set out clearly the roles of central and local government, train operators and Network Rail in securing the future of the railway.

This is urgent and vital work. Let us be in no doubt that the excessive cost base that Sir Roy has identified is the reason that UK rail fares are the highest in Europe by some margin, even though our levels of taxpayer subsidy are also among the highest in Europe. Let us be clear about the potential prize. The successful delivery of cost reductions over the next few years on the scale set out by McNulty would enable us to reduce levels of taxpayer subsidy and, at the same time, put the era of inflation-busting fare increases behind us.

To achieve the challenging targets for cost reduction and industry-wide efficiency that Sir Roy has identified, all players in the industry will have to work together. The train operators, Network Rail, rolling stock companies, unions and the Government cannot avoid playing their part if we are to deliver a sustainable and affordable railway for the future.

Sir Roy makes it clear that the Department needs to step back from excessively detailed specification of train services and the micro-management of rail operations. I recognise that that will represent a major culture change, but it is one that I am determined to deliver. I would like to place on record my thanks to Sir Roy McNulty and his team for the excellent work they have done, and to welcome Sir Roy’s commitment to working with the industry on an ongoing basis.

I also wish to announce to the House the publication of the draft invitation to tender and stakeholder briefing document for the intercity west coast franchise, which lays out the train service specification that I am minded to procure for that route. As I have said, the Government have already adopted Sir Roy’s recommendation that franchise specifications should become less prescriptive. The proposed train service specification for intercity west coast represents a relaxation of the rigid timetable specifications of the past, while retaining obligations that protect the key elements of service such as principal first and last train services and minimum numbers of station stops per week and per day. That marks a significant shift from the micro-management under the current system that has prevented operators from maximising capacity and reacting to the changing demands of their passengers.

Among other proposed changes, we intend to replace the current cap and collar revenue-sharing system that has driven perverse behaviour by train operators with a gross domestic product-based risk-sharing arrangement and a profit-sharing mechanism that will ensure that the taxpayer benefits from any unexpected profits over the term of the franchise.

Because the relaxation of the full prescription of train services in line with Sir Roy’s recommendations was not signalled in the consultation document that we published on 19 January, I have decided that it is right and proper to consult on the proposals again, starting today and ending on 17 August. As a consequence of that decision, I can inform the House that the new franchise for the intercity west coast will now be awarded in August 2012, after a competitive process involving the four shortlisted train operators, and will commence operations on 9 December 2012. In making that decision, I have deliberately avoided a change of franchise immediately ahead of or during the Olympic period. I have also decided to take advantage of the short delay to complete the integration of the 106 new Pendolino carriages into the fleet prior to the commencement of the new franchise. The Department will seek to agree acceptable terms with the existing franchisee for a contract extension to 9 December 2012, but Directly Operated Railways Ltd, the Government-owned company that runs East Coast, will be ready to operate the franchise between April and December 2012 if necessary.

Copies of the rail value-for-money study and the draft invitation to tender for the west coast main line have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the Department’s website. Our expectation is that future passenger franchises on UK rail will allow operators greater flexibility to meet passenger demand and pursue innovation, while protecting the key elements of service for passengers.

Longer franchises and a changed relationship with Network Rail will have a positive impact on the behaviour of train operators and their appetite for investment and risk taking. However, I want to send a clear message that the new culture of co-operation in the rail industry, and the focus on cost reduction, is here to stay and is mandatory, not optional. I can announce today that as a matter of policy for all future franchise competitions, a significant part of the assessment of bidders’ capability at the pre-qualification stage will be evidence of success in collaborative working and driving down costs.

The facts are clear: our railway costs too much, and in consequence fares are rising faster than inflation and taxpayer subsidy has reached unsustainable levels. To secure the future of the railway, we now have to tackle that problem after a decade of ignoring it and get costs into line with those of our European comparators, bringing relief to taxpayers and the prospect of an end to the era of above-inflation fare increases to passengers. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. May I place on record the thanks of Labour Members to Sir Roy McNulty for the detailed and thorough work that he has carried out? As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, that work began under the previous Government.

I have said before that we would look seriously at the conclusions of the value-for-money review and support any sensible proposals to take costs out of the industry. I promise again today that we will study the details of Sir Roy’s report, and that it will inform our own transport policy review.

I agree with the Secretary of State that we should reduce the public subsidy to the rail industry, and we need to be clear about why much of that subsidy exists if we are to address it effectively. It is partly the result of the enormous structural fragmentation within the industry, and let us be clear that that fragmentation is the legacy of the botched privatisation carried out in the dying days of the last Conservative Government. The Secretary of State should have apologised today for the shambles of that privatisation and the staggering sums of money wasted as a result. Unlike him, I take our share of the responsibility for being too timid about addressing that fragmentation during our time in government.

Closer working between train operators and Network Rail makes sense, and I support the internal reorganisation that is going on at Network Rail and many of the proposals that have been made to ensure that costs are removed through greater partnership. I am pleased that the Secretary of State appears to have stepped back from his earlier plans for the wholesale breaking up of our rail infrastructure, which would have been a costly mistake and added yet more fragmentation to the industry. Can he confirm that he does not intend to proceed with an experiment of handing track over to train operating companies within any of the franchise areas? Previously there has been briefing that the East Anglia franchise would be used for that experiment. Can he reassure the House that that is no longer the plan?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to establish a proper review of fares. Despite the efforts that we made, the current system is too complex and leaves passengers frustrated. However, does he understand why passengers will have very little faith that he does not intend to impose yet further hikes in ticket prices? At a time when families are feeling the squeeze on their household budgets, he has imposed fare rises of more than 30% over the next three years. I believe he was wrong to give back to train companies the right to average out the cap across their fares, rather than apply it to each fare individually as we insisted when we were in government. He was also wrong to increase the cap on regulated fares from 1% to 3% above inflation.

In opposition, the current Minister of State said that fare rises of such a level would

“price people off the railways”,

and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), promised below-inflation fare rises—more broken promises from the two Government parties. Will the Secretary of State reject proposals to give the train operating companies greater freedom to set the level of fares? Will he listen to his own consumer watchdog, Passenger Focus, which has today described the suggestion of reducing regulation on off-peak tickets as a “leap in the dark”? Does he share its concern, as I do, that if the plans go ahead, we might end up with affordable, flexible travel for longer journeys being confined to a brief window in the middle of the day?

Will the Secretary of State also reject the suggestion to remove any role for politicians in the setting of fares, which would effectively remove any public accountability for fares through the ballot box? The link between the fare box and the ballot box should not be broken.

May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to approach reform to staffing levels and pay and conditions within the rail industry in a spirit of partnership, not confrontation? That is something that we have not seen in the language and tone of briefings by his Department in recent days. I urge the trade unions to work with the Government as they look to carry out reforms within the industry, but will he ensure that he includes those who represent staff on the high-level group that he is establishing to take forward these reforms? As he considers staffing, will he understand the value that passengers place on staffed trains and open ticket offices, and the fact that women in particular feel safer in properly staffed stations, particularly late at night?

We have heard today the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman’s policy on rail franchising has descended into chaos and confusion, with his decision to delay the awarding of the west coast franchise. Can he confirm that First Group is to hand back its Great Western franchise three years ahead of schedule? Is the reason that it has given for that decision, as reported in the press, that it has calculated that it will make losses in the final years of its franchise period? Does he agree that that is unacceptable?

Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is a possibility that the east coast main line, the west coast main line and the Great Western franchises will all be run by the Government while he decides what his franchising policy is? Does that not make a mockery of the whole franchising system?

Does the Secretary of State understand why commuters in East Anglia are dismayed at the cost and chaos of his decision to award a contract for less than two years, risking three owners in as many years, with only the companies that supply the paint to redo the liveries benefiting? Are not the future of franchising, the massive public subsidies that go to the private train operating companies, and the vast sums that leave the industry in profits the big missing pieces of the work of looking at costs in the industry?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to replace the current cap and collar revenue-sharing system, but does he agree that we will not get the costs of the industry under control until we look seriously at its structure and the future of franchising? The public want a simplified industry—one in which the driving force is less maximising profit and squeezing every last penny out of the fare payer and the taxpayer, and more the delivery of a world-class service. That is why I have committed Labour’s policy review to look at alternative models for the future of the rail industry, including not-for-profit models. I urge him to do the same.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman’s statement was not the only announcement to be widely spun and briefed to the media in advance of his coming before the House. Several newspapers are reporting that he has abandoned his plans to close more than half the UK’s coastguard stations, yet the Opposition understand that far from abandoning the plans, he has simply put them on hold. Those plans were never agreed by Ministers in the previous Government, and I would not have approved them. Will he now take this opportunity to end the huge uncertainty facing coastguard stations and agree to abandon those reckless proposals?

[Mr Hammond]

I might get some guidance from you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on whether it is appropriate for me to respond to the hon. Lady’s comments on coastguards—I would be happy to do so if you indicate that that is in order.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is up to the Secretary of State which points he wishes to answer.

[Mr Hammond]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that very helpful guidance.

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s comments about Sir Roy, who was of course appointed by my predecessor. I very much hope that we can take forward the rail reform agenda with a degree of cross-party consensus, which would be very helpful—realistically, it is asking a great deal to expect that we will agree on everything.

The hon. Lady blames “structural fragmentation” for the high cost of our railway. She obviously has not yet had a chance to read the full report, but when she does, she will see that Sir Roy identifies many causes. However, she seems to be displaying the famous Labour disease of collective amnesia. She might recall the inconvenient facts that her Government created Network Rail a decade ago, and that her Government spent 13 years in power doing nothing at all about the structural fragmentation of which she now complains.

The way forward that passengers and taxpayers would expect us to take for our railway is one of evolution rather than revolution, although that evolution must be rapid. I have taken a conscious decision, which I conveyed to Sir Roy, that I would like to see how far we can go within the existing railways legislative framework rather than spark an ultimately unproductive and, for passengers, entirely unhelpful political debate over the next couple of years on major railway legislation. The idea of Sir Roy McNulty’s agenda is to take forward significant reductions in costs in the railway within the existing legislative framework.

The hon. Lady asked about track-train integration. As she will know, Sir Roy has suggested that we pilot closer integration between train operators and the devolved Network Rail infrastructure operations on the different routes and regions. Sir Roy suggested that the railway is not homogeneous, and that we should go forward at different paces on different sections of our railway. I agree with that general principle. We will look very carefully at Sir Roy’s specific proposals and suggestions on track-train integration, and incorporate a response into the wider rail reform proposals with which I intend to return to the House before the end of this year.

The hon. Lady welcomed the fares review, and I am grateful to her for that. She asked whether the review is a cover or code word for increases in prices, but I say this to her: the Government want an end to the era in which fares rise faster than inflation, but we can do that only by delivering Sir Roy’s savings and by getting the costs of our railway back under control. That prize is within our grasp if we progress Sir Roy’s agenda. To reassure her, I have no intention of ending the system of regulated fares. That is not suggested by Sir Roy, and I know not where she got the idea that I was in favour of it.

The hon. Lady asked me to try to take a collaborative approach with the unions on labour productivity. I would be delighted to do so if an opportunity arises. I was slightly heartened by what I heard Bob Crow say on the radio this morning, although I may have heard only a part of the total interview. He said he was willing to look at proposals for more efficient working practices, which is at least better than his saying that he is not willing to look at such proposals. We must be clear that all players in the industry must change if we are to harvest those savings. The prize for the unions is also big. The railway is a growing industry—it is not in decline, as it was before privatisation, but growing rapidly and robustly—and huge increases in passenger numbers are projected. If we can deal with the problems of the cost base, we could have a hugely successful business for the benefit of British fare payers and taxpayers.

The hon. Lady has won me a small bet by referring to my strategy on west coast franchising as being in “chaos and confusion”, so I am grateful to her for that. In fact, I have today announced an example of open government. We could have progressed with the draft invitation to tender that I published today without further consultation, but I felt that because there has been a material change from the documents that we circulated at the time of the January consultation, it is right to consult again. That introduces a three-month delay, and I do not want the franchise changeover to come immediately before the Olympics, which necessarily means a delay until the latter part of next year, which gives us the opportunity to complete the integration of the Pendolino fleet. We have taken a set of careful and interlinked decisions on the timetable for that franchise, and I hope that, on reflection, she welcomes the approach that we have adopted.

The hon. Lady asked about First Great Western. It is of course true that First Great Western has decided to exercise the break clause that exists in its franchise, which allows it to surrender it in 2013 rather than in 2016. However, before she adopts too strident a tone, she should remember who let that franchise with that break clause in it. First Group has exercised the rights that her Government gave it in that franchise. She might also reflect on the fact that her Government let the GNER franchise and the NXEA franchise before she gets too strident about them as well.

The hon. Lady mentioned profit in the railway. I do not consider “profit” to be a dirty word. I consider that proper incentives and profit-making companies delivering efficient public services can be effective ways of delivering for the taxpayer and the passenger. This Government will introduce a profit-sharing arrangement in new franchises, the like of which does not appear in the current crop of franchises, which her Government let, and the like of which would have prevented situations such as the one on the Trans-Pennine franchise, where profits of 30% on revenue are being earned. We will ensure that the taxpayer gets a fair share of any unanticipated profits that are earned over the lifetime of the franchise. I hope that we all have the same objective—the delivery of a world-class railway service that is affordable for taxpayers and for fare payers. However, to deliver that, we have to drive out cost-effectively and, after Members and others have heard what I have had to say and what the hon. Lady has had to say, it will be for them to decide who will most effectively be able to achieve that objective.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that for many Swindon residents travelling to and from London to work during peak hours has resulted in eye-wateringly high fares for far too many years? What hope can he offer them for the future of peak-time rail fares?

[Mr Hammond]

There are two things that I can say to my hon. Friend. First, if we do not address the challenges that Sir Roy has set out, there will be only one direction of travel—worse services and higher prices. That is not acceptable to anybody in this House or in the country.

I want to make a point specifically about commuter fares and season tickets. At the moment, we have a very inflexible system of season tickets. People buy a season ticket which assumes that they will travel in peak hours every day. Increasingly, people have opportunities for flexible working patterns—indeed, the Government are committed to giving people greater opportunities for flexible working patterns. Smart ticketing technology will allow us to be able to start to recognise people who have a pattern of work that allows them to work at home one day a week or a fortnight, instead of their having to pay the rail fare even though they are not using the railway. That technology can help us to address some of the perverse incentives that season ticket holders currently have to use the railway in peak time when perhaps they do not always need to do so.

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

On the issue of value for money and rail electrification, can the Secretary of State undertake to have a look at transnational transport funding from Europe to help to support the case for the Swansea to Cardiff electrification? It would complete the electrification from Paddington to Swansea and, with the ferry link to Ireland, provide access to significant European funding.

[Mr Hammond]

I have already made a statement to the House on the economics of the electrification from Cardiff to Swansea and I am afraid that those economics have not changed, but if the hon. Gentleman is raising the issue of trans-European network funding, I am not aware that there is any still available. However, I undertake to have a look at that potential source of funding.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I welcome this report and congratulate Sir Roy McNulty on it. Commuters and other travellers have suffered for far too long from high and complex fares and overcrowded trains. Can the Secretary of State assure me and all those who use the trains that the savings that must be made from the system will be returned to people in lower fares and better services?

[Mr Hammond]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have to put it to him slightly differently: the savings will be returned to people in the form of lower taxpayer subsidy—which we have to deliver, because my Department, like every other Department, has to make its contribution to dealing with the fiscal mess that we inherited—and in due course, if they are successful, there will be lower pressure for upward real increases in fares. I would like to see a return to a world in which fares rise broadly in line with inflation, and a move away from the era of inflation-busting fare increase that we have faced over the last few years and, unfortunately, will have to face over the next three years.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The McNulty report did not seriously consider the possibility of the reintegration of the rail system into public ownership. I mention that because many systems abroad are largely in public ownership. One of the reasons why our system is at least 30% more expensive is the billions of pounds siphoned off in profits and dividends. Will the Secretary of State explain why they did not look at that option and why it is not on the table at the moment?

[Mr Hammond]

A good old Labour contribution from below the gangway! Sir Roy McNulty did look at the options of greater integration, but the hon. Gentleman might not be aware that things have moved on a little in Europe since the last time he read the manual. European law on railways has evolved, and the separation of train operations from track operations is now mandated across the European Union. While much of the railway is still in public ownership, it is not integrated in the way that he may imagine.

Sir Roy’s clear conclusion was that a monolithic UK-wide system is not the direction of travel and that more devolution of responsibility and autonomy to route networks is the way forward.

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

Although I understand the reasons behind the delay in the decision on the west coast main line franchise, can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the decision will include provision for the train operators to play a more active role in the future of stations, especially in their infrastructure and presentation to passengers?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The proposal that we have put forward—as he will see when he has a chance to look at the invitation to tender—is that the train operators should be granted a peppercorn rent lease of the station for the duration of the franchise. We also propose a revised residual value mechanism, so that train operators have an incentive to invest capital in station infrastructure throughout their franchises with the confidence that they will be reimbursed a fair value for that investment at the end of the franchise.

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

Does Sir Roy’s report which, from what the Secretary of State has said, is very stimulating and interesting, mention the possibility of mutualisation or a co-operative form for Network Rail? We want a profitable, safe and effective service but if, as MP for Huddersfield, I look at the rolling stock that gets my constituents to Wakefield, Leeds and Manchester, I see that it leaves a great deal to be desired. Could we also see some changes on that front?

[Mr Hammond]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have been pleased by the announcement that we made recently about additional rolling stock for the commuter services into Leeds. Sir Roy did not specifically address the question of any form of mutual structure. Network Rail is of course an independent company, and as Secretary of State I do not have any power to direct it. There are issues of the governance of Network Rail that need to be addressed, and I accept that, but I suggest that the urgent need is to look at its operational structure. The issues of governance and the rather theoretical question of ownership can be looked at on a longer time horizon. Right now we need to drive out cost.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Following the work of the last Government, there are no fast off-peak services on the west coast main line to or from Nuneaton station. Many of the fast off-peak trains thunder through Nuneaton station half empty while there is a strong demand for off-peak services to and from that station. Will the west coast main line specification make it possible for franchisees to look, for example, at changing services so perhaps a fast train could stop at Nuneaton station every hour, trading off a small increase in end-to-end journey times for the possibility of maximising revenue on that service?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I thought, at the beginning of my hon. Friend’s question, that perhaps he had missed what I said about less departmental micro-management, but I saw from how he ended that he had not missed it all. We will not mandate the new franchisee to do what he describes, but we will make it possible by relaxing the rigid timetabling and specification imposed in the past. We will also give operators an incentive to do so. By moving away from the cap and collar revenue-sharing regime, we will make operators much more responsive to the demands of passengers waiting on a platform and ready to pay good money to get on a train. In the past, that has not always been the case, because 80% of what passengers handed over went directly to the Government.

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

I note what the Secretary of State said about subsidies and fares—we will return to that later in the year—but will he give us a progress report on the Coventry Knuckle project, which I am sure he knows a lot about, because it would help Coventry’s economic situation?

[Mr Hammond]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I had a productive meeting with him, some of his parliamentary colleagues and local councillors about the project. I think they took from that meeting clear guidance on what needs to be done to raise the project’s prospects of achieving local authority major scheme funding. I remain happy to engage with him and his colleagues in progressing that project.

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

Wages in Hastings have fallen dramatically against the rest of the south-east in the past 10 years, but wages of commuters are significantly higher. Does the Secretary of State agree that if we manage to redress the imbalance between the continually deteriorating service and higher wages, we would improve the regeneration of towns such as Hastings as well as the quality of life of commuters themselves?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. High-quality rail services deliver major economic benefits to the towns they serve, which, of course, is one of the major rationales behind the Government’s enthusiasm for the high-speed rail project.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

What consideration has been given to a Welsh franchise based on a not-for-profit model operated by the Welsh Government? I believe that is the policy of at least two of the main parties in the National Assembly.

[Mr Hammond]

I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that franchising policy in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government, so it will be for them to decide when the current Arriva Trains Wales franchise comes up for renewal, which—off the top of my head—is in 2016. However, I said something this morning that he will be interested in: I indicated that when we return to the House later this year with our proposals for broader rail reform, we will consider the greater devolution of regional railways and regional railway funding, both to the devolved Administrations and to local authorities and integrated transport authorities around the country. That will enable us to oversee the national strategic rail routes, but not manage the regional and local railways system, from the Department in London. That seems a sensible way of proceeding.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I welcome the greater autonomy for Network Rail route managers in the Wessex area, because rail passengers in my constituency are endlessly frustrated by the pass-the-parcel attitude to responsibility for performance on the railways. In the light of First Great Western’s recent announcement, will the timing for the letting of the Great Western franchise enable the Government fully to embrace the McNulty report proposals in setting out the future of rail travel for my constituents?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, of course. The fact that the Great Western franchise will be re-let in 2013 will enable us to bring forward to that date the incorporation of the benefits of McNulty’s work. However, I would re-emphasise that one of Sir Roy’s key conclusions—one that I strongly share—is that our railway is not the same in every area. What is right for the west coast main line might not be right for the East Anglia franchise. What is right for the northern franchise might not be right for the south-eastern franchise. We will consider each franchise individually, and look at different models appropriate to the type of railway involved. We will proceed on that basis, and we will learn as we go.

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

The west coast main line has improved dramatically over the years in both capacity and reliability, because of the investment made. However, it is the victim of its own success. Use has risen exponentially and the trains are packed at peak times. Despite what the Secretary of State said about regulated fares, there is a widespread fear that the proposals he has announced will allow substantial increases in off-peak rail travel fares. If that is so, it will not only damage people travelling in off-peak periods, but remove the incentive to plan one’s travel and thus make the crush at peak times even worse. What can he say in response to those fears?

[Mr Hammond]

I can say that they are unfounded. By the way, the right hon. Gentleman made the case for High Speed 2 more eloquently than I could. It will deliver a massive increase in capacity on the west coast corridor and allow much more innovative and flexible services on the west coast main line, which is now operating at—or very close to—capacity. However, there is a serious point about pricing and cliff edges in the pricing system. Anyone who stands at Euston station on a Friday evening will see that nobody wants to board a train at 6.50 pm or 6.55 pm, because that means paying the peak fare. They are all trying to get on the train at 7.2 pm, to the extent that the British Transport police regularly have to deploy to physically keep people off the trains for safety’s sake. That is a barmy pricing system. We have to consider the anomalies of massive cliff edges and try to smooth them out, so that there is less of an incentive not to travel on a particular train. However, overall I would expect such a move to be revenue-neutral across regulated fares; this is about managing the system better, not raising more money.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

One of the understandable grumbles of the Kettering rail users group is that for historical reasons the fare for a journey from Kettering to London is disproportionately higher than that for a journey to London of a similar length from other places. Will the fares policy review seek to iron out such anomalies?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not want to pre-empt the rail fares policy review, to which I am sure that my hon. Friend will make a submission, but I have recently enjoyed meeting the Northampton rail users group, and the Minister of State has just said that she would be happy to meet the Kettering rail users groups, so perhaps we can carry a dialogue forward.

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

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On a constituency matter, with regard to First Great Western and the handing back of the franchise, I would welcome the Secretary of State or the Minister convening a meeting of the relevant MPs along that line to discuss the security of service provision. This looks like a creeping re-nationalisation of the railway service—but there we are! However, as the Secretary of State said, there is a big staffing agenda. All three rail unions have welcomed the opportunity to work with the Government on that agenda. However, it is crucial that they are represented at every level of the industry and in every forum discussing the staffing agenda. It is not conducive to good industrial relations to have statements about threats of further anti-trade union legislation at this time.

[Mr Hammond]

I will have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman on creeping re-nationalisation: there is not one, and I can assure him that so long as I am in this job, there will not be one. However, I am happy to meet MPs along that route to talk about the Great Western franchise. First Group will continue to operate the franchise until 2013, and it has assured us that it will operate it as normal and run the franchise properly during that period. It has every incentive to do so, because, as I just announced, our policy is that eligibility for participating in franchise competitions will depend on demonstrated ability to deliver co-operative working, and to bear down on cost pressures.

I am absolutely ready to meet the unions. In fact, I think my office is in the process of arranging a meeting with the rail unions through the TUC, which I hope can play a constructive role in this process—it is a process I think we all want—of making this a viable and affordable industry that has a bright future, and which will employ not fewer but more people as the railway expands on the trajectory of current projections.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s approach to the west coast main line franchise. As has been said, overcrowding in standard class in particular is a problem on the west coast main line. I pay tribute to the quality and courtesy of the staff I encounter in difficult circumstances. However, first-class carriages are often under-utilised. Can he confirm whether the new franchise will include a duty to take all practical measures to ensure that people do not have to stand on trains that often travel at more than 120 mph?

[Mr Hammond]

As I said earlier, the intention is to be less prescriptive. Train operators already have the freedom to de-designate first-class carriages and reconfigure their trains if they want to, and all the new Pendolino cars that will be inserted in existing nine-car sets will be standard-class carriages. I do not want to talk about imposing a specific duty on operators, but they will have to deliver on targets to reduce overcrowding, and we have powers to force them to take action if they do not.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I had the pleasure of meeting Sir Roy McNulty on two occasions during his consultation. I put to him the points made by Tom Winsor, the former rail regulator, that British Rail worked miracles on a pittance and that when the railways were handed over to the privateers, they were handed over “in good order”—his words. Also, the Catalyst report recorded BR as having the highest productivity of all the railways in Europe. BR was desperately underfunded, with not enough investment, but it worked miracles on a pittance. I also put it to Sir Roy that the staggering rise in costs that has occurred since privatisation is a direct result of privatisation. I personally believe that it is pie in the sky to think that we will bring those costs down without public ownership again. When is the Secretary of State going to look at that again?

[Mr Hammond]

I am not. I think the hon. Gentleman suffers from the disease—which I have noticed is quite widespread—of taking a rose-tinted retrospective view of British Rail. People were quick enough to criticise and complain about British Rail’s performance when it was operating; now, at 15 years’ distance, that era suddenly appears to have been some halcyon period of British excellence. The hon. Gentleman is right that British Rail operated the railway on a shoestring at relatively low cost, but in doing so it built up a tremendous legacy of under-investment and disregard for safety risk, the terrible consequences of which we saw only too clearly in the late 1990s and the early years of this century.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I welcome this report and the associated cost reductions on the west coast main line. We can learn from this report, so will my right hon. Friend please ensure that the forecast build and running costs for High Speed 2 are not exaggerated?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes. The High Speed 2 business case and the build and running costs put forward in the consultation document incorporate the Treasury’s generous additional percentages for risk and optimism bias—with as much as 60% added to the basic costs in some cases—to address the very concern that my hon. Friend outlines.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In all this emphasis on devolving and transferring responsibility to train operating companies, does the Secretary of State not recognise that there is a danger of losing the whole principle of having an integrated rail service, with integrated timetabling and ticketing for those who make complicated journeys? Additionally, he did not say very much in his statement about reopening disused branch lines, which could well benefit by becoming a useful feeder service into the network, or about the east-west freight line, which is so important in increasing freight usage and using existing rail tracks more efficiently.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, which allows me to make an important point. Integration in the railway at the level of timetabling, planning and route network operation is important. The hon. Gentleman will not have had a chance to read the report yet, but Sir Roy makes that point clearly. Those things have to be done on an industry-wide basis; they cannot be fragmented when greater autonomy is devolved to network rail route managers or when train operators are given greater flexibility.

The hon. Gentleman also talks about reopening disused lines. I am afraid to tell him that work on the cost base has a little way to go before that becomes a practical reality. However, as I said earlier, I intend to look carefully at the case for devolving responsibility for commissioning services and the budgets with which to do that for regional and local railways later this year. I would expect decisions to reinstate any currently disused lines to be taken at that level.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on this encouraging report. What are the prospects for improved rolling stock on the Leeds-to-York line via Harrogate and Knaresborough? We have rapidly growing numbers of passengers on the route, but the rolling stock is some of the very worst that I have seen in the country.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. As I mentioned earlier, an announcement was made recently about additional rolling stock for services into Leeds. I had it in my mind that that covered the route in question, but he is testing the extreme edges of my memory now, so it would be better for me to write to him with the specific answer to that question.

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

Surely the Secretary of State must accept that fragmentation costs more. For example, I understand that Network Rail employs about 600 legal staff to negotiate with the train operating companies, and no doubt each operating company also employs significant numbers of such staff. Surely we should be looking at integration, as it will save us money.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady has obviously read the RMT press release from this morning. Of course there are additional frictional costs—interfaces—in the operation of the railway that we currently have, with franchisees and an overall network operator. However, there are also a lot of unnecessary costs that are caused by the adversarial relationship between Network Rail and the train operators. As I said earlier, I do not believe that the answer is some massive revolution that requires primary legislation and will take the rest of this Parliament to deliver. Instead, this is about getting people working together differently. Let us get to a railway that is different from the one that we have now. In the railway that we have now, the brightest and the best people in all train operating companies are the ones who spend their lives allocating responsibility for failure and collecting money from each other. Hundreds of people are literally spending their days trying to decide whether each delayed train is the responsibility of Network Rail or of this or that operator. That is not productive. Getting the industry to work together, looking at industry-wide costs and focusing on solving the problems, rather than allocating blame for them, is the way forward.

Points of Order

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

13:37

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter relating to the rights of Members of this House. I have today received a notice about the restrictions being imposed on access to this House on the day of the visit by the President of the United States. I recognise entirely that it is essential to provide the President with maximum security. I recognise further that this will involve, and needs to involve, restrictions on access to this building by strangers—people who are not Members of this House. However, the notice includes a series of restrictions on access to this House by elected Members of this House. I regard that as unacceptable. It is also a violation of the Sessional Orders, which give every Member the right of access to this House in the service of his or her constituents. I would therefore ask you to have this matter re-examined urgently, so that while of course welcoming the President and providing him with security, we can at the same time maintain the right of Members of this House to come into this building whenever they need to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What I can say is that we do not discuss security issues in this Chamber, and quite rightly so, as Sir Gerald will know, given that he is a very senior Member of this House with great knowledge. I suggest that he meet with the Serjeant at Arms to discuss the issues. He has put them on the record for the rest of the House to consider, but the right way to proceed is to sit down with the Serjeant at Arms. I will, of course, also pass on his comments to Mr Speaker.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Transport is still in his place to hear my point of order. Have you had any indication from him that he intends to make a statement to the House to clear up the confusion caused by his comments on television and in The Times today? Coastguards at Crosby and across the country, and the public whom they serve, are extremely concerned about the proposed changes, as are Members of all parties across the House, and we would all appreciate some clarification in a statement from the Secretary of State.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentleman has placed his comments on record.

Backbench Business

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[27th Allotted Day]

BBC World Service

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: The Second Special Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, The Implications of Cuts to the BBC World Service, Responses from the Government and the BBC to the Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2010-12, HC 1058; The Fourth Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on the BBC Licence Fee Settlement and Annual Report, HC 454.]

13:40

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the Sixth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, The Implications of Cuts to the BBC World Service, HC 849; endorses the Committee’s support for the World Service’s invaluable work in providing a widely respected and trusted news service in combination with high-quality journalism to many countries; considers that the unfolding events in North Africa and the Middle East demonstrate the continuing importance of the soft power wielded through the World Service; believes that the value of the World Service far outweighs its relatively small cost; and invites the Government to review its decision to cut spending on the World Service by 16 per cent.

This is an historic moment for the House of Commons, because this is the first debate in the House by a departmental Select Committee on a substantive motion relating to a major issue of public concern since the introduction of the new arrangements for Back-Bench business. This is good for democracy and good for the reputation of Parliament.

Power falls into three categories: military power, economic power and soft power. It is the view of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the BBC World Service is a key component of Britain’s soft power. We recognise the economic constraints and the background to our report, but we believe that it is a mistake to implement the proposed heavy cuts to the World Service’s budget. This is a question of priorities. We live in a fast-moving world where the internet and the media have grown in reach, influence, power and authority faster than anyone could have dreamed. It might seem odd to quote no less a person than Osama bin Laden on the importance of soft power, but, talking about jihad, he said:

“The media war in this century is one of the strongest methods. It’s…90% of the total preparation for battles”.

He was talking about the power and influence of media communications—soft power.

Soft power is a rapidly growing way of achieving desired outcomes. In the cold war era, power was expressed in terms of nuclear missiles, industrial capacity, numbers of men under arms, and tanks lined up across the central plains of eastern Europe. Today, none of those factors confers power in quite the same way. The old structures are moving on. Cyber-attacks and the more subtle methods of the information age are the norm. Soft power—the power of Governments to influence behaviour through attraction rather than coercion—dominates. That point is not lost on the Foreign Office, high up on whose list of structural reform priorities—the reforms that it believes should have priority—is the

“use of ‘soft power’ to promote British values, advance development and prevent conflict”.

I can think of no better definition or illustration of the need for the World Service, and it is the opinion of our Committee that the cuts to its output are a false economy. If anything, it should be expanded to address the concerns of a changing world, just as the security services and the number of diplomats to key sensitive postings have been expanded.

The BBC World Service is a priceless institution. Its value dramatically exceeds its costs. It is a key national and global institution at the forefront of international broadcasting, operating to the highest standards. In evidence to the Select Committee, BECTU—the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union—said:

“The World Service is the world’s most recognised news service.”

The National Union of Journalists described it as a “force for good”. A Chinese journalist told us that it was the most “trusted and respected” news service. The Financial Times described it as

“one of Britain’s principal sources of soft power”.

Mark Thompson, the director-general of the BBC, described it as

“one of the most precious things the BBC does and a lifeline to many tens of millions of people around the world who don’t enjoy proper access to accurate, impartial, open media”.

A listener said that it

“punches far above its weight and brings a disproportionate amount of prestige and soft power to the United Kingdom”.

Another wrote to me saying that it would be

“better to cut the increase to the aid budget and bolster the World Service”.

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

First, may I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for the leadership that he has shown during the preparation of the report? I believe that we have managed to produce an enormously influential report under his chairmanship. He was talking about the value of the World Service, but I know he recognises that that is changing. Others are investing in this area. For example, at this time of the Arab spring, we are seeing al-Jazeera becoming increasingly powerful in the influence that it brings to bear. Our influence is in great danger of being completely eclipsed.

[Richard Ottaway]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that, and for the support that he gives me on the Committee. I also thank him for his contributions to the Committee, and the expertise that he brings from his previous career. He is absolutely right about the changing world that we live in. I think that the Foreign Office gets that point. I do not wish to be critical of it, and I think that it does understand this, but we are trying to emphasise that the World Service represents one of the best ways of communicating with this changing world. The right hon. Gentleman makes his point well.

The World Service enhances Britain’s credibility. I have heard a story that President Kikwete of Tanzania starts his day by rising at dawn and listening to the BBC World Service rather than the local Tanzanian media. Others record that Mikhail Gorbachev turned to the World Service for real information during the coup against him in 1991. It is no wonder that the Foreign Secretary said that

“the BBC World Service will remain of fundamental importance to this country’s presence in the world”.

The strategic defence review singled out the World Service, saying that it

“plays unique roles in promoting our values, culture and commitment to human rights and democracy”.

In the interest of balance, however, I should report to the House that one listener wrote to me to say that it was a complete waste of money for the World Service to be broadcasting cricket to northern Europe. I had to point out that that was on long wave, and not the World Service and, unfortunately for him, he would have to continue to listen to ball-by-ball commentary and detailed analysis of the LBW rule.

The Select Committee believes that the World Service is a jewel in the crown which promotes British values of truth and democracy across the globe. In our motion, we say that its value “far outweighs its relatively small cost”. As yet another Minister defects from Libya, the dramatic events in north Africa and the middle east show that soft power, properly deployed, is likely to bring even more benefit to the UK. In the fog of war and media spin, people everywhere trust the World Service to be fair, honest, courageous and decent. And so, by association, Britain is endowed with those same qualities. This is soft diplomacy, and it is valuable.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that a key element in this is that the Government’s contribution to the World Service does not have to be a permanent one? The licence payer is going to take over the cost of the World Service in three years’ time. Were the Government to cut the World Service by the same amount as the rest of the Foreign Office, there would be a temporary imposition on the taxpayer, not a permanent one.

[Richard Ottaway]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall come to that point in a moment. It is the disproportionate nature of the cuts that is of concern to so many people.

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

On behalf of the Committee, may I thank my hon. Friend for so eloquently putting the case set out in our report? A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) mentioned the question of governance. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) share the anxiety felt by many of us that the financial responsibility for the World Service will be transferred to the BBC budget, which is subject to a six-year moratorium with regard to any increase in the licence fee? Is there not a risk that the World Service will find itself competing with other parts of the BBC family—entertainment, for example—so that the admirable Mr Robin Lustig might find himself competing for funds with the equally admirable Mr Bruce Forsyth?

[Richard Ottaway]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. It is a key recommendation of our report that the future governance relationship between the BBC World Service and the Foreign Office is not defined clearly enough in the concordat. Our concern is that we might be told, “You want an Arabic service and you want a Mandarin service, but we don’t have enough funds for both, so you need to decide which one”. To be fair to the Foreign Office, it has taken that point into account in its reply. I am pleased that it is still looking at the issue.

The central recommendation of the report was that the decision to reduce spending on the World Service by 16% should be reversed, but that if the funding has to be reduced, it should be done in such a way as to minimise the damage. A wide range of services will either be closed altogether or have a reduced output. I have no quarrel with some of the planned changes. For example, radio audiences in Vietnam have fallen to 1% and it has only about 110,000 listeners. In the meantime, Vietnam is seeing an internet boom with some 400,000 users now accessing the World Service online. The decision to focus on online services is obvious and sensible. None the less, we highlight plans to cut three services, which we think should be reviewed: the Mandarin, the Hindi and the Arabic services. It is doubtful whether their reduced output is in the nation’s interest.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I join others in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his leadership role and his Select Committee on its excellent report. On the Hindi service, does he share my concern to the extent that the Government have made it clear, from last year’s Queen’s Speech to this week’s statement by the Foreign Secretary, that India is a priority? We are sending more diplomats to India in order to improve our relationship with that very important country, so will cutting the Hindi service not send out the wrong message to a country with which we really want to do business?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We must have shorter interventions, as we are rapidly running out of time.

[Richard Ottaway]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that India is of huge strategic importance to the United Kingdom. It is a rising power and a stated foreign policy priority. The World Service audience in India is some 11 million, which beats “EastEnders” any day. The estimated cost of reaching that audience is only £680,000 a year, which the producer of “EastEnders” would probably die for. I am not convinced, and I hope the House is not convinced, that losing that huge audience to save a bit over £0.5 million is worth it—and I am pleased that the Government agree in their reply to our report.

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

I accept that the Government say they are prepared to bring in some temporary measures whereby the World Service will provide limited hours in the Hindi service for a temporary period, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real solution is not temporary measures, but recognition that losing an audience of 10 million in India and a total loss of nearly 20 million to the World Service audience will reduce its share of the global audience so that it will no longer be the premier broadcaster internationally?

[Richard Ottaway]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work in the Select Committee in preparing the report. He makes exactly the point I am about to make. I hope that the Government will accept the motion—I have reason to believe that they may well do—and when they conduct the review, the hon. Gentleman’s point is exactly the one they should be looking at.

I shall move on from India to China. BBC China has been struggling with the jamming of shortwave radio signals by the Chinese authorities for more than a decade. As a result, its impact has been lost. Despite that, witnesses told us that they continued to hold the service in high regard. Sometimes it may be jammed in cities, but not in rural areas. After the Szechuan earthquake of 2008, the local community tuned in to BBC shortwave so that they could find out what was happening with the relief efforts. Chinese listeners tuned in to the Nobel peace prize ceremony, which the media was banned from reporting.

In response, the World Service is refocusing its online provision to China. However, let me express a word of caution about the move to online services. Internet services can be turned off at any time by totalitarian regimes. A good example was seen in Egypt during the Arab uprising when some 80 internet providers were cut off overnight. The Chinese Government have published a strategy paper asserting their rights to censor the internet inside their own borders.

It is the cuts to the Arabic services that have caused the greatest concern. No embarrassment should attach to the World Service or the Government over this decision, which was made last December before the Arab uprisings in January of this year. The value of BBC Arabic services is highlighted by photographs—colleagues may have seen them—of protesters on the streets of Syria carrying placards saying “Thank you, BBC”. Across north Africa, only two radio stations are listened to: al-Jazeera and the World Service. I mean no disrespect to al-Jazeera, but in my judgement, the far more independent and therefore respected service is the World Service.

This is a region that requires quality journalism and news coverage. The Foreign Office has responded to recent events in the Arab world by diverting considerable resources to the region. It has expressed its surprise over the reduction in World Service output—I hope that surprise will work its way into its review—and I welcome the fact that the Foreign Office is in discussion with the World Service to review the situation. What is needed, however, is a full reversal of the proposed cuts.

Let me deal with funding. Since its inauguration, the World Service has been funded by the Foreign Office. This will end in 2014 when responsibility will be transferred to the BBC. During the intervening four years, the budget is to be reduced from £241 million to £212 million a year. Taking into account inflation, that is a 16% real- terms cut. Last autumn’s spending review announced that the overall FCO budget would fall by 24%. However, a closer look shows that, once the World Service and the British Council are taken out of the equation, the actual cut in the Foreign Office budget is a shade under 10%.

In my judgement and in the opinion of the Select Committee, a 16% cut in the World Service budget, compared with 10% in the Foreign Office budget, is disproportionate. I sympathise with the director of the World Service who argued that the service had to some extent been singled out. In his defence, the Foreign Secretary told us that he did not regard the cuts to the World Service as being disproportionate. He argues that the World Service proportion of the FCO overall budget had been kept at its 2007-08 level through to 2013-14.

There seems to be some disagreement over the figures. The World Service tells us that, using the FCO’s baseline of 2007-08, when the World Service had 16% of the budget, it does not keep the same proportion, but declines to 15.6% in 2013-14. That 0.4% difference might not sound much, but it amounts to £6.6 million a year of the World Service budget, which would be enough to save a number of services.

In response, the Government say that they “do not recognise” the World Service calculations. So, in an effort to explain the difference and resolve the dispute between the World Service and the Foreign Office, I dug into the figures. I discovered that they were produced by the House of Commons Library. On digging a bit further, I found that the Library stands by the figures as they are based on the FCO’s own resource accounts and letters to the Committee from the Foreign Secretary and the permanent secretary. Quite how the FCO can say that it does not recognise the World Service figures is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps the Minister will explain the figures further in his reply.

Those are the problems. What are the solutions? I am advised that the additional funds required to retain the Mandarin, Hindi and Arabic services, about which the Foreign Affairs Committee expressed concern, amount to between £3 million and £4 million per annum, which is less than the discrepancy between the World Service figures and those of the Foreign Office. The Committee does not believe that there should be any cuts at all, but believes that if there are to be some cuts it would not be a stupid decision to focus on a small number of priority services, to allocate a relative pinprick in terms of public expenditure, and to reverse the decisions on Mandarin, Hindi and Arabic using the unallocated £6.6 million.

Many Members, and witnesses from outside the House, have suggested that the huge and growing DFID budget could be used to make up the shortfall in the World Service budget. That course is subject to two constraints. First, although it might have been permissible before the International Development Act 2002 came into effect, the Act states that any funding by DFID should be used for the reduction of poverty. Secondly, DFID funding must comply with OECD guidelines to become official development assistance. Therein lies the problem. There is a limit to exactly how much a broadcaster’s output can be described as official development assistance or as reducing poverty, and I understand that that limit has been reached.

Others have suggested that a way around the problem would be to slice a few million quid off the DFID budget and give the money to the Foreign Office for onward transmission to the World Service. That suggestion runs into the difficulty of meeting the United Nations target that 0.7% of GDP should be spent on international development. However, the House will welcome an announcement by the Secretary of State for International Development, who, following discussions between us, wrote to me on 13 May stating that he intended to make a grant to the World Service Trust and put his Department’s relationship with the trust on a more strategic basis. The trust is the charitable arm of the World Service, focusing on development. He believes that he can significantly expand its operations, increasing development outcomes and poverty reduction. That is an extremely helpful development. I congratulate the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Department and thank him for his personal involvement, and I hope that the Foreign Office will be equally responsive.

Following the tabling and publishing of the motion last week the Government published a fairly emphatic rejection of our report, and it is with some surprise that I now learn that they intend to accept the motion, which calls on them to review the decision to cut the service by 16%. Several key Select Committee Chairmen, a former Foreign Secretary and other senior Members of Parliament support the motion because of the widespread concerns that I have raised.

In its report on the BBC, which was published today, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee strongly endorses the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, which means that two Select Committee reports have unanimously expressed concern. I must tell the Minister that it would be a mistake to undertake a review and then to take no further action. If that does happen, the FAC will return to the subject.

The World Service is important. It is a national asset and a jewel in the crown, and it has an unrivalled reputation throughout the world. It is no surprise that Kofi Annan described it as

“perhaps Britain’s greatest gift to the world”.

In those circumstances, I urge the House to support the motion.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I must be honest with Members. We have very little time. I am sorry, but I must introduce a speaking time limit of eight minutes.

14:04

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

I will try to be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who introduced our report so ably. Let me underline what he said at the end of his speech. If the Government allow the motion to be passed this afternoon but prove to have had no intention of taking its wording seriously, the House will definitely revisit the issue—and in a different mood from the one it has adopted today.

I believe that there is virtual unanimity in this country about the importance of the BBC World Service. Where do people who live in totalitarian and authoritarian regimes and have no access to free media obtain the truth? If they mentioned two or three sources, one of them would be the BBC. The BBC provides the best possible image for this country, and I think it was very foolish of the Government to present proposals that would lead to reductions in the services of the World Service and in its audience share.

Reference has already been made to cuts in language services. Perhaps the Minister will clarify something that is puzzling me. The tone of the response to our report from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office implies some lack of convergence and consensus with the BBC World Service and its management in regard to facts and interpretation. It appears from the wording of the report and the responses to it that there is some tension and frustration within the FCO about some of the things that we have said and been told.

Let me ask a specific question. When the World Service was told that it must reduce its budget significantly—I understand that at one point it proposed to close up to 13 language services—what was the Government’s response? Is it true that they said that that was far too large a number and that a smaller number must be reduced, but with disproportionate cuts in those services? We now have the absurd situation of a 10 million loss of audience in India. We also have the absurd difficulties with BBC Arabic to which the Chairman of the Committee referred.

In recent years the World Service has introduced an Arabic television service, which is very popular, and a Persian television service, which is extremely popular and very important in a country that is as important to us as Iran. It has also developed a number of digital and online services, which cost much more than the radio services that are being slashed as a result of these disproportionate cuts. Both the present Government and their predecessor are committed to recognising the importance of those Arabic and Persian television services and the potential establishment of an Urdu television service, which we have discussed with Ministers in this and the last Government, and which might have a significant impact on a country as important to us as Pakistan. Is it not part of the wielding of our “soft power” and our promotion of this country’s values—is it not in our national interests?—not to cut the World Service’s radio services in order to finance that expansion, but to recognise that the World Service is a vital priority for British policy projection?

I am not arguing that the World Service should simply do what the Government want; one of its great benefits is its independence. However, I fear that we have created what is potentially the worst of both worlds. We are drastically reducing the World Service’s footprint globally. As the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) made clear in his intervention, in three or four years’ time one tabloid newspaper or another will ask why, for instance, we should be financing languages in Africa that no one in this country understands, rather than paying to have the best “X Factor”-style television programme—or some other style of programme—that is under threat.

In one of our Committee’s final recommendations, we expressed deep concern about whether the BBC World Service could rely on the BBC as a whole to protect it under the new arrangements. One of the consequences of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s relationship with the World Service is that there has been parliamentary accountability and scrutiny of the World Service. I was serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the 1990s when attempts were made under the John Birt regime to get the World Service under the control of the BBC. Those proposals were dropped because Parliament was not happy about the possibility of the values and ethos of the World Service being undermined, and I do not believe that we have the necessary assurances in place now on preserving the ethos and values of the World Service under the future arrangements.

I hope the House resoundingly supports this very important motion. The fact that it has broad support is a great tribute to the Chairman of our Committee—and to the other Select Committee Chairs who have put their names to it, as well as the rest of us who are signatories. The Government must listen and introduce a speedy review—not a review that will take a long time so that the cuts the World Service will have to introduce are irreversible. We must have a swift review with fast results, and we must assert that the World Service is the jewel in the crown and will remain so.

14:12

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I support the motion. The Foreign Affairs Committee has produced a good report. The Chairman’s arguments were right and were pitched extremely well. It is clear from all the information produced, especially the written documentation the Committee received, that many people hold the World Service in very high esteem, and I therefore think we would be foolish hastily to proceed in the direction in which we seem to be going. Even if we accept that there might be a degree of bleeding stumps in some of the worst case scenarios, it is time for the Government to reconsider this issue before any lasting damage is done.

Consideration of the comprehensive spending review and the licence fee negotiations were concluded fairly quickly and without a vast amount of consultation, yet the implications for the World Service are very substantial indeed. Therefore, if there is a right time to pause so that we can carefully consider how to proceed, that time is now.

The issue of soft power and the flow of information around the world has already been mentioned, and it is of great importance for this country’s influence globally. Any of us who travel abroad appreciate that there is a great appetite for information from the BBC, as well as enthusiasm for British Council centres, and even British newspapers and the rest of our media. It is important that information flows, but the specialised analysis of that information by British journalists and foreign journalists working for the World Service is also important. We have witnessed upheaval, revolution and the fog of war, and reference has been made to the Facebook revolution. Often the analysis of experienced journalists is needed to decipher what is actually happening and to impart an accurate view to the world.

I heard a discussion on, I think, Radio 4 between two history professors, one of whom said, “If we look back into history and substitute the word “crowd” for “mob”, we can totally change the way in which people view events.” Journalists who work for the World Service must be allowed to get on with the job and give their best analysis of what is happening so that people who do not share our privilege of living in a free society can receive that information.

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

My hon. Friend rightly talks about the importance of such experienced journalists, and another advantage of the World Service is its independence and impartiality, which is crucial for empowering people to seek democracy in highly regulated states.

[Mr Syms]

Yes, and we could not buy that. As the Chairman of the Select Committee has said, where the BBC withdraws a service another organisation will fill that vacuum, perhaps with a less good service, and probably with a less accurate one.

Looking back at the events in my lifetime, it is clear that the flow of information and the use of technology can change worldwide events. One factor in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran was the fact that he modernised his telephone system so that plugs could not be pulled out, which allowed the Ayatollah to phone through the digital system and give instructions to his followers. The flow of information from western television channels telling people in East Germany that they could get out to the west through a neighbouring country led to the great events that resulted in the Berlin wall being torn down. It is also clear from what is happening in parts of north Africa and the rest of the world now that information is a vital commodity.

The investment over decades in the Reithian tradition of striving for truth is very important, and we should bear in mind the sums involved here. I think the figure for the Hindi service is £680,000, and that is very small in the grand scale of things. We therefore must pause to reflect, and it would be a good idea if thought was given to addressing the issue of the Department for International Development budget. Aid is one answer to the world’s problems, but good governance and truth is another. We can greatly improve the manner in which the developing and third world is governed by getting more truth and information into countries and getting much more openness, transparency and democracy. The World Service can, of course, play a role in that.

I therefore hope the Government will listen. I hope they reflect on this excellent Select Committee report, and that we do not, as it were, throw the baby out with the bath water and for the sake of a small sum of money lose the ability to project truth, honesty and transparency to the world, which is so valued by people who live abroad and do not share our advantages.

14:17

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the debate and strongly support the motion. The Select Committee Chairman set out very well the terms of the debate and the contrast between soft and hard power. Hard power in military terms is certainly often appropriate, as in the cases of Libya and Afghanistan, but it is an expression of British power overseas that is often fraught with military, political and financial difficulties. Even in the gentler realm of diplomacy, we are rightly reviewing our diplomatic presence around the world—and, it is to be hoped, expanding it in many cases in light of a changing world—while also having to pay attention to the financial context at home.

Soft power and expressions such as “the BBC World Service” are extraordinarily cost-effective. They reach billions of people and are enormously positive with very few complications, including many of the negative complications of other expressions of British interest around the world. The World Service in particular has attracted extraordinary plaudits from the likes of Kofi Annan and even Nelson Mandela. It has been refreshing in recent months to see placards on the streets of Muslim countries calling not for death to Britain or anything like that but thanking the BBC. They are talking about the BBC World Service, of course. In that context, it is extraordinary that we are facing the prospect of cuts to the Arabic service in particular. So, it is right that Ministers should be reconsidering the matter.

The current funding relationship is somewhat uncomfortable. The Select Committee is cautious about the eventual transfer of World Service funding to the BBC and rightly says that safeguards should be

“put in place to prevent any risk of long-term erosion of the World Service’s funding and of Parliament’s right to oversee its work.”

The intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) was also well made. Provided that those safeguards can be put in place—the Select Committee suggested a formal concordat with the BBC Trust—there is one advantage to the transfer of funding, which is that it underlines the independence of the BBC World Service from political decisions about both funding and editorial content. That is an important reassurance for World Service listeners worldwide.

In the meantime, we have something of a problem in the period leading up to 2014. I welcome the Committee’s call for funding arrangements to be re-examined. We are happy to support it and I am glad that the Government are accepting the motion. I appreciate, however, that this is not as easy as it first looks. I understand, like others, that Ministers have thought about this very carefully and are aware of the issues involved. I am certainly very grateful for the time that Ministers and their advisers from both DFID and the FCO have spent answering my questions on this subject, as well as those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in this Chamber and in another place.

I particularly welcome the Secretary of State for International Development’s announcement about the prospect of a significant grant to the BBC World Service Trust. Many development issues can be addressed in World Service programming, from gender awareness, to global responsibilities for climate change, adaptation to it and how people can prepare for it, to health awareness, particularly about matters such as the HIV epidemic.

There are limitations, however. It is right that DFID’s funding should be restricted to matters that qualify as official development assistance and not all broadcasting can come within that remit. It would set a bad precedent if DFID was asked to fund areas that did not qualify as ODA under OECD rules and we would not want that precedent to be set. Nor would we want World Service programming to be skewed completely in the direction of development programming. The provision of information and a British perspective on world events is very important in many countries. The Hindi and Mandarin services spring to mind and the priority in those cases is not development but our economic, diplomatic, political and cultural presence, which is vital.

The BBC should have to examine its costs, its overheads and its back-up costs just like any other public spending. It is quite right that it should try to do that and if the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) is correct, there has clearly already been an iterative process between Ministers and the BBC on the exact nature and extent of these cuts and their impact on particular broadcast services. Even if that is true, following that iterative process we are still facing cuts in such vital services as Arabic, Hindi and Mandarin, so it is clear that we must reconsider the transitional arrangements between now and 2014. We should consider how we can protect those key services.

In the great scheme of things, the amounts of money involved are not huge. As has been pointed out by the Select Committee, they are a relatively small proportion of the increases in DFID’s budget. Even within wider Government and FCO spending, we are not talking about large amounts of money. As I said at the outset, the cost-effectiveness of the programming and influence of the World Service and the respect that it earns this country are of almost incalculable value. I urge Ministers enthusiastically to accept the motion and do whatever they can to protect this jewel in the crown of British broadcasting.

14:24

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I congratulate the Foreign Affairs Committee on its excellent report and I rise to speak in favour of the motion. I pay tribute to the excellent speeches of the Chairman of the Committee and other Members.

For 11 years, when I lived in Tanzania, the World Service was my main source of news. I learned of progress in the first Gulf war, the Bosnian conflict, the Rwandan genocide and two general elections from the BBC World Service. I valued its impartial, measured news and comment as a service for expatriates such as me, but more importantly it was the main source of information for many of my Tanzanian colleagues. I remember meeting one of them the day after the 1997 general election, which he had been following very closely on the BBC. He was amazed and impressed at how quickly we had changed our Government in this country, and he was even more impressed that the outgoing Prime Minister went to watch a game of cricket rather than finding himself on the wrong side of a jail door, having been locked up by the new Government. It is at such times that we realise that the World Service is indeed a gift to the world, as has been said. However, it is more than that. It is also important in presenting Britain and British values to the world. At a time when our political and economic future is bound up ever more closely with the developing world, where much of the World Service output is broadcast, its importance is growing, but it is also at this time that we are proposing to make cuts to that valuable service.

I want to distinguish between the financial cuts and the cuts to the service itself. I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot be exempt from the cuts being made elsewhere in government, and I understand that the World Service has to be part of that, but I believe that the cuts to the grant could be mitigated, if not entirely made up, in four ways. First, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could revisit the cuts it is making. As has been said, we are talking about cuts of 16% compared with cuts of 10% across the rest of the FCO. Secondly, commercial activity could be expanded. World News TV is funded commercially; indeed, I understand that it made a profit last year.

Thirdly, as has been touched on, there could be greater use of development funding. As has been pointed out, if spending is to qualify, it must be undertaken by the official sector and it must have as its main objective the promotion of economic development and welfare and be made at concessional financial terms. Those are the rules that the OECD insists on for something to qualify as official development assistance. In this country, we go further because we make it quite clear that such spending must also be for the reduction of poverty. I still think, however, that we could look further at that approach. The media, and particularly the World Service, play a vital role in development in three ways—as a watchdog, in setting the agenda and by providing information that is necessary for development.

The BBC World Service helps Governments to develop policies that benefit the majority of their population and it is not driven by sectional or ethnic interest. There has been analysis of how World Service spending might be classified as ODA, and I accept that this is one of those issues that one might say is about as long as a piece of string, but I have seen analysis showing that up to 40% of spending—something like £100 million out of the total spending of £250 million, including capital—could be classified as ODA. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s letter to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in which he stated that he would be prepared to support the relationship between the Department for International Development and the World Service Trust and that he would, in principle, be prepared to support it with an accountable grant.

Finally, the cuts could be mitigated through better use of BBC World’s own resources, perhaps by looking at some of the salaries at the higher end of the organisation.

On the cuts to the service itself, the Foreign Affairs Committee has rightly spoken about the Hindi service, BBC China and BBC Arabic, but I would like to draw attention to the Kiswahili, Kinyarwanda and Kirundi services, in which I have a special interest from my time in east Africa. Those short-‘wave and medium-wave services are accessible to people who cannot access pretty much any other services save those provided by their own broadcasting corporations. Those people are in remote areas, whereas internet and FM services tend to be available to people in urban areas. It is part of this Government’s policy to reach people, such as those in smallholder agriculture, for whom a service provided on short wave by the BBC might be the only such service that they can receive at certain times that is relevant to them. I therefore urge the Foreign Office to look in particular at such services.

In conclusion, the BBC World Service is a huge asset to the United Kingdom, but it is also of tremendous importance to tens of millions across the world. Where the BBC withdraws, as has been said, other less independent organisations will step in. Therefore, I support the motion.

14:30

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

We have had a short but truly excellent debate this afternoon. The hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) began the debate by speaking powerfully as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He reinforced and explained extremely well the main conclusions of his Committee’s report, which is first rate. He summarised the main concerns that Members have expressed today and in previous discussions and interventions in the House. He has put a significant question mark over the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s financial calculations regarding the World Service.

We then heard a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who reiterated what the Chair of his Committee had said and stressed the fact that the World Service is seen as a jewel in the crown. We heard from the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who gave a number of practical examples of how the dissemination of objective information can help the development of democracy in a truly practical way. Similarly, we heard from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who reinforced the case put by other Members and made it clear where his party stood on the matter. Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who spoke with great insight about the importance of the World Service and referred to his experience in east Africa. It is only by understanding such concrete examples that we can really appreciate the value of the World Service.

As well as expressing concern about the short wave BBC China Mandarin service, which broadcasts in a country where democracy is in short supply, I would like to focus briefly on two areas. First, it was initially announced that the BBC Hindi short wave service was to close in March 2011. However, the Government announced a partial reprieve in March with the continuation of an hour of current affairs broadcasting, pending commercial funding being found. This concerns me greatly. We all know that India has enormous economic potential, and the Government are rightly strengthening their bilateral relations with that country. It is all the more worrying, I suggest, that the sword of Damocles still hangs over the BBC Hindi short wave service. That should not be the case.

The other huge concern I have relates to BBC Arabic. The events in north Africa and the middle east over the past few months have been truly momentous, and the process of change continues apace. It is therefore extremely worrying that the World Service has announced 60 job losses in its Arabic service. Surely the World Service should, if anything, be providing more resources to BBC Arabic, rather than less. I fully appreciate that many of the plans were drawn up before the incredible events of the past few months, but that is all the more reason for the Government to accept that reality and revisit the whole programme.

In addition to these concerns, I would like to give an example of how the World Service impacts in a positive way on one country in particular. Earlier this week I was in Serbia. I was there with the Labour party and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I undertook the political reconnaissance as part of an ongoing assessment of how democratic debate in that country can best be assisted. Serbia has made good progress over the past few years, but there is still much to be done. One of the crucial elements that has helped Serbia’s march to democracy, as a number of people made very clear to me, is the BBC World Service. It is no exaggeration to say that there is not a single democrat in Serbia who does not acknowledge the important role of the World Service. Equally, there is universal disappointment that Serbia is one of those countries that will lose World Service coverage.

One of the people I spoke to earlier this week was Sasa Mirkovic, the managing director of the radio and television company B92. He explained to me how the World Service has been a source of objective information, inspiration and hope to a whole generation in Serbia, and he deeply regretted the end of its broadcasting in Serbia, because, as he said to me, democracy in that country needs to be encouraged and continually reinforced.

What is true of Serbia is true of many other parts of the world. The Opposition have very real concerns about the Government’s plans, and this afternoon Members have underlined the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s excellent report. As well as the loss of crucial influence in key countries and regions throughout the world, the cuts will mean a diminution in Britain’s global influence. There will be a drop of 30 million people—from 180 million to 150 million—in the service’s global audience, and such a cut is quite unprecedented.

There has to be an ongoing assessment of how finite resources can be best used, but such a reduction in grant-in-aid will greatly undermine the service and send a negative message around the globe—that Britain no longer sees high quality, objective and honest reporting as being particularly important. I hope that nothing is further from the truth.

In the order of things, the BBC World Service is a mere drop in the ocean of public expenditure, but the money invested in the service is a sound investment—an investment that effectively promotes the universal values of which all Members are justifiably proud.

I therefore ask the Government to think again, to take heed of what our friends throughout the world are saying to us, to recognise the worth of the World Service and not to engage in this false economy. I urge the Government to accept the motion before us, and, if they are inclined to accept it and agree to a review, I suggest that that review takes place as quickly as possible, and as a matter of urgency.

14:37

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) for introducing the debate, and for doing so in a characteristically courteous and thoughtful fashion; and I pay tribute to all members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for a comprehensive report on what all Members, whether in government or not, agree is a matter of great public significance and of significance to how we advance the interests of the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said frequently in opposition and in government that he sees the World Service as, to use the words of my hon. Friend, a key element of British soft power. My right hon. Friend has also underlined frequently the central importance of the World Service and the British Council in giving this country an unrivalled platform from which to project our culture and to share our values.

The Government and, in particular, my right hon. Friend will clearly want to reflect carefully on what has been said during this debate, but I make it clear that there cannot be any avoidance of difficult financial decisions and hard choices for the Foreign Office or for the World Service, as for any part of the public sector. I hope that when I have concluded my speech hon. Members will recognise that the Government are committed to finding ways—within the terms of the existing settlement announced in October last year, and in discussions about possible additional sources of World Service revenue—in which the current and potential resources available to the World Service can be used to the greatest possible advantage. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), in particular, listed a number ways in which that might be possible.

[Rehman Chishti]

Can the Minister confirm that in 2010 the chief executive of the BBC World Service earned £215,000 and five of his colleagues earned more than £200,000? Does he agree that chief executives and other senior officials should have had their salaries frozen or taken a reduction instead of cutting front-line services?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am not somebody who usually harps on about high salaries for people who hold important positions of responsibility, but it is fair to acknowledge that the BBC World Service board is responsible for a significantly smaller operation with a smaller budget than the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and yet the World Service’s board is more numerous and significantly more expensive than the board that runs the FCO. I do not want to make too much of that, but my hon. Friend makes an emblematic point that I will come to later.

I am not trying to deny that hard choices are having to be made, but there is a need to say to the World Service, as to every other part of the public sector, that it needs to look rigorously at how to make finite budgets go further and try to reduce all unnecessary costs.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the BBC World Service is doing enough to amortise the costs of news gathering and production among other services, including within the BBC family, before looking at a reduction in language services?

[Mr Lidington]

One of the challenges that the World Service management faces is to draw up what I hope will be very ambitious and detailed plans to deliver a reduction in administrative and other inessential costs that match commitments of the sort that Government Departments throughout Whitehall, including the FCO, are already having to make. The BBC World Service has announced that it is committed to a significant reduction. We have not seen details of that, nor are we entitled to do so. It is an independent organisation, quite properly so, although the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are of course free to investigate further.

I hope that the World Service will choose to make those plans public and will look to take advantage of the opportunities that will arise from the new arrangements for the relationship between the World Service and the BBC as a whole to merge and share costs where possible. For example, arrangements to combine studios for the World Service and other parts of the BBC would seem to be a sensible way forward. Indeed, the BBC has indicated that it is considering that in the context of the new arrangements.

[Mike Gapes]

Is the Minister aware that the BBC World Service spends proportionately less on human resources, finance and IT than the FCO? Is he also aware that there has been a reduction of about 32% in the management costs of the World Service since 2009?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman, perhaps uncharacteristically, is choosing to overlook the fact that the FCO is responsible for well over 100 operations in different countries overseas and that in those circumstances the requirements of currency operations and IT add up to quite a considerable overhead. I welcome the public commitment of the World Service to a significant reduction in its administrative costs, and I am sure that the House looks forward to seeing how it proposes to deliver that.

[Mr David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I will make progress, because I want to be fair to the many hon. Members who want to take part in the next debate.

[Mr David]

I hear what the Minister says, and of course we all want to see efficiency savings and economies. However, it is important to bear in mind that the cost of producing a message or sending out a programme is lower in the BBC World Service than in any other international broadcaster.

[Mr Lidington]

It is certainly important to bear such things in mind, but many parts of the public sector in this country can point to how their best practice matches that in other parts of the world. Nevertheless, the financial state in which this country finds itself as a consequence of the inheritance bequeathed to us by the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member is so grave that we have no alternative but to ask every part of our public services, no matter how well and efficiently they perform, to drive those efficiencies further.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, and indeed the report, criticised the Government’s decision to reduce the budget of the World Service by 16% and argued that it was disproportionate. To set the matter in context, as the House knows the Government inherited a massive fiscal deficit when they came to power. We made it clear from the start that it would be the Government’s overriding priority to take swift and effective action to reduce that deficit. Every member of the Government has always made it clear that rebalancing the nation’s finances will not be without pain and that every taxpayer-funded organisations will have to play its part, as will the private sector. Frankly, if as a country we fail to deal with the overriding challenge of our deficit, all our hopes, whether for prosperity, improved public services or enhanced international influence for the United Kingdom, will come to naught.

The World Service was asked to reduce its budget by 16%. The Foreign Affairs Committee has argued that that is disproportionate. I say candidly, but politely, to my hon. Friend that I disagree with that verdict. At the beginning of the previous comprehensive spending round in 2007-08, the World Service budget was 13% of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget. By the end of 2014-15, its budget will be 14.4% of the FCO budget. The proportion of its budget at the end of this Government’s tenure will therefore be slightly higher than it was before. To respond to the particular case put to me by my hon. Friend, in 2007-08 the World Service received £222 million, and in 2013-14 it will again receive £222 million. However, the FCO budget will fall from £1.7 billion in 2007-08 to £1.55 billion in 2013-14. It is those figures that lie behind the percentages that I quoted.

[Richard Ottaway]

Is the Minister including the costs of conflict prevention in his figures?

[Mr Lidington]

I will take advice on that point and come back to my hon. Friend either later in the debate or in writing.

It is also fair to point out that the FCO has been more severely affected by the impact of foreign exchange losses than has the World Service. From 2007 to 2011, the loss of the mechanism that protected the FCO against foreign exchange risk accounted for a 17% loss to the FCO core budget, but only a 2% loss to the BBC World Service core budget. That discrepancy is explained by the fact that a much greater proportion of the FCO’s diplomatic effort is located overseas than is the case with the BBC World Service.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has made its case, and I hope that I have provided figures that back up the evidence my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave and that support our contention that although the settlement is indeed tough, it is fair when set alongside what has happened to the core FCO budget over the past few years.

The World Service undoubtedly provides a valuable service, but that is true of many other public bodies. The police, the military and the education system have all had to make savings, and so have the British Council and UK Trade & Investment. Some of those organisations have suffered cuts considerably larger than 16%. I am happy to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that all those institutions are vital assets of the UK. We do not take pleasure in what we have had to do, but the measures that we have taken are essential for the future well-being of our country. Much as I dislike having to support cuts to the budget of the BBC World Service, we cannot in good conscience say that we support cuts in general but resist all of them in particular.

Members will have heard the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 11 May, in which he set out plans for the future of the Foreign Office’s diplomatic network. We will find £100 million a year in savings from our administration budgets, yet at the same time we are both widening and deepening our diplomatic network. We are opening more posts and strengthening existing ones in emerging economies of key importance to this country. The savings that we are having to find to finance that expansion are not easy, but they are essential if we are to develop within tough financial constraints.

When I go to British embassies overseas, I am left in no doubt about the seriousness of the choices that Ministers have to make. I regularly have meetings with our staff at our posts throughout Europe and the former Soviet Union, and at practically every meeting I meet staff who are worried about their jobs, some of whom have worked loyally for the FCO for a large number of years. The FCO is not immune from difficult decisions, and there is no pain-free way to make the choices necessary to provide a strong voice for Britain in the world. I do not think the World Service can be exempt from the need to make difficult choices.

The World Service originally approached the Foreign Secretary for authority to close 13 of its 31 language services—even more closures than were authorised by the Government of whom the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) was a member. When I heard him denounce the policies of the current Government, I worried about the selective amnesia that had come over him about his Government’s record on the World Service.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was not prepared to support those suggested closures, and after frank discussion with the World Service and the BBC Trust he reluctantly agreed to the closure of five services. That was after he had received clear assurances that the closures would not cause major damage to the World Service’s overall services and audience share. The World Service also assured us that it would make strenuous efforts to find efficiency savings and drive down non-editorial costs to protect its front line. It has said that it will find savings of up to a third in finance, human resources, business development, strategy, marketing and other administrative operations.

I hope that the World Service will match that commitment with detailed plans, and that it will match the greater transparency of financial arrangements that the Government have undertaken to provide. The BBC is not obliged to do that under the current arrangements, but it would add to public confidence in the organisation, including the World Service, if it endorsed greater transparency so that taxpayers and licence fee payers could see where their money was being spent.

There are other changes in how World Service output is delivered, such as the closure of radio transmissions in Mandarin or the cessation of the Hindi shortwave service. Ministers have no power to veto such decisions. Some access to the World Service in those languages will remain, whether online or through FM or television, but those choices fall squarely within the responsibility of the World Service—the Government were not consulted in detail on those changes and we had no locus to intervene. The BBC believes that those decisions were soundly based, and we have seen its justification for those changes.

As a number of hon. Members mentioned, given recent events in the middle east and north Africa, the FCO chose to reprioritise in order to bolster our effort there. It is entirely sensible for the World Service to do likewise. However, even before the Arab spring, the decision to curtail Arabic broadcasting was somewhat surprising.

On potential sources of additional money for the World Service, first, there is the prospect of commercial income. We agreed with the World Service that it would increase its sources of commercial income, with an initial target of £3 million. It is important for it to adopt an entrepreneurial approach to developing that source of income.

Secondly, on funding from the Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South quite fairly pointed out that there are two genuine hurdles to be surmounted, the first of which is meeting the OECD kitemark for measures that count as official development assistance. The OECD requires that any activity that qualifies as ODA must have the

“promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective”.

However, even if activity qualifies under OECD rules as ODA, it does not necessarily meet the second, stricter test, which is embodied in the International Development Act 2002. The Act gives the Secretary of State statutory authority to spend money when that allows for the relief of poverty—that is the prime measure. As my hon. Friend mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is looking at a new relationship with the World Service trust. In addition, the Government are approaching the OECD with a view to getting its agreement to classify a proportion of World Service spending as subject to ODA rules.

It is worth noting that the settlement included money to be used as the contribution of the World Service to the overall BBC pension deficit. The BBC says that its original estimate of that deficit has been revised down by about one third. We do not yet know the detailed figures for the World Service, but if, pro rata, it no longer needs a third of the money it has allocated for pensions—that would amount to about £4 million a year—it could choose to restore the five cut services and the Hindi service, or to restore the cuts to the Arabic, Hindi and Mandarin services that it previously announced.

Those choices are for the BBC. In a recent article in Ariel, the World Service controller of languages said that even if funding were reinstated, it would not necessarily restart services that it had stopped, but would instead look at new investment. Global shortwave audiences are falling dramatically—20 million listeners were lost from 2009-10 alone.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) asked about the place of the World Service in the proposed new arrangements with the BBC, which will take effect from 2014-15. As I have already said, these provide opportunities for things such as the combination of news rooms and studios, and for different arms of the BBC to share costs, which might help World Service funds to go further. But it is also true that the BBC, through its new chairman and director-general, has made it clear that it places a high value on the World Service and sees it continuing as a key element of BBC output. The new governance arrangements will be guaranteed by an amendment to the BBC agreement between the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and the BBC. We are discussing with the BBC Trust a formal exchange of letters to confirm this. The BBC Trust is also considering an international trustee to represent the interests of the World Service.

Even after the cuts, the World Service will still receive funding from the British taxpayer of £733 million over the next three years. The settlement that we came to with the World Service was challenging, and we take seriously the points that have been made by the Select Committee and in the Chamber today and will reflect further on them. We will work with the World Service to find ways in which it can continue to fulfil its mission as an independent broadcasting voice that is at the same time a key element in the promotion of British culture and values.

15:01

[Richard Ottaway]

Time does not permit me to acknowledge in detail the speeches that have been made today. It has been a great debate, but the Minister must have felt a bit lonely. We have heard seven speeches today, six of which supported the thrust of the motion and the desperate need for a review of the service, and his own which was more defensive of the Government’s position. The Minister is a good friend of mine, in both the personal and political senses, but he has not quite got the point that everyone has made today.

We all recognise the economic pressures on the Government—indeed, everyone who spoke is a member of a party that supports the need to address the desperate financial situation the country is in. However, it is a question of priorities. When the facts change, so must the policies. The circumstances in Libya have meant that more resources have been diverted to that country. The international tensions of worldwide terrorism have meant that more money has been put into the security services. The extra need for diplomacy around the world was behind the statement last week about extra funding for diplomacy. What colleagues are saying today is that, with the changing world we live in and the desperate need for more soft power—

[Mr Lidington]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Ottaway]

I am afraid you would never forgive me if I gave way, Mr Deputy Speaker.

There is a desperate need to address the changing world and to take soft power more seriously. I appreciate the fact that my right hon. Friend has agreed to a review. I hope that it will be a constructive review and that this is not brushed under the table saying, “That’s the House of Commons dealt with.” The House is serious about this and I hope the Foreign Office will be as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the Sixth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, The Implications of Cuts to the BBC World Service, HC 849; endorses the Committee’s support for the World Service’s invaluable work in providing a widely respected and trusted news service in combination with high-quality journalism to many countries; considers that the unfolding events in North Africa and the Middle East demonstrate the continuing importance of the soft power wielded through the World Service; believes that the value of the World Service far outweighs its relatively small cost; and invites the Government to review its decision to cut spending on the World Service by 16 per cent.

Rural Broadband and Mobile Coverage

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

15:03

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

I beg to move,

That this House recognises that rural businesses and rural communities across the UK are isolated and undermined by slow broadband and the lack of mobile voice and mobile broadband coverage; urges Ofcom to increase the coverage obligation attached to the 800MHz spectrum licence to 98 per cent.; and calls upon the Government to fulfil its commitment to build both the best superfast broadband network in Europe and provide everyone in the UK with a minimum of 2 Mbps by 2015.

I am grateful for the opportunity to move this motion, which also bears the names of 100 other Members of Parliament. When I last saw Ed Richards, the head of Ofcom, he said that the most powerful argument he required was a political argument. He wanted to hear that Members of Parliament cared about broadband and mobile coverage. If that is all he requires, I might as well resume my seat now. I am not an expert on the constitutional history of this House, but as far as I know there have not been so many names on a motion on the Order Paper for debate on the Floor of the House in recent memory.

I wish to thank very much everybody who has supported this motion. I wish to thank first my hon. Friends from Cumbria, on both sides of the House, as well as the many Members who have put so much energy into mobile broadband over the last three to five years. That includes my hon. Friends the Members for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), and of course many Members from other parties. From the Liberal Democrats, we have had contributions from the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Chippenham (Duncan Hames)—to roll out the Cs—and from the Labour side, we have had support from the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), and the right hon. Members for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). We have also had support from the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.

What, though, is the motion facing us today? It has three parts. The first focuses on rural need, which I hope Members will address in their speeches. The second focuses on mobile coverage, and the third focuses on the Government’s commitment to super-fast broadband. All three are connected. In a sense, it is already outdated to separate them. It is increasingly clear that a separation between voice coverage and data coverage is a thing of the past; that an attempt to separate the rural areas from the urban areas is a thing of the past. The central fact about broadband and mobile coverage is that it is—not to be too pretentious—a single global universe. Nevertheless, I will hand over to other Members, who will talk about the first and third elements of the motion. I will focus exclusively on the second part—the mobile coverage obligation.

Enormous thanks are due not just to the many Members whom I have mentioned, but to the civil servants who have worked unbelievably hard in Broadband UK to make this happen. It is unfair to pick out names, but I would like, in particular, to thank Mike Kooley, Rob Sullivan and Jim Savage. I would also like to thank Ministers, including the Minister here today, the Secretary of State and all the communities that have been working so hard. I hope that others will develop that point, but again, although it is unfair to pick out names, I want to mention those extraordinary people in Eden—Libby Bateman, Miles Mandelson and others in the Leith-Lyvennet broadband group—who have been pushing ahead with their programme. However, that is not the subject of my speech today.

I am here to speak about mobile broadband coverage. I will take 30 seconds to explain the issue. This is the last chance for a generation to provide good mobile broadband coverage for 6 million people who will not otherwise get it. It is the last chance because, at the end of the month, the Ofcom consultation closes. That consultation will determine the coverage obligation imposed on mobile telephone companies for the 800 megahertz spectrum. This is a spectrum on which we all depend for our smartphones, our iPads and iPhones. It is also a spectrum that is ideal for rural areas. So why has Ofcom stated in its consultation that it has no intention of increasing the coverage from the current level, which, as hon. Members will know, is 95% of the population, 90% of the time? That equates to about 87% of the population.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not even that level of coverage? The companies produce maps claiming that there is coverage, only for people to find—I am in this position at home—that it does not actually work.

[Rory Stewart]

That is an enormously good point. It is a matter of bewildering complexity. Ofcom is over-layering four different models dependent on masts, terrain, topography and thickness of walls, and the reality is, as the hon. Gentleman says, that 90% of the time for 95% of the people is probably an overestimate of what we are currently getting.

Nevertheless, Ofcom states in its consultation document that it can see no benefits from extending the coverage further. In fact, it states on page 67 that the costs would outweigh the benefits. Why? Because it is worried about losing money in the auction—nobody knows how much—and is worried that when it tries to sell the radio spectrum, which it owns, to the mobile telephone companies and asks them to increase their coverage obligation from 95% to 98% these companies might pay less in the auction. Indeed, they may. It stands to reason they would pay less, but probably not as much less as Ofcom fears.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

It may indeed stand to reason, but the evidence from past auctions of the spectrum does not show bidders producing bids while in any sense respecting the cost base of the project on which they are about to embark.

[Rory Stewart]

That is an excellent point. The reality of auctions is not that people operate on a fully rational basis, counting the number of their masts and then bidding exactly less than that. We have all participated in auctions. They are elaborate psychological procedures that are exactly designed to extract as much money as possible.

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

My hon. Friend is putting the point so eloquently that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cover the sorts of constituents that he and I represent, along with many others in the House. Does he agree that there is a risk that Ofcom is being penny wise, pound foolish, and that in future it could become very expensive for this country to have truly mobile broadband?

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point, and much better than I could. “Penny wise, pound foolish” is exactly right. To put it bluntly, it is a no-brainer. This is the time to act. If we are going to do it, we should do it now. There is some fantasy out there that if we get it wrong, we can go back to the mobile telephone companies in two or three years’ time and say, “We’re very sorry, we didn’t impose an obligation on you, but would you mind awfully providing 98% coverage?” However, by that time they will already have begun to lay out their infrastructure and will have made their decisions. Acting then will be more expensive, the mobile telephone companies will be under no obligation to do so, and we will have to pay them. At that point their interests will not be aligned with ours.

If we impose an obligation at the right moment and say, “You’ve got the licence; now provide 98% coverage,” their interests will be to provide it as cheaply and efficiently as possible. If, on the other hand, we approach the mobile telephone companies in three years’ time as a contractor, we should remember that there will then be an additional problem. As my hon. Friend suggests, if we do it now, there is no cost to the taxpayer. The money would not come from raising taxes from people or stealing it from another Department. All that we would be doing is taking the risk that we would make slightly less in the auction. That would not be the case in three years’ time. If in three years’ time we suddenly wanted to spend £215 million on building masts, we would have to tax people or move money from other Departments; and we absolutely know that people who say, “Give me that bird in your hand, because I can promise you those two in the bush in three years’ time,” are almost certainly misleading us. This is the time to do it.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

While my hon. Friend is on the subject of investment in broadband paying for itself, does he agree that part of the significance of the measure—the Government are to be congratulated on the investment—is that every pound that we spend on rural broadband will pay back UK plc in spades? In my constituency, where coverage is extremely poor, communities are waiting for the opportunity to start businesses back in villages and drive a model of sustainable development. The investment will pay for itself; we merely need to think about how we recoup that benefit and use it to invest in infrastructure.

[Rory Stewart]

That is a fantastic point. I will come to growth in a second, but perhaps, rather than taking any more interventions, I could now make some progress and accelerate through my speech so that everyone can get in.

There is only one question—the fundamental question—that we need to ask Ofcom: does mobile broadband technology matter? Will this thing that I have in my pocket—this mobile device—and that everyone else has in their pocket matter in five years’ time? Will people be using iPads and iPhones then? If we have reason to believe that the technology is important, why are we proposing to leave between 6 million and 9 million in this country on the current figures excluded from using these machines? For the sake of what? Why exactly are we being told that those people should not be able to use the technology?

I hardly need explain to the people in the Chamber why this technology matters or what its uses are. Others will develop that far more, but to run through them quickly, the fantastic comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) was absolutely right. Our economy is driven by these devices. Growth comes from productivity, and the biggest, simplest contribution that we can make to productivity in this country is through broadband and mobile coverage, which is particularly true for rural areas, as the many people in the Chamber from such areas know. Why? Because the biggest contribution to economic growth through mobile and broadband technology is made by small and medium-sized enterprises. What do we have predominantly in rural areas? Small and medium-sized enterprises. My constituency is an example. The national average is that SMEs occupy 50% of the private sector, but in Penrith and The Border, SMEs with fewer than 10 employees employ 92% of our work force. Furthermore, because we are almost starting from scratch in rural areas, we are not talking about a slight increase in speed from 2 megabits to 3 megabits; we are talking about a step change in economic productivity for rural areas.

We are also talking about making a real difference in public services. As we all know, more and more public services are being driven online. In Cumbria, for example, the justification for the Cumbria police closing police stations is that they want policemen to be on the streets more, using their tablets to transmit data straight back to the police station. Nurses and doctors visiting people in their homes rely on being able to transmit data in real time back to a hospital from the home. Education is being transformed by online learning. In the United States, 40% of post-secondary school students are taking a course online. Recent research by Carnegie Mellon university suggests that mixed online and classroom learning can increase the speed at which children learn by 100%. And I do not need to talk about Twitter, Facebook and all the other things that everyone in London, and every child in those parts of the country with mobile coverage, take for granted, except to ask why everyone else should be excluded.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful and eloquent speech. In rural areas, we spend more time travelling from place to place, because the distances are greater. The coverage figures that he has given are those for static people when they are at home, but in fact, we spend far more time travelling from A to B, and our communication is often broken further when we do so.

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

My argument is about mobile broadband coverage. What is the argument against extending it in the way that I have suggested? It is cost. Ofcom’s only argument is that it is worried that it might make a little less in the auction. Let us say that, based on the Swedish and German models, the auction is going to generate about £3.215 billion. Ofcom is worried that it might make only £3 billion. For a number of reasons, that is probably an underestimate. That £215 million represents an absolute worst-case scenario. Let us look this directly in the eye: £215 million is less than we spend in three weeks on our operations in Afghanistan. In fact, mobile coverage is one of the smartest, cheapest forms of infrastructure investment that we can make. It is far cheaper than fixed telephone lines, and far cheaper than ports or roads. As far as infrastructure investment that would create real productive growth in the British economy is concerned, £215 million is a small sum of money.

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

Could the hon. Gentleman give me some clarification on the figure of £215 million in lost revenue through a change in the coverage? What is the basis for that estimate, and have the providers supported it?

[Rory Stewart]

It is a very basic estimate predicated on the assumption that, to increase from 95% to 98% coverage, we would need to build approximately 1,500 masts, and that the average cost of a mast hovers at just under £150,000. So the figure of £215 million represents a worst-case scenario. The assumption is that the mobile phone companies will cover some of the costs of the masts anyway, because they will get increased revenue as a result of installing them. The Government should not have to pay for all those masts. Furthermore, companies such as Three already have the infrastructure in place, and were those companies to win that chunk in the auction, they would not have to pay to install new masts. The £215 million is a worst-case projection for getting up to 1,500 extra masts and pushing through to 98% coverage.

Are we prepared to turn around in 2015 and say to people in this country and people in our constituencies, “No, everybody else in the world can have this thing, but you can’t have it. In every other part of Britain, if you happen to live in central London, you will be able by 2015 to attach a device to your heart, which can monitor your vital signs, transmit in real time to a hospital, regulate your drug intake and help you stay at home. I am sorry, though, but you live in Northumbria and you are not going to be allowed to have it”?

Are we prepared to turn around to students and say, “Everywhere else in this country, if you happen to live in Chelsea or the centre of Manchester, you can do online learning, you can learn the harp, you can study German or Russian. In fact, you can study anything you want from anyone you want at any time you want, but unfortunately you live in Suffolk, so you are not going to be able to do those things.”?

By 2015 it will not be just data-rich businesses or internet-rich businesses, but the basic small and medium-sized enterprises that will be dependent on these devices to cut their transaction costs, increase their reach to market, drop their advertising costs and so on. Are we prepared to turn round to every one of those businesses and say, “Of course it is extremely beneficial for a business to have these services—in fact, it is the only way a business can compete and survive—but because you don’t happen to be located in the very centre of London, you are not going to be able to work in that way.” ?

Are we to say to a farmer, “Through this technology, you might be able to use special identification tags and make some use of the astonishing bureaucracy being imposed on you, but only if you happen to be farming in Chelsea. If you are farming in the uplands of Cumbria, you might as well forget about it.”?

We are looking for a positive narrative. We are looking for a narrative around growth. We are looking for growth, which is not effectively saying, “Oh, we are just going to get 90% of the country going”. We are looking for growth that is saying, “We want 100% of this country going.” Growth is about productivity; productivity is about the internet. If we are looking for a positive narrative, let it be this: at the moment, our best mobile next-generation coverage is worse than that of Uzbekistan. I know something about Uzbekistan. I would not be surprised if someone were to stand up and say to me, “In Uzbekistan, there are more political prisoners in jail than there are in Britain”. However, I am not just surprised, but horrified to learn that in Uzbekistan, the mobile next-generation coverage is better than it is in the United Kingdom.

Let us stand behind this motion. Let us push Ofcom with all our might to take that small risk to reach that 98% of coverage. Let us not allow the clever arguments of narrow economists who are blind to technology and obsessed with making their auction feature in a particular fashion allow Britain to miss the chance to get what it needs for its economy, for its society, for its health, for its education and for its communities by signing up to the best superfast mobile and broadband coverage in Europe.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am introducing a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, with the usual injury time for interventions.

15:23

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

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing this important debate. I know personally how difficult it can be to interest hon. Members in technical subjects. It is to the credit of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) that he has been so successful in communicating the critical nature of our broadband infrastructure and the importance of the coming spectrum auction.

I declare an interest: before being elected I worked for the telecommunications regulator, Ofcom. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear”.] I thank hon. Members for that! Before that, I worked for 17 years in telecommunications in the private sector. I was personally most grateful for the rise of the internet because it finally enabled me to explain what I did for a living when I was working on an “integrated services digital network private branch exchange”, which was double Dutch to most people. Being able to say that I was helping to build the internet meant that my friends and family could finally have confidence that I had a legitimate occupation.

Of course, we have far more important reasons to be grateful to the internet, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border; others will doubtless be raised during the debate. The internet is well on the way to becoming a necessity rather than something that it is nice to have. For some, the transition has already taken place. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, 90% of its members use the internet in running their businesses, and a third of those think that the broadband speed is reducing their productivity. That is a real indictment of the current level of broadband provision. If broadband is such a necessity, why have the Government delayed the provision of universal access until 2015?

I welcome the motion’s emphasis on the importance of broadband, but I want to focus on the part that calls for the mobile auction coverage requirement to be extended from 95% to 98%. I could talk for a long time about the strengths and importance of broadband, but I want to focus on that specific technical area, because it is in that regard that I fear that the objectives of many Government Members may not be realised

Ofcom is not primarily concerned with raising revenue, as the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border suggested. Its primary aim, generally and as set out in the directive, is to maximise competition. If pressure is being placed on Ofcom to consider the amount of revenue raised, that pressure is coming from the Government. Ofcom is consulting on a 95% coverage requirement because that is the coverage that mobile operators feel they can achieve without significant additional investment. It is about putting equipment on existing base stations rather than building new ones. Considerable costs will still be incurred, because the equipment is costly, but Ofcom has judged that the cost will not prove prohibitive to the private sector business case. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House recognise the importance of a valid business case to investments in the private sector. However, extending coverage to 98% would increase the cost considerably. I was interested in the estimate of £250 million from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. I note that the Ofcom consultation specifically avoids giving an estimate, on the basis that the modelling is too complex and time-consuming to undertake at present.

One thing that should be emphasised is the importance of getting the spectrum out there as quickly as possible. We do not want to spend too much time on network economic modelling. However, we must also recognise that adding a line to a licence requirement will not get that equipment out into the field; nor will it get mobile broadband into Members’ constituencies. We need to ensure that private sector companies are properly incentivised.

Increasing the mobile coverage requirement may well reduce the Treasury’s income. I agree with the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border that that would be a reasonable price to pay if we could be sure of the results, but there are two main concerns. The coverage requirement is for 2017. That might seem a long time to wait—indeed, to small businesses painfully watching the hated Microsoft hourglass turn it must seem an eternity—but it is worth noting that the 3G coverage requirement, which was for only 80%, was not met until seven years after the auction. Can the rural small businesses of this country really wait so long? The Government have apparently committed themselves to providing universal broadband by 2015, but that leaves us still four years away from a decent broadband service for all.

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

I hate to break up the cosy consensus, but I am going to anyway. I understand that the Opposition are claiming in the media that they could deliver broadband roll-out both faster and at considerably lower expense than proposed by the coalition Government—indeed, £200 million less. Can the hon. Lady tell the House of any project at all that the Labour Government delivered both on time and on budget, let alone in reduced time and at reduced budget?

[Chi Onwurah]

The previous Government committed to providing universal broadband access at 2 megabits by 2012, whereas it is my understanding that the current Government have made a commitment to the best broadband—there is some doubt as to the exact definition of that term—by 2015. Our project was to be implemented not by the Government, but by the private sector, and with the right incentives. It was not only fully planned, but fully costed, and had the support of the vast majority of the telecommunications industry, who agreed that it was feasible. The current proposal to deliver superfast broadband by 2015 is, however, not fully costed, as I am sure broadband companies would set out in detail.

The coverage obligations do not match private sector business cases, and, unfortunately, are a very crude and ineffective way of correcting what is, effectively, market failure. There will be a cost to the public purse, but unlike in a directed programme, we will not have any say as to how that money is spent; so the Treasury will lose money, but we will have no guarantee or say as to how it is invested.

[Rory Stewart]

What does the hon. Lady think of the simple proposal to set out the number of additional masts required? If Stephen Temple were to propose that there should simply be, let us say, 1,500 additional long- term evolution masts, rather than setting a 98% coverage target, that would be much simpler to measure, there would be no debates about how exactly the plan would be modelled, and costs would be much more straightforward.

[Chi Onwurah]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has launched himself so deeply into the detail of network infrastructure roll-out. I hope the vast majority of Members on the Government Benches would agree with me that we do not want to specify to private companies exactly how they must roll-out their infrastructure, the number of masts they will need to put in place, the equipment they should use, or the technology choices they should make. I would not therefore support specifying the number of masts, although that is an interesting proposal.

Specifying the coverage is a useful way of trying to ensure efficient roll-out, but my concern is that if the coverage that is specified does not accord with the good and effective business case, there will be unintended, and potentially perverse, consequences.

[Duncan Hames]

One consequence would be a cross-subsidy from those—perhaps in urban areas—who enjoy low-cost services to those of us in other parts of the country who might not, but who would therefore be able to share in the network. Given that we support such consequences in respect of the Royal Mail universal service obligation, why should we not support them in the context of broadband or mobile coverage?

[Chi Onwurah]

My party is known for supporting redistribution in many areas and we would certainly support cross-subsidy, which is effectively the result, if that were the only consequence. When I speak of unintended consequences, I am suggesting we might not, perhaps, get the optimum mobile coverage within three years or one year because the coverage requirement is for 2017, which might concentrate the minds of the mobile operators on that date.

[Rory Stewart]

Will the hon. Lady clarify what she proposes to do to ensure that an additional 3 million people get coverage?

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking that; I have very little time left, so I shall race to that point. The most effective way for a Government to intervene in a market is to direct subsidy in the most effective way possible to incentivise network coverage in the areas it is required. I suggest to hon. Members that rather than hiding behind indirect intervention through the regulator and blaming the regulator’s short-sightedness, we should clearly set out that we want universal access to standard broadband for all by 2012 and we should ensure that we have the means to achieve it.

15:36

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who has pressed this issue on our behalf and who has got us to this stage. His enthusiasm and eloquence is being listened to by the Government. I do not call myself a technical expert, unlike my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). I want to focus, following on from what the hon. Lady said, on the law of unintended consequences, but regarding general strictures about what has happened over the past 13 years.

I, as a new Member of Parliament, and all of us have fought in our areas on behalf of the rural sector of our constituencies. We might have fought on behalf of the local pub, of the last remaining village shop or of the last remaining small village school. As my hon. Friend said, this is a once in a lifetime chance to get things right and to reverse what is happening across the country and in all our constituencies. Villages and hamlets are either becoming distant dormitory suburbs of a town or a museum piece showing a long-lost England. In fact, historically speaking, they were the centres of business and enterprise, and for many of us the internet provided many people in those villages with a huge opportunity to restore something to village life. If we miss it, as hon. Members have said, we have missed it for a generation.

Let me give an example from my constituency. A community group came up with its own idea to revive the area, right in the hills of deepest rural Lancashire. The group got the whole community together with a programme that covered a number of villages. The plan was to cover Over Wyresdale and Quernmore with an extension through the small hamlets of Littledale and Roeburndale to the distant villages of Wray, Melling and Wennington. Only 1,000 properties were going to be provided with high-speed optic fibre. The group applied for a £750,000 grant from the rural development programme—that was all. As everyone knows, optic fibre is costly and the community planned to get over the cost by digging the ducts. The farmers gave permission because it was a community enterprise.

The people involved, who lead busy working lives, went through the whole process because they saw farmers in the hills of Lancashire having to travel miles every month to find the nearest internet access to fill in the Rural Payments Agency’s licence and registration forms for every sheep and every cow. Children travelled miles to find the nearest internet access because the homework for certain courses required internet access, which was not available in the hill-top villages. For all those reasons, the whole community got together and made some progress on the project for just £750,000—not a great deal compared with the sums that have gone missing over the past 13 years. Then, for the best of reasons the Northwest Regional Development Agency decided in its dying days this year to give the county council £20 million for broadband access across the whole of Lancashire. One might say that was an absolute positive, but what happened to our £750,000 programme? It somehow got trapped in the bureaucracy and it has been swept up into the £20 million. For the best of reasons, the county council, which has more than my area to deal with as areas all around want broadband, has to put the contract out to tender to commercial companies. The people who have worked hard on this—I pay tribute to two people in particular in my area, Barry Forde and Chris Conder, who have worked tirelessly—have estimated that if commercial companies come in, it will cost more because they will not get free access across fields. After all, why should a farmer grant free access to BT, Vodafone or whoever? They would have to charge them and the cost would be about £5,000 to £10,000 per property. Given the 1,000 properties I have mentioned, the cost for my small area alone would be £10 million, so where is the £20 million going to go?

To be fair to the county, it has the best of intentions and I give credit to the coalition Government for trying to drive this through. I know that Ministers, especially the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), understand both this issue and the urban-rural divide. However, in my area we are possibly going to lose a whole big society project. Rural communities, who have always felt isolated and separated, have almost got to the point of accepting that this is how things are—that the towns get everything. They think that the towns are where their children will move when they grow up and that perhaps one or two of them will come back to retire; that is how we end up with the dormitory villages that so many of us recognise. The big society project in my area has been swept away along with all it had brought in terms of community and social contact across the hills and valleys and between hamlets. There is also a possibility that because of the cost local people will not get the superfast broadband they need for the next generation.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I must declare an interest because I am still a Lancashire county councillor. As such I have quite an interest in the hon. Gentleman’s comments. The BT contract that has been struck by the Conservative administration is taking a very top-down approach and it has been criticised for that. I understand why he is speaking out for his constituents, but it is within his party’s hands to do something about this issue, as it is the top-down approach of Lancashire county council that is being criticised.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has to reduce this matter to party politics given that there has been a genuine attempt across parties to get it right. I remind him that for 13 years nothing at all happened except the decline of those villages. I said that those involved had the best intentions and were trying to get the best results, as are the Government, and many of us are still working to do that.

We might lose our big society project but, more importantly, although the broadband that will come to the hills of Lancashire will be great and will mean that children and farmers in my area will finally be able to get on to the internet, it is estimated that most of that will be down copper wires or by satellite, so when the next stage comes, as the technical experts my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central understand far better than I do, we will end up, yet again, with the same divide between rural and urban England.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something? I understand that Lancashire county council is probably the first local authority to put such provision out to tender. Has it tendered on the basis of coverage being provided by one operator for the whole county or has it left open the possibility of different operators providing services in different parts of the county?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

My understanding is that it is one operator, but I stand to be corrected on that. It is also my understanding that it is attempting to take into account my concerns and those of the villages in my constituency.

Everyone in this arena is trying to get this done. We all understand what the issue is and that it needs to be dealt with now. All I am trying to do is explain the examples from my constituency. We may well get something in rural Lancashire, but it might be something that in a couple of years’ time prevents us from getting to the next stage. I hope that we do not miss that bus and end up with yet another division between rural and urban areas. I hope that the Government will understand that as they plot to achieve the 98% coverage that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border wants to see. We must take into account the communities and the fact that they themselves want to contribute to achieve something. If we get that right, we will get it right for more than a generation.

15:44

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

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing the debate and, of course, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), my Cumbrian neighbour, on leading it. He made a superb speech that touched incredibly well on many issues, particularly the need for a narrative and action on growth and the means to deliver it. There is always space for him on the Opposition Benches—quite a lot of space at the moment. He made the point that, “Of course we can spend money on X; look at how much we spend everyday on all these terrible wars”, which would chime very well with what some of my colleagues say; I was surprised to hear it from the Conservative Benches. I have worked with him on the need for faster broadband in Cumbria and will say more about that in a moment.

It was good to follow the very well-made speech by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). He said that nothing had been done over the past 13 years, and obviously I wish that in many areas we had gone faster. We now need to accelerate progress, but I do not remember being able in 1997 to sit in my room in Barrow—it is upstairs, admittedly—and flick through the 3G and wi-fi on my iPhone, so things have really improved. The regulatory framework put in place by the previous Government has been part of that, and the Minister has experience of that. We should recognise that much has been done and that much more needs to be done.

I should also say that I have written to Mr Speaker to ask to be excused from the winding-up speeches, as I am travelling to Scotland this evening for the funeral of David Cairns tomorrow. I hope that the Minister and other Members will excuse me.

In the brief time available, I want to stress the economic importance of faster broadband networks in my constituency and across Cumbria. We of course want faster roll-out and see the urgency of that. I am happy to support the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, but we need to do this as fast as possible, and 2015 is still a significant way off. There is a need for greater action from the Government and from broadband providers, which we must not forget.

I want to mention the example of Kates Skates in Barrow. Barrow is an urban area, but urban areas within larger rural counties experience these problems cheek by jowl with people and companies that would more readily be associated with rural surroundings, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood noted. In 1996, Chris and Catherine Palmen thought that it would be a good idea to construct an indoor ice rink in the centre of Barrow. It actually turned out to be a bad idea, which did not get anywhere at all, but their story is testament to our extraordinary entrepreneurial spirit in Furness and throughout the country, because unperturbed by the mammoth flop of that business the Palmens decided to go into retail.

Kates Skates started with ice skates and quickly expanded to the point now where it has possibly Europe’s largest range of skates, skateboards, snowboards—if any Government Members are skater boys or girls, they can help me out—and scooters. The company has a really tremendous range, ships upwards of 250 orders a day from its small store and employs about 20 people, with 5% of its orders coming from the shop in Furness and 95% from online orders from the rest of the UK and, increasingly, Europe.

That is exactly the kind of business that we need to promote to ensure that such concerns can prosper anywhere in the UK, but the Palmens tell me of their enormous frustration at their slow broadband connection, which really hampers their internal processes. They spent quite a lot of money developing 3D images of their products, but having reached that stage they realised that they could not put them online because their broadband link was too slow to sustain them. We have to be able to do something about that. Companies such as Kates Skates say, “We started up in the area where we are from, we want to stay there, we love the quality of life in Barrow and the access to elsewhere in the Lake district, and we don’t want to move to a larger city.” The Palmens are in an increasingly difficult situation, however, because of the slow broadband with which they are forced to contend.

Many people have raised this problem with me, and I am sure that we will hear further examples throughout the day. CGP Books in Broughton, a great company producing textbooks, has itself shelled out for a faster link, but the increasing costs are obviously affecting its bottom line. Furness Internet, which provides services throughout the area, has frustrated customers who want to do more but cannot because of a single point of failure: the data cable that it purchased at great expense. The company says that the cable is relatively reliable at the moment, but if it goes down, all the customers of Furness Internet will be up the swanny, and that is really worrying for people who are looking to locate to the area. I spoke to the head of Cumbria’s chamber of commerce today, who stressed how absolutely essential it is for us to sort out the problem if we are to drive wider progress in the county.

[George Freeman]

I believe that in a previous existence the hon. Gentleman used to advise the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) when he was Prime Minister, and I was wondering how much of the £20 billion-odd that the former Government raised through the sale of 3G licences was reinvested in the rural broadband network. If a little of that money had been invested, would we not be in a better position today?

[John Woodcock]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman mentions my former boss, the former Prime Minister, and mobile phones. His robust, old-school Nokia survived many trials and tribulations, during even my time working for him. Those rumours are not true, by the way—just to be clear.

Look, investment was made. There are real questions about whether there was enough investment, and about whether progress moved fast enough, but there has been very fast progress. Does it need to be faster in future? Unquestionably, yes, and that is what we are here to discuss.

[Rory Stewart]

I hesitate to invite the hon. Gentleman to come and join us on the Government Benches, but could he explain why this country rates lower than Romania in terms of the download speeds on our mobile broadband networks?

[John Woodcock]

This is not only an issue for the Government but for the private sector and for individuals. There was a collective failure to anticipate the rate of growth across the world and how critical it would become to people going about their business and to the operation of businesses and public services. It is now absolutely right to put in place steps to ensure that we can grow, right across the country, to the extent that we need to.

The Government need to put in place a more robust framework. We made that case strongly before the election and continue to do so. There is also a role for the big providers, which need to do more than they are doing at present. I am pleased that BT has sustained work at its call centre in Barrow, which was earmarked for closure. After a robust campaign by me and by workers and the Communication Workers Union, BT thought again and is now talking about increasing the level of work in that call centre. One of the reasons it initially gave for the difficulty in bringing work into the area was that it did not have the broadband speed that some places in India had. That is a very alarming fact that shows the clear business need to speed up the level of service.

I would say to BT and other companies that competitions such as Race to Infinity, which I imagine a lot of areas represented here took part in, must not merely be a data capture exercise in which the top five win and the companies end up with massive numbers of people to write to about products in future. It is important to reflect the clear business need that exists in these areas and the business case for putting in superfast broadband. It is vital to strengthen the framework, but we also need more action from the private companies in doing the right thing by the many individuals who rely on superfast broadband and by the businesses that are crying out for it so that they can grow.

15:58

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

It is perhaps apt that I follow the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), because he and I both know what it is like to feel pain. We have suffered together. Last week, he and I, and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) and for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), went off to the Falkland Islands, where we endured a 3G desert. There is no 3G mobile service in the Falkland Islands. If, Mr Deputy Speaker, you see an elected Member of Parliament wrenched from his BlackBerry—or CrackBerry, as it is known—and unable to tweet for a whole seven days, you will understand what real pain is like.

Having endured the indignity of not having 3G for a week, I rather understand the terrible situation that many of my constituents and constituents of other hon. Members suffer not just for a week but on a regular basis, and the impact on their quality of life and ability to do their jobs and keep in touch with friends and family. It has a massive effect, and we should not underestimate it.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the frustration in certain constituencies is added to when wonderful maps are produced by Ofcom that suggest that they have coverage, whereas the practical reality for many constituents is that they simply do not have that coverage? That rather adds insult to injury.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, the situation is worse than that. All Members have constituents who pay for broadband services that they do not receive. Some of my constituents in Burton pay for what they are assured is 8-megabit broadband, but receive 0.9-megabit broadband. The frustration of buying a product that one does not receive is massive. I therefore share his concerns.

As we speak, there are people in my constituency of Burton who are desperate to stream Parliament TV live, but who are unable to do so because of their inability to access fast broadband. One of the issues that appears most consistently, week upon week, in my postbag as a constituency MP, if one excludes automated campaigns on issues such as forests, is access to broadband. It is incumbent on us, as politicians, to represent that frustration, which we have heard about, and to get something done about it. On that point, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) for giving one of the most interesting, informative and motivational speeches that I have heard in this Chamber for a long time. He is a credit to those who campaign for faster broadband and we are delighted to have him leading the charge.

I would like to pay tribute to the efforts of certain people in my constituency. The first is Ian Page, who is evangelical, bordering on obsessive, about getting faster broadband for Burton and the outlying areas. Many hon. Members will know that my constituency is an interesting mix of urban areas—Burton is a brewing town—and outlying villages, many of which are incredibly rural. Ian has run a campaign over many months and years, and has put in a great amount of his own time. He runs street stalls, starts petitions and has a website. We are very lucky to have him in our constituency, because he does a great deal of work. I also pay tribute to my local newspaper, the Burton Mail, which has consistently run a campaign to force BT, kicking and screaming, to improve broadband access in my constituency.

The reason for those campaigns is that the current broadband service is stopping growth and jobs in my constituency. I know of at least three businesses that were looking to relocate in the Burton constituency, but decided not to simply because of the poor quality of the broadband access. One was a printer, who needed broadband access to download graphics and large files for his business. He had no choice but to move elsewhere in Derbyshire, where the broadband access is better. It is frustrating as a constituency MP, desperate as I am to bring new jobs and employment to my area, to see that hampered by BT’s inability to provide the internet access that is needed.

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned quality. Does he agree that although we talk about roll-out and the percentage of coverage, we do not talk much about capacity? Of course it is important to talk about rural areas. However, in every constituency across the country, even in much more urban areas, there are people who technically have coverage, but the quality and limited capacity of the access mean that it cannot be used commercially. I hope that the 4G spectrum will deliver that increased capacity, but it remains to be seen whether it will.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I absolutely agree. There are examples in my constituency, particularly in outlying villages, where one person gets a decent broadband service and their next-door neighbour gets sporadic access, if any. The inconsistency of provision is a major problem for a large number of people not just in my constituency but, I am sure, across the country.

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

Even in Hampshire, where the county council has invested heavily in its public services network, it is calculated that by 2015, 20% of people and businesses will still be unable to get access that is anything other than very slow, if they can get it at all. We are talking about 25,000 businesses and 112,000 people.

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and at a time when we have a global economy and the internet provides access to employment, contracts and business, it is simply unacceptable for people to be denied that facility. I know that the Minister is passionate about the subject, but we desperately need to see some movement forward.

In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border talked about the trade-off between the auction price and the cost to UK plc as a trading organisation. If we asked people in my constituency about that trade-off, I think they would say, “Give us faster broadband now”. I hope that the Minister is receiving that message loud and clear.

We talk about rural broadband, but in my constituency there are villages such as Anslow and Tatenhill that are only 1 mile or 1½ miles outside the central Burton area but whose internet access is incredibly sporadic or in many cases non-existent.

[Chi Onwurah]

The hon. Gentleman has spoken eloquently about the impact of slow broadband on his constituents. If he asked them, would they say they wanted universal broadband coverage by 2012 as the Labour Government proposed?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady asks an interesting question. I think they would say, “We want faster broadband, and we want it now”. We all understand that feeling.

It is incumbent on BT in particular to focus on what it can do to extend coverage to people who are at the end of the line. Villages such as those that I mentioned, which are tantalisingly close to the exchange, should get better broadband provision.

Has the Minister considered whether the legislation on the unbundling of the local loop needs revisiting? Should we not say that if BT cannot provide a service from exchange to cabinet and cabinet to home, we should open it up to competition and allow other providers to do it? I do not think my constituents care who provides the line; they just want access. Is there a case for considering whether other providers could do that faster and more effectively? That is not to criticise BT, because I know it is doing its level best, but the current situation is hampering the UK economy and having an impact on people’s quality of life.

Once again, I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border on bringing forward such an important debate.

16:04

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I start by paying tribute to my neighbours and friends in Cumbria and other Members for excellent speeches. This is a tremendously important debate, and I will restrict my comments mostly to the third part of the motion, which refers to target broadband speeds. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), talked about the impact on business, but I wish to mention the impact of broadband coverage—or, in the case of south Cumbria, the lack of adequate broadband coverage—on social equality and social justice.

Let us look at the wider picture. The biggest issue facing folks in the Lake district and the dales, and in the areas that are so beautiful that they are not in either national park in south Cumbria, is the mismatch between average incomes and average house prices. The average house price in my patch is more than £250,000, but the average income is significantly less than £20,000. One in three young people leaves our area and never comes back.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) spoke about the loss of businesses from his area because of the lack of broadband coverage. Many people who employ four or five members of staff will shift their business out of the south lakes because of a lack of business space, but they also move away because of the lack of access to decent broadband coverage.

Superfast broadband is a way of equalising opportunities in rural areas, where wealth and poverty are cheek by jowl. Why would people not live in a staggeringly beautiful place such as the Lake district or south Cumbria if they could afford to do so and if they could make a living there? People move into our area to retire—they are extremely welcome if they have the wherewithal to do so. Others buy second homes and visit occasionally, which is okay. However, many are effectively displaced, because they cannot earn a living there. Adequate—or, I hope, more than adequate—access to superfast broadband would give people the opportunity to set up or work for businesses and to make a decent living.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The same problem exists in Somerset, and it affects not only those who are seeking to retire but those who are seeking jobs. In my area, jobcentres are few and far between, and people seeking jobs must be online to apply for jobs that are advertised in jobcentres, so their opportunities are incredibly limited when they cannot get broadband.

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The need for such communications is greater for people in rural areas than for people in urban areas.

The current situation in my constituency is that many areas have access to pathetically slow broadband speeds. I pay tribute to Colin Barr and the team from Colton parish council, whose study showed that 45% of people in the High Furness local area could access no more than 0.5 megabits per second. Our communities and their MPs will not tolerate that. That is why I am so proud that our communities in Cumbria, and South Lakeland especially, are choosing to make their own luck. I pay tribute to the folks in Colton, Hutton Roof, Grasmere, Beetham, Kirkby Lonsdale and Upper Kent, and to the team from Fibre GarDen who ensure that we can deliver superfast broadband to Garsdale and Dent. They show a vision that UK plc—I am not aiming criticism in any specific direction—has so far not matched. This debate is about demonstrating that the House of Commons stands behind them in solidarity.

We must show ambition. The ambition that saw the development of the railways, canals and so on is lacking so far in that critical aspect of our infrastructure needs. The target of 2 megabits per second, as I am sure most hon. Members know, is staggeringly unambitious. Next year, Norway will roll out to 98% of its inhabitants 100 megabits per second, and the EU digital agenda is for 30 megabits per second by 2020. I admit that Singapore is not entirely rural—[Interruption.] It has bits of rain forest—I checked on Google Maps and once upon a time spent six weeks there. Singapore has access to 1 gigabit per second, for pity’s sake, which is what we are competing with. The reality is that we are behind. That will matter.

When I studied at university in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) in 1990—I would barely touch a word processor at that time, never mind anything else—I read an article about mobile phone usage. People were asked, “Can you see yourself needing a mobile phone in the next 10 years, or would you want one?” but only one in five answered yes. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton was asked how many of his constituents want access immediately. I am sure that many do, but I am also sure that many of his constituents, like many of mine, do not realise that they want it, or that they should want it.

There is a need for evangelism to sell the need for access to superfast broadband. We will need something like 100 megabits per second, and we will need it soon. For example, those places in Cumbria that are most remote from hospitals and the most likely to benefit from telemedicine are the least likely to have the chance to access that technology. World leaders such as Gilkes in Kendal, which is providing hydroturbines in south, central and north America, need to be able to upload incredibly complex graphic designs. Kendal now has 20 megabits per second and that is wonderful, but even that will not be enough for very long. Rural farmers need to be able to complete their Rural Payments Agency forms. The £2 billion Cumbrian tourism industry needs to be able to punch above its weight as it fights the city break market. To do that it needs more than the 2 megabits per second that we are talking about today.

I am proud to be part of the campaign across Cumbria with the county council and BDUK—Broadband Delivery UK—to roll out the broadband pilot in South Lakelands. I am also proud of the broadband pioneers and the hub co-ordinators we have in the area. I welcome what is happening in Cumbria, but I am frustrated by the speed of the project and the speed of the target. I am concerned that the infrastructure as it is built across Britain must be future-proof, but it is not even now-proof. We have to build a network that is in the interests of our communities and businesses, and—dare I say?—not in the interests of one or two large telecommunications companies. That is the great fear I have about our county project. We have heard that fear about Lancashire and I suspect that it is shared across the country.

We need to state that copper is not the answer and that fibre to the cabinet is not a future-proof answer. It might suit certain companies, but it is not future-proof and fibre to the home and business is the answer. Mobile and satellite solutions also play a huge role, and I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) said about mobile networks. Costs should not be higher for users in rural areas than they are for users in cities, and that is another important issue.

Andrew Fleck, the chairman of Fibre GarDen—the team trying to bring fibre-optic, superfast broadband to Garsdale and Dentdale, said in his e-mail to me a couple of days ago:

“The cost of nationwide implementation is prohibitive in the current economic climate, but the economic penalty for delay will be greater still.”

He is absolutely right. Tonight I will get on the train to Oxenholme and travel on a rail network that was built by visionaries 150 years ago. That is the sort of vision and ambition that we need today.

[Chi Onwurah]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on setting out in such visionary terms the superfast future that we all hope to have, but it is worth noting that the vast majority of the companies that built the railways went bankrupt and it was public subsidy that enabled the uneconomic areas to be reached.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Lady makes a correct observation, and I would make one in return—and it is not meant as a dig at my hon. Friends from another party. Let us reflect on how Norway is able to have 98% access to 100 megabits per second next year: it is because it still owns its telecommunications company and it can make it so.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Many hon. Members still wish to speak, so I am reducing the time limit to eight minutes. If hon. Members could tend more towards six minutes, everybody will get a chance.

16:19

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on securing this debate this afternoon and on his passionate and eloquent speech. I strongly support this motion. Mobile phone connection and access to the internet at a decent, workable speed are things that much of urban Britain can take for granted, but those vital connections are often absent entirely in rural Britain.

I will focus on one part of the motion, which is the impact that poor access to the internet and lack of broadband have on local communities. In parts of north Yorkshire and my constituency, broadband coverage is desperate. North Yorkshire has among the poorest provision in the country, with 30% of the county being classed as a low-speed area. The impact of this weakness is seen in many ways. For one, it holds back our local economy and has a detrimental impact on jobs and growth. For example, one of the biggest employers in my constituency is a company that forms part of a large international group, but it cannot operate its group’s international systems simply because the internet platform is so poor.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I agree entirely that superfast broadband would be enormously beneficial to our economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the £20 billion that we might be spending on high-speed rail will do less to improve the north-south divide than would superfast broadband, which would benefit all parts of our economy?

[Andrew Jones]

That is tempting but difficult territory. I will resist the temptation because I have long campaigned vigorously for better rail connections for my constituency, particularly for better trains to Leeds and York and direct services to and from London. By the way—a small plug—the first direct service to Harrogate from London starts on Monday.

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

What time?

[Andrew Jones]

About half-past 5, I think my hon. Friend will find. I hope to be there to see it off, like the Fat Controller, and then dash back to comply with the whipping arrangements later that evening. I think that high-speed rail is a good idea for certain parts of the country, so I am upfront about supporting it. My only complaint is that delivery is so slow that I will be well over 70 by the time it reaches Yorkshire—thank goodness that feels a little way off!

I was making the point about businesses in my constituency requiring a better internet platform. Many of our small and medium-sized enterprises, often in the agricultural and tourism sectors, are being held back. They need a good internet presence to reach out to their customers and win business. However, the lack of broadband is not purely a commercial matter. It has held back access to education, as was expressed so eloquently earlier. It also holds back the provision of public services. I saw that first hand as a member of Harrogate borough council while seeking to improve services across a wide but poorly connected area. I do not want the people of north Yorkshire to be unable to take advantage of developments in health care. I have seen and discussed with health care professionals from Airedale NHS Foundation Trust how its telemedicine work can help people in remote communities, particularly those with long-term conditions.

Then there are the straight social and community benefits. Communities that can communicate are stronger. It is easy to do the diagnosis, but harder to tackle the issue. I have to say to the Minister, however, that I think the Government get that and understand rural communities. I was pleased to see the high level of investment that the Government have found for this area, despite these being very difficult financial times. We have worked hard in north Yorkshire to be one of the pilot areas for the roll-out of superfast broadband, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who is here today. As a team of north Yorkshire MPs, we have worked to put the case for our area’s inclusion in the Government pilots, which we secured—I am grateful to the Minister for that. Although we work as a Yorkshire team in many areas, teams need leaders and on this particular issue my hon. Friend has done a great job of leading the way.

The progress that we are making in north Yorkshire is very encouraging. Many groups have been working together, including the county council, the district council, the voluntary sector, local communities and business groups. This issue has been identified by the new York and North Yorkshire local enterprise partnership as one of its priorities. We also have a good local delivery vehicle in NYnet. The provision of excellent broadband services is critical to our country, but especially critical in rural areas of long distances and low-population densities, where we have seen the danger of communities falling behind. The Government have responded positively to this challenge, and in north Yorkshire we are taking up the challenge from them to make our pilot as successful as possible. I am happy to support this motion.

16:25

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on securing this important debate. Much of what I was going to say has already been covered by previous speakers. However, I would like to cite a few examples from Pendle of the urgent need for better broadband access in our rural areas.

Earlier this year I was contacted by Robin Yerkess from Fence, whose broadband speed was only 0.3 megabits. After BT was contacted and an engineer sent out to see my constituent, that increased to 1.4 megabits, which is an improvement, but can hardly be described as good. Neil Hodgson, a resident from Blacko, tells me that broadband speeds in the area are only 0.5 megabits, while Ian Smith, another Blacko resident, says the same, although his broadband speed recently peaked at 2 megabits following some work on the exchange. As many hon. Members have said, broadband for such constituents is not a luxury; it is absolutely essential. Mr Smith works from home for a company based overseas. Without extending broadband coverage to our rural areas, it would simply not be possible to perform jobs such as his.

In Higham, Arthur Stuttard says that the maximum speed at his property is 1.2 megabits and constantly dropping. The connection was once down for six weeks because of corroded lines. The same is reported by Bernard Ingham—[Laughter]—indeed—the chairman of Higham parish council, who says that he typically gets just 1.25 megabits to 1.75 megabits. I have had similar reports from many Pendleside villages. Brian Nelson from Roughlee tells me that he has never achieved more than 1 megabit, while Bill Mayor from Goldshaw Booth says that Newchurch may be unique in the whole country for suffering poor connection “when it rains”.

Broadband coverage in the centre of Colne, where I live, is relatively good. However, as soon as one gets away from the town centre, things deteriorate rapidly. Raymond Rushton from Trawden told me that his broadband speed varies from 0.58 megabits on some days to 2.8 megabits on others. Kris Stevens from Laneshaw Bridge has said that speeds of up to 3.7 megabits can be achieved between 10 pm and 3 pm, but during peak hours that is reduced to 0.7 megabits, making packages such as Sky Player completely unusable. I share the same fate as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths). Unfortunately, none of my constituents has complained that they have not been able to get BBC Parliament streamed live quickly enough, although I am sure that many of them are paying close attention to what goes on in this place.

Those are just a few of the constituents who have e-mailed me or contacted me via Facebook or Twitter in advance of this debate—people who are becoming increasingly frustrated by the inadequate broadband coverage in Pendle. Unless rural broadband improves, people will no longer be able to move into those villages or other rural areas, killing our local economies and leaving those still living in those communities with restricted access to jobs, information and public services. It is about time that our rural areas enjoyed the same access to broadband that so many businesses and individuals in our larger cities have been used to for so long, particularly given the importance of fast, reliable broadband in creating small and medium-sized enterprises and driving employment growth.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The important motion before us refers to rural broadband, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is also remarkable how many small areas on the edges of cities are affected? For example, Quedgeley in my constituency is served by the Hardwicke exchange in Stroud, which is a rural area, with 100 businesses there affected by slow broadband. Does he agree that the Minister should also consider that aspect of this important motion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart)?

[Andrew Stephenson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. What is surprising about his constituency and mine is that many of the properties that suffer from slow speeds are short distances from the exchanges that serve them. However, the technology used is so old, archaic and lacking in investment that such problems continue year in, year out.

I applaud what the Government have announced so far, particularly the initiative announced last October, which earmarked four rural areas—unfortunately not including Lancashire—for a pilot scheme for the next generation of high-speed broadband, in addition to setting aside £50 million for investment in the second wave of internet test projects. But the £830 million that the Government have pledged to create the best broadband network in Europe by 2015 will be spent in vain unless those living in more remote areas—

[Ian Lucas]

On a point of information, I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the figure is £530 million. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman on that figure. My key point is that that money will have been spent in vain unless it benefits those in rural areas as well as those in urban areas across the country.

Owing to the rural, coastal and sparsely populated nature of Lancashire, there is a real fear that our county could be left behind. A pan-Lancashire proposal endorsed by the local enterprise partnership has been drawn up. It is supported by Blackburn with Darwen borough council, Blackpool council and Lancashire county council. It estimates that, under current proposals, only 66% of premises will have superfast broadband by 2015, leaving 34% without. Needless to say, the 34% will predominantly be in the kind of rural communities that hon. Members have been describing today.

The pan-Lancashire proposal seeks to address that shortfall, and the outline proposal for £15 million of funding from the European regional development fund, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) mentioned earlier, has now been submitted. Lancashire has also submitted a funding proposal for £13 million from the £530 million that the Government are investing through Broadband Delivery UK. I commend that proposal to the Minister and urge him to do even more to connect our rural communities. As many of my constituents in rural communities whose broadband speed is currently less than 1 megabit have said, the adverts for services offering 100 megabit broadband are simply a bad joke.

16:31

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

In the spirit of the motion, I will be as superfast as possible. First, I must draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on securing this debate. I want to talk about the local position, concentrating on rural need and on superfast broadband need in particular. I then want to talk about the potential for satellite broadband to provide a solution for those remote homes and businesses that many hon. Members represent.

To be honest, I wonder what I am doing here today. I represent Bracknell, which is part of the Thames valley, where 10% of the world’s information technology businesses are based. It is part of the golden triangle of Newbury, Reading and Bracknell. We have Oracle, Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, Dell and Fujitsu Siemens. We have so many IT companies that I do not have time to list them all. And yet, until very recently, part of my constituency only six or seven miles away still had dial-up internet. I wonder why that is.

There are many Members here today, and I imagine that their mailbags are as full of complaints about this as mine is. A village in the west of my constituency, Finchampstead, is packed with people who work in the IT sector. I knock on their doors and ask for their support, and they say, “Yes, fair enough, but how come I cannot get fast broadband? I work for an IT company, yet I come home and I cannot get a decent internet link.” I have absolutely no answer for them. I have heard Opposition Members suggesting that we could not predict what was going to happen. Well, yes we could, and some of us did. The direction of travel was pretty obvious, not only for the internet but for mobile phone usage. We can argue that the capacity we need was not predicted, but we all knew that it was going to grow.

I have been convening meetings, and BT has kindly come in to see me. I am sure that all hon. Members have received BT’s briefing today on its fibre optic outlay. It assured me that it is going to hit various target dates for its fibre optic plans, but those dates have now been pushed back. My constituency is in Berkshire, not in some gloriously remote part of the countryside in Cumbria or the Yorkshire dales. I am in Berkshire, and I do not have a decent internet service. Indeed, in my own home in a semi-rural area in Berkshire, I cannot really get the internet—it is utterly pointless. I have inquired about the problem and tried to work out the solution, as I am not convinced that fibre optic will be there for people.

That is why I shall now move on to deal with satellite broadband. This may seem remarkable, but it is possible to get a decent broadband service throughout the country via satellite. Every constituent that Members represent can secure broadband access at a minimum of 2 megabits a second via satellite. I am told that speeds can reach upwards of 10 or 12 megabits; there is a significant cost, but it is possible. That seems to me to be an ideal solution. It is arguably cheaper and quicker, and it is undeniably greener because it uses less energy to provide the service for sending around the data. It is from the same sort of satellite, I might add, that the information for our BlackBerrys and mobile phones comes. It also relies on the space industry.

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

Would my hon. Friend acknowledge that satellite broadband is not as reliable as mobile broadband or fixed-line links?

[Dr Lee]

I accept that, although there has been an improvement, as I know from having had the privilege of seeing one of the new Ka-band satellites launched before Christmas. There is room for improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of satellites, but the space industry has plenty of experience and evidence of those developments. By the end of this Parliament, about 300,000 links will be possible for broadband via satellite. That is quite a few, and I am sure that it covers quite a few of the homes and businesses that my hon. Friends represent. Broadband Delivery UK estimates that about 2 million businesses and homes do not have good enough broadband. I am one of them and so are many people living in the west of my constituency and elsewhere.

My final point about the space industry is that it is successful—a £7.5 billion industry annually, employing more than 80,000 people. The companies that provide the broadband service do so not only here, but sell their services abroad. They sell these services, some of them to 50 or 60 countries abroad, bringing income into this country. In the process of providing a broadband service that we all know is needed for this country, we will also be able to export, which is fantastic in itself.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said, this is a no-brainer. There will be a combination of solutions to provide broadband for everybody. It will include wireless and mobile, and fibre optic, but I suggest that for the difficult-to-reach places, space provides the solution. We are fantastic at space. We are already providing solutions for broadband in that way, so let us provide some more.

Ultimately, infrastructure matters. Reference has been made to the visionaries of the Victorian age who brought us trains. However, one mistake was made during that period. If my British social and economic history serves me well, we decided to go with Stephenson’s gauge for rail, instead of Brunel’s. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has now left the Chamber, but an analogy can be drawn here: Brunel had a wider gauge, so we could have gone faster with our trains. We are now struggling to provide even faster trains; if we had gone with Brunel, we would have had them. I suggest that we adopt exactly the same approach to broadband. Let us not have a narrow vision, but a broad one. Let us have a system that provides the very best broadband for all our constituents.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If everybody sticks to about five minutes, everybody should be able to contribute to the debate.

16:39

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on securing this debate, which elicits considerable interest. I shall speak mainly about rural needs. My constituency is more rural than most, with the possible exception of those in Cumbria. My residents include people such as Andrew Byford who lives over the Snake pass—those who have been through High Peak will know the area—and whose internet connection is so poor that it is not worth having. He shares that problem with many hill farmers in High Peak. Mention has already been made of the number of forms that farmers must fill in, and they have to fill them in online. Hill farmers are having a tough time at the moment, and that is making it tougher. We could argue another time about the number of forms that they are having to fill in, but the point I am making now is that they are trying to do it using internet connections that are completely unworkable. They are having to drive dozens of miles to find a connection that will enable them to fill in their forms.

I know from my experience many years ago, when we set up our business, that locating a business is governed by various criteria. Thirty years ago, one of them was the STD code. I risk being intervened on at this point, but I used to have a very good knowledge of STD codes throughout the country, because I knew where companies were. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has left the Chamber, but I happen to know that the code for that area is 01229. [Hon. Members: “Trainspotter!”] I am, yes.

People setting up businesses took STD codes into account because they knew that their customers would look at the code and say, “I know where that is: it is local.” Now, however, one of the most important factors for such people—and, for many of those running new-style businesses, the most important—is the speed of their internet connections. If the connection in an area is not good, they will not locate their businesses there. As a result, new businesses will be set up in urban rather than rural locations, which will widen the urban-rural divide.

It is harder for the existing rural businesses to compete when they are competing against urban businesses with faster internet connections. That is not only discouraging those starting new businesses from entering rural areas but is making it harder for those who are already in such areas to survive, and making it more likely that they will move out. We all have our difficulties in rural towns and villages, such as the closing of shops, and if people move out, that rolls on. It is the law of unintended consequences.

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

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman experiences the same as I do in Northumberland, where one of the best sources of growth for rural areas is the setting up of small businesses in relatively remote locations, but where those who set up businesses in the hope of being able to use the internet are now being out-competed by people with faster internet services.

[Andrew Bingham]

I could not agree more. Small businesses are my bag. I would describe them as the engine room of the country. New businesses can be set up anywhere now because the STD code does not matter any more, but we are hampering them by the lack of internet connection and the slow, unreliable broadband. My constituency contains a huge number of quarries. When limestone cannot be dug in Miles Platting, it has to be dug in Derbyshire, in High Peak. The quarrying companies are struggling because of the internet connection, but they cannot move. We need to help those businesses, which employ a great many people.

Some local companies might wish to adopt a more internet-based marketing strategy, but the lack of connection restricts them from selling online. That is another reason for them to move to urban areas. If businesses move to urban areas, will the people who live locally move? They are more likely to commute, which will increase travel on the roads and rails and hence increase carbon emissions. The knock-on effects will go on and on.

[Duncan Hames]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the reduction in carbon reductions that results from a decent internet infrastructure. Earlier in the week, he may have heard Transport Ministers say in the House that one of the few reasons we are able to cope with the present capacity constraints on our transport infrastructure is the fact that more people work from home, thus reducing their dependence on travel. The internet enables them to do their work at home rather than incurring huge amounts of time, cost and indeed pollution by travelling.

[Andrew Bingham]

That is true. Good internet connections increase the ability to work from home, thus reducing travel requirements and carbon emissions.

Access to public services is increasingly online, which also disadvantages rural residents. When I send out my electronic MP’s e-mail shot, I have to upload low-resolution pictures because I know that it will take local people a long time to download a high-resolution picture. I do not want the people of High Peak to wait for a long time to see a full picture of me.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

It will look better in low resolution.

[Andrew Bingham]

That might be true, but I prefer to give people the option of seeing it in high resolution.

Research has also been done on the education of our children. The GCSE exam results of children who are digitally included—I think that is the phrase that is used—are 25% better than the results of those who are not. The people in the remote villages of High Peak and similar rural areas do not have that advantage, so that is a further disadvantage they face. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of this subject to the future of the country, our children and our businesses.

I welcome the Government’s stated intention and the money they are putting into this endeavour, and I refer the Minister to the letter I wrote to him on 25 March regarding Derbyshire county council’s bid for the next wave of funding for digital roll-out. I hope he will acknowledge that, and I also hope the bid is successful. He has momentarily moved from his place. [Interruption.] Yes, I am sure he is right behind me, in every sense of that term.

Previously when people set up businesses, they had to install things called utilities: gas, electricity and water. In the 21st century, there are four utilities, because, in my view, broadband is the fourth utility as it is vital that businesses have it. That is why we need to roll it out to rural areas such as High Peak and Cumbria, in order to give our communities a chance to survive in what is a difficult world and to help people remain in their villages and to build and sustain their communities emotionally, socially and economically.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

(Mr Nigel Evans): Order. To enable as many Members as possible to contribute, I am now reducing the time limit to five minutes.

16:46

Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on securing the debate. We represent two of the largest constituencies in England. Mine covers 900 square miles, and his is about twice as large, I think. As many Members have said, my hon. Friend is leading the way on this issue, and I would also like briefly to pay tribute to his office staff—to Louis Mosley and the other members of the team—who are assisting him in leading the way.

Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, my constituency has become the test bed for one of the superfast broadband pilots, which is fantastic news. The procurement process began last week, and we hope that many major telecommunications companies will come forward and start bidding so that we can deliver on this project over the next couple of years. The aim is to address the major issue for north Yorkshire, which is the need to sort out, once and for all, the digital gap that is damaging businesses and communities throughout our county. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) mentioned, 30% of the county is classed as having low-speed broadband, which is having a massive effect on individuals, businesses and communities.

Copying my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, my Yorkshire colleagues and I recently held a conference. Talking of copying, I advise anyone who is interested in this issue to copy all my hon. Friend’s initiatives, as he has done some great stuff. We copied his conference idea in north Yorkshire, and hundreds of people from all walks of life came along and talked about the problems they are facing.

The biggest problem is an economic one. Unless we address that through market intervention, there will be a downward economic spiral in rural areas, because businesses will begin to move out and there will be no incentive for them to move back in again. The north Yorkshire pilot cannot come early enough, therefore.

The issue is not just to do with businesses, however. As we have heard, there is general frustration in all walks of life: there is huge frustration about housing becoming less marketable because of “not spots” and low speeds, and about whole communities of people, and their schools and other organisations, getting fewer deals online. Apparently, people lose out by £500 or £600 a year if they cannot get online to take advantage of the internet shopping bargains.

For all the Government have done for us on this issue, communities and villages must play their parts. As many Members have said, communities throughout England are coming together, and in Skipton and Ripon we have seen some great examples. In Darley, a beautiful village in Nidderdale, many people have come together and shown that there is demand, showing those who hope to invest in our procurement process that there is money to be made—Sue Welch and David Holland deserve mention. Across the Pennines, in Appletreewick, Adrian Precious did something similar. They got their communities together and showed that if we link the communities, that presents a real proposition for the private sector.

The £500 million fund and the Government’s universal broadband commitment are grabbing the attention of my constituents and of North Yorkshire. Although I am very positive about the work the Government have done, there is a slight question mark over mobile provision. The forthcoming auction of the 800 MHz spectrum is equally key for our rural communities and if we consider the poor auction process for 3G and what happened then, we can see that there is a tremendous amount to learn.

I have a number of questions for the Minister, but I have only 10 seconds left. Will he consider some different ways of taxing—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Mr David Nuttall.

16:51

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

Saved by the bell there, Minister.

People could be forgiven for thinking that a constituency such as mine in Bury North, which ostensibly lies within the Greater Manchester conurbation, would not be affected in any way by the problems that are the subject of the debate. When people think of Manchester, they inevitably think of the vibrant city centre or perhaps of the two football teams that were so much in the media and the spotlight at the weekend. Greater Manchester, however, is much more than just a city. It is made up of 10 local authority areas, of which Bury is one, and Bury North lies on the very northern edge of the Greater Manchester conurbation. It is in reality in parts much more rural Lancashire than the city of Manchester and I want briefly to highlight the effect of that dichotomy this afternoon.

In addition to the principal town of Bury, there are several rural villages in the constituency. Although I readily accept that they are not quite as far from an urban centre as some of the villages in, let us say, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), whom I warmly congratulate on securing this timely debate, when it comes to the problem of having a workable broadband connection they might as well be. It is a case of so near, yet so far.

I am greatly indebted to the Bury rural inequalities forum for its work in providing me with concrete examples of the problems that face individuals and businesses in those small rural villages. For example, in Nangreaves, the broadband speed is, on average, 500 kilobits per second, which is typical, provided by a BT line some 5 miles from an exchange. The same applies to all the villages, such as Holcombe and Hawkshaw.

Let me give one example in particular. Affetside is a small village with fewer than 250 residents located on the edge of the west Pennine moors. It lies on the old Roman road that ran north between Manchester and Ribchester. The village has only one telephone infrastructure provider, British Telecom, and because of its relatively isolated nature no other telephone service providers have sought to provide any coverage in the area. The lack of competition unsurprisingly results in higher costs than would be expected elsewhere. I am informed that the existing aluminium cable is believed to have been installed 40 years ago, in the 1970s, when high copper prices forced the switch to aluminium. Whatever the cable, current broadband speeds are typically in the region of just 0.7 to 1 megabit per second, but speeds vary greatly and reliability is a major problem. I should add that rather than improving, the problem is getting worse as more and more people are forced to do business online and access services online. The demand on that decades-old cable is increasing and the quality of people’s internet connections is gradually reducing.

The Government’s commitment to providing everyone with broadband access at a speed of 2 megabits per second by the end of this Parliament is to be welcomed, but it is only a start and will not solve the problem. By 2015, the rest of the world will have moved on and the digital divide that exists between town and country will continue. The answer is not to solve today’s problem tomorrow with today’s solution, but to look to the future and ensure that when lines are upgraded they are fully future-proofed. Otherwise, I fear that by the time anything actually happens to help my constituents, it will be too late and they will continue to be stuck in the slow lane of broadband internet access.

16:56

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

It is a privilege to speak in this afternoon’s debate, but I arrived with a tinge of anxiety as I suddenly realised that I had not signed the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). I think the point has been illustrated that many outside the Chamber are totally in agreement with what he is trying to achieve this afternoon, particularly in relation to the auction.

In Ceredigion, we have 600 family farms, 147 villages and hamlets and one of the highest proportions of small businesses per head of population anywhere in the United Kingdom. This sounds a little like a maiden speech and I have said these things before but the principles of entitlement are the same for those communities as they are for communities anywhere else. In Ceredigion 20 years ago the debate was about retaining a railway line from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth, but today the issue is about broadband, mobile coverage and people’s entitlement. We are past the point at which people in rural communities will stoically make do and now need to make arrangements to have access to broadband; there is an entitlement to have that in those communities.

I want to associate myself with a point that has been made by many hon. Members this afternoon—the sense of frustration felt by constituents who hear debate in England and other parts of the UK about superfast broadband when they lack any access whatever. I think of the farmer with a haulage company in the village of Trefenter on the edge of the Cambrian mountains who was desperate to expand his business but had to rely on incredibly slow dial-up. We were able to involve a satellite company and ensure that a pilot satellite scheme helped him out in order to nurture and grow his business. As has been pointed out many times in this debate, this is about economic growth and building a vibrant—Welsh, in our case—economy. That is why this debate is so important.

This is also about bridging gaps between people. In the last Parliament, when the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, of which I was and am a member, looked at broadband, we also looked at the social and age divides between people. When a rural bank closes, those who are elderly and who are not switched on or who do not have the motivation to access broadband will be severely disadvantaged in a way that, perhaps, younger people in urban areas have not been, but we lack the basic infrastructure to bridge that gap.

The National Farmers Union of Wales, NFU Cymru, has talked about the importance of broadband to farming businesses—a point that the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) has made. It is important for supporting business-to-customer, business-to-business and business-to-government communications, as well as for providing farmers with opportunities to market their products. There are also the added expectations from the previous Government, and in some cases the current Government, for business to be conducted online. The Government’s announcement in 2010 of the compulsory electronic completion of VAT returns for farm businesses with a turnover of more than £100,000 was greeted with great anger in parts of rural Britain because that objective is simply impossible to achieve. Now there is the roll-out of online completion of single application forms by 2016. That cannot be realised until these targets on broadband coverage are met.

Mobile reception is another critical issue in my constituency. I cannot travel from Aberystwyth in the north of Ceredigion to Cardigan in the south and have a phone call at the same time—it would be a lengthy call, as it is a 40-mile route on a bad road—because it is impossible to have a conversation without numerous stops and starts. That is something that we in rural areas have to put up with, while people elsewhere take mobile reception for granted. My constituents cannot ring their MP on his mobile phone and expect an answer if he is in his house—I can receive a phone call on my mobile only if I am standing in the middle of the road outside my house. Those are the frustrations that many people experience.

There has been good progress in Wales. There were good attempts by the Welsh Assembly Government, who were of a different political party, to identify pilot schemes. Two communities in Ceredigion—Cilcennin and Beulah—have benefited from such a pilot scheme. Although I am frustrated that Wales is not included in the pilots that the Government have announced for superfast broadband, I take comfort from the fact that some of the areas identified for the pilots, such as Herefordshire and the highlands and islands, are rural, which I hope will allow Wales to learn from the experiences. For me, this debate is simply about entitlement. It is a costly debate about entitlement, but it is an entitlement that we must not forget.

17:01

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams). I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) for the work he has done in preparing for the debate and encouraging Members to become fully involved. Many Members have highlighted the problems caused by the lack of broadband in their communities. I also think that there is an obligation on us to offer some solutions and encourage the Minister in his negotiations with the Treasury. I will move on to that later and how we can come up with some answers to the problems.

I am very pleased that broadband has been considered in the debate both as mobile broadband and as fixed-line broadband, because a short time ago fixed-line was the only way we considered it when discussing it. Ofcom recently reported that there had been a 2,200% increase in mobile data traffic in 2009, and I suspect that there has been a significant increase since then, with new technology being used both commercially and as a result of lifestyle changes.

There is great variance in the availability across the constituencies we have heard about today, particularly in rural areas but also in some urban areas. In my constituency, for example, much of Barry has the benefit of superfast broadband, which runs exceptionally well, but there are pockets within that urban environment that do not. However, some rural communities, such as Colwinston and Ystradowen, have almost no coverage at all. That is a tragedy for the people living in those communities and for the young people as they grow up.

Many points have already been made about sustainability, prosperity and the fact that home working and flexible working are a way of life for many people these days. Many people would like to make them a way of life but cannot do so because of the lack of broadband in their communities. There is also a social cost that we must recognise, as some Members have mentioned.

With regard to mobile broadband, 3G is the method that most of us would use. We need to recognise the differences between England and Wales in that respect. We do not have data for my constituency, but I can offer data on the differences between England and Wales. For example, there is 79% coverage in Wales for 3G, but 98% in England. For 2G, there is 89% coverage in Wales, but 99% coverage in England. Although people might assume that the technology has moved on, 2G is still exceptionally important, because last January Ofcom decided to lift the restrictions on the use of 3G services on the 2G network. That decision favours only two operators, and I think that the solution to many of these problems must be competition. Unless there is fair competition for all the operators, we will obviously not get the swift solutions that we would like. I hope that when the Minister responds he will say what he wants to do to correct that imbalance.

Much of the solution to the problem will be the 2012 auction. The 800 MHz spectrum will be important, because it will travel so much further, and the £530 million that the Minister and the Government are making available to try to close the “not spots” is welcome, but we need to recognise that there will be limits on what that £530 million can achieve. Bearing in mind the tight financial climate, I have no doubt that there were tough negotiations with the Treasury to secure that money in order to try to deliver a universal service obligation by 2015. I have no doubt also that the Treasury will have one eye—if not one eye and one hand—on the 2012 auction, so we need to support the Minister to ensure that in his discussions with the Treasury his hand is as strong as it can be.

I remember debating eight years ago the luxury of 256 kilobits, and if anyone had 512 kilobits that was absolutely extraordinary. The universal service of 2 megabits is welcome, but let us not forget that this is a fast-moving dynamic.

17:06

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

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), but I want to go a little further and talk about the Government’s moral and social obligations, aside from their economic ones, in this context.

I hesitate to mention the big society so early in my speech, but it was invented in rural Britain, and rural Britain is finding it increasingly difficult to deliver and sustain the big society as it falls behind the rest of the country and, indeed, the rest of the world when it comes to broadband and mobile coverage.

I want to restrict my comments to mobile phone coverage, as far as we can distinguish it from the rest of the debate. We have heard from a number of people how the UK is not where it should be, and from the previous two hon. Members how Wales is not where it could be. It is interesting to hear examples from Norway, France, the United States and recent ones from Port Stanley of people’s ability to communicate with one another by mobile phone, because I in my office in Whitland in Carmarthenshire could not communicate with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) just up the road, were we to wish to speak and were he to seek my advice on the coalition’s performance, thus denying us both a golden opportunity to advance our careers. There is, however, a serious social and economic problem.

We have already been told, quite rightly, about the effect on small and medium-sized businesses in rural Britain, but we have not touched on the plight of the elderly in the more lonely parts of our rural communities; on the work of the charities and carers who look after the elderly and vulnerable in those areas, in often hostile geographic and climatic conditions; or on the plight of young people in rural areas, who simply want to be young people in rural areas in a 21st-century context. It is a great source of gloom to me that the babysitting community of Lampeter Velfrey has discovered that there is no mobile phone coverage in the Hart household, the consequence of which is that I do not go out anything like as much as I used to because my babysitters cannot text their friends when they are in my house. If there is a more serious reason for the Minister to address the matter urgently, I am not sure what it is.

To be serious for a moment, however, I want to focus on the impact of the problem on the police and, in particular, on Dyfed Powys police and the mobile ID project known as Lantern, involving the piece of kit they carry around which enables them to take fingerprints while in remote areas, and which relies on the mobile phone network. In our area, the police were subject to two carriers but that was insufficient, so the system did not work as well for our police force as it might have, through no fault of their own. They were able to expand the number of carriers and thus improve the coverage, but unfortunately the Metropolitan police have led a tender process resulting in a UK-wide contract and the tender being awarded to the company that Dyfed Powys rejected on the basis that its system did not work in our area.

We have to be a bit careful about a one-size-fits-all solution based on so-called supreme technological solutions which do not necessarily apply to the wilder and more lonely parts of the country, particularly west Wales. This has an effect on the police’s ability to deliver on its obligations to the community, which is very relevant given the challenges that forces are facing, and that in turn leads to a compromised confidence on the part of the rural community as regards its personal safety and its ability to trust the police to deliver a first-class service, as I know they do.

I welcome the combination of effort by Ofcom and the Welsh Assembly Government. I think we are now instructed to call them the Welsh Government, but for the purposes of clarity they will remain the Welsh Assembly Government, certainly in my house. There is much to be cheerful about because, as other hon. Members have said, this is a golden opportunity—perhaps the only golden opportunity—for the Government to show their commitment to rural communities: not only their economic but social and moral commitment. We have heard for many years—and we believe it, I would suggest—that this commitment is real. There is no greater opportunity than now for them to cement that commitment and to prove to rural Britain that they believe it is a force for good.

17:11

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Like all speakers, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on securing this debate, which is extremely important, particularly for our rural communities. Many hon. Members have stressed the massive growth in the importance of the internet. Indeed, broadband was introduced in this country as recently as 1990, and yet we have seen a huge expansion in its impact on how we interact with each other, how we transact business, and our ability to interface with public services, and it has spawned new markets and changed existing markets beyond recognition. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) put it, it has gone from being peripheral to our day-to-day existence to being absolutely essential. Despite its importance, however, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) pointed out, there never has been, and still is not, a universal right to any particular level of service. By contrast, that is something that we see in the context of our postal service in regard to the universal service obligation.

The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) defended the previous Government’s record on rolling out internet coverage. The situation has been very poor. Internationally, we are not starting from a good position. In a study by Oxford university sponsored by Cisco Systems, published as recently as October 2010, we were ranked 18th in the world in terms of broadband service, behind countries such as South Korea, Japan, Sweden and Denmark. Being 18th may sound about average or fair to middling, but it should not disguise the fact that there is a huge chasm between what we are achieving at 18th and what the top group of countries are achieving. The report states that the UK is “comfortably enjoying today’s applications”

but the top 14 are

“ready for the online applications of tomorrow.”

That is the point. The general quality of internet coverage is improving worldwide, and we have a lot of catching up to do, particularly in our rural areas, where, too often, we are disconnected not only in terms of the digital economy but our physical infrastructure.

I have several villages in my rural constituency where people are very concerned about the coverage that they are receiving. Exminster is a village close to Exeter where the parish council has undertaken extensive surveys of the kinds of broadband speeds that are being achieved locally, which are very ineffective. As many Members have said, the speeds that are achieved are often significantly below the advertised speeds. In one area of Exminster, BT advertises a download speed of 7.5 Mbps, but 25% of residents are achieving less than 2 Mbps. That is hardly surprising given that the Commission for Rural Communities tells us that, as at April 2010, about 60% of households in urban areas have cable whereas the figure is as low as just 1.5% in our villages and hamlets. According to the Library, 33% of my constituents have low broadband speeds. That compares to just 1.8% in Hammersmith in London.

We know that the problem is the cost of reaching rural consumers. The answer must be to encourage unrestricted competition, but to recognise the vital disconnection between what maximises supplier profits and what delivers the optimum social and economic benefits to our communities and the country as a whole. That is why I strongly welcome the motion.

It is important that the Minister and the Government consider as many innovative ways of delivering internet as they can. Virgin Media has looked at using telegraph poles to loop cable through. An important village in the west of my constituency, Northlew, has done a sterling job in using microwave WiMax broadband. We need to look at the sharing of utilities between utility companies, such as BT’s ducts and poles. I know that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has been in discussions with business about that. I would like an update on that from the Minister in his winding-up speech. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) about wireless satellite broadband. We need to have a patchwork of solutions, and that can be achieved only by doing things locally. That is why I hope that the local enterprise partnership bid in my area for £40 million is taken seriously. It will send just the right signal that rural communities in my area are not forgotten.

17:16

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart).

Several Members have mentioned an urban-rural divide. It may surprise people that I want to contribute on this subject given that I come from Romsey and Southampton North. I do not see this as an urban-rural divide. Parts of our cities have very slow broadband speeds. There is also a rural-rural divide. I was contacted shortly after last year’s general election by a constituent who lives in the same village as me. I thought that we were enjoying good broadband speeds, only to be informed that he was suffering from download speeds of less than 2 megabits per second. A couple of weeks later, I visited a business in the village and was astonished to hear the familiar binging and bonging of dial-up, which is still being used in the 21st century. That was literally four or five miles from the end of the M27 and just outside Southampton.

I argue that it is the sheer inconsistency of coverage that causes some of the greatest frustration. Neighbours on different sides of the street get inconsistent coverage. Part of the village in which I live gets its connection from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who was here earlier, but those who get it from the Wellow exchange get a much faster service.

The Prime Minister referred to this matter recently and indicated that he regards rural broadband as vital. There are many reasons why it is vital. I would like to highlight the increase in working from home and of flexible working. We have heard about the environmental benefits for people who can access decent download speeds and work comfortably and conveniently from home. There are also educational benefits. I was fortunate to attend the launch of a wonderful new IT suite at Wherwell primary school in the very north of my constituency, which had fantastic facilities. However, during the local election campaign a few weeks later, I encountered a child from that school who was laughing at me for trying to use a smartphone in the village, because it was ridiculous that any grown-up could possibly think that that would ever be possible.

I am disappointed to learn that Britain is only 26th in the world for average connection speeds and that our average speeds are slower than in Romania and Latvia. That is an embarrassment and we must address it urgently. As fuel prices have increased, we have all been contacted by myriad constituents who are concerned about the increase in fuel prices. Many of them want the convenience of being able to work from home and want to do their shopping from home. It is cheaper for people to have Mr Tesco deliver their shopping and pay him a fiver for the privilege than to drive to the local supermarket. In many rural areas, the local supermarket really is not that convenient. Of course, there is also online banking.

I will briefly draw on my experience of working for a small charitable organisation in Hampshire. It was not in rural Hampshire, but in a town. We were keen to deliver more online services to our members and donors, and to those who wished to support the work of the charity. One of our biggest frustrations was that when we wanted to use our banking services, the connection, even in a town, was far too slow. It was very difficult for the website to cope with people’s membership subscriptions.

I am sure the Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not believe the solution lies solely in the hands of the Government. We have to call upon every part of the industry, upon other organisations and upon local government to facilitate what is needed. Hampshire county council has carried out an enormous survey with Ipsos MORI to find out what demand there is for high-speed broadband in the county. Through its bid to Broadband Delivery UK, it is seeking to open up the public services network and co-operate with a wide range of internet service providers, to improve the availability and speed of connection across the county dramatically.

I know that now is the not the time to provide an advertisement to the Minister for the unique selling point of Hampshire’s bid, although some of my colleagues have given such advertisements. Suffice it to say that it is very good, and I hope he will look upon it favourably. Its objectives are straightforward. It brings real hope to my constituents who want nothing more radical than to be able to do their shopping or banking online from home or Skype their grandchildren in Australia. In a 21st century Hampshire village, that really did not ought to be impossible.

17:21

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I am conscious of the time, so I will endeavour to keep my contribution short.

I do not think Ofcom or the Minister can be in any doubt about how passionate we all feel about the advent of superfast broadband. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), with whom I work closely on this and a number of other projects. They both have energy about a vision that we all share.

The Government deserve some praise, although they have taken a bit of a beating today, because they have committed £530 million, a not insignificant figure. I am pleased to see that it is not just the Government who are involved, because I understand that the BBC has committed £150 million for four consecutive years. That shows its conviction that superfast broadband is the future.

I wish to follow on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) about the importance of Devon. It is the largest county in the country by size, and 20% of our community live in very poor rural areas. Rural broadband is therefore critical for us. To compound our problem, we have a very weak strategic road and rail infrastructure. The M5 ends at Exeter and our A roads are not great, and the concept of having electrified railway lines any time soon is sadly a dream, not a reality. Our fight is to get diesel rolling stock.

Many people in our communities live in an isolated environment, and we have the highest number of people in receipt of the state old-age pension of any region. For them, communication and access to any form of entertainment is extremely difficult without broadband. Two thirds of our businesses have fewer than five employees and a turnover of less than £250,000, and broadband is crucial for them. Home working and the ability to communicate with clients and customers are key, and that cannot be done effectively without some form of mobile or internet connectivity. As was pointed out earlier, Government compliance, such as VAT returns, increasingly has to be carried out online. If we are really committed to improving the economy in rural areas, that must be a reason for having broadband.

I am pleased that there are two of us in the Chamber supporting the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership’s bid for the second wave of pilots. It would be nice to think that the weight of numbers might help us to persuade the Minister and others that we have a comprehensive bid that is well supported across Devon and Somerset, and that it will make a huge difference to people living in both counties.

The challenge for the Government is to maximise, dare I say it, the bang they get for their buck. We have to make the best use of our infrastructure to maximise choice. Rural infrastructure is expensive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon explained, BT provides access through poles and ducts, and Ofcom has said that that must be on fair and reasonable terms. As I understand it, what is being offered at the moment is not entirely in accordance with that. Ofcom is going to take up the cudgels, and I hope it does so sooner rather than later. Otherwise, implementation will be a challenge.

As has also been mentioned, innovative partnerships with other utility companies are clearly important—we should not focus only on what BT and other internet and telecoms providers can offer. We need to think more broadly about what we do. Government can assist with that by simplifying the regulatory regime, particularly on planning.

Earlier, we heard a plea for the Government to consider satellite. I agree, because this debate should be about not only where we are now, but the future. I suspect that one reason the Government have a target of only 2 megabits per second is that the world moves on. By 2015, we could see a very different number. We need research on that, and it would be great if the Government provided tax support by increasing R and D credits—I am pleased with what we are doing on the corporation tax front.

Finally, I support the concept of increasing the requirement in the bid of more than 95% coverage for mobile technology, but could we add a requirement for rural or landmass coverage, rather than a requirement for population coverage? That would help the rural community. Good on the Government! Let us see broadband fly! We can do it!

17:26

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I should like to make just a few points and to speak for the Somerset half of that Somerset and Devon bid, which would make such a fantastic difference. Many hon. Members have made points about farmers, young people and old people, but, in my area, many who have retired to Somerset because it is such a beautiful place can stay in their town centre homes and, using broadband, can access facilities and services such as shopping deliveries.

Rural post offices also benefit from broadband. Businesses use the internet in my towns, and individuals use eBay and Amazon to sell and buy goods. In my post office, there are queues of people who want to send small parcels and envelopes containing things that people have bought, which props up our post office system.

I thank the Minister for meeting me on Monday to discuss broadband in Somerset. I pointed out to him that I am running, with the Administration Committee, an iPad trial. The iPad is fantastic when I am here in London, and completely useless when I am in Somerset, where I cannot access anything because the broadband service is so poor.

Where it works, broadband is the most fantastic thing. One area of my constituency that has a good service is Burnham and Highbridge. Burnham-on-Sea has a website—burnhamonsea.com. Some 7,000 or 8,000 people live in Burnham, but that website gets 15,000 unique visitor hits per day, and 50,000 pages are downloaded every day. That rate goes up during the summer tourist season, which is critical, because 26,000 people are employed in tourism in Somerset alone. They depend on people coming to Somerset for their holidays and knowing what they can do and what facilities they can access.

I thank the Minister for the trouble he has taken to listen to the Somerset and Devon bid, and I hope, as it is bound to do, that it brings success to our counties in business and every other sense, particularly for residents.

17:28

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on securing this enjoyable debate, and for putting together a formidable array of talent to present the case for their areas around the UK—we heard a brief intervention earlier from a Member from Scotland. The hon. Gentleman has established himself as an assiduous and powerful advocate of the construction of a viable broadband service because of the nature of his beautiful constituency and other rural constituencies. It was good to hear a Government Member giving high praise in the Chamber to a Mandelson, for which I am sure he is very grateful.

There is, of course, a lot of common ground in this debate. We all believe in the importance of a broadband network. The Countryside Alliance has presented evidence that a broadband network is essential to the viability of a living countryside. Development in communications is a massive opportunity for the countryside, provided that a viable broadband network is constructed.

We all accept that there is a market failure in the broadband sphere. Most accept that two thirds of the country will not be adequately provided for by the market alone and that Government action is needed to remedy that market failure. It is important to talk about some definitions if we are to make progress on the common ground that exists between the political parties. We have to be clear what we are talking about and the terminology that we are using. The first important phrase is “universal broadband”. By this I mean that all should have access to broadband services. The previous Labour Government had a commitment to introduce universal broadband services, up to a speed of 2 megabits by 2012.

Until last week, the Government had assiduously avoided using the word “universal”, as far as I could detect. Instead, they continued to use the formula that their aim was to introduce the best high-speed broadband in Europe by 2015. They avoided defining exactly what that would be. But last week we made some progress, because the Government made it clear—for the first time, as far as I am aware—that their target was to provide universal broadband by 2015. That is a three-year delay in the costed target introduced by the previous Labour Government. If hon. Members get complaints from constituents with no broadband provision, they should blame the Government.

That delay is very bad news, because universal broadband is hugely important. First, it is important to the private sector. Competitive businesses in our modern economy, wherever they are, must have access to the broadband network. Without it, they will be at a substantial competitive disadvantage, and that will be bad news especially for businesses in rural areas.

[Duncan Hames]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the changed timetable. Will he tell us whether the previous Government, as recently as 12 months ago, were on track to meet that 2012 deadline?

[Ian Lucas]

We were on track to meet that deadline. It was costed, and the £200 million that would have been used to do that would have been taken from the same money that the current Government are using in connection with their broadband commitment. For the outside world—although not for this Government—a year is a very long time. I am not aware of any questioning by the industry of the commitment made by the Labour Government. The position was deliverable, but this Government have decided to put back that universal broadband target by three years.

[Chi Onwurah]

Is it not true to say that we have little or no information on the progress that has been made by this Government towards meeting their unclear and undefined target of the best broadband by 2015?

[Ian Lucas]

Absolutely. The Minister is always very polite in his answers to parliamentary questions, but he is also very good at drafting uninformative replies, something that I worked very hard to achieve when I was a Minister. I was not quite as good at it as he is.

The provision of universal broadband services is also very important to the public sector. Online services are a massive opportunity for government at all levels to provide better services more quickly and more efficiently. However, the Government can move in that direction only if they provide those services to everyone across the country. For example, I understand that the Government intend to move to the compulsory online registration of new companies. As the former responsible Minister, I understand the reasons—costs and efficiency—for this decision, but one can justify such a move only if there is universal broadband provision across the UK. A company with no access to the internet cannot be required by the Government to use it.

If we are to have universal broadband by 2015, what will it cost? Through parliamentary questions, I have established—I did get some information—that the cost of providing universal fibre-to-the-premises provision would be £29 billion, and that more realistically universal fibre-to-the-cabinet provision would cost £5 billion. We agree that there is a market failure and that the Government have sought to address it by setting aside the £530 million by 2015 mentioned several times today. However, we all accept that that is not enough, so we must look to the private sector for the necessary investment to bridge that investment gap.

On definitions, the Government are not just committing themselves to universal broadband; they are committing themselves to the best high-speed broadband in Europe by 2015. It will be helpful if the Minister tells us today what speed he regards as high speed for these purposes. If we are to work together for the benefit of our constituents to achieve that target, we must know what it means.

We know that insufficient public money is available to achieve the Government’s goals by 2015, so let us consider the position for private investment. How is that going? Here, I regret to say, there is a problem that was referred to by a couple of Government Members, including the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris). On 1 April the Minister received correspondence—no coincidence perhaps—in which senior executives of leading communications companies, including Fujitsu, Virgin Media, TalkTalk, Geo and Vtesse Networks, wrote that “urgent intervention” was needed to require BT to revise the pricing for the use of its infrastructure. The companies also stated that without such intervention the Broadband Delivery UK process risked a lack of vigorous competition, and as a result would fail to deliver the investment, quality, speed of roll-out, innovation and value for money that the industry was capable of delivering, and which taxpayers deserved. That is a major problem for the necessary private investment.

The communications network under Labour was extremely competitive. For example, in the past three years, competition has seen the cost of mobile broadband fall from £50 per gigabyte to less than £10 per gigabyte.

[Alun Cairns]

If the network was so competitive under the former Administration, why are we ranked only 26th in the world for average broadband speed?

[Ian Lucas]

The previous Government made massive advances in the provision of broadband services and internet services over a very long period. I am proud of our record. Had the Government stuck to the same targets, we would have achieved much more progress than has been achieved to date. I now hear from providers, and the Minister has been told in correspondence from them that without urgent intervention there will be a lack of vigorous competition in the marketplace, so what action is he taking in response to these representations?

I wish to raise one more concern with the Minister. It is now clear that responsibility for the delivery of broadband services in particular geographical areas in England is to be the responsibility of local authorities, which might create a patchwork of provision across England. Different local authorities will attach different priorities to the advancement of the network. We heard from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) about the issues affecting Lancashire. I was pleased to hear that the tendering process in the North Yorkshire pilot area seems to have begun, even though the pilots were announced as long ago as last October. There are particular issues when it comes to the provision of services and tender documents by local authorities. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that each local authority makes the progress needed to achieve the targets he has outlined?

I was interested to hear that Somerset and Devon are working together on their pilot project in the south-west. One of the drivers for that is the superior provision in Cornwall, which has been assisted by European funding that is unavailable in Devon. Hon. Members from Wales may be interested to know that the provision of broadband in Wales and Scotland has de facto—if not de jure—been assigned to the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Government respectively. Responsibility for delivering services in Wales and Scotland will essentially be dealt with at the Assembly or Scottish Parliament level. A patchwork is already developing across the UK. It is important not to lose sight of the need for a national network. We do not need a lot of small “railways” running in individual areas without their being linked together. Although having small, big society projects set up networks is appealing, there is a danger of the networks not working effectively together. There are tensions between the small and larger projects. It is important that we maintain a competitive network.

I am sorry that I have not been able to deal with the numerous contributions made today. However, I am sure that the Minister has heard the strength of feeling from Government and Opposition Members, and that he will use the video in his negotiations with the Treasury, because there will come a time when some of the bids being made now will be turned down, and that is when government starts to get difficult. Saying yes is easy; saying no is always more challenging.

17:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am grateful for the chance to respond to this debate, which was called on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). He has been showered with enough praise in this debate, but let me add to the oleaginous tone with which we all approach him. For one so young and so new to this House, his ability to gauge the issues that concern the House is second to none. His relentless focus on mobile broadband is also severely disrupting my life. I have gone up to Penrith and The Border for a superfast broadband summit that even had members of the United States Administration attending. This is the second broadband debate that my hon. Friend has called, forcing me—I know that hon. Members will share my disappointment at this—to decline my invitation to the European Commission’s Culture Council in Brussels today.

I do not necessarily want to respond to every speech today; suffice to say that almost 20 Back Benchers contributed to this debate, all very effectively, raising issues and concerns specific to their constituencies. I thought that the shrewdest of all was my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who pointed out that the lack of superfast mobile broadband was preventing him from hiring babysitters.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport announced in his speech at the national digital conference last week that our ambition was to see superfast broadband coverage of 90% of the population in all areas of the country. To respond to the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), I must say that that is why last week I announced my ambition of universal superfast broadband in this country, starting with the clear aim of making sure that 90% of the UK can get at least 25 megabits per second by 2015. I have now thrown down a bone for the hon. Gentleman, so that he can table a series of parliamentary questions to elicit further details on that. In defence of the Government’s position, we mentioned our commitment to the universal service of 2 megabits by 2015 in our excellent publication “Britain’s superfast broadband future”, which was published in December. Specifically, it was mentioned in paragraph 8.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border started speaking, it felt like an Oscar acceptance speech because he had so many people to thank. The only people he did not thank were his family, which I was surprised about. I am pleased to see that his own team of officials is watching from the Gallery. I know that the whole House thanks them for their hard work. It will come as no surprise to learn that one of them is a constituent of mine, which is why she is so talented and able to undertake this very complicated work.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned superfast broadband and 2 megabits. What is the relationship between 2 megabits and superfast broadband?

[Mr Vaizey]

The reference to 2 megabits relates to the universal commitment. The reference to superfast broadband relates to providing as many as 90% of the population with superfast broadband by 2015.

[Alun Cairns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vaizey]

If the hon. Lady will wait for one second, I want to use this opportunity—[Laughter.] I want to echo my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border—it is quite clear that most hon. Members want to be like him—by thanking my own officials, Mark Swarbrick and Simon Towler, who have done an astonishing amount of work on this issue. Such is their dedication that they even took the photographs for the superfast broadband document that we published in December.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) will be interested to hear that I want to pay tribute not only to the work of Broadband Delivery UK, which was set up by the previous Government and comprises an excellent team of dedicated officials from the private and public sectors, but to the telecoms regulator, Ofcom. I know that we will be discussing the auction in a matter of moments. Ofcom is very ably led by Ed Richards, who also has a fine team. I have embarrassed the hon. Lady on many occasions, but the fact that she could say, “I’m from Ofcom” was a stamp of great quality, and she now brings adornment to the House. Anyway, I seem to have persuaded her not to intervene on me.

On the 25-megabit target, our target of having the best superfast broadband in Europe is of course dependent on a range of measures, including choice, coverage, speed and take-up. Competition is also very important. It is all very well for an hon. Member to mention that Uzbekistan has better coverage than the UK—that sounds like a bit of a slight to Uzbekistan, although I am sure that that was unintended—but it is worth remembering that Uzbekistan has a population of 5 million people, and effectively one mobile broadband provider. If we want to encourage competition, which will encourage choice, innovation and low cost, we will also have to acknowledge that the Government cannot direct and demand how broadband is rolled out.

The hon. Member for Wrexham pointed out that we expect two thirds of the country to be covered by private sector investment, with BT and Virgin clearly in the lead, along with some small network operators. As so many hon. Members were keen to praise far-flung places all over the world for their broadband, let me be the champion of British business and British broadband providers. Every three months, BT puts down a fibre network equivalent to that of Singapore. BT, a British company, is rolling out broadband at twice the pace of Deutsche Telekom, twice the pace of AT&T and twice the pace of Verizon. That is something that we should be very proud of. BT recently announced that it expects to offer an 80 megabit service next year, while Virgin already offers a 100 megabit service. I do not want to sound too patriotic because we also welcome the intervention of Fujitsu, which has plans to bring fibre connections to 5 million rural homes.

The key to this debate is supporting those areas where the market will not deliver. We have already announced four pilot areas, including the one represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border—it was more than life was worth not to have his constituency as one of the pilot areas, although it was, of course, I emphasise, an independent decision—along with North Yorkshire, Herefordshire and the highlands and islands. [Interruption.] Well, we all know about the discussion of Herefordshire and Wales that took place in the House a few months ago.

We will announce the next wave of pilots next week. As the hon. Member for Wrexham pointed out, this is indeed where government gets difficult, because we will have to say no to a few. Let me offer a crumb of comfort to those who may get bad news next week. From now on, we shall be working on a first-come, first-served basis. We will not announce a third and fourth wave; any local authority whose bid is not accepted can sit down with Broadband Delivery UK, work through the bid to find out where the gaps are and then come forward again when it is ready. It will be a rolling process. We also recently announced the creation of a rural community broadband fund, which is expected to be worth up to an additional £20 million—above and beyond the £530 million we have made available.

I am conscious of time and I am anxious to talk about mobile voice and mobile broadband. I understand the issue. In rural Oxfordshire, in the village close to Wantage where I live, I have to stand in the middle of the road to get mobile coverage. When I was candidate before the 2005 election, simply getting my constituents connected to the internet was a high priority for me. I pay tribute to the work of community broadband groups, which many hon. Members have mentioned, as their ability to galvanise enthusiasm and put forward solutions is important, encouraging other operators to take an interest and see that provision of rural broadband can be profitable.

Broadband Delivery UK is taking a technologically neutral approach to solutions; mobile broadband is a potential solution for hard-to-reach areas. We want to see partnerships between fixed, mobile, wireless and satellite operators to compete for the available funds. I emphasise that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. A couple of my hon. Friends mentioned the benefits of satellite technology. I am lucky enough to have the National Space Centre in my constituency, so I would be more than happy to see a satellite solution. We have to be realistic, however, about what satellites can deliver. They will be a complementary technology, but they certainly do not provide a one-size-fits-all solution.

The key issue—and, I think, the key reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border called this debate—is the auction that is about to take place for the 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz spectrum, and the coverage obligations put forward in Ofcom’s initial outline of how the auction will take place. I remind hon. Members that this is being consulted on; it is not fixed in stone. This debate will be important not just for the Treasury to watch, but for Ofcom, which will give serious consideration to any representations, along with appropriate evidence, on whether to increase the coverage obligation attached to the 800 MHz licence. It is important that robust evidence is made available.

Let me make it absolutely clear to hon. Members that the auctioning of spectrum is not a money-raising exercise. In fact, under European rules, it is not appropriate to auction spectrum simply to raise the maximum revenue possible. Ofcom has to take into account a whole range of different factors, including the investment capacity of operators. It must also undertake a cost-benefit analysis of whether the coverage obligations are inappropriately expensive.

It is important that Ofcom’s consultation is seen to be open, transparent and robust. One thing that I have learned in government is that the constituency of mobile and telecoms operators with which I deal comprises not only some of the most fantastic British companies, but some of the most litigious. If my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border could have done any additional work in marshalling his forces for this evening’s debate, it would have involved conveying to the chief executive of each company, in no uncertain terms, his and his colleagues’ view that we must get on with the auction, and that any attempt to disrupt it through litigation could set back the auction and therefore the roll-out of spectrum.

I have deliberately avoided being partisan in my speech, but I must express disappointment about the interventionist approach that I consider the last Government to have taken in regard to the spectrum auction. I believe that if they had simply left it to Ofcom, we would have reached the end of the process before the present Government had even come to office.

We should bear in mind the changes that are taking place in the UK mobile market and in technology. I had the privilege of visiting Alcatel-Lucent recently to observe the technology that it is developing in Swindon. It is good to see inward investment taking place there. Technologies such as femtocells—which, essentially, provide small base stations in the home or office—will radically improve indoor coverage, and will give users better coverage.

The hon. Member for Wrexham made a valid point in his critique of the Government’s policy in regard to local authority bids. I think that local authorities are best placed to lead the bids, but it is important to remember that Broadband Delivery UK sits behind the bidding process,. It is able to advise local authorities on procurement, and assesses bids partly on the basis of the capacity of a local authority to deliver in terms of its personnel and expertise. The more such bids are made and the more individual local authorities engage in procurement exercises, the more other local authorities will have an opportunity to learn from the process.

Let me end by reminding the House that Rome was not built in a day. We must bear in mind the capacity of the private operators and companies that will deliver superfast broadband. I believe that we have adequate sums to support it, but I take the concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the House very seriously. We are working as hard as we can, given the constraints within which we operate, to deliver good superfast broadband to as many people as possible by 2015.

17:58

[Rory Stewart]

I thank all Members who took part in the debate. It is extraordinary that on a Thursday afternoon 20 Members should speak on a motion tabled by 100. I also echo the thanks expressed to Louis Mosley.

The fibre issue remains central to the debate, and I am sorry that I did not say more about it. The connection of fibre through backhaul to mobile telephone masts needs to be addressed. However, it is on mobile broadband that we should really be focusing because of the consultation this evening.

Extraordinary changes have been made. By 2015, 7.1 billion people will have mobile telephones. That is more than the current population of the world. Whatever we do, whether it involves £215 million, 1,500 masts or a 98% coverage obligation, let us use the debate to pass the message to Ofcom that it must extend the coverage obligation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises that rural businesses and rural communities across the UK are isolated and undermined by slow broadband and the lack of mobile voice and mobile broadband coverage; urges Ofcom to increase the coverage obligation attached to the 800MHz spectrum licence to 98 per cent.; and calls upon the Government to fulfil its commitment to build both the best superfast broadband network in Europe and provide everyone in the UK with a minimum of 2 Mbps by 2015.

Business without Debate

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

Business of the House

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 8 June, notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), opposition business may be proceeded with for three hours; proceedings shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Dunne.)

East Coast Main Line Call Centre

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Dunne.)

17:59

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

It is timely that on the day Sir Roy McNulty’s report on why Britain’s railways cost more than other European railways is published, and on the day he recommends yet further fragmentation of our rail network and fails to consider seriously the benefits of reintegrating the railways under public ownership or why billions of pounds are drained from the industry in profits to the train operating companies, we have this opportunity to consider East Coast’s decision to threaten the future of 180 jobs on Tyneside by transferring an important customer service part of its operation to Mumbai in India.

As Members will be aware, the east coast main line service is wholly owned by Directly Operated Railways Ltd, trading under the name East Coast. DOR Ltd is, in turn, wholly owned by Her Majesty’s Government in the guise of the Secretary of State for Transport. I know the Minister will argue that it is not appropriate for the Government to seek to intervene in operational matters of this type that are properly for East Coast to address, but I am a little incredulous about that.

The Minister will probably argue that as the east coast main line service is owned by DOR Ltd and not the Government, the Government have no right to intervene. However, I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State’s statement today, during which he said: “The Government want Britain’s railways to continue to prosper and have demonstrated by their actions their commitment to them. Despite the difficult fiscal climate, we have allocated funding to complete Crossrail and Thameslink, and to support the upgrade of the London underground. We have announced electrification on the great western main line and in north-west England. We have resumed the intercity express programme to improve reliability, comfort and journey times on the east coast and Great Western main lines.” The Secretary of State therefore plainly takes credit for investment in the railways that, we hope, will improve the service, but he will probably in due course deny any responsibility for, influence over, or right to interfere in the affairs of, East Coast and its decision to close a call centre in Tyneside. The use of the term “we” in the statement followed by a list of all the actions taken proves that the Government can intervene. That leads me to raise the issue of Ministers taking the practice of using smoke and mirrors to evade responsibility to new heights.

The purpose of this debate is absolutely clear. I want to ensure that the Secretary for State cannot evade responsibility on this issue. I want to defend 180 local jobs in Tyneside, where unemployment is already well above national averages. I want to highlight the ridiculous scenario whereby a state-owned company—supported by millions of pounds of taxpayer subsidy—is pursuing a policy of exporting jobs to exploit cheaper labour market conditions abroad and throwing local people on to the dole in an unemployment black spot. I want to highlight the false economy savings for both the railway and the United Kingdom Exchequer. I want to highlight that this is simply the latest train franchise cut, in order to make it more attractive to potential bidders when it is put up for re-privatisation. Finally, I want to highlight the context of Sir Roy McNulty’s report and the east coast main line’s place in the chaotic structure of the public and privatised railways.

East Coast intends, via a re-tendering process, to move the work currently undertaken at the customer contact centre in Baron house in Newcastle upon Tyne away from the north-east to Mumbai in India, Plymouth and Wolverhampton—but mostly to Mumbai in India. The following jobs are currently performed at Baron house: customer contact centre and associated services; inquiry and booking services for telesales, group travel, assisted travel and business travel; ticket fulfilment; web support; and customer relations activities. This action will culminate in the loss of 180 jobs on Tyneside, which will be a bitter blow for the people in a region that is already reeling from the impact of this Government’s economic policy, where between 28% and 32% of the work force depend on the public sector for employment, and which is already braced for the disproportionate impact of the Government cuts, especially in local authority expenditure. The work will now be undertaken outside the north-east of England and a high proportion of it will be undertaken outside the UK, in Mumbai.

The following operations will now take place in the following locations: group and assisted travel and ticket fulfilment will go to Plymouth; public telesales will go to Mumbai; web support and ticket fulfilment will go to Wolverhampton; business travel services will cease as a telephone service and will be online only, supported in Wolverhampton; East Coast customer relations will go to Intelenet in Plymouth; delay repay, processing only, will go to Intelenet in Mumbai; and lost property will go to Plymouth.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend remember the Prime Minister suggesting, before the election, that the north-east would be hit hardest and first? Does my hon. Friend agree that this is just another case—a shining example—of an attack on decent hard-working people in the north-east and that that should not be tolerated any more?

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Members from the north-east of England have mentioned on numerous occasions how the cuts imposed by the Department for Communities and Local Government in particular have disproportionately hit the north-east of England. Councils in our region have lost four times the measure of public finance from the central Government grant than those in the south-east outside London. The impact is disproportionate on an area that is already struggling in this economic climate.

Staff have been advised that they will lose the benefits that would normally accrue to people working in the rail industry and that their rail travel facilities will be retained only until 31 December. The transfer of work is being phased and will begin on American Independence day, 4 July, with the last shift work to be done on 23 July. Over those three weeks, the work will gradually be moved from Baron house in Newcastle.

Surely it is totally unacceptable for a state-owned company such as East Coast, supported by taxpayers’ money, to export jobs abroad.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend says that the company is supported by taxpayers, but does he agree that it has also been supported under GNER and now as a state-owned company by many people in the north-east who have loyally given their custom to the railway? Does he think that because of these moves they should perhaps consider alternative forms of travel?

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. I have been in discussions with people from East Coast about a range of problems on the east coast main line service. Normally, by this time on a Thursday evening, we are travelling on the east coast main line on our way home. We are very familiar with the levels of service and the investment—

[Mr Jones]

And with how bad it’s got.

[Ian Mearns]

Exactly—and with how bad it has become.

Next week will see the implementation of a new timetable, but it will also see the downgrading of a number of services that East Coast has been supporting. People in the north-east are asking why we should support East Coast when there might well be better alternatives for travel across the country. That is not good from an environmental perspective.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for obtaining this Adjournment debate on an important issue. The centre at Baron house is in my constituency and it is true that the people of the north-east have always given significant support to the east coast rail service. Has there been any criticism of the work at Baron house? Is it not the case that it has always been performed well and that its performance is not the reason for moving the contract?

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The call centre at Baron house has provided an excellent level of customer service. Nationally, people regard the north-eastern accent as reliable—

[Mr Jones]

Trustworthy, too.

[Ian Mearns]

The accent is regarded as reliable and trustworthy when it comes to providing call centre services, and that is why the north-east has become a centre for call centre operations. Conversely, it is sad to reflect that unfortunately British customers are averse to call centres based offshore.

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

I, too, compliment my hon. Friend on securing a debate on this issue, which is important to the north-east and has some national significance. In view of today’s statement on the McNulty report and the arguments being made by Ministers about needing to reduce the public subsidy to the rail industry, is this not another example of false economy if the method of reducing the subsidy is to transfer overseas UK jobs that support the economy, particularly in areas such as the north-east?

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. At a time when the Government claim that supporting growth in the UK economy is their priority, surely exporting good quality jobs from the north-east to India cannot be defended. There is also the issue of the public’s perception of the level of service they will get as a result.

The Secretary of State denies responsibility for this while passing on millions in public subsidy. The company received £40 million in direct funding from the taxpayer in the nine months to 31 March 2010 by way of a working capital loan facility agreed with the Secretary of State. Given the investment from the UK taxpayer, surely there must be a moral obligation for a state-owned company to retain jobs in the UK. There should at least be some consideration given to those jobs being taken in-house by the operator. That work is not going to go away. It is a much-needed, public-facing aspect of the train service operation and there is no evidence that the transfer will improve the service afforded to the public.

The Government’s stance could be regarded as hypocritical. They declare their commitment to growth and rebalancing the economy, and day after day they preach to private business about the need to help the economy to recover by creating new jobs, but in the case of East Coast—a company that we fully own—they sit back and permit the export of jobs from a company that belongs to the taxpayer. Let me be clear: my primary concern is for the people whose lives are affected by this, but equally important is the impact on industry of exporting real jobs, particularly customer contact jobs, to another country, which represents a retrograde step away from an integrated transport policy. Despite the McNulty report’s failure seriously to consider the benefits of reintegrating the railways under public ownership, many in the House are convinced that the evidence demonstrates that the reason why railways in Europe are cheaper for the taxpayer and the fare payer is that on the whole they are in public ownership and are less fragmented.

There is a wealth of evidence to show that overseas call centres are not the answer for companies that are looking to cut costs. In May 2004, a Department of Trade and Industry study found that work force costs that had not been fully factored into business evaluations of offshoring included the additional costs of employing local law specialists, consultants and accountants, as well as the cost of redundancies, redeployment and reskilling displaced UK workers. It revealed that staff turnover at Indian call centres in particular was about 25% compared with about 15% in the UK, with an average job tenure of about 12 months compared with three years in the UK. Higher attrition rates surely cannot be beneficial to good-quality customer service.

In July 2009, there was a huge outcry when the Association of Train Operating Companies moved 200 National Rail inquiries jobs from the UK to India. Subsequently, it was widely believed that the quality of service to the British travelling public had decreased. At the same time, BT decided to move 2,000 call-centre jobs back from India to the UK as part of a long-term strategy to cut costs by £1 billion and to reduce dependency on third parties. In 2005, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry reported that customer satisfaction surveys found that UK consumers did not like businesses they believed had offshored their services, preferring to deal with call centres in the UK.

In subcontracting jobs abroad, the company has made a narrow, short-term financial decision. No account has been taken of the impact that the loss of skills and jobs will have on the north-east region, its community and the local economy. Nor has any account been taken of the obvious cost to the UK in benefits of whose who will be made redundant as a result or of the reduction in tax revenue for the Exchequer. The McNulty report states that value for money is not just about pounds and pence, but about how the railway realises its wider benefits to society. Through fragmentation and privatisation, those benefits will be lost.

The industry’s most valuable asset is its work force. These redundancies mark a wasteful loss of knowledge and skills that have been honed through years of experience. They damage the shared commitment to the overall service that a proper public service ethos can bring. They impose a hidden cost of increased interfaces in the industry, blur transparency and accountability and de-clarify lines of responsibility, which would be the hallmark of a more efficient railway.

The blow to the economy of the north-east cannot be overestimated. The loss of these jobs to the region is yet another blow to the local economy and to our local communities. Tyneside already suffers a level of unemployment above the national average. The growth in call centre work has been an important factor in providing new employment in the north-east after the decline of manufacturing and, in particular, heavy industry, which arguably was caused mainly by a previous Government of the same nature.

As we all know, the Government are determined to reduce workers’ rights in the UK. They call it removing red tape and are strongly tempted to try to remove the rights of workers through Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. However, TUPE has been rendered irrelevant in this situation. A worker having the right to follow their work to the new company is simply not a realistic or viable option for those at Baron house, who now face the complete closure of their workplace, with a move for a few possibly to Plymouth or the bulk to India of course being impractical.

The awarding of this customer contact centre contract to a company with operations in Mumbai should not be seen in isolation. It is the next stage in trying to make the company more attractive to potential bidders in preparation for the eventual re-privatisation of the franchise in 2013. Already this week we have witnessed the end of a buffet car service on the east coast main line and the direct service from London to Glasgow has already been greatly reduced. Clearly the aim of the game is not customer service, or even value for money.

Despite the overwhelming social, environmental and economic benefits of retaining services from London King’s Cross to Glasgow, the direct services have been dramatically scaled back from 13 trains a day to just two, one in each direction—the 6.50 am service from Glasgow to King’s Cross and the 3 pm service heading in the opposite direction.

In the context of the McNulty report, clearly the east coast main line has a troubled history. I will not go into that now, but it is important that we think about the Government’s responsibility to manage that franchise. They do have a responsibility and they can change this decision.

18:17

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on securing the debate and on his speech. I completely understand the concerns of those working at the Baron house call centre. It is clear that job losses are a very harsh blow to the people concerned. That is one of the reasons why the coalition Government are working so hard to try to create the right conditions for growth and the creation of new jobs.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

In the north-east?

[Mrs Villiers]

Absolutely, in the north-east and right across the country.

Before responding to the hon. Member’s questions, I must first clarify and reiterate the relationship between the Government and the east coast main line operator. East Coast Main Line Ltd is wholly owned by Directly Operated Railways Ltd, which is, as he pointed out, owned by the Government. East Coast and DOR are companies registered under the Companies Act and operate in accordance with their own articles of association and governance. This provides a framework for the operation of the franchise as a free-standing entity in readiness for the return of the franchise to the private sector, a return that was envisaged by the previous Government as well as the current one.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am slightly perplexed by that explanation and tempted to think of the situation with the banks. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have told us that influence is being exerted on the state-owned banks to ensure that they lend to small and medium-sized enterprises. Is the Minister suggesting that such influence cannot be applied on this company with regard to jobs?

[Mrs Villiers]

I will explain the relationship between East Coast and the Secretary of State. The aim is for that relationship to replicate the arrangements for franchises elsewhere on the network in order to ensure that the principles of private sector operation are embraced and maintained. The reason for that approach is so that the Secretary of State is able to protect the value of the franchise and the taxpayer gets value for money when the franchise returns to the private sector.

If the Department or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to start intervening in the way the operator runs East Coast, for example by overturning decisions based on commercial considerations, they might well have to answer for their decisions in front of the Public Accounts Committee. I am afraid that we do not believe it a viable option to intervene on the basis of political or non-commercial considerations, even if the Secretary of State were minded to do so.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On the threat that the Public Accounts Committee is going to question what the Minister does, may I just say as a former Minister that it can question anything a Minister does? So, that argument is a complete nonsense.

[Mrs Villiers]

The Secretary of State is under a duty to safeguard the assets vested in the Department for Transport. The East Coast operation happens to be one of those assets, so it would be irresponsible to intervene and overturn the operator’s commercial decisions.

[Chi Onwurah]

I share the consternation and concern of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) at the approach that the Minister has outlined. East Coast clearly does not have shareholders, as the other franchises do, but a shareholder could and, we hope, would respond to public pressure and outrage if decisions were made that went so against corporate responsibility, so it is only just that the Secretary of State should play a similar role.

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have made clear, the coalition Government’s adopted approach, which the previous Labour Government espoused, is that the franchise should be operated on a commercial basis by East Coast Ltd. It should not be the subject of political direction from the Secretary of State.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is a crucial point if we are arguing about commercial decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said in an excellent speech, is there not a weight of evidence from banks, insurance companies and various private sector companies that overseas call centres are becoming less and less popular, including with customers, and that therefore any move would damage the potential to sell the franchise to the private sector? Is there not an argument that it would be beneficial to the future sale of the company to keep the call centre at least in the UK, but certainly in the north-east, where it is?

[Mrs Villiers]

The people best placed to make the decision about what is best for the East Coast operation are the specialist practitioners who run East Coast Ltd, not Ministers, not Members. Those practitioners are the best people to make the best decision about what is in the interests of fare payers and taxpayers. East Coast is confident that the new arrangements will deliver better services for passengers and far better value for money.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I will outline, should I get the opportunity, the options were fully explored in relation to continuing the relationship between the Baron house call centre and the East Coast operation, but it was found not to be viable in terms of value for money. If East Coast were to ignore value-for-money considerations, not only would the taxpayer suffer, but the fare payer would as well.

[Mr Jones]

Has the right hon. Lady, as a Minister, looked at the case in detail, taking into account not only the value for money for East Coast, but the cost to the taxpayer in terms of redundancy payments directly from the company and the unemployment benefit that will have to be paid in the north-east of England? Has she actually looked at the case in detail?

[Mrs Villiers]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that East Coast has looked in detail at the viable option for the operation of the franchise.

[Mr Jones]

But have you?

[Mrs Villiers]

I think that we have covered the issue with some clarity.

[Ian Mearns]

The Minister is saying that the people best placed to make those decisions are the people in charge of the commercial considerations at East Coast—the very people who have overseen the running-down of the service and the provision of a very poor service along the east coast main line.

[Mrs Villiers]

Of course I am well aware of the performance issues on the east coast route at the moment. However, I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the improving performance of the train operator. The bulk of the problems that are currently being experienced are the result of problems with the infrastructure, over which East Coast has no control. I hope that in future, with the McNulty-style reforms, we will see shared incentives and improved performance from Network Rail. It is a mistake for the hon. Gentleman to blame those running the East Coast operation for the current performance problems. They bear a share of the responsibility, but the bulk of it, I am afraid, is Network Rail’s.

Turning to the facts of the case, National Express Services Ltd, or NXSL, was providing call centre services to National Express East Coast—NXEC—before its franchise terminated in 2009. NXSL is a separate commercial entity from NXEC and therefore was not taken over by Directly Operated Railways—DOR—at the handover. To ensure business continuity, contact centre services continued to be provided from Baron house to East Coast Ltd on a temporary basis, but two major problems stood in the way of this arrangement continuing on a longer term basis: first, the cost base of the Newcastle call centre; and secondly, the fact that telesales volumes have been falling rapidly across the rail network as customers switch to internet buying.

[Ian Lavery]

rose—

[Mrs Villiers]

I am going to continue for a moment.

In 2006, 11% of East Coast ticket sales were made over the telephone—today, that figure has fallen to just 1.9%—and 50% of East Coast advance ticket sales are now made via the internet.

Following the failure of the NXEC franchise, the services provided by the customer contact centre were reviewed by East Coast and by National Express. That review concluded that it was not commercially viable for the call centre to continue to provide telesales services to the new east coast operator.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

No, I have been very generous.

Greater flexibility was sought to enable a better response to sudden peaks in demand for call centre services—for example, as occurred over the winter. A priority for East Coast Ltd was to ensure a stable future for its contact centre services. Due diligence was conducted to establish if it was feasible for DOR to purchase NXSL and the contact centre and operate it as a subsidiary. However, this proposition was not viable because of the significant liabilities associated with the call centre. A working capital injection of approximately £2 million would have been required, plus further investment to turn around a loss-making business.

East Coast worked with National Express to see whether the Newcastle operation could be sold to a third-party expert in call centre services. Bids were received, but they faced the same purchase problems identified by East Coast and fell through when it proved impossible to agree a price. East Coast also considered whether some of the services could be provided in-house, but it is not a telephone contact centre specialist, and it concluded that it did not have the capacity or expertise to provide in-house services to the high standards that its customers wanted and that it was possible to get from a third-party supplier.

Having exhausted all possible options, East Coast concluded that the only viable way forward was to seek a new specialist supplier to provide call centre services. In parallel with National Express’s efforts to secure a third-party purchaser, East Coast initiated an Official Journal of the European Union procurement process to invite bidders to provide contact centre services. The legal requirements of that process meant that East Coast was not permitted to specify the location from which these services were to be provided. The Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006 prevent this unless a particular location is essential for the provision of the service. As the hon. Gentleman said, the outcome of the process was a contract with Intelenet UK for public telesales, group and assisted travel, ticket fulfilment and customer relations, and a further contract with Atos Origin for web support and web ticket fulfilment.

I appreciate that this process has a downside and is a real blow for those working at the National Express call centre, but there is an upside for passengers. I am advised that East Coast believes that the new contract—

18:30

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Petitions

Thursday 19th May 2011 Petitions

Thursday 19 May 2011

Coastguard Services (Falmouth)

Thursday 19th May 2011 Petitions

The Petition of readers of the Falmouth Packet newspaper, and others,

Declares that the petitioners believe that Falmouth Coastguard must be retained as a 24 hour a day operation, because the experience and expertise of the Falmouth Coastguard could not safely be transferred elsewhere.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to require the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to take into account the views of residents of Falmouth in the course of its consultation on the future of the Coastguard.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Sarah Newton, Official Report, 28 April 2011; Vol. 527, c. 418.]

[P000919]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:

The Government are aware of the strength of feeling about the proposals to migrate Falmouth maritime rescue co-ordination (MRCC) to a daytime only sub-centre within a national network of a small number of maritime operations centres supported by sub-centres.

The Government are proud of Her Majesty’s coastguard and value the work currently carried out by operational coastguards at Falmouth. Under the proposed new arrangements, all the systems operated at Falmouth would be networked across the UK so that any search and rescue incident can be co-ordinated from any location.

An independent team of 12 experienced coastguard practitioners is reviewing all responses to the consultation launched on 16 December 2010 and will take account of this petition in their deliberations. Once the Government have considered the advice of the independent review team and the Transport Select Committee’s report, the way forward will be announced.

Child Benefit

Thursday 19th May 2011 Petitions

The Humble Petition of Mr Paul Francis Dodd,

Sheweth, that the Petitioner believes that the Government’s recent announcement regarding Child Benefit is unfair; that the Petitioner is a married man with daughter aged two years, whose salary is £44,500 p.a., which is just inside the threshold for a higher rate tax payer; that the Petitioner’s wife gave up work to look after their daughter and has no income; and that from 2013 the Petitioner and his wife will not be entitled to receive Child Benefit.

Sheweth, that the Petitioner believes that the Government’s proposals have two flaws; that a family with both parents earning a salary less than the higher-rate tax threshold, which could total around £88,000, will continue to receive the benefit; and that, if both parents earn a salary that is half that earned by the Petitioner, £22,250, not only will they continue to receive the benefit, but they also receive two tax-free allowances for their salaries.

Sheweth, that the Petitioner believes that revisions are necessary to the Child Benefit system; that the family income should be taken into account, not just the income of one of the individuals in a family; that the Petitioner recognises that this is expensive, but he believes that it is the fairest way to judge a family's income and hence its needs for benefit; that, if this is not possible, then a gradual phasing out of the benefit for earners over the higher rate tax threshold would be very easy to implement; that it would be easy to reduce Child Benefit by one percentage point for every £1,000 earned over the higher tax threshold; that this would still leave a majority of the benefit for those earners, such as the Petitioner, who only just enter this limit; and that it would also remove Child Benefit for those who earn over £144,000.

Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House urges the Government to review its policy on Child Benefit.

And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.—[Presented by Sir Alan Beith, Official Report, 1 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 828 .]

[P000882]

Observations from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Treasury:

The Chancellor considered a number of different options relating to Child Benefit including how any change should be delivered. As part of a balanced package to deal with Britain’s record budget deficit, the Government will, from January 2013, withdraw Child Benefit from families with a higher rate taxpayer. The Chancellor wanted to avoid creating a complex new means test for household income that would have fundamentally changed the nature of Child Benefit. Withdrawing Child Benefit from households with a higher rate taxpayer can be done within existing PAYE and Self-assessment systems. This means that HMRC does not need to contact all 7.8 million households in receipt of Child Benefit. From a customer perspective, this delivery option does not place a burden on all Child Benefit claimants, it limits the impact to those households containing a higher rate taxpayer.

Affected families are within the top 20% of the incomes of all families (including those without children). Currently the threshold for a higher rate taxpayer is around £42,500. At a time when many difficult decisions have to be taken, it is not fair that people on low incomes go on being taxed to pay for the Child Benefit of those earning much more. Families with no higher rate taxpayer who receive Child Benefit, which is around 80% of all families claiming Child Benefit, will be unaffected by this policy. Child Benefit will continue to be paid in the normal way to the great majority of the population, from birth until a child leaves full time education at the age of 18 or even 19.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 19th May 2011 Westminster Hall

Thursday 19 May 2011

[Philip Davies in the Chair]

Constitutional Reform (Wales)

Thursday 19th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: First Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2010-11, HC 495, and the Government Response, HC 729.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(David Jones.)

14:29

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

This is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and it is a great pleasure to do so. We have sat on the Back Benches for many years and have been impressed by the loquaciousness of Front-Bench Members from both sides of the House; sometimes, they have entertained us for so long that we have not had a chance to speak. Time is short today, and because I believe it important that all hon. Members should have the opportunity to contribute, I will limit my speech to 10 minutes. [Interruption.] Other hon. Members are entering the Chamber as I speak.

The issue of constitutional change and the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill was the first subject considered by the Welsh Affairs Committee. It has been a great pleasure to work with all members of that Committee. The Select Committee system is one of the great unsung success stories of Parliament, and I wish that those members of the public who think that we spend all our time arguing with each other could see what goes on in a Select Committee. Despite the range of views, there is always room for compromise and agreement on certain issues.

Unanimously, members of the Welsh Affairs Committee had concerns about the changes to the constitution. The first issue that we looked at was the idea of holding a referendum on the same day as the Welsh Assembly elections. We expressed our concerns about that, and made clear our opinion that the Government needed to take measures to ensure that the referendum ran smoothly—which, to be fair, it did. There were concerns about timing and the counting of the vote, but there were not many spoilt ballot papers and I am glad that the two elections went smoothly.

Many concerns remain, however, over proposals to reorder the boundaries in Wales and reduce the number of Welsh MPs by a significant number, probably about a quarter. There are concerns about the impact that such a change will have on the ability of Wales and the Welsh people to ensure that their voice is heard in Parliament. I accept the point, made on a previous occasion by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), that the reforms will be one of the greatest changes since the Great Reform Act. Ever since that Act, Wales has been strongly represented to reflect the fact that it is a small nation that needs to get its voice across. I must add—this would not have been in the report—that that argument is somewhat weakened by the establishment of a Welsh Assembly. Hon. Members must take account of that.

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

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government continue to talk about greater democratic accountability and the reform of the House of Lords. Current plans are to get rid of 50 elected representatives from the House of Commons, including a quarter of Welsh MPs, and at the same time to introduce an extra 150 unelected Lords. There is no real chance of those reforms to the House of Lords going forward. Is the hon. Gentleman worried about having a greater proportion of unelected representatives and fewer elected representatives, and will he vote against that?

[David T. C. Davies]

The hon. Gentleman wisely anticipates a point that I am about to come to. I will return to that subject; he may hold me to that.

Let me make an obvious point that the Minister may wish to deal with. Wales is geographically challenging when it comes to offering representation. By that I mean that many of its communities are cohesive because of the topography of the area, and certain valleys make obvious constituencies. They may never contain the requisite number of people, but it is not terribly wise simply to say, “That can constitute a constituency, and we’ll add a bit of the valley next door to get the numbers absolutely right.”

A place that may look nearby on a map will not necessarily be easy to access. We already have areas in which it is challenging to be a good constituency MP. Constituencies such as Montgomeryshire and Brecon and Radnorshire are very large—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) is in the Chamber—and presumably they will get even larger. That will pose challenges for the MP who represents such a constituency.

To some extent, we are allowing a bandwagon to roll that suggests that all Members of Parliament are lazy and do not have enough to do, and that we should get rid of a few of them, and give others an extra 10,000 constituents because that will produce a good headline in the newspaper. I hope that that is not the case, but I fear that as a profession, MPs do not stand up for themselves and nor does anyone else stand up for them.

MPs have a right to be treated in the same way as any one else in the country; when I read in the press that MPs should be treated like anyone else, I say that I could not agree more and that it is about time that we were treated the same in every respect. That means, however, that if someone changes our terms and conditions of work with the stroke of a pen, we should be entitled to a certain amount of notice. If we are to be given a lot of extra work—I take my role very seriously, as do hon. Members from all parties—it is only right that we should be given time to prepare for that.

I promised that I would return to the good point raised by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and the proposals to reform the House of Lords. I could understand some of the desire to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 were it not for the fact that at the same time we are increasing the number of Members of the House of Lords and are possibly about to elect them on an 80:20 basis—we will see whether that comes to pass.

It certainly looks as though it will be more expensive to manage the House of Lords. If we wish to act in a cohesive fashion, surely we should have considered the possibility of maintaining the number of MPs at 650. We could have reordered the constituencies so that they contained the same numbers of constituents, but we could also have ensured that they remained closer to their current state, without necessarily expecting MPs to do all sorts of extra work. I have no problem with working hard, but adding an extra 10,000 people to a constituency will present certain challenges. We should not jump to do that simply because it is demanded by the tabloids.

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

How many of my hon. Friend’s constituents have written to him asking for this matter to be treated as a priority?

[David T. C. Davies]

In all truth, hardly any constituents have written to me about this matter. A few have written to me to say that they are shocked and horrified by the fact that one in four Welsh MPs are going to disappear. I had to write back and say that I am also surprised and concerned, and that unfortunately they will have to fly the flag for me on the issue as I dread to think what the Daily Mail would say if it thought that I was simply trying to protect my job.

Members of Parliament work extremely hard at the moment, and I have no problem with them working harder in the future if that is possible. I do, however, have a problem with the timing of the legislation and the way that it has been introduced very quickly. I was surprised that there were not more opportunities to debate the matter, although I do not entirely blame the Government for that.

At least one Welsh MP, who is not present today, seemed able, at the drop of a hat, to deliver speeches that lasted more than an hour and covered different clauses of the Bill. That prevented us from reaching those amendments that applied to Wales. I listen to “Just a Minute” on Radio 4; he could easily have done “Just an Hour”. To pay him a small compliment, I should say that he was quite entertaining and not many people can speak for an hour and be entertaining—at this rate, I will struggle to make 10 minutes.

[Geraint Davies]

He used to be a vicar, though.

[David T. C. Davies]

I am not going to name the hon. Gentleman concerned and I shall let that comment stay on the record.

Another issue that concerned us when we conducted the report was the evidence that we received to suggest that much of the information that the Boundary Commission will work on is out of date or inaccurate. Too many people who should be on the electoral role have not registered for one reason or another.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean(Mr Harper), assured us that a great deal of work would be done to ensure that accurate numbers of people were recorded and that the information used to redraw the boundaries was accurate. I look forward to hearing from this Minister what work has been undertaken to ensure that everyone who should be on the electoral roll is on it.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that voter registration is of particular concern along the north Wales coast, where there is a transient population?

[David T. C. Davies]

I do agree, but the evidence that we had suggested that voter registration is an issue in all parts of Wales and perhaps particularly in some of the more urban areas. However, even if it is an issue in just one part of one constituency, it is a big issue, because this is about democracy and ensuring that everyone can exercise their right to vote. How big the issue is I cannot say, but I look forward to an explanation from the Minister.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[David T. C. Davies]

I will, but I am looking at the clock.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that a disproportionate—[Interruption.] I can’t speak. I have lost my—[Interruption.]

[David T. C. Davies]

I will be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman again if he wants. I apologise, but I did not quite hear what he said. [Laughter.] He is more than welcome to intervene on me again.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a disproportionate tendency for poorer communities not to register? The boundaries should really be based on the best estimate of the number of people eligible to vote, as opposed to those who are registered, given that young people, ethnic communities, people in private rented accommodation and so on are under-represented.

[David T. C. Davies]

I will not accept that. The evidence that we had was that significant numbers of people are not registered to vote. It was right that we asked the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, who is responsible for the matter, to come back to us with further information about how that would be rectified, and he promised us announcements and assured us that action would be taken.

I do not think that we had enough evidence to say where the problem is most widespread. I certainly do not personally think that we should start redrawing the boundaries based on what is at best an educated guess as to what the problem might be—that is, having a look at constituencies and saying, “Well, that is not very affluent, and urban, so we think that X% are not registered. We’ll just redraw the boundary on that basis.”

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. A number of hon. Members have campaigned to increase registration for a long time, not just in relationto this issue. We have just had a census. Will the Electoral Commission be able to use the information revealed by the census in its calculations and judgments?

[David T. C. Davies]

I should perhaps take it as a compliment that the hon. Gentleman asks me that question which probably ought to be asked of the Minister. I am tempted to say that I will check with my officials and write to the hon. Gentleman. In fact, I do not even have a researcher working for me in London, but I am sure that the Minister will reply for me in a few minutes’ time.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the work done by the Committee on Standards in Public Life during my period as a member of that Committee, which highlighted the failure of the Electoral Commission to exercise the powers that it already has to encourage consistency of registration throughout the country. Is not one of the points that we can agree on that the consistency of registration needs to be driven up in advance of the move, which all parties have supported, to individual registration, because the transition from one system to another is a potentially fragile period that could make a bad situation worse?

[David T. C. Davies]

Yes, I think we can all agree on that. I can only say that in evidence the Minister promised that there would be very strong action to rectify the problem. It is probably a failing on my part, but I am not yet absolutely certain that I know what that action will be. I am sure that we will all be enlightened today.

The Boundary Commission said to us that it would look purely at numbers. When it gave evidence, it said that this was a numbers game and nothing else would come into the equation. It said that it would not look at the topography, the geography, the geographical size of a constituency, the local authority boundaries or anything else; it would look simply at the numbers. Since that evidence was given, I have detected a slight change in tone, in that the Boundary Commission is now talking about trying to match up local authority boundaries where it can. But this will be primarily about numbers.

[Alun Michael]

Just to be clear, is the hon. Gentleman now talking about the intentions of the Boundary Commission, as distinct from the standards improvement that I was talking about in relation to the Electoral Commission? I think that the two points are consistent as long as we are—

[David T. C. Davies]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I fully accept the point that he made about the Electoral Commission. I am coming to the end of my allocated time now, but that is what the Boundary Commission has said. Its original evidence worries me. The messages that have been coming out since then reassure me a little, but we will still end up with completely different constituencies and with one in four MPs in Wales disappearing.

We have not stood up for ourselves; we have been afraid to stand up for ourselves. The vast majority of people in this Chamber and in the House of Commons work very hard and do a very good job. To some extent, we have been pushed into accepting the proposals, because we are afraid that we will be seen to be self-serving if we do not accept a large cut in our own numbers. It becomes much harder to justify cutting the number of MPs on a cost basis if at the same time we are going to spend large sums funding the House of Lords, whether they be elected, appointed or a mixture of both.

If the Government support the role of the Back-Bench MP in holding Ministers to account through forums such as the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, they also need to explain to us what will happen to the number of Ministers. I hope that if we are looking to save money by cutting the number of MPs, there will be consistency and that that will be applied to Ministers as well.

14:47

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is good to take part in a debate under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Your surname is a Welsh surname of considerable importance, so I am sure that you were interested to join us for this important debate. I agreed with every single word that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), my constituency neighbour, said. The only problem is that there are plenty of members of the Government who did not and, indeed, it may be too late for some of the excellent points that he made to be effective.

One of the good aspects of what is happening this afternoon is that the Welsh Affairs Committee was the only body—the only institution—in Parliament that dealt properly with the question of constituency boundaries in Wales. Hon. Members will know that, on the Floor of the House, the issue of Welsh boundaries was never reached. There was a considerable and excellent debate in the other place, but not in the House of Commons. Similarly, we asked the Secretary of State for a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee so that all Welsh Members of Parliament could discuss the most important issue that affects our constitution, but we were refused.

When we couple that with the fact that we seem to have lost our Welsh day debate, despite my attempts and those of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) to ask the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that we did have a debate on Welsh matters, which has been the case in the House of Commons since 1944, we see that the opportunities that we could have had have been missed. Nevertheless, the fact that the hon. Member for Monmouth has initiated this debate is to be welcomed.

[Alun Michael]

My right hon. Friend has made an extremely powerful point about the St David’s day debate. That has always been regarded across parties as an important element in the year. The suggestion that it can be ignored and pushed to one side by regarding it as Back-Bench business is wrong. It is surely business that should be dealt with in Government time, as has always been the case in the past.

[Paul Murphy]

Yes. It is ironic that the Secretary of State has written to the Backbench Committee arguing that there should be a Welsh day debate; I guess the right hon. Lady will now have to argue with her Cabinet colleagues and the Leader of the House to ensure that we have a debate to discuss Welsh matters on the Floor of the House.

The hon. Member for Monmouth did not touch on one excellent point made by his Committee, which is that there was insufficient time for the changes to be debated, and that no draft legislation has come before the House on this important matter. That contrasts entirely with the way in which the Government are dealing with the reform of the House of Lords, where there is a draft Bill, a White Paper, a Joint Committee and an attempt at consensus. None of those were the case for the Bill that we are discussing today. That is to be regretted, because my experience of dealing with constitutional matters, which goes back some years, is that such reform will never last unless there is a foundation of consensus. If they are seen to be wholly partial, which I believe the present proposals are, they will not be of lasting value to our country. The Welsh Affairs Committee was very wise when dealing with the matter.

I have a great deal of time for the Minister, and I welcome him to this debate, but it would be nice now and again if his boss were to turn up. I twice held the post of Secretary of State over a five-year period, and whenever we had important debates on such subjects I thought it important that the Secretary of State for Wales should attend. It has not happened in this Parliament. The only time that the Secretary of State for Wales has dealt with the issue is in reply to the odd question or two at Question Time. There has been no debate. Indeed, she stopped the Welsh Grand Committee debating the matter, so we do not know what she has to say about the fact that 25% of Welsh Members will be losing their constituencies.

Since the Welsh Affairs Committee produced its report, we have had a referendum; that has given legislative power to the National Assembly, and a new National Assembly and Executive have been elected and appointed. The impact of that on the role of the Secretary of State is, if nothing else, hugely significant. Even at this late stage, I still make the plea that, before the summer recess, the Welsh Secretary liaises with the Leader of the House so that the Welsh Grand Committee can debate the matter.

I will not take up much more time because other Members wish to speak, but I want to emphasise one important aspect of the Union. I am a unionist—with a small “u”—and I believe that the union of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England has proved successful. In Northern Ireland, it is for the people there to decide what to do—the principle of consent. We have seen dramatic changes in the last couple of weeks in Scotland and in Wales as a result of the elections. However, I fear that unless the Conservative party in Britain listens to the Conservative party in Wales—there is a big difference —we are heading for big trouble.

The Prime Minister talks about fighting for the Union with every fibre of his being. I understand that, and I do not doubt his sincerity for a second. However, what has happened to Wales’s constitution and its relationship to the House of Commons and Parliament over the last year shows that we must be very careful in what we do. As the hon. Member for Monmouth said, the reduction in the number of Members is not simply about the same number of MPs representing the same number of constituencies and the same number of electors as with English or Scottish seats. We have a United Kingdom that, by definition, represents the nations within it, and if we reduce the number of MPs in Wales by a quarter—a disproportionate reduction from 40 to 30—their influence in the House of Commons and in Government will be seriously weakened. We have made that point to the Government time after time, but they have shut their ears.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He makes a point that he has made previously on the Floor of the House and on the last occasion when we debated the matter in Westminster Hall. How does he get over the need for equality in terms of vote? Is it not the essence of democracy that everyone’s vote, wherever in the country it is cast, should be of equal validity? Is it not the case that, if Wales were disproportionately advantaged, that principle would be broken?

[Paul Murphy]

Wales can never be disproportionately advantaged. Even now, we have only 40 of the 659 seats. Whatever England wants to do, it can do through its Members of Parliament. It can overwhelmingly outweigh the Members of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland put together. There is never a case where that cannot happen.

[David T. C. Davies]

With all due respect, the right hon. Gentleman slightly avoids the question. With the advent of the Welsh Assembly, Members of Parliament in England cannot do anything about the health service in Wales, nor about education, roads and the many other issues about which our constituents write to us.

[Paul Murphy]

We now touch on the other point that I intended to raise before concluding—the so-called West Lothian question.

There will be a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament—it will be a huge reduction, and it will weaken Wales’s voice here, even though it would not influence what happens in Parliament—and the answer to the West Lothian question will mean that Welsh Members of Parliament will be of a different type from the English MP. We will have different types of Members in the House, some MPs being able to vote on this and some on that. That is unknown in any other European country and, as far as I am aware, in the world.

A reduction in the number of Welsh MPs, a reduction in their rights, a constant grizzling and grumbling about the Barnett formula, the fact that people think that Wales does better than parts of England, the fact that we can do different things in Cardiff and Edinburgh and Belfast—student fees, for instance—which is what devolution is all about, and the way in which the House deals with Welsh business, with the Welsh day debate disappearing, all add to the case for separatism, and not for the Union.

[Mr David Jones]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He touches on an extremely important. I entirely agree that the West Lothian question is vital; in my view, it has not been properly addressed and should have been addressed prior to the establishment of devolution.

I want to deal with the question of the number of Welsh MPs. Did the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee by Professor Richard Wyn Jones? The professor said that it was “hard to imagine” how the reduction in the number of Welsh MPs could have a

“huge impact in terms of the Welsh voice in Westminster, particularly because, on the whole, Welsh MPs do not behave en masse as a single block.”

[Paul Murphy]

I believe that we do behave en masse in representing Welsh interests in the House of Commons. The fact that the Welsh Affairs Committee unanimously and across parties agreed on the matters raised by the hon. Member for Monmouth shows that there are many occasions when Welsh Members come together in the interests of Wales. I do not know the professor, but I do know that he is not a Member of Parliament, has not served in the House of Commons and does not know what can happen here. These people can have their academic discourses and theses and the rest of it, but the practicalities of politics are such that Welsh influence can be exercised here only by Welsh Members of Parliament.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is giving a powerful discourse on the importance of having a Welsh voice in Parliament. Does he agree that it is absurd for Government Members to talk about the importance of equal representation across the UK and of reducing the number of MPs, while at the same time stuffing the House of Lords with their supporters?

[Paul Murphy]

That is because the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010 was born in a partisan way. Had it been dealt with like the legislation for reform of the House of Lords or other constitutional legislation, and a consensus arrived at, we would not have the present trouble. People simply see it as a means of cutting the number of Welsh Members of Parliament. The chances are that more Labour MPs are likely to be cut than those of other parties—we do not know; it could be the other way around—but we all ought to be fighting for Welsh Members of Parliament to have their say strengthened in a United Kingdom Parliament rather than weakened.

[Alun Michael]

Does my right hon. Friend not find it ironic that the capacity of Welsh Members of Parliament to work together and speak with one voice was illustrated through the calling of a meeting—the first for many years—of the Welsh parliamentary party specifically because the Secretary of State was not listening to Welsh MPs speaking with one voice? Does he not think that there is very strong representation and strong teamwork across Welsh MPs and that the analysis quoted by the Minister is simply misplaced?

[Paul Murphy]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and that was why a meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party was called.

[Roger Williams]

rose—

[Paul Murphy]

I will give way in a moment. I just want to finish my point regarding the consensus among Welsh Members, including Welsh Conservative Members. I am beginning to feel that there is a belief among some Conservative Members of Parliament—I exclude all Welsh Conservative MPs from this criticism—that they would be better off with an English Parliament, without Welsh or Scottish Members of Parliament, and that does a great disservice to the Conservative party because both in Wales and Scotland it is still a powerful political force. We should all join together to ensure that Welsh MPs, whether they be Conservative, Plaid Cymru, Liberal Democrat or Labour, can express their views in this place.

Another issue is that Welsh-speaking constituencies will find themselves with less representation in this Parliament than they would have done under the current system of the 40 MPs. Again, try to explain that to an English Member of Parliament. All of us know how important it is that Welsh-speaking Wales is represented here, not least because there are issues affecting the Welsh language that are still dealt with in Parliament.

[Roger Williams]

I agree that we should have had the opportunity to debate this matter in full—whether it be on the Floor of the House, in a St David’s day debate or a Grand Committee debate. However, I am in disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman. When Welsh MPs come together on a particular matter, it does not matter whether we number 30 or 40. But if we started off with 30 Welsh MPs, could we honestly argue to be increased to 40? It seems to me that that argument just could not be made.

[Paul Murphy]

It will be the fewest number of Members of Parliament representing Wales since 1832. I am not convinced that 30 is a sensible and reasonable representation, which is what every country must have. I am not saying that each constituency should not be equally sized in terms of numbers, but an amendment was tabled in the other place that sought to ensure that there was a variation of 10% as opposed to 5%. A 10% variation would, in many ways, have solved the problems to which the hon. Member for Monmouth rightly referred in terms of our geography, our values, and our rural seats. If we had had that flexibility, the distorted seats that we will end up with in Wales would not have happened.

In conclusion, I do not want to see the Conservative and Unionist party becoming the Conservative and Separatist party, and I am saying that as a Labour Member of Parliament. There is an onus on all of us who represent Welsh constituencies to ensure that the Government listen and that we are not heading towards an English Parliament as opposed to a United Kingdom one.

15:00

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), I pay tribute to the Welsh Affairs Committee for being the only Committee that has debated this issue in some depth. I also pay tribute to its Chair for his succinct and articulate speech. I agree with many of the things that he has said.

The most important thing that has come out of this report is the haste with which all this is being done. Sometimes, when I sit in the House, it feels as though policies are being plucked out of the air. Under discussion is the biggest constitutional change in a generation. It is far bigger than the Welsh Assembly and the foundation of the Scottish Parliament. However, we, as Members of Parliament, have not had the opportunity to debate it. We have not had pre-legislative scrutiny, a Joint Committee to consider the change or, as my right hon. Friend has said, any consensus.

A myth has been perpetuated by the coalition ever since the expenses scandal. There is a belief that all politicians are wrong to want to come into public life. Suddenly, we are plucking solutions out of the air. It has been said that we need to change our electoral system and that we need to work harder. We have no empirical evidence on how hard MPs work, yet we are told that we need to work harder. Now we are told that people want fewer MPs, but such a change will fail without proper scrutiny and sufficient time.

I do not mind debating constitutional issues. When we talk about the West Lothian question, it always comes down to one thing—we are looking at it from the wrong point of view. We are looking at it from the point of view that Welsh MPs cannot vote on health or transport issues in Wales. If we use that logic, we could ask why London MPs are allowed to vote on policing issues when policing is devolved in London. It does not make sense. When we talk about any future devolution or any constitutional change, we have to consider the issue from the basis of the whole of the nation. We have to consider how devolution fits into the regions. However, we are not talking about that. This place is not the English Parliament, and it has never been the English Parliament. This place is the Parliament of Great Britain. When we talk about English votes for English MPs on English-only matters, we have to ask ourselves where in the constitution it says that this is the English Parliament. Perhaps I am being cynical, but the way in which this is being rushed through makes me feel that this is not a constitutional change, but political gerrymandering of the highest kind. It is based not on any rational argument, but on a policy of one size fits all.

We have already heard about rural areas, but let us look at some of the constituencies in detail. The old constituency of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, which is now Dwyfor Meirionnydd—the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) in not in his seat at the moment—will probably be unmanageable. Montgomeryshire will be huge. Does that mean more money will be provided for the Members of Parliament who will represent those two constituencies? I do not think so. Where did this idea come from? Wales is not a special case, yet Orkney and Shetland and the constituencies covering the Western Isles of Scotland and Isle of Wight were pulled out? Why were they pulled out? We just do not know.

[Nick Smith]

Lib Dem seats.

[Chris Evans]

That is cynical, but it is what we have to think.

[Geraint Davies]

Conservative seats.

[Chris Evans]

Sorry, Isle of Wight is a Tory seat.

I was working with my predecessor when the Government of Wales Act 2006 was debated. The 2006 Act stated that Assembly seats must be co-terminous with Westminster seats, but that has suddenly been thrown out of the window. It is as if the Government are saying, “Okay, we will just decouple.” Where we have an Assembly Member, the imperative is to build a close relationship with them and to work on issues such as health and education, but that will go completely out of the window. We will have a situation in which people will say, “Who is my Assembly Member? Who do I pass this on to?” This seems to be—for want of a better term—absolutely crackers.

We have already talked about the democratic deficit. Despite the fact that Wales represents 5% of the UK population, its constituencies will be reduced by 20%. Wales will send 25 fewer MPs here. Northern Ireland will lose some 17%; Scotland will lose 9%; and England, which is Tory dominated, will lose 5.5%. We have to ask ourselves why Wales has been disproportionately targeted. I wonder whether it is because we have a history of sending back Labour Members of Parliament. Will Swindon, which has two Tory MPs, be reduced to just one seat? Will other places, such as Cheltenham and Gloucester—I know Cheltenham quite well—be reduced to one seat? Will Tewkesbury, the Cotswolds and Cheltenham, which have three Tory MPs, be one seat? I wonder. We wait and see.

[Roger Williams]

Cheltenham is a Liberal Democrat seat.

[Chris Evans]

Sorry, I did not say Cheltenham. I should correct the hon. Gentleman. Cheltenham is a Liberal Democrat seat, but I said that the Cotswolds, Tewkesbury and Gloucester were Tory seats.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

I am obviously an English MP, but I am proud to have spent most of my adult life in Wales, and I certainly consider myself a Conservative Unionist MP. Wrexham, where I brought my children up, has an electorate of 51,000, but Redditch, which I represent, has an electorate of nearly 70,000. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is fair?

[Chris Evans]

That argument has been brought out all the way through. To use the American example, however, we do not hear people in California, which has 37 million electors, saying that they deserve more senators than Wyoming, which has 544,000.

The other thing about Welsh constituencies is that they are different. The Cotswolds, Tewkesbury and Cheltenham are all flat, so they can be put together. In Wales, however, we have rivers and mountains. As somebody once said to me at a Labour party grand committee meeting, “Islwyn was not created. It was given to us by God.” I do not know whether that is true.

[Paul Murphy]

That is true of all our constituencies.

[Chris Evans]

Yes. Big mountains separate Blaenau Gwent from neighbouring constituencies.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

Has the hon. Gentleman ever been to other parts of England, where there are mountains and rivers? The same argument could apply to those places. We have huge constituencies. North Yorkshire, for example, has constituencies that meet the criteria that he has described, but they are twice the size of many constituencies in Wales. Why is that different?

[Chris Evans]

The point that I was coming to is that we have local links in Wales—communities are linked to each other and have common bonds. The hon. Gentleman represents an English constituency, but if he wanted to discuss the point, he should have made a speech.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Wales is, in essence, a small country next to a very large country that is 15 times its size? If we want a sustainable Union and a respect agenda, we should remember that Wales has always had slightly more MPs than England. That is the fundamental point: tearing up the Union is the cost of gerrymandering a sustainable Conservative Government. Wales is a small country sitting next to a big one, so we should have a few more MPs. That is all this is about.

[Chris Evans]

That leads on to my final point about the policy overall. Perhaps I can look at the issue from a wider angle and step outside Wales for a moment, if you will allow me, Mr Davies. We are a nation state, and what seriously worries me about this exercise is that it is based on figures rather than communities. In that respect, I am glad that I followed my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, because he knows about the situation in Northern Ireland, where wards and constituencies must strike a fine balance and could cause major problems. However, we have had no scrutiny of any kind, so these issues have not come out.

The coalition has hung on to its belief that people distrust politicians, but when people voted no for AV, they dispelled the myth that it was constitutional reform that we needed; we actually need to reconnect with people. Forcing through the proposed changes will mean more disconnect and people being more removed from politics, and that is a dangerous game. I therefore finish by paying tribute, as I did at the beginning, to the Welsh Affairs Committee, which is the only Committee to have looked at this issue properly.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

rose—

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Two more Members are seeking to catch my eye. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokesmen at 3.30 pm, so if Members could show some restraint, that would be helpful.

15:14

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) is always a tough act to follow. I was hoping to make a hard-hitting speech, but I fear that my contribution might be somewhat timid in comparison with his. I want to concentrate on two specific issues. The first, on which all parties in the House have concerns, and which has been the focus of the debate so far, is the number of MPs who serve the people of Wales in Westminster. The second is the opportunities that the proposed Calman Cymru process may offer democracy in Wales.

Let us be in no doubt that the reason why the UK Government have introduced their proposals to cut the numbers of MPs from 650 to 600 is purely partisan. In nullifying the Celtic bias, the Prime Minister’s aim is clearly to enhance his electoral prospects at the next general election. We should ignore the spin surrounding equal-sized constituencies: if they undermined the Tory party’s electoral prospects, they would not be on the table.

I must admit that it is strange, as some Labour Members said in their contributions, that these changes are being introduced by the Conservative and Unionist party. Reducing Welsh representation in this place by a quarter will inevitably severely undermine the influence of Wales in this Parliament. The Westminster Parliament represents four distinct nations, and its make-up has always reflected that fact to avoid it becoming dominated by English representatives. Central Lobby, with its murals of the patron saints—St David, St Andrew, St Patrick and St George—is a reminder of the historical role played by the Westminster Parliament.

Many Members will undoubtedly be surprised to hear me make such points, because there will be no Welsh representation here at all if Plaid Cymru’s ultimate aim is achieved. However, as long as so many key political fields remain reserved, there is a role and a need in this place for Welsh MPs, and particularly Welsh Plaid Cymru MPs. [Interruption.] I am glad to see some Members nodding.

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making such an important point, which I fully agree with. For as long as Wales remains part of the United Kingdom, he and other Welsh Members should of course be allowed to take their places here. In the same way, people who did not agree with devolution or the Welsh Assembly, and who still have questions about it, have every right to sit in the Welsh Assembly if they are elected to it.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that, and I will stick the hon. Gentleman’s endorsement in my next leaflet.

I am not against reducing Welsh representation in the House of Commons as a point of principle. However, any reductions should take place only after the devolution of political fields of responsibility. I do not, therefore, accept the argument that the successful March referendum justifies reductions in the number of Welsh MPs. The referendum did not devolve extra fields of power, but merely secured sovereignty over currently devolved fields. If we were to have the same devolved fields of power as Scotland, however, I would see the case for reducing the number of Welsh MPs.

For the remainder of my speech, I would like to concentrate on the UK Government’s proposed Calman process for Wales and its constitutional implications. I seriously hope that the Wales Office is not proposing a rerun of the Scottish experiment, which was a stitch-up by the Unionist parties and has now backfired spectacularly. The government of Scotland Bill that followed the Scottish Calman process lies in tatters because of the Sewel convention. There is no way the majority Scottish National party Government in Scotland will accept a Bill that totally ignores their views on the way forward for their country. I therefore hope that the Calman Cymru process will be fair, open, transparent and free from political influence.

To date, much of the debate surrounding the Welsh Calman has been about finance. The Holtham report is unlikely to be bettered, so the best course of action for the UK Government would be to accept its detailed recommendations. Reform of the Barnett formula should be a precondition for any further financial changes, but I am concerned at the noises that have come from the Treasury to date. That will be a major challenge for the new Welsh Government, and all their rhetoric about standing up for our country will be seriously tested on this single issue.

However, I welcome the fact that the Calman Cymru process will reopen debate about the Government of Wales Act 2006. In particular, we will have the opportunity to revisit the gerrymandering carried out under the Act by the then Labour Government in Westminster. The section introduced in 2006 to prohibit candidates from standing in regional lists and constituencies should be overturned. A similar ban exists only in Ukraine, and it is high time that we in Wales joined the rest of the democratic world.

The Calman Cymru process is also an opportunity to revisit the electoral make-up of the National Assembly in time for the fifth Assembly. My personal preference would be for us to increase the membership of the National Assembly to 80, as advocated by Lord Elystan-Morgan. Those 80 Members should be elected by a single transferable vote system. When the government of Wales Bill, which follows the Welsh Calman process, comes to this place, I will call for amendments to that effect, unless such provisions are already included in the Bill.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is any appetite in Wales for yet another prolonged period of navel-gazing?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that intervention, but we have the Calman process and, following questioning last Wednesday, it was confirmed that such issues will be debated. The Bill will be an opportunity to address grievances that some of us have with the current settlement.

[Paul Murphy]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s arguments with great interest. I agree with some of them, but I am doubtful about the appetite in Wales—or the UK, for that matter—for introducing any other systems of proportional representation. It is daft to argue that the overwhelming vote against AV was because people wanted STV. People want a first-past-the-post system, so would it not be a good idea to have 60 or 80 AMs elected, two per constituency, by first past the post?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I totally disagree with that, of course. When the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was a Bill before the House, I argued for the referendum to be held on STV, not AV. That was about a vote for the Westminster Parliament, and my preference for developing democracy in Wales is a plural, proportional system. I will get to that point when I conclude my speech.

During the passage of the 2011 Act, I welcomed the clauses that decoupled the Westminster and National Assembly boundaries; it was common sense to include them in the Act. My colleague the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) had a sparring session on BBC Radio Wales in the very early hours of Sunday morning on that issue. The Labour party was vehemently opposed to the decoupling; its preference was for coterminosity. From the point of view of organising local party structures, I can see the argument. They would be a total nightmare to organise locally with different boundaries for the Westminster and Welsh elections.

[Nick Smith]

It is not only about party organisation. Coterminosity is important for talking to borough councillors and chief executives, and the managers of local health services and housing associations. It helps us to make an impact as MPs with local civic society. Surely we should keep that.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Coterminosity is favourable.

Given that, as a point of principle, Labour is opposed to decoupling and the Tories to PR, one way to achieve consensus might be to re-adjust the National Assembly boundaries to be coterminous with the new Westminster boundaries. Such a reform would have the added benefit of being more proportional. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

15:23

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment briefly on one or two of the issues that have come up in the debate, which has revealed the fragile nature of our discussions about democratic arrangements.

It is a mistake for proportions and figures during a general election to be the only issues that determine the size of constituencies or which constituencies are represented. In the House, we are referred to by our constituencies rather than by our personal names, and that reflects the fact that we are accountable to an identifiable constituency of people; that is where the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), in making the case for single transferable vote or another proportional system, misses the point. He made a powerful case, with which I agree, about the different countries of the UK being represented disproportionately to reflect another element in democratic accountability. That is something that we ignore at our peril.

If we look merely at arithmetic and not at accountability, we will end up with the sort of situation that we have in the European elections. MEPs already represented large constituencies—the size of something in the order of seven or eight Westminster constituencies—and they now represent people in the whole of Wales. By and large, following an election, more or less the same people are returned—albeit in a different order, so someone is higher up the list—and the situation is the same with the regional lists for the Welsh Assembly.

It is important to look at the relationship between MPs and AMs. One or two hon. Members have touched on that point. During the first period of the Assembly, my AM, who stood down at the last election, was an incredibly close colleague because we served and were accountable to the same constituency; my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) made that point. As we have seen in Wales, it is difficult enough to ensure that the relationship between AMs and MPs is adequate, strong and effective, because many of our constituents do not know who has which responsibility—they are not terribly interested; they just want a response. An MP and an AM working together can give very powerful representation in this place, and that is extremely important.

Accountability is an important part of democracy. Democracy cannot be served only by artificially constraining the number of electors. Of course there needs to be proportionality and a system needs to be as sensible as possible and as near to a norm as is practical, but it also needs to respect the nature of communities and democracy. In the reorganisation of local government in 1973, the legislation referred to an important principle, which was the starting point for building up the wards that councillors represented. It was to look at how people identify themselves and within what community, and to identify the wards and councils only as an aggregation of the communities that the local people identified. That principle should apply in constituency representation too, but by and large it will go out of the window as the new constituencies are identified and developed for new parliamentary representation.

On how to deal with the number of AMs, I argued for a different arrangement from the one that the then Secretary of State, Ron Davies, brought forward, which he had argued for in opposition. That system was the one that we have—of 30 Members and top-up regional arrangements. The disadvantage is that, in elections, more or less the same people are likely to be returned in more or less the same order.

[Guto Bebb]

Is not the real issue with the list system the fact that it is a closed list? At the recent Assembly elections, electors in Wales could not even choose a name from the list, but simply voted for a party. That is a dereliction of democracy.

[Alun Michael]

The alternative to that, which would also be simpler, would be regional lists by party; how people voted in constituencies would determine who was elected. People are very confused about having to vote a second time and they are not sure what they are voting for, although the hon. Gentleman will have been pleased to note that they overwhelmingly voted for the Labour party across Wales.

I suggested a system of two Members per Westminster constituency elected by alternative vote, which would have given roughly the same degree of proportionality as we have now, but retained the accountability to a constituency. I hope that we do not lose that accountability for Wales, that a method is found of ensuring that the Assembly has the appropriate number of Members and that we do not lose for ever—even if we do lose it for a short period—the coterminosity between Assembly and Westminster constituencies. It is a strength of the system that I want retained and, if we lose it for a period, I want it to return as quickly as possible.

15:29

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Davies, for calling me. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time.

I will start by saying that it is slightly unusual for me to speak on the Front Bench today, as I am following the precedent of the Minister when he was in my shoes, as it were, in Opposition. Like me, he was a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee in Opposition. It is the Committee’s report that we are debating today and therefore I can say to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), who is the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, that I add my support for the way that he chairs the Committee generally and particularly for the way that he chaired it while this report was being produced. He brought us to a point of considerable agreement across all parties and today he elucidated very well the arguments that we had during the weeks that we debated the Bill. I was less certain about the transformation that he underwent during his speech into a shop steward for MPs from all parties. I certainly will not go so far as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) in putting the hon. Gentleman’s commendations on my election literature. Nevertheless, the way in which he spoke up for MPs today is very welcome.

The Bill represents what the Committee referred to as a “profound change” to the constitution of the UK Parliament and particularly in respect of Wales, and we have heard that spelled out in different ways by different Members today. Reasonable Members of Parliament cannot argue with that conclusion, because any change that diminishes by fully 25% at a stroke the political representation of a country is a profound change. Any change that breaks a parliamentary protocol in respect of the representation of one country in a Parliament that has been established for almost 200 years—as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), that protocol was established in the Great Reform Act of 1832—is a profound change. That protocol established an over-representation, if you like, for Wales, but it is an over-representation that is designed to reflect the asymmetrical nature of the Union that we have between Wales, Scotland and England, and to offer some protection and insurance that the junior partner in that Union—that is, Wales—does not have its voice drowned out by the leviathan—that is, England —on its border. I believe that the changes that we are discussing potentially threaten the Union, and any such change is absolutely a profound change.

One of the great disappointments for the Opposition during the all-too-hasty passage of the Bill was the seeming inability of the Government to acknowledge the arguments that many people from across the House—on the Tory side as well as on the Opposition side—were making. For the Opposition’s part, I feel that we acknowledged that there is an important argument to be made about equality and fairness in representation being observed and implemented, to the extent that that is possible in representation between different constituencies. We acknowledged that that is an important and long-standing priority.

However, that is not the only consideration or priority that ought to have been considered by the House. It was profoundly disappointing that the Government singularly refused to acknowledge that there might be other considerations, and I suspect that we will hear something similar in a moment from the Minister. The principal one among those other considerations is the importance of giving insulation and protection to the junior partner in this asymmetrical union that we have, and the corresponding danger of changing that balance and the voice of Wales being singularly diminished in Westminster.

The Committee’s report was quite prescient in giving warnings about those dangers. We have heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) that it was prescient in its warning that the changes being proposed could lead to a diminution of trust in politics. The Government told us that the rationale for pursuing the Bill was, in many respects, to try to rebuild trust in politics, which we all accept has been damaged in recent years. However, the Opposition fail to see how removing politicians further from the electorate and increasing the gap between electors and elected will help to rebuild trust. If anything, a rational observation is that it is likely to do the reverse and increase people’s mistrust in politics, especially when people look at these changes and understand—as we in the Opposition understand—that they are motivated by a partisan rationale.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and my right hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and for Torfaen, who are both former Secretaries of State for Wales, and indeed other Members have already discussed the next point that I want to make; in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen spoke with great power about it. It is that we are deeply concerned about the impact that this change will have on the Union.

Nationalist politicians, with their variable success at the recent election, are undoubtedly emboldened in some respects by the change that is being proposed. For all that we hear the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr talk about the importance of representation in this place, I think that nationalist politicians are emboldened by the extent to which the Bill and some of the other things that we have discussed today are putting the debate about the Union at the top of the agenda. The Bill and the other issues that we have debated are throwing into question the constitutional settlement that we have understood for the last 200 years—indeed 300 years—and challenging us to think about what we mean by the future of devolution, how Wales is to be represented and what balance is to be struck in the light of devolution.

I agreed with the Minister when he said in an intervention that perhaps we had not fully thought through the implications of devolution. We now need to do that and to think holistically about all these issues instead of doing what I fear is precisely the Government’s intention, which is to look at them piecemeal and for party advantage.

I share the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen that, for all the Prime Minister’s avowed intention to fight with every fibre of his being for the Union, we are hearing far too much from Conservative Back Benchers who are resentful of Wales. They are resentful of the different decisions that are being made in Wales and of what they perceive to be the parts of the UK, including Wales, that are both politically hostile—they do not elect Conservative candidates—and economically dependent, which is the bit that really worries me. There is an ugly spirit at the back of those concerns that Wales is getting more than it is due and that Welsh needs are being over-accommodated, both in terms of political representation and the economy.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a worrying and increasing number of Conservative MPs who take the view that having separation of both Wales and Scotland from England would be a price worth paying to have a perpetual Conservative Government running England?

[Owen Smith]

I share some of the concern about that issue. I do not think that my hon. Friend is overstating the case, because we have heard far too many noises off from Conservative MPs that lead us to fear that many of them think that breaking up the Union would be a price worth paying. I certainly do not share that view and I do not think that any Opposition Members do either.

Another area that we have touched on today and that the Committee’s report was again prescient about is the impact on the National Assembly of the changes that are being proposed. During the passage of the Bill, we were repeatedly told that breaking the link between elections in constituencies in Wales for the National Assembly and elections for Westminster effectively meant that the National Assembly would be unaffected by the Bill. However, it is only a couple of short weeks since the Bill’s passage and already we have heard the Secretary of State for Wales, in response to a question put by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr in Welsh questions last week, entertain the notion that a Calman-style commission in Wales might look beyond financial matters and indeed might look at the nature of the elections to the National Assembly and the make-up of the electoral districts for the National Assembly. That is worrying. It is looking like another broken promise from the Government if we are now going to see the National Assembly being so directly impacted by the Bill.

I ask the Minister to try to clarify today what was implied by the Secretary of State’s response to the hon. Gentleman’s question last week. If the Minister is unable to tell us exactly what that commission is going to look at, can he at least tell us whether it will look at alternatives to the current voting system? The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr slightly misrepresented me when he said that in our discussions last week I said that we had to stick pretty much with what we have got. I did not say that. What I said was that we certainly should not shift instantly if we are to consider these matters through 30 list members and 30 first-past-the-post members. The rejection of the alternative vote last week raises the question of whether we ought to look more seriously at first past the post and I think that there is an opportunity for us to put other alternatives on the table, such as having 60 members, two per constituency, in a first-past-the-post system. There might be a significant amount of agreement across the House for that as an alternative system.

[Paul Murphy]

My hon. Friend knows that I entirely agree with him on that issue. I hope, however, that he, and the House, understand that any substantial constitutional changes to what the people voted for in 1997 would require not just huge consensus but a referendum. I hope that the Minister will indicate that understanding in his response.

[Owen Smith]

That point is very well made, and I look to the Minister to clarify it. We would certainly hope to see it clarified under any possible Calman-style commission.

My final point is a reflection of some of the remarks made earlier. The contrast between the 2011 Act and the constitutional changes that it portends and the House of Lords draft Bill that we saw only this week could not be starker: pre-legislative scrutiny, the establishment of an independent commission, a Joint Committee, a draft Bill—a serious look at what will be a dramatic, radical and historic change to the governance of our country.

No less historic a change for Wales was the announcement, dealt with in eight scant days on the Floor of the House, of a quarter reduction in the number of MPs from Wales. That measure was railroaded through for what I fear were squalid, partisan and political reasons, and I am sure that the people outside this place will be concerned that the Government could apply a similarly high-handed gerrymandering approach to the potential changes to the National Assembly electoral boundaries.

15:40

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

May I, too, say what a huge pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies? I join other Members who have commended the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to the Committee’s work. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) pointed out, I was a member of the Committee throughout the previous Parliament. I know how important it is in scrutinising the role not only of the Wales Office but of other Whitehall Departments whose work touches on Wales.

The debate today is about the Select Committee’s report on the implications for Wales of the Government’s constitutional reform proposals. I suggest that it is something of an after-the-event debate—considerably after the event; the report was, of course, published as long ago as October last year, the Government’s reply was issued in January, and the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which was the focus of the report, was enacted some three months ago.

Nevertheless, it is useful to have the debate, if only to point out that some of the concerns highlighted in the report, such as the fact that holding a referendum and an Assembly election on the same day would be extremely challenging, have proven to be unfounded. In fact, I think that everyone agrees that both those exercises in democracy were completed without undue difficulty.

[Jessica Morden]

It is true that the sky did not fall in, but it is also true that the jury is out on how the election was administrated. Election officers have told me that there was a great deal of confusion. In my area, for instance, there was an 80% turnout of postal votes for the first referendum and a 70% turnout for the second one, and that was seen as being due, in part, to confusion. Does the Minister agree that we should look more closely at that, and learn lessons?

[Mr Jones]

We always need to learn the lessons of electoral processes, and it is anticipated that the Electoral Commission will issue its report on the conduct of the polls in July this year. As far as I can see, the exercise was carried out successfully and it proved wrong those who anticipated that the people of Wales would not, like a well-known American President, be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Jessica Morden]

The referendum part of the election was run by the Electoral Commission, so that body is conducting a review of its own administration of the election. Is that the right way forward?

[Mr Jones]

I would be very reluctant to call into question the integrity of the Electoral Commission. It is the right body to report on electoral processes in this country.

[Paul Murphy]

The 2011 Act provided for the referendum to be held on the same day as elections for the Welsh Assembly and for local government in England. Does the Minister think that the Deputy Prime Minister now believes that that was such a good idea after all?

[Mr Jones]

I would be very loth to second-guess anything that the Deputy Prime Minister might think.

The focus of the Select Committee report was the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which is now an Act. I reiterate the point that was made throughout the Bill’s passage through Parliament: the principal thrust of the provision is to ensure fairness in our electoral system. I have heard what Opposition Members have had to say about that, but it is inherently unfair that the vote of an elector in one part of this country should carry greater weight—in some cases, much greater weight—than that of an elector in another part of the country.

The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) made the point that he has made on previous occasions—that the so-called Welsh vote has to be protected. I very much share the view of Professor Richard Wyn Jones, a very distinguished academic whom I know, who says that this situation is something that has grown up over the years. In evidence to the Select Committee, he made the interesting point that in 1543, when Welsh Members of Parliament were first admitted to this place, the population of Wales was approximately 7% of the combined population of England and Wales and Welsh representation in terms of Members of Parliament was also approximately 7%. He said that there

“wasn’t any kind of formational deal that Wales should be over-represented”.

He added that since then there had been a “drift” in Welsh representation in this place. He went on to make the fair point that in the scheme of things, it is hard to see how a reduction from 6% to 5% of MPs could make that much difference to Welsh representation here, particularly when it is borne in mind that the overall number of Members of Parliament will be reduced from 650 to 600.

Another important point that he made, and which I put to the right hon. Member for Torfaen during his contribution, is that Welsh Members of Parliament hardly behave as a bloc. I heard what the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) had to say about the Welsh parliamentary party, but I have to say in all frankness that at that party’s most recent meeting, representation by Conservative Members was rather light, underlining the fact that Welsh Members of Parliament do not behave as some sort of single coherent body.

[Alun Michael]

I really do not understand why the Minister makes that point, as it suggests an element of disengagement on the part of some Conservative MPs. At that meeting, one of the Minister’s hon. Friends made a very constructive intervention, commenting that the meeting had been more constructive and consensual than he had expected.

[Mr Jones]

The Member who made that point was the only Member of the Conservative parliamentary party at the meeting—[Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman is disappointed that more Conservative Members of Parliament did not attend, but that underlines the fact that party politics, across the political divide, prevail just as much in Wales as in the rest of the country.

[Paul Murphy]

The Minister quotes Professor Wyn Jones all the time, but he fails to remember that Speaker’s Conference after Speaker’s Conference indicated that there were special circumstances to ensure proper representation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom Parliament. Why does he think, for example, that there are separate boundary commissions for Scotland and Wales? They are separate countries in separate circumstances. I think that the professor is on his own on this one.

[Mr Jones]

He is not, because I happen to agree with him, which is precisely why I quote him so extensively.

We must return to the fundamental point: it is inherently and conspicuously unfair that a vote cast in Aberdeen, for example, may have a different weight from a vote cast in Aberystwyth. The Act proposes to introduce the element of fairness. Nevertheless, to a large extent—

[Paul Murphy]

Does the Minister not accept that for nearly 150 years, his party agreed with the point that I am making? The Conservatives agreed that not just Scotland and Wales but large rural areas should have proper representation. What has happened in the past year goes completely against what the Conservative and Unionist party has said for 150 to 200 years.

[Mr Jones]

It is fair to say that the Conservative party has evolved considerably over the past 150 years, as no doubt has the Labour movement in this country. If we were set in aspic, we would never make any progress.

As I said, the Act will introduce fairness into the system. I am conscious that the Chairman of the Select Committee will wind up this debate, but I feel that I must touch on one or two points made by various right hon. and hon. Members, who I hope will forgive me if I do not mention them by name. One important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth related to individual voter registration. It is certainly vital that as many people as possible register to vote and are encouraged to do so. We feel that the move to individual registration is likely to increase the number of people on the register.

We are trialling data matching throughout this year in several areas, including Cardiff. We are comparing the electoral register with other public databases to find those who are eligible to vote but missing from the register. The aim is to tackle under-registration among specific groups.

[Nick Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, but this will be the last time.

[Nick Smith]

The Minister is right to emphasise the importance of promoting electoral registration. However, the registers for the coming parliamentary review will be based on the past year’s electoral registration numbers, gathered before the important pilots that he mentioned. If the Government delayed, considered electoral registration further and put resources into it, given the profound changes that we are seeing, surely that would lead to a better result, because more people would be registered and we could support more confidently the boundaries that we are debating.

[Mr Jones]

The trial will continue throughout this year. The pilots will enable us to see how effective the data matching is and which data sets are most useful in improving the accuracy of the register. The chair of the Electoral Commission said in her evidence to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform that introducing individual registration will enable the commission to create focused programmes to improve registration rates among specific communities. That is particularly important because, as the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said, some sections of the community are certainly under-represented, and we must make an all-out effort to get as many of those individuals on the register as possible.

[Nick Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

I am afraid not. I have been quite generous already.

The future of the Union was mentioned. It is big stuff for me to cover in the next two minutes.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

No, I am afraid not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

[Geraint Davies]

The issue is time.

[Mr Jones]

It is, I am afraid. I think that most of us in this Chamber—with the honourable, or possibly dishonourable, exception of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)— are Unionists, and we do not want the Union of this country damaged. Therefore, the West Lothian question must be addressed, and the Government are committed to doing so during this Parliament.

As the hon. Member for Pontypridd said when agreeing with something that I said earlier, perhaps we are doing things the wrong way round—perhaps the exercise should have taken place before devolution was instituted in this country—but the issue must be addressed. I can think of nothing that would do more to endanger the Union than to perpetuate a sense of grievance on the part of certain Members of this Parliament and certain large sections of this community about a perceived lack of fairness in how they are treated.

[Owen Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

I shall not, as I have little time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand. Over-representation is a problem, and introducing fairness is a good way to start to address it.

To conclude, this debate has been an interesting exercise—but essentially a historical one, as I said earlier. The Select Committee has published its report, but since then, the caravan has moved on. As I said earlier, the AV referendum was held with little difficulty, as far as we can establish, and we must now look to the future. The Boundary Commission’s exercise is continuing, and it will result in provisional proposals in September this year and a final report to the Secretary of State by October 2013.

The new parliamentary constituencies will be in place by the time of the next general election, and appropriate arrangements will be made for the next Assembly election in 2016. All proposals will be taken into consideration— the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr made an interesting suggestion, as did the hon. Member for Pontypridd—before Assembly constituencies are determined.

I reiterate that the fundamental issue addressed by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 is fairness.

[Nick Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

I regret that I will not. The constitutional reforms introduced by the Government will ensure that fairness is embedded in the system, which should be as welcome to the people of Wales as it is to the people of every other part of this United Kingdom.

15:57

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up. If you will forgive me, Mr Davies, I will skip the usual format of trying to sum up what everyone has just said.

The debate was about to get very interesting. There is an issue of fairness and of ensuring that all votes count, and the Committee accepted that in its report. What concerned us was the speed with which things were being done and the possible consequences of doing them so quickly while reducing the number of MPs; it would have been feasible to create equal constituencies without reducing the number of Members of Parliament.

It is not entirely fair to suggest that this is gerrymandering. It will certainly advantage the Conservative party, just as it advantaged the Labour party to keep the status quo for the last 15 years and to create a Welsh Assembly that was always likely to be dominated by the Labour party or a combination of left-wing parties. That has prevented Conservatives in Wales from enjoying a Conservative-run health service or education system, although it has not prevented Labour MPs from writing to English Ministers to tell them how the health service and education system in England should be run. That is bound to cause a grievance among English MPs.

I think that most of us here want to remain part of the Union. If we do, it behoves us to remember that we have responsibilities as well. We cannot simply go on pouring out comments about the English doing this or that, constantly ragging the English nation and sending Members of Parliament over to vote and speak on issues that are decided entirely differently in Wales without expecting some reaction. There will always be consequences.

The Union is a fragile thing. I welcome the fact that so many Members here, including me, share a commitment to it and work in an honest and open way, but some Members do not. They have a right to a different point of view, but I think that all of us want England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to work closely together, and I take some comfort in that.

Severn Crossings Toll

Thursday 19th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2010-2011, HC 506, and the Government response, HC 837.]

15:59

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

Everyone seems to be leaving the Chamber, which is sad because very few issues cause more rows in pubs and constituency surgeries in south Wales than the Severn bridge. You might expect me to declare an interest at this point, Mr Davies, but one of the bits of pub trivia that came out of our inquiry is that I do not need to do so, because neither of the Severn bridges starts or ends in my constituency. One ends in the constituency of Newport East, and the old Severn bridge starts and ends entirely in England before joining the Wye bridge. It would, therefore, be difficult for some of the Members who have left the Chamber to demand that the old Severn bridge be partly administered by the Welsh Assembly Government in Wales, because it does not actually come into Wales at all.

The issue for all of us is the price. It has confounded us in constituency surgeries throughout south Wales and the M4 corridor. It is worth setting out some of the background. The second Severn crossing was built by a consortium of four companies, which became Severn River Crossing. Not only did they build the second Severn crossing, but they took on the debt of the old bridge, which amounted to about £450 million. The deal was that they could collect just under £1 billion, which was linked to inflation, and that, once that money had been collected, the bridge would revert to public ownership. At present, that is expected to happen in around 2017.

It became clear to us during the course of our inquiry that, no matter how angry we might get over the level of the tolls and no matter what impact we might think it has on the economy, there is very little that any of us, including the Minister, can do about it. This is a matter not of the Minister deciding what he wants to set the toll at for any given year, but of straightforward contract law that would be backed up by the courts. The deal was struck in 1992 between the then Government and private companies, and there is no flexibility in it whatsoever.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Was the hon. Gentleman as surprised as I was to see the Welsh Conservatives pledge during the Assembly elections to freeze the tolls immediately?

[David T. C. Davies]

I must admit that that was a surprise to me. It would, of course, have been feasible to do it, but a Conservative Government in the Welsh Assembly—which was, sadly, not to be—would have had to pay back all the money to Severn River Crossing. That would have been a significant amount of money. I am not sure whether the policy applied to heavy goods vehicles—I believe that it applied just to cars—but it would still have been significant. The point is that SRC could not simply have been told to freeze the tolls without compensation being paid, because its shareholders would have had every right to take the Welsh Assembly Government to court. There would have been some practical difficulties in implementing that policy, because I presume that it would have been up to the Welsh Assembly Government to negotiate the rate directly with SRC. I am not sure how far down the line the negotiations went. It would have been feasible, but it would have been a challenging proposition. Sadly, it will not come to pass, because of the efforts of the hon. Lady’s party.

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

The point is that the Welsh Assembly Government had no locus or power to set anything. These things are set by the UK Parliament, which cannot be changed now. Surely the Government can announce, however, not that we can change the toll now, but that in 2017 the toll will go down to £1. If they did that, it would trigger inward investment now, not then, because people would plan for the future. They could establish their business now in south Wales, so that after 2017 their costs would go down. That is what the Government should do.

[David T. C. Davies]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman has anticipated some of my comments.

Before I turn to 2017, we should have a quick discussion about the impact on the economy. There is, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, mixed evidence about this. There is no hard evidence that the current level of the tolls is having a detrimental impact on the economy. Let me quickly add, however, that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, which most of us would accept, particularly in relation to areas such as haulage and tourism. I worked extensively in the haulage industry and the situation is not all bad, because a haulage company in Wales competing for business that is local to south Wales has an advantage over an English company in Avonmouth, which would find it harder to compete. Similarly, shopkeepers in towns such as Chepstow might be concerned that, if we got rid of the Severn bridge tolls, it would lead to even more people crossing over and going to Cribbs Causeway, when the current numbers are already causing a problem.

Having said all that, I think that there is an impact on the economy. I do not think that it is as bad as some people have suggested, but there is a negative impact. To give some evidence for that, I remind Members that the previous Government froze the Humber crossing tolls because they felt that the level of those tolls would have made the impact of the economic downturn worse. It is sad that, having decided to do that on the Humber, the previous Government did not feel that they could make the same commitment to the River Severn. If any Opposition Members want to tell me why Wales was discriminated against in that fashion, I would be more than happy to hear their comments.

What we need is hard evidence so that we can put a proposal for 2017 to the Government. I welcome the fact that the Welsh Assembly Government, who do wonderful things on occasions—they are not all bad; like all things, they have advantages as well as disadvantages—are conducting an in-depth assessment of the impact of the current level of tolls on the economy. They will hope to get evidence from the Department for Transport. It was our strong recommendation that the DFT work with the Welsh Assembly Government on this and offer them every assistance and co-operation, and I very much hope that it does.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has said that the Labour Government did not act on these issues. He might not remember this—it was a long time ago—but 20 years ago I served in the Committee that considered the Severn Bridges Act 1992. The Welsh Affairs Committee report says that the deal that was struck in 1991 was a poor one. One of the reasons why was that it could not easily be changed. That, as much as anything else, is the real reason why we are in the situation we are in today.

[David T. C. Davies]

The right hon. Gentleman has far more knowledge of what happened in 1991 than I do. However, if we had asked for a more advantageous and flexible Bill from our point of view, I presume that SRC would have asked for more than £1 billion. I was not party to the negotiations, but I imagine that it would not have simply rolled over and given way that easily—I do not know. What I know is that it is all up for grabs after 2017 or thereabouts. It is important, first of all, that we have hard evidence about the impact on the local area.

The hon. Member for Swansea East—

[Geraint Davies]

West. We have not had the boundary changed yet.

[David T. C. Davies]

I apologise. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) made a point about the potential level of the toll after 2017. I think that he will agree that it was a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and I am sure that it can be corrected. I shall address the figures to which he has alluded. The current annual revenue from all the tolls is about £76 million a year. The current cost of maintaining the bridge is £15 million. I estimate, therefore—this is purely a back-of-the-envelope calculation—that it would be feasible to levy the toll at about £1.50 and still be able to maintain both bridges. Obviously, there may be other factors that the Welsh Affairs Committee has not been made aware of.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David T. C. Davies]

I suspect that the Minister is going to make me aware of a few of those factors. I accept that we may want to put money aside for a future bridge or for future major works to be carried out on one of the bridges. I invite the Minister to confirm, however, that it would be possible to set the toll at a significantly lower level than its current one and still be able to maintain both bridges in good working order.

[Mike Penning]

I do not want to pre-empt in anyway my later comments, but my hon. Friend may notice that I am not a Treasury Minister. Treasury Ministers do not do things on the back of a fag packet. Whatever we do must be evidence based and correctly calculated all the way through. We are not going to rule anything out or anything in. It will be very much a Treasury matter, as well as one for the Department for Transport.

[David T. C. Davies]

I appreciate that clarification. However, we are about five or six years away at most from the estimated date of handover. By that time, I would expect people in the Minister’s Department or the Treasury to be thinking about what we will do next. I understand that the current plan for the next five years after 2017 is that the tolls will continue at the current level in real terms and that the money will be set aside for a sinking fund.

To date, no one has even talked to SRC about who is going to man the toll booths or do the maintenance. It surprises us that more work has not taken place and that there is not greater clarity about what is going to happen. Certainly, at some point, the bridge will be in public ownership, both bridges will be paid for and a large profit will be being made by someone. However, it is not being made at the moment and, in fact, the evidence suggests that SRC will not make that big a profit. SRC’s shareholders are not a load of people in top hats somewhere in the City of London; they are anyone who happens to have a private sector pension. We often forget that when we talk disparagingly about shareholders.

At some point in the next 10 years, a large sum of money will be being made from what is basically a tax on the people of south Wales and the west country of England, which is not acceptable. We have a right to know what is going to happen and to absolute transparency, so that when the bridge becomes the Government’s property, we can open the books and see how much is being used to maintain both bridges and how much is simply going back into Government coffers. We could then put aside some money for future works.

I want to squash a couple of myths that are prevalent in the pubs of Monmouthshire and possibly elsewhere. The first myth is that the whole thing is owned by the French Government and that the money will all go back to France. I do not know where that came from, but it is obviously completely incorrect. The second myth that has persistently dogged us over the past few years in Monmouthshire is that the old Severn crossing is falling down and at some point will be closed. We have found absolutely no evidence for that either, and we are assured that that is not the case.

We look forward to finding out a little more about what will happen on the happy day when the bridge goes back into public ownership and ceases to be paid for. We also look forward to a day when the tolls can perhaps be set at a level that is fair, that enables the taxpayer not to lose out because the bridges will be maintained and that is beneficial to all of us who live and work in south Wales.

16:09

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

It is good to see the Minister here to respond to the debate. I thought that his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee was frank and that he seemed very engaged in the matter. As someone who has been talking about the Severn bridges for some time, I appreciate that.

Like the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), I obviously have a strong constituency interest in sorting out the issues surrounding the Severn bridges. I commend the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he chairs the Welsh Affairs Committee and for deciding that this should be one of the first inquiries following the election. The evidence that the Committee has received backs up what I have heard from my constituents for many years, which is that the crossings are too expensive, inflexible and inconvenient.

As I said in a Westminster Hall debate last year, until very recently people could not pay by credit or debit card, and they cannot pay online or travel off peak. There are no concessions for people who live locally. Yet the tolls continue to rise year on year, even though the service is outdated. I do not apologise for raising the matter again because, although Severn River Crossing has a responsibility to its shareholders—as has been mentioned—I feel a responsibility to my constituents, who are the customers. I would like Severn River Crossing to pay a little more attention to the customers.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), on covering the topic, which is certainly important to my constituents. I want to take up my hon. Friend’s point about a permanent system not yet being in place for credit card payments. It seems mad that, in 2011, there is not yet a permanent system in place for people to pay their toll with a credit card. That is absolutely bonkers. If someone goes to the bridge on a Friday evening, there are massive queues. Often people arrive there and they do not have enough cash. That has happened to me on my way home. I have not had enough cash and I had to get off at the service station beforehand to get some. Getting cash in that way can cost money, as people might have to use one of those machines that charge. Would it not be much easier if commuters, hauliers and others could use a credit card easily to cross the Severn bridge?

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask for interventions to be brief.

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is no permanent solution to that at the moment. I travelled over the bridge last Thursday night, and although I believe that a temporary measure is in place, there is still no permanent fixture. I am sure the Minister will correct me later if I am wrong on that. I will move on to that issue later.

The Committee heard anecdotal evidence about the economic impact of the tolls on businesses and commuters, and it welcomed the Welsh Assembly’s commissioning an assessment of the economic impact of the bridge’s operation. The Government response refers to new business investment in Wales. I want to add my own anecdotal evidence. Haulage companies in my constituency, and I suspect in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), are being severely impacted by the tolls, as the charge is not borne by companies just over the bridge. For example, Owens Road Services is a long-standing Welsh company with a base in Newport. It represents 1% of the total heavy goods vehicle traffic on the crossing and pays £200,000 a year. Toll increases keep coming off its bottom line. The Welsh logistics industry is paying a charge that is not paid by competitors in England. I speak weekly to commuters—for example, teachers—who travel to Bristol. They are suffering every day at a time when hours are being cut, wages frozen and fuel prices are high.

As the hon. Member for Monmouth has said, what came out loud and clear from the Committee’s inquiry is that the contract negotiated with Severn River Crossing is very restrictive and that the Secretary of State’s powers are constrained by that. However, where there’s a will, there’s a way. I still want the Government to pursue the issue of a toll freeze. I took the Minister at his word when he said it is difficult, although as we referred to earlier, there are people in his party who see the matter slightly differently.

On 6 April, which was just a few weeks after the Minister gave evidence to us, during the Assembly elections, the Welsh Conservatives pledged that

“a Conservative Assembly Government will freeze Severn Bridge Tolls cars at their current level. The freeze will be brought in immediately.”

As an aside, there was no mention of business vehicles, which has not gone down particularly well. I am genuinely bemused by that. Has the Minister committed to doing that or do the Welsh Conservatives just not know that the bridges are not devolved and that there are contract limitations? I would be grateful for an answer on that later.

[David T. C. Davies]

Presumably, if the hon. Lady and I were fortunate enough to win the lottery, we could ask Jim Clune if we could pay for everyone to have a toll freeze. Although the matter is not devolved, there would have been nothing to stop the Welsh Conservatives doing that had they formed a Government. Sadly, they did not, but maybe next time.

[Jessica Morden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Apparently the Assembly would have had to pay £29 million to Severn River Crossing. I am loth to take him up on his offer to commit to paying that if we win the lottery, just in case.

I would like the tolls to be frozen and greatly reduced when the bridges come back into public ownership in 2017. I fully support the Committee’s assertion that the toll could be reduced to a fifth of its current level to approximately £1.50, while allowing the crossings to remain self-financing. We recommend that the Government should seek to reduce the level of the toll at the earliest opportunity.

In the meantime, I want the Minister to address some of my parochial concerns. On car sharing, commuters who share a car cannot share the TAG. I was under the impression that that issue had been sorted out some years ago and dealt with by Severn River Crossing. However, it appears that it has not. Will the Minister please pursue that with the company in the interests of cutting congestion? We are urging people to car share, so we ought to be making it easier.

On off-peak tariffs for business, one issue that businesses have always raised with me, which is an extremely good point, is more flexible pricing. Effectively, off-peak travel for business would offer incentives to travel at certain times of the day and night. That would reduce congestion, save emissions and help companies at a time when they are struggling.

May I also ask the Government at some stage to examine the issue of a reduction in tolls for people who live locally? As someone said earlier, maybe that could be done on a postcode basis. Such a scheme has been introduced on the Dartford crossing. I believe that it is easier to do that on the Humber and Dartford crossings, as they have no concession. I am sure that the Minister will put me right on that if I am wrong, but in the longer term, could we look at doing that in Wales?

On the thorny issue of modern technology, I believe that one of the witnesses, who gave evidence to the Committee referred to not being able to pay by modern methods as a “mild national embarrassment”. That the issue was shown on “Gavin & Stacey” has been well-reported. I am glad that the temporary system is in place, although I believe that the permanent machines have not been installed yet. The company pledged to the Committee to do that within the first quarter of this year, so I would be most grateful for an update on progress.

Given the long, painful years it has taken to get to the stage of being able to pay by credit and debit cards, which appeared to be a fairly simply issue, may I urge the Minister to get to grips with the future of the bridge post-2017, as the hon. Member for Monmouth has mentioned? The Government response to the Committee’s report states:

“it is too early to be setting a future strategy for the Severn Crossings at this stage, including future toll prices and concessions.”

With the current Parliament due to expire in 2015, this is not an issue that can be left until another election, because businesses and commuters in my constituency need certainty.

I welcome the Department’s commitment in the Government response to provide regular updates to everybody on future strategy. I also thank members of the Committee, as one of the local MPs, for the time that they have spent on this issue. It has been a valuable exercise in providing fresh impetus to sorting out the future of the bridges.

16:22

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies. I want to say just a few words about the importance of the Severn toll crossing. At this point, I should probably declare an interest. I seem to have used the Severn bridge crossing more in the past year in order to visit my daughter in Cardiff than I ever did in the 18 years I lived in Wales.

We have seen inward investment to Wales decrease massively in the past 20 years. In the late ’70s and early ’80s, 20% of the UK’s foreign investment was in Wales. That figure is now just 6%, which makes it crucial that we make Wales a competitive place to do business. We all recognise that the only way that the second toll crossing was ever going to be built was with private finance, and that the company running it needed to make a profit for its shareholders. We will, however, in the not too distant future, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) said, see it return to Government hands. We will then have an opportunity to help businesses out.

I hope that the Minister is listening and will take note of some of the points raised in the debate, and in the report from the Select Committee, of which I am a member. We all understand the dire financial situation that this country is in, but to enable Wales to attract its fair share of investment we have to ensure it is on a level playing field with the rest of the country. I know there are discounts to be had from the south and London, but the only realistic way into Cardiff in a car is to pay the £5.70. Otherwise one has to go miles out of one’s way, incurring extra fuel charges, and we all know how costly that is. Not only are our visitors paying more, but they are less likely to visit some parts of the country than others. We must make sure that money coming into Wales is as evenly distributed as possible.

Also important, of course, is the part that tourism plays in attracting people into Wales. As hon. Members have mentioned, many of us remember watching the television programme “Gavin & Stacey” when Smithy is trying get across the Severn toll crossing and cannot find the right money. That programme has, of course, made Barry Island famous. I have to confess that on my last visit to Cardiff I ventured down to have a look around and have a go on the slot machines. Seriously though, we need to do all we can to boost tourism and attract more visitors to stimulate the economy wherever we can.

As the Prime Minister said at Question Time on Wednesday, we are part of a United Kingdom and every part of it matters. I also urge Severn River Crossing to look again at fitting the toll with the latest technology to enable it to collect the money. Near my constituency of Redditch, the M42 is fitted with that technology, which is so much easier and more efficient. In conclusion, I suggest that the Minister continues his good work and pushes for a deal that will benefit both business and tourism alike, and for a fairer Severn toll crossing.

16:24

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

I would like to make a few quick comments before my voice breaks again. The importance of the report, as I have already suggested, concerns inward investment and prosperity for Wales. The simple fact is that if we want to attract inward investment into Wales, multinational companies in particular need to be able to assess, years in advance, the likely costs they will face in networking European markets. I urge the Government to make their intentions clear, so that that can be done.

I share the view of the Welsh Affairs Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). We should aim to minimise the toll, subject to operational and maintenance costs, and look again at off-peak fares in terms of traffic management and the balance between car and van traffic and larger trucks—the balance between inward investment and trade versus tourism. That is not easy, but we should make a general statement of intent now. We want to see a substantial reduction in a tax on trade and inward investment into Wales. I respect the point made by the Minister from a sedentary position asking why Labour did not do that. If that was a mistake, then that is a reason not to repeat it.

As we approach 2017, it becomes more and more important that we make those signals—generally at first, and then specifically down the road. The Welsh Affairs Committee is focusing strongly on the various parts of inward investment—visiting Germany and so on. The crossing is a crucial artery for investment into Wales. The electrification of the railways is also crucial. People will know that I have stood up for the electrification of the railways from Cardiff to Swansea, as well as to Cardiff. The railway line and the road are the two main axes for getting trade into Wales.

The point was made that there is some uncertainty about the economic impact. The Welsh Assembly is supposed to be doing an assessment of that. The fundamental economic analysis is obviously that this is clearly a tax on trade and inward investment. Taking on board what the Chair of the Committee said, it works both ways. The fact is, however, that it is not worth it for people in Newport to pop over to Bristol to do some building work there, because of the toll. The toll impedes the development of ambitious small businesses. A company opening its headquarters will look at the marketplace. Clearly, more people live on the English side of the River Severn than on the other side. In terms of cost-management, they are better off locating on the English side. That stands to economic reason, so there is a dramatic impact.

I was disappointed by the evidence we heard from Ieuan Wyn Jones. He was meant to be in charge of economic development for Wales, but happily he is not any more. He seemed to have the idea that some of the reduction in price, which should go to motorists, inward investors, and the traffic of people and products, should be taxed away and spent on other pet projects in Aberystwyth, or wherever. That misses the point that the fundamental driver of the Welsh economy is trade.

As it happens, my father used to be in charge of economic development in the Wales Office some time ago. There was an analysis at the time to show that Wales is not just one great economy. Essentially, it is two economies—south Wales with the south-west, and north Wales with Liverpool. A moment’s thought would lead us to that conclusion. The study made clear the interdependence of the south-west and south Wales. Therefore, having a brake or a tax on that relationship harms both economies. We know from the first principles of economics that trade is beneficial, so it is not a good idea to say, “Separate these two and they won’t have to compete with each other.” Trade is mutually beneficial. Again, I urge the Minister to encourage the Treasury to signal the direction of travel and to give us greater clarity.

In places such as Swansea, which I represent, we have the enormous growth of the university as a research and development, technologically driven entity with global reach and attraction. Companies such as Tata Steel, Rolls-Royce and now Boots the Chemist have moved their research and development to Swansea, and they are looking to develop products with a global reach. Part of that is being able to link to European networks and beyond, and part is the cost of moving products and people between Wales and England and beyond.

The issue is not a minor one, with people who happen to live in Cardiff getting annoyed; it is about our strategic position on inward investment and the development of the Welsh economy, which is so important for all of us. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

16:30

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Davies—I have just realised that one third of the Members in the Chamber are called Davies.

The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and I ought to form a Gwent national party because I agreed entirely with everything he said when opening the debate. Again, the Select Committee is to be commended on its work. Interestingly, in our earlier debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales said that it is quite rare for Members from Wales to get together and agree on everything but, within minutes, we have an example of doing precisely that. We agreed on the importance of the bridge—we welcomed the building of the second Severn crossing in the early ’90s—and on what is likely to happen in 2017, when the concession runs out and the Government take over the running of the two bridges.

I remember the first bridge being opened and I also, as I said in an intervention, led jointly for the Opposition on the Severn Bridges Bill in 1991—so long ago, in fact, that half the membership of the Bill Committee is dead and the other half, except for me, is in the House of Lords. It was interesting reading the debate because, although we agreed with the building of the second Severn crossing, which was absolutely necessary, there were concerns about the nature of the deal and of the concession. I am glad that the Select Committee referred to that in its report:

“Our inquiry demonstrates the inflexibility contained in the Severn Bridges Act 1992 and the concession agreement between the Government and Severn River Crossing Plc. This has made it difficult for the Government to respond to the current economic climate and freeze the toll”—

whether the Government of which I was a member or the present Government, because both would find it difficult to change the intricate concession and deal agreed 20-odd years ago, and we must look to the future on that.

I agreed very much with my hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on how new technology has not been introduced on the bridge that I will cross in five hours’ time. All of us who travel to Europe, France in particular, and to other countries have seen the most sophisticated technology—number plate recognition or using credit cards and so on—but none of that has happened on our bridges into Wales. Frankly, that is a matter of public scandal. All Governments are to blame for not putting pressure on the company to ensure that.

The other issue that was raised in 1991 was that there ought, we believed, to be local inquiries every time the tolls were to be increased substantially. That proposal was defeated in Committee; it would have been a good idea, but it did not happen.

I read with great interest the Select Committee’s questioning of the top officials of Severn River Crossing plc. I entirely understood the questions posed by the Committee, especially those of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), but I failed to understand the answers—perhaps that was my fault—and the finances surrounding the end of the concession are as murky as the Severn itself. I do not know who, if anyone, will make a great deal of money in a few years’ time, but I do know that when we look at the figures, the running costs are £15 million a year and the income is £72 million a year. The debt is almost paid off and no new technology has been put in, so one wonders a little why those figures do not quite add up.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Does he agree that it was very strange that, during those deliberations, the company was unable to provide us with its likely profit at the end of the concessionary period?

[Paul Murphy]

It was amazing. I hope that this debate and any consequent Government policy might lead to discussions with Severn River Crossing plc so that we can get to the bottom of what, frankly, I could not understand.

An impact assessment has been started by the Welsh Assembly Government. There is now a new Executive in Cardiff—I believe that the Minister is Huw Lewis, but I might be wrong—and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), when he winds up our debate, agrees on the great need for collaboration between the Welsh Assembly Government, the Department for Transport and, if we can persuade it, Her Majesty’s Treasury. In a few years’ time, there will be a huge change in how the bridges are operated and financed, and we must start preparing now.

16:36

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

This, again, has been an interesting and worthwhile debate—certainly worth while from my perspective, not least because it gives me the opportunity to say that I, too, find it utterly inexplicable that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), the former Secretary of State for Wales, for Northern Ireland and for Wales again, is not in the other place. However, it is a delight for us to be able to enjoy his wisdom for a few more years in this House.

The Severn bridges are a hugely strategic part of the infrastructure of Wales. The Select Committee report was extremely timely because it addressed, as we have not seen addressed in the House, that question of their strategic importance. Furthermore, important post-2017 decisions, to which hon. Members referred earlier, beckon whichever Government are in power when the bridge comes into public ownership.

I hope that the Government learn from some of the things revealed by the report, which affords us an opportunity to be taught about how important infrastructural developments, such as the second Severn bridge, might be financed in future. That development came at the outset of the debate on private finance initiatives—very different PFI structures are put in place for infrastructure these days—but, clearly, lessons can be learned, in particular about the contractual nature of the agreement made between the Government and whoever is developing things.

The report gave us the opportunity to explore, although not really get to the bottom of, the economic impact of the bridge tolls on Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked at length about the inevitable economic consequence of what I think we all agree is a high toll, obliging people looking to trade and travel across the bridge to commit extra resources. That must, at some level, be an impediment to developing trade between Wales and England and to developing the Welsh economy.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The policy of the previous Welsh Government was to seek responsibility for the bridges at the end of the concessionary period. Can the hon. Gentleman inform the people of Wales what the policy of the new Welsh Government is? If the rhetoric of standing up for Wales is to be believed, surely gaining control over the main supply route into Wales would be a main objective.

[Owen Smith]

That is a question to be addressed to Carwyn Jones, the Welsh Labour First Minister in Cardiff. I am delighted that he will be in charge, because I shared some of the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West about the evidence that we heard from the man who was hitherto responsible for economic development—the leader of Plaid Cymru.

Having said that, I think it is important that we look to the Government—had the Labour Administration remained in power, we would also have done this—to forge a better understanding of and a joint interest in how the bridge is managed post-2017. I am sure that the Minister will reassure us that the Government will consider carefully how to ensure that the Assembly has a full role to play in that, because its interest is clearly considerable. On another matter, I hope to hear positive noises from the Minister that the Department for Transport will carefully consider the economic analysis that the Assembly is undertaking, so that we may better understand the impact that the bridge tolls have on trade, tourism and transport in Wales.

The report shed some light on some of the issues—particularly the murky economics of the bridge—but not as much as we would have liked, although it provided greater insight into how it was paid for initially, what the financial structures were, and how the company proposes to make money. It will hand the bridge back when it has taken £1 billion in revenue. The report did not give us total satisfaction in explaining the volume of profit that the company will make at the end of the day, and I agree that the opacity was deplorable. I hope that one of the lessons we learn is that future financial deals leading to the building of important pieces of infrastructure should be more transparent. Given the Minister’s candour when addressing the Committee, I am sure that he will agree.

We had a bit more clarity about ownership of the bridge. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) was correct in saying that the French have no interest in it, because I think they have a bit. More importantly, the Americans have a big interest, because the banks that ultimately sit at the back of ownership are, by and large, American. We have a bit more understanding about the concession agreement and its shortcomings. Lastly, we had significant insight into the reason for the prehistoric technology on the bridge, the principal reason being the concession agreement; into the lack of incentive for the company to invest—it would trim its profit; and into the Government’s inability to mandate the company to invest to move the technology into the 21st century.

I want to ask the Minister some questions about that. In his forthright evidence to the Committee, he referred to the technology, rather colourfully, as having to

“queue up in some kind of Soviet system”.

I agree entirely. He also, interestingly, hinted that he proposed to reopen negotiations with Severn River Crossing to explore how investment might take place in the period before the bridge becomes publicly owned, so that taxpayers are not entirely saddled with that bill. However, he acknowledged that if the company invested, the Government, under the terms of the contract, would have to compensate it up front for making the investment and incurring the loss.

I would like an update from the Minister, today if possible, on where those negotiations are and whether the Welsh people may expect changes and further improvements in the technology before 2017—or whether, as I fear, the public purse will end up bearing the cost of taking the bridge into the 21st century and thereafter. I encourage the Minister to be as robust with Severn River Crossing as he normally is in his exchanges in the House.

The Minister may be able to help us with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and the pledge that the Conservative party made at the election—to offset the cost of freezing the toll to the tune of £29 million in the unlikely event that they won the election in Wales. Thankfully, they did not, but many of us were surprised at the time that such a promise could be made. It prompts the question whether there were conversations between the Conservative-led Administration at Westminster and the Conservatives in Wales that allowed them to make that statement or whether, as he implied from a sedentary position earlier, the Minister knew nothing about it. Perhaps he will clarify that.

I suspect that the Minister did not know much about it. If he did, will he confirm that, irrespective of who won the election, the Assembly could not unilaterally have agreed to pay Severn River Crossing the money to make up the shortfall if it had broken the current contract to fix the toll increase annually, predicated on the retail prices index? Surely renegotiation would have been necessary between the Government at Westminster, who are one part of the contract, and Severn Severn Crossing. Perhaps the Minister will clarify how it would work if the current Assembly Administration wanted to pursue a similar policy. Would that be possible? Would the Government be open to that, or is it off the table?

As the Minister is here, I have a final and slightly cheeky point. I thank him on behalf of the people of Wales for the announcement of the U-turn on the coastguards. He is the Minister responsible for that, and it is welcome. I urge him to think again about the Driving Standards Agency and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Perhaps we could have some U-turns on those.

16:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in this ground-breaking debate. I wish I had been the first ground-breaker this afternoon, but the Under-Secretary of State for Wales got in first. It is a pleasure to be here, and to respond to the Select Committee’s genuinely excellent report. I had the honour and privilege to give evidence to it early in my time as a Minister.

When I looked at the history of Ministers in my Department, I wondered whether I would be here today. The average life expectancy of a Transport Minister is eight months, and I have been in the post for a year and a day. I am either doing something very wrong, or the Prime Minister has forgotten about me.

To be honest, I was pleased with the report in many ways, not least because it removed some of the myths to which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), the Committee Chairman, alluded. I will try as best I can to respond to the debate, instead of reading out a speech that was written for me, and I will do that as a Minister for the United Kingdom.

The two bridges are national assets, and owned by no one, except that the second one is temporarily owned by the company that was set up to facilitate it. The freehold land that it sits on is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport, and the toll booths in Wales are also his responsibility. The analogy is interesting. I have a map that shows the boundary between England and Wales. The original bridge is solely in England, and the new bridge, as it is still called, is predominantly on English soil and water.

That is unimportant, because the bridges are national assets, and I fully respect the concern of the Welsh community, particularly in south Wales, about the importance of the bridge and its efficient working. I also respect the concern about the contract that was entered into when I was still a fireman; most of us here, although not me, were very young in the early days of the private finance initiative, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth alluded. With hindsight, would we be in such a position today? Of course we would not, whether or not the previous Government were still in place.

As colleagues who know me are aware, I am not hugely party political. Nevertheless, I could not help thinking that we had 13 years of a Labour Government and although 2015 is approaching, we are only one year along from when the previous Administration were in place; the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) alluded to that point from a sedentary position. What work did the previous Administration do to bring in some of the technology that I will talk about in a moment, and what is going to happen at a later date, possibly in 2017? I will touch on some of those points in a moment, but the issue depends on the funding that the users put into the bridge as we go forward.

The Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee is a good friend of mine, but he alluded to a tax on Wales. In reality, it is a tax on anybody who uses the bridge. There is an extensive haulier community in my constituency, and I am the Minister responsible for roads, freight and so on. Hauliers from England, Scotland and Ireland, and those from continental Europe, who also pay the tolls, might take issue—although perhaps only fractionally —with the comments made by the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I understand, however, how emotive the subject is.

Let me touch on some of the points raised. I will not repeat the brilliant history lesson provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth—again, I am praising the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee—because there is no point going over it again. We all know where we are, and many hon. Members know the situation better than I, despite what I have learned over the past year since taking this position. I, too, sat in queues at the tolls for many years when Wembley stadium was being rebuilt and the wonderful Cardiff stadium was used. I sat in that stadium on many occasions, supporting the England rugby team. I will leave the results for others to comment on.

For me the key questions are where we are now, what we can do in the short term and what is the long-term proposal for the bridge. I listened to earlier comments about technology. It is ludicrous that in the 21st century, technology is only just arriving at the toll booths on the crossing. However, some of the comments made during the debate about what can and cannot be used at the tolls were not factually correct; if my officials are wrong, I apologise. The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden)—I apologise if I pronounce some of the constituency names wrongly; my Welsh is not brilliant and as a cockney lad I was not taught it at school. I mean no offence. [Interruption.] I admit that I picked the easy name first.

A debit or credit can be used at a manned toll booth. It can be used at any time, but it depends on whether the booth is manned. The Chamber will be pleased to know that according to information that I received today, it will be possible in July to use non-PIN card technology at the booths. That is crucial because the use of PIN technology creates delays. I will come on to further technology later in the debate, but my information suggests that that will happen in July—I was told it would happen in the summer, and “July” is written in brackets after that.

The company has an agreement with the banks, but we have had to assist with that to obtain that sort of technology. As hon. Members will imagine, banks prefer PIN technology because of the risk of fraud. We have resolved that issue, however, although there was some surprise about that, not least because we had to get through European legislation. Nevertheless, we succeeded in doing so and in July people will be able to cross using non-PIN card technology, which will help enormously—I am sure hon. Members will hold me to that, and I will hold the company to account should it not happen.

The removal of the 30 seconds that would be added to a transaction through the use of a PIN will help speed through the just under 4,000 vehicles per hour the booths are capable of dealing with. Interestingly, the capacity of the M4 is greater than that when everything goes correctly. I hope that in five hours’ time when the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) makes that journey, the severe tailbacks that were reported to me earlier will have gone—I am joking; as I understand it, the road is clear although information comes in regularly.

The other day, I was pleased to announce a huge investment of £100 million in the M4/M5 managed motorway network. That money comes from the central fund, and will dramatically change the traffic situation on that side of the bridge. As hon. Members know, my background is in the fire service, and I was very sceptical about managed motorways when I first looked at the technology; to me, hard shoulders are dangerous areas that were designed for a reason.

Nevertheless, when the managed motorways system was piloted on the M42 under the previous Administration, it was massively over-engineered at the time, but it worked. We have since moved the engineering down, and rolled the system out around the country. A £100 million investment is being provided in difficult times to the M4 and M5 around the Bristol area. Colleagues will know how difficult the bottleneck on those two major arteries can be, and that will be alleviated once the roadworks are finished. That is always a problem—it is no pain, no gain when it comes to roadworks.

While we are talking about pain, most colleagues will receive a letter from me tomorrow stating that we intend to start work on the road surface of the new bridge. Work will start—I can give the exact date—on 9 June and run until 14 July on the eastbound carriageways, and between 6 September and 11 October on the westbound carriageways. That is due mostly to the fact that the inside lane in both directions is severely worn and will have to be completely replaced.

We looked carefully at how to manage the obvious disruption that will take place. Options included a contraflow system and shutting the bridge while work is carried out. The option that we went for will extend the work—overall it will take about five weeks to put a new waterproof membrane on the bridge and surface the road—but it will leave at least one lane open each way. We made the decision not to shut the bridge or use a contraflow system that would have caused more expense and extensive delays. There will be delays, for which I apologise, but investment must be put into the bridge because of its age, and that will be done. It is a reflection of the amount of traffic that the bridge carries.

The only party political point that I will make during my speech will be to touch on the recent elections and my Welsh colleagues’ proposals to fund the costs of the toll increases through the Welsh Assembly. It is entirely up to the Welsh Assembly whether or not it wishes to use its funds in that way. If the Conservative party had been elected, it would have been its decision how to run the economy in Wales, just as today’s Administration make those decisions. If the Conservative party—or any other party as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) said earlier—decided that it wanted to fund the cost of the difference between the toll today and the proposed increases under the contract agreement, that could be negotiated with the United Kingdom Government. My door is open to the Welsh Assembly, under the respect agenda to say the least. I wrote to my counterpart in that Assembly—I must now write again because the holder of that position has changed—and offered my assistance.

I am speaking on behalf of the Department rather than the Treasury, but if that money were used to offset the difference, the contract would not be affected and would remain in place. The only difference would be that money would be recouped from the Welsh Assembly rather than directly from the tolls. It is a complicated legal issue. It sounds simple, but it is quite complicated. Did I know about this? I have to be perfectly honest: the answer is no. However, that does not mean that we would not get into negotiations or provide every assistance for that to happen.

All the discussions that we have had to date, including in the Select Committee, have been based on whether there could be a reduction in the toll at night or a reduction in the toll for local residents. I must admit that the position is much more complicated in this case than it is in the case of the two other major bridges that are often cited. Could there be no increases whatever? Everything comes down to the fact that a contract is in place that says that the company is allowed, after costs, to recoup X amount of money before the bridge is handed back into the full ownership of the Secretary of State.

If I were the company, would I want to negotiate any changes to the present contract? Probably not. So what we are talking about is an increase in the time that the tolls would be there. At every stage when I talk about the tolls and the bridge and we have these discussions, it is a question of a balance between the length of time that the bridge is out of our ownership, based on the contractual agreement that we have, and when it could come back into our ownership and decisions could be made.

It would be wrong of me to say that we are not thinking about what will happen at the end of the concession agreement. Of course, we are thinking about what will happen. However, as I have said, this is a national piece of infrastructure and a cross-departmental matter. It is a national asset. I am sure that the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh people will understand that we will have to consider what happens to the bridge in the context of the investment going into our networks. However, no decision has been made.

[Geraint Davies]

Naturally, the debate focused on whether we could reduce the toll to £1 up to 2017, but I infer from what the Minister has said that if the money was forthcoming—for example, from the Welsh Assembly or from anywhere else—to pay down the debt now, the bridge would move into public ownership earlier than 2017, in which case we could have lower tolls now, although perhaps not a toll of £1. Can the Westminster Government now pay down that debt from their own money, with a strategy of recovering the money that they pay it down with by reducing the toll now to somewhere between where it is now and £1, so that we could have a lower toll sooner, albeit not as low as £1?

[Mike Penning]

This is where I wish that I had not joined the Army at 16 but had gone to university and become a corporate lawyer. We can discuss the legalities in quite simple terms. Nothing at all can be done without the agreement of the concessionaire, so should the company decide that it does not want to do what has been suggested, that will be a fact. We are trapped in a contract; everyone knows that and the Committee examined the matter in detail.

I can see the logic of where the hon. Member for Swansea West is coming from, but the Welsh Assembly subsidising what would be the increase this year would not cause the contract to be terminated earlier, because all that would happen is that the same money would be recouped from the Assembly or whoever wanted to pay it as would be recouped from tolls. Thus the length of time would be exactly the same. I will write to the hon. Gentleman—the lawyers are probably panicking as they listen to the debate—to clarify exactly what the legal position is. However, I am certain—this is what all the advice says—that if the company that was formed specifically for this purpose does not want to play ball, there is nothing that we can do.

[Jessica Morden]

While the Minister is on the issue of the contract, does what has been said equally apply to car sharing? Would it be equally difficult to resolve the issue of being able to swap between different cars in car-sharing schemes?

[Mike Penning]

I have asked for a note, but it has not arrived. It might do—hint, hint—in the time left. I cannot understand the difference, I must admit. Clearly, car sharing is going on. It happens on the routes that go from where I used to live in Essex into London. We commend car sharing. We want people to share cars, because it reduces emissions and makes travel much more cost-effective for people. I do not understand how the concession agreement would be affected in that respect, but I am sure that the lawyers will tell me why I am wrong—as always, I am being as honest as I can.

The hon. Member for Newport East made a couple of other points earlier. I have already touched on how price freezing and tolling would work. In the Select Committee evidence session, I talked about whether there is more technology that we can use to make things much easier for the communities on both sides of the border and for industry and at the same time to sweat the asset more, as we are doing with managed motorways. In other words, are we getting the best out of the bridge? Clearly, the toll process is causing delays.

We are committed to free-flow tolling at the Dartford river crossing. We made an announcement about that in the spending round, and I made an announcement about it to the Select Committee. There are real technical issues about using automatic number plate recognition, which is what we intend to use. It is similar to what the congestion charge scheme in London uses. There is an enforcement issue, particularly in relation to overseas vehicles. We intend to get that right at Dartford before we introduce the system. However, I can see no logical reason why it could not be introduced at the Severn river crossing.

The problem, of course, is the cost and who bears it. That is what the hon. Member for Pontypridd was alluding to. Let us be honest: why would the company set up in the context of the concession agreement to make this profit say to me, “Okay, Minister, we’ll spend X million pounds doing this for you,” rather than saying, “Will you pay for it?” or “We’ll use our rights to go further in the concessionary period.”

The truth is that by the time we fully implement ANPR and free-flow technology at Dartford, we will be into 2013, not least because of the construction work that needs to be done. Doing free-flow tolling sounds simple, but it is not. Otherwise, people would be hurtling through and we would have speed issues and so on. We will not be that far away from the conclusions about what will happen post the concession. I think that the negotiations will have to include what we would expect a modern tolling system to involve in the 21st century. The issue will arise once we have rolled out the system and done everything that we need to do at Dartford. The last thing that the Select Committee would want me to do is to say yes, we’ll definitely be able to roll it out in 2015 or ’16—in the latter part of this Parliament—if we have not got it running right. I am confident that we can do that, because the technology is there.

I think that we were all sceptical when the congestion charge was introduced in London. The issue was not the rights and wrongs of it, but whether it would work. It does work. The main issue is enforcement in relation to foreign-registered vehicles. I was with representatives of Transport for London only today, working out how we can deal with that.

[Owen Smith]

I want to clarify what the Minister has just said, because it was very interesting. Is he suggesting that some negotiations have taken place already between the Department for Transport and the company and that, subject to the technology being made failsafe at Dartford, an agreement might be struck whereby the Government would be prepared to compensate the company for introducing free-flow technology on the bridge before 2017? Is that what he was implying?

[Mike Penning]

No. That would be a spending commitment, and I do not have the authority in my lowly position to dream of ever giving one. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to put words into my mouth, but the answer is no. The only way of funding that before 2017 would be through the concessionaire, and the discussion would be about whether it is willing to fund it under the existing contract—I doubt whether it would be. If we did not allow the company to increase the toll, it would look for an extension or—this is within the contract, and it would have every right to do so—to seek compensation from the Treasury. That, too, is unlikely.

By a miracle, a document has appeared before me. It says that SRC is prepared to negotiate extending the TAG scheme for car sharing. Naturally, however, it will not want to be financially worse off. That may not fully answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Newport East, but it is the best that I can do. I want to be as open as I can about this. I shall write to SRC saying what I was told during the debate and asking the company to clarify its position. I shall share that information with colleagues. It is only right and proper to do so.

I realise that I still have plenty of time, but I have no intention of filibustering—not least because Members wish to disappear. However, I have a speaking engagement in London this evening, so I am more than happy to continue.

In conclusion, I welcome the Committee’s report, and I shall work closely with the Welsh Assembly Government in analysing the economic effect of tolling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth rightly pointed out, there is little hard evidence that the bridges have had an economic effect. I do not say that they have not, but the Committee made extensive efforts to find evidence and did not, despite Chinese whispers among local communities. As I have said, the Welsh Assembly has publicised the fact that some 700 companies have located in the region over the past 40 years, long before the Welsh Assembly was formed, so something must be right. I believe that that evidence is shown on the Assembly website.

I realise that the crossing is a vital piece of national infrastructure. I am proud that my portfolio predominantly covers the whole of this great nation of ours. It is for me to work with and alongside the various devolved Assemblies and Parliaments. At the same time, however, I must ensure that they understand that it is a Department for Transport piece of infrastructure—a Westminster one—despite knowing how emotive it is to the local communities in Wales and those on the other side of the bridge in England.

I have listened carefully to the hauliers. I listen to them nearly every day, and they are an amazing group of people. Perhaps I think that because I hold an HGV licence and used to drive lorries when a fireman—like most firemen, I used to drive part-time when off duty.

The key is fairness. If tolls continue beyond the existing agreement, and if free-flow tolling comes in, it would be wrong in my opinion that the tolls should remain one-way. That unfairness would have to be addressed if we had free-flow tolling and if the toll was increased. A number of truck drivers have told me that they go into Wales one way and come out the other because of the toll. Not only is the Treasury losing income, but it is another unfairness that needs to be addressed, although it is difficult to deal with it now, because of the way it is set up.

I hope that I have not delayed anyone’s journey home. Indeed, we will finish a fraction early. I hope that I have answered most questions, at least in general terms. I have been as honest as I can, as I was when giving evidence to the Select Committee. I pay tribute to the Committee on its conclusions, even if we do not fully agree on certain aspects. I was interested to note that all who are here today are Welsh MPs, yet the subject has a significant effect on the UK as a whole.

[Geraint Davies]

I wonder whether the Minister could signal in the most general terms whether he anticipates the direction of travel for the toll post-2017 to be significantly downwards. It would be interesting information for inward investors.

[Mike Penning]

As I have said, I do not intend delaying the Chamber. The answer is no. I cannot give an indication, and the hon. Gentleman can probably understand why.

On that point, I hand over to the Committee Chair. I hope that I have paid the report due credit.

17:15

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful to the Minister, a fellow holder of an HGV licence, for giving me another 15 minutes to speak. As some of us wish to make fact-finding visits to the Severn bridge later today, I shall not use it all.

A bridge with a toll is better than no bridge. That is accepted. A bridge with a cashless payment system would be better still, and not one that takes only credit cards; the sort pioneered by companies such as Ringo—I have no connection with the company, but it gave evidence to the Committee—would be better still. A bridge with a reduced toll after 2017 would be excellent, and we look forward to improvements.

The Gwent national party, led by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), and I see eye to eye on many things, and we would have no difficulty in finding agreement on the Severn bridge, on the importance of the Union and on the importance of the first-past-the-post voting system—and, I suspect, on whether we hand further powers to the Welsh Assembly. That, however, is an argument for another day. We look forward to improvements after 2017.

Question put and agreed to.

17:16

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

Thursday 19 May 2011

Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council (19-20 May 2011)

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

The Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council will be held on 19 and 20 May in Brussels. Culture and audiovisual issues will be taken on 18 May. Sport issues will be taken on 20 May. The Deputy UK Permanent Representative, Andy Lebrecht, will be representing the UK for the culture, audiovisual and sport sections of the Council.

The first item on the agenda will be the agreement on the proposal for a European Heritage Label (EHL). The EHL is a proposal that builds on an informal process launched independently by a group of member states in 2007. The designation is intended to focus on the promotion of sites that “symbolise and strengthen European history and heritage”, rather than conservation. Although the UK has not opposed the creation of the EHL in principle, the Government have reservations about the need for a new scheme that presents the potential for duplication of the UNESCO world heritage list. Throughout negotiations the UK actively supported the voluntary nature of the scheme; opposed any additional cost burdens; and supported changes to make the scheme as light touch as possible. As there is a risk that funding for the EHL in 2013 will be taken from the margins of the EU budget, the UK has maintained a reserve on financial provisions and intends to abstain in the final vote. It is expected that a formal agreement on the proposal will be reached at the Council meeting.

The presidency will seek the adoption of a decision on the selection of a city to host the European capital of culture event for 2015. Belgium and the Czech Republic are the EU member states eligible to nominate cities for 2015. Belgium’s nomination of the city of Mons for the title was agreed at the Council meeting last November. The Czech Republic has now nominated the city of Plzen for the title and the Council will be asked to adopt this decision. The UK will support this proposal.

The Council will be invited to adopt conclusions on the contribution of culture to the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. These conclusions highlight the contribution of culture to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. They invite member states to consider the cross-cutting nature of culture when formulating relevant policies. The UK will support the adoption of these conclusions.

The Council is expected to adopt Council conclusions on mobility information services for artists and for culture professionals. These suggest possible measures to establish mobility information services and foster the flow of information on mobility issues such as taxation, social security, intellectual property rights, visas, work permits, insurance and customs. The conclusions respond to the need identified in several major EU culture policy documents such as the current Culture Programme, the European Agenda For Culture and the Council Work Plans for Culture covering the periods 2008-2010 and 2011-14. The UK will support the adoption of these conclusions.

Under the sport section of the meeting, the Council will be invited to adopt a resolution on a European work plan for sport. The resolution highlights three priority areas for action at EU level: integrity of sport, in particular the fight against doping, match-fixing and the promotion of good governance; social values of sport, in particular health, social inclusion, education and volunteering; and economic aspects of sport, in particular sustainable financing of grassroots sports and evidence-based policy-making. The UK is supportive of the aims of the work plan and intends to support its adoption.

There will then be a discussion of a presidency paper on sport related aspects of online betting. The paper asks questions on the impact recent growth in online betting has had on sport sectors in each member state and what measures have been taken in this respect. The paper also asks what kind of policy response is required at EU level. The deputy permanent representative will intervene to highlight how the UK as an engaged and responsible regulator, is aware of the issues from both the sporting and betting sides and the importance of maintaining an appropriate balance between the industries.

Under any other business there will be a presentation from the Commission on the report from the Comité des Sages on bringing Europe’s cultural heritage online. There will be an information point from the presidency on the Council Work Plan for Culture 2011-2014. The presidency will also raise an information point on EU structured dialogue with the sport movement.

The Polish delegation will inform the Council on the priorities for their forthcoming presidency. The Slovenian and French delegations will raise an information point on a proposed manifesto for culture in Europe. I do not foresee a need to intervene on either of these.

Report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill (Government Response)

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The Ministry of Defence welcomes the Select Committee’s report on the Armed Forces Bill (HC 779). In this formal response, I will deal with each of the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations in turn.

I shall begin with the Committee’s recommendation that Select Committee scrutiny should continue to be the convention for Armed Forces Bills. I believe that the appointment of a Select Committee which was able to take evidence and conduct visits allowed Committee members an opportunity to visit armed forces units, to hear from members of the armed forces and their families, and to develop a better understanding of service life. These experiences helped Committee members in their role of scrutinising the legislation. I therefore welcome the Committee’s recommendation.

The Select Committee spent a significant amount of its time examining the provisions in the Bill that relate to the armed forces covenant report. There were differences of view on some issues, but Committee members were united in their support for service personnel, veterans and their families. I therefore strongly welcome the Committee’s conclusion that military service is unique and that individuals who serve in the armed forces should be recognised for the contribution they make.

The Government have already made significant progress in rebuilding the armed forces covenant. The commitment to produce a report on the covenant will make the Secretary of State accountable to Parliament for this work. The Government’s announcement that they will table amendments to the Bill, so that the key principles of the covenant are written into law, will further strengthen that element of the legislation. I agree with the Committee’s recommendation that, in creating a tri-service document, we should use the term “armed forces covenant” to signify its inclusivity.

Committee members will be aware that we have used that title in the new version of the covenant which we published on 16 May 2011.

I welcome the Committee’s comments about the external reference group. The Government value the important contribution that the group has made and continues to make in driving forward our work on supporting the armed forces community. The group has proved its worth and at no time has its continued existence, or its vital role, been in doubt. Our aim is to strengthen the group rather than to sideline it. The Government agree that its terms of reference should be updated. Ultimately it is for the group to decide how its work will be taken forward, and we have asked its external members for their views on its future role, terms of reference and membership. This includes how they wish to engage with the process of preparing the Defence Secretary’s annual report to Parliament on the armed forces covenant.

I welcome the Committee’s support for the provisions in the Bill in relation to the independence and powers of service police; to drug and alcohol testing; and those which aim to provide greater independence of service complaints panels, where circumstances demand.

Following the Committee’s recommendation that the Ministry of Defence should review service complaints procedures and the powers of the Service Complaints Commissioner, the commissioner published her annual report on 31 March. In the response, I welcomed the commissioner’s acknowledgement of the real progress that the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces have made in relation to the handling of complaints. While I am pleased with this progress, I recognise the importance of the commissioner’s recommendations as to ways to improve the system further. A review of the service complaints system will be undertaken and will consider in full the recommendations made by the commissioner in her annual report, including those specifically related to the powers of her role.

The Committee concluded that the matter of a veterans’ ID card could usefully be explored further. In response, I should begin by saying that a veterans’ ID card which guarantees or provides a very high level of assurance of the identity of the bearer would be an expensive project and would require significant administration. There is no defence need for such a card and it would not provide good value for money. Nevertheless, we agree that there is value in developing a card which confirms the status of individuals as former servicemen or women and can be used in order to facilitate easier access to discounts and other privileges, including those arising from the armed forces community covenant initiative. This option would require a lower level of verification than an actual identification card. The Government announced their intention to introduce such a card on 16 May.

I welcome the Committee’s support for the existing policy in relation to the recruitment of under-18s. However, following a review of discharge policy I am pleased to announce that, for those under the age of 18, the ability to be discharged will in future be a right up to the age of 18, subject to an appropriate period of consideration or cooling off. My officials are currently finalising the policy details and these will be brought forward shortly in secondary legislation.

The Committee’s final recommendation was in relation to trials of service personnel. The Committee recommended that the Ministry of Defence should consider whether there might be a benefit in transferring the handling of some cases to the service courts and whether there might also be scope for the creation of a power in civilian courts to remit cases to the service courts for sentence. Proposals for changes in both of these areas were discussed at a meeting of the service justice board in January 2011, when it was agreed that staff in the central legal services directorate should lead further work to assess whether greater flexibility could be achieved in the transfer of cases between jurisdictions and the possibility of transferring cases to the court martial for sentencing. That work is in hand at present.

Ofgem Review: Summary of Conclusions

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

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

Today I am publishing the conclusions of the Ofgem review.

The coalition programme for Government committed to a review of the role of Ofgem. The annual energy statement last July announced the terms of the review, which focused on Ofgem’s role in regulating the gas and electricity markets, and that conclusions would be published in spring 2011.

The review has concluded that the current system should be strengthened to bring greater clarity and coherence to the distinct roles of Government and the regulator—

Ofgem will continue to regulate independently of Government;

Government will set out a strategic policy framework for the energy sector and will define those strategic goals to which Ofgem should contribute. The Government will seek legislative provision to require Ofgem to take its independent regulatory decisions within the context of these goals, which will be set out in a new statutory “Strategy and Policy Statement”. Approval from Parliament will be sought before the statement takes effect.

Ofgem will set out annually how it plans to deliver its contribution to the goals and how it will monitor progress, in order to increase transparency and accountability.

A summary of the conclusions is available on the DECC website and a full report will be published with the electricity market reform White Paper, before the summer recess.

I am also publishing today the conclusions of DECC’s delivery review, which will help DECC respond to future delivery challenges.

Governance of existing programmes has been reviewed and, where appropriate, changes introduced to improve it. For new programmes, unless there is a clear case for placing delivery with a specific third party, delivery will be led by DECC itself to ensure accountability to Ministers, but with aspects of delivery contracted out, where possible and appropriate, to provide maximum value-for-money.

For the Ofgem review conclusions see:

www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/markets/regulation/regulation.aspx

Further information on the delivery review can be found at: www.decc.gov.uk.

Wild Animals in Circuses

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

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

In my statement to the House of 13 May 2011, Official Report, column 48WS, on the question of the protection of the welfare of performing wild animals in circuses, I indicated that the Austrian Government had recently been taken to court for introducing a ban on wild animals in circuses, as a European Circus Association press release stated. However, I now understand that the initiation of court proceedings has been delayed, although a case is in preparation. My understanding is that such proceedings are likely to be issued in the near future. I would like to avoid any misunderstanding.

This does not impact on the policy I announced to the House about this matter. Having taken advice on the legal implications and on the proportionality of all the possible courses of action, I remain convinced that a tough licensing regime which introduces additional safeguards to protect wild animals in circuses is the most effective and legally sound route for the estimated 39 animals concerned.

Pre-Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council (23-24 May 2011)

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (Foreign Ministers) on 23 May. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the Minister with responsibility for international security strategy, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth) will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) on 23 May. I will attend the General Affairs Council on 23 May. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (Development) on 24 May.

Foreign Affairs Council (Foreign Ministers)

Libya

Ministers are expected to discuss developments in Libya since the contact group meeting in Rome of 5 May, where participants agreed to increase pressure on Gaddafi’s regime. Ministers are likely to agree conclusions referring to the recent announcements by the International Criminal Court (ICC)—see more below. And they may assess the humanitarian situation and discuss the possibility of setting up an EU office in Benghazi.

On 12 May, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, chair of the Libyan national transitional council (NTC), visited the UK and met the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development. The Foreign Secretary updated Parliament in a written ministerial statement on 13 May.

On 16 May, the Foreign Secretary welcomed the announcement by the ICC that Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo will apply for arrest warrants for Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam al Gaddafi and Abdullah Senussi.

The Foreign Secretary said:

“I welcome this announcement. The human rights situation in Western Libya and the behaviour of the Qadhafi regime remains of grave concern and the UK was at the forefront of efforts in the UN to adopt resolution 1970 which referred the situation in Libya to the ICC. The request for these warrants is a reminder to all in Qadhafi’s regime that crimes will not go unpunished and the reach of international justice will be long.”



“Those responsible for attacks on civilians must he held to account. The international community must fully support the ICC in thoroughly investigating all allegations. I call on all UN Member States, whether parties to the Rome Statute or not, to offer their full co-operation.”

Syria

We expect the Council to agree conclusions on Syria condemning the violence and ongoing repression of peaceful protesters and for release of detainees. It could also call for the UN/ICRC to be granted immediate humanitarian access to several towns in Syria; and to urge the Syrian Government to choose the path of reform and warn the Syrian leadership that the EU will work to agree sanctions unless the violence stops and detainees are released.

On 13 May, the FCO’s political director, Sir Geoffrey Adams, called in the Syrian ambassador Dr Sami Khiyami to the Foreign Office to express the UK’s strong concerns about the ongoing situation in Syria.

Sir Geoffrey emphasised the UK’s profound concern about the Syrian Government’s violent repression of their own citizens, and called on the Syrian authorities to respect universal human rights, including freedom of expression. Sir Geoffrey also expressed concern about the continued denial of access of international media into Syria.

The political director called on the Syrian Government to allow UN and other humanitarian organisations immediate and unhindered access to besieged Syrian cities, particularly the city of Deraa.

Sir Geoffrey said that unless the Syrian Government stopped the killing of protesters and released political prisoners, the UK along with its EU partners would take further measures to hold the regime to account. These measures would include further sanctions targeted at the highest levels of the regime, including travel bans and asset freezing.

Yemen

This will be a further opportunity for the EU to demonstrate support for the Gulf Co-operation Council’s (GCC’s) initiative to resolve the current political deadlock to agree the transitional process. Further deterioration in Yemen’s economic and humanitarian situation, and a rise in violence between protesters and security forces, underpins the urgent need for a political settlement. The Government have remained in close contact with EU, US and Gulf counterparts on finding a peaceful solution. We expect there to be Council conclusions.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) discussed recent events when he met UN special envoy to Yemen Jamal Benomar in London on 12 May.

Speaking after the meeting my hon. Friend said:

“Mr Benomar’s insights into recent developments in Yemen reinforced my deep concern about what is happening. I condemn the actions taken by the security forces that have reportedly caused the death of several protestors and injured many more in Taiz, Sana’a, and cities across Yemen. Mr Benomar and I agreed that all parties should exercise the utmost restraint and take all steps necessary to defuse this situation.

I urge the Yemeni authorities to demonstrate their commitment to an orderly and peaceful transition by respecting the right of peaceful protest and free speech. The rising violence we have witnessed risks undermining the efforts to secure the agreement brokered by the Gulf Co-operation Council. All parties need to come together urgently to confirm their commitment to this.”

Iraq

Baroness Ashton may raise the incident at Camp Ashraf in Iraq on 8 April, in which 34 people died and some 70 were injured. The UK has supported calls for an independent inquiry.

On 8 April, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), made the following statement:

“The UK Government has been disturbed to read reports that a number of civilian residents have been killed and many more wounded at Camp Ashraf yesterday. I absolutely deplore any loss of life and my sincere condolences go out to the families of those involved.

The Iraqi Government has provided us with assurances on several occasions that it will treat individual residents of camp Ashraf in a humane manner, act in accordance with Iraqi law, the Iraqi Constitution and its international obligations. We urge the Iraqi Government to uphold this commitment.

Our Ambassador in Baghdad has been expressing our concerns to the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the highest levels. We call on the Iraqi Government to cease violent operations in Camp Ashraf immediately and to ensure that the residents have full access to medical care. It is important that the Government of Iraq takes immediate steps to calm the situation and ensure that the human rights of the residents are respected. We are aware of a request by UNAMI to send a humanitarian monitoring mission to camp Ashraf as soon as possible. We fully support this request and therefore urge the Iraqi Government to quickly grant permission. We call on all sides to engage in a constructive dialogue that can lead to a lasting resolution to the situation.”

Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)

Ministers are likely to discuss recent developments in the MEPP, including the implications of the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. There may also be conclusions. We will make clear our hope that the announcement of reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas will lead to the formation of a Government who reject violence and pursue a negotiated peace, and that we will judge a future Palestinian Government by their actions and their readiness to work for peace.

On 15 May, the Foreign Secretary called on all parties to exercise restraint after violence broke out on Israel’s borders as Palestinians marked Nakba day.

The Foreign Secretary said:

“I am deeply concerned by the violence on Israel’s borders today and saddened by the loss of life. I call on all parties to exercise restraint and ensure that civilian life is protected. These developments make clearer than ever that a lasting and comprehensive resolution to the conflicts in the region is urgently needed and will only be achieved through negotiation”.

Southern Caucasus

We expect Ministers to discuss recent developments in the south Caucasus, and in particular to focus on the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

We expect Ministers to discuss the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) following Baroness Ashton’s visit there on 13 May. The Government are deeply concerned that a BiH state-level Government has not been formed over seven months after elections; that divisive nationalist rhetoric continues; and that there have been recent serious challenges to state-level institutions and to the Dayton agreement. We will urge the Council to remain fully engaged on this issue and to react as necessary to developments on the ground.

Sudan

Ministers are expected to be briefed on the key elements of the EU’s comprehensive approach to Sudan, with a view to a possible substantive discussion and adoption of conclusions at the FAC in June. Given the lack of progress on key issues under the comprehensive peace agreement, and the ongoing violence in Darfur. the meeting on 23 May will be an important opportunity for Ministers to stress the importance of a continued focus on Sudan, both in the run-up to and following the secession of South Sudan on 9 July.

External Action Service (EAS)

This should be an opportunity to set out our view on the priorities for EAS action, and to underline that the EAS should limit its representation of the member states to agreed areas. It will also be an opportunity to voice our opposition to the proposed budget increase for the EAS of 5.8% (€27 million) in 2012 and press the EAS to produce a convincing plan for the savings that will lead to budget neutrality.

Iran

There should be an agreement, without discussion, to the designation of over 100 entities in order to strengthen EU sanctions and increase the pressure on Iran’s nuclear programme. In addition, Baroness Ashton may brief Ministers on the reply she recently received from the Iranian chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili. A spokesperson for Baroness Ashton commented to the press that the reply “does not seem to justify” organising another meeting between the E3+3 (UK, France, Germany, US, Russia and China) and Iran at this time.

EU Human Rights

Baroness Ashton will brief Ministers on her preliminary views on an EU overall strategy for human rights, followed by an exchange of views. The final strategy is due to be announced in June 2011.

Foreign Affairs Council (Defence)

The current agenda includes three main items: an informal discussion of military operations; a formal discussion of military capabilities; and the European Defence Agency (EDA) Steering Board.

Informal working session on operations

Ministers will be joined by the NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen for an informal discussion of military operations. The session is likely to focus on a potential extension to EU Training Mission Somalia. We do not expect the discussion to result in a decision; this is likely to be deferred to the June FAC. The session will also update progress on Operation Atalanta, Althea, and Eufor Libya.

Formal working session on military capabilities

There will be conclusions on pooling and sharing military capabilities and a broader dialogue on the Weimar initiative. Ministers are likely to discuss the High Representative’s interim report (yet to be released) on the progress of the Weimar initiative and implementation of provisions in the Lisbon treaty. We will support the principle of increased pooling and sharing among European and NATO partners but resist any calls for the creation of additional institutions or processes.

EDA Steering Board

The agenda for this meeting is currently being finalised. It will build from the session on capabilities, taking stock on key capability development projects and initiatives, including pooling and sharing and the European Air Transport Fleet (EATF) programme. We are broadly supportive of the EDA’s work in these areas.

General Affairs Council

Croatia

The Commissioner for Enlargement, Stefan Fule, will brief Ministers on Croatia’s progress on its accession negotiations and the approaching closure of negotiations. He is likely to focus on progress within Chapter 23 (Judiciary and Fundamental Rights). This chapter was created to strengthen the accession process after the last EU enlargement. The Government will continue to monitor Croatia’s progress and ensure that this chapter is closed on the basis of a thorough technical assessment against the benchmarks, including establishing the necessary track records to ensure that reforms are sustainable. Beyond this, the Government will ensure that closure of negotiations as a whole takes place on the basis of rigorous conditionality.

Charter of Fundamental Rights

The presidency is seeking agreement to conclusions in response to the Commission’s annual report on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Council conclusions set out the actions taken by the Council to ensure compliance with the charter, including the work of the fundamental rights working group to produce guidelines to help other formations of the Council identify and resolve fundamental rights issues. The Council conclusions may also describe the actions the Council has taken or announced under each of the six chapters of the charter.

Roma

Ministers will have an initial discussion of proposed European Council conclusions on the Commission’s communication of 5 April entitled “An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020”. The Commission’s communication can be found at the following link:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri= CELEX:52011DC0173:EN:NOT.

The conclusions are likely to call on member states to develop national strategies or policy approaches to improve the social and economic integration of Roma communities, specifically through access to education, employment, health care and housing. The UK already has a strong record on the integration of Roma, Gypsy and Traveller communities. We will argue for the eventual conclusions not to be overly prescriptive to allow us the flexibility to continue with these approaches. There will be a more substantive discussion at the 19 May Employment and Social Affairs Council, which will feed into the 24 June European Council, where we expect the adoption of formal conclusions.

Foreign Affairs Council (Development)

Sudan

We expect the Development Commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, to debrief Development Ministers on his visit to Khartoum and Juba and to update them on the EU’s plans for joint programming in South Sudan. Additionally, a possible Council decision is expected on the use of €200 million of de-committed funds from European Development Fund (EDF) to support development efforts in South Sudan.

Accountability Report on EU Development Policy

Ministers will discuss the findings of the Commission’s accountability report on EU development policy. The report assesses progress against the EU’s financing for development commitments and covers official development assistance (ODA), innovative finance, domestic resource mobilisation, aid for trade, climate finance, co-operation with the private sector, and aid effectiveness. The discussion is likely to focus on how to achieve the EU aid commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on aid by 2015. Ministers will adopt a report on EU ODA performance in 2010, to be considered by the June European Council. This report is a welcome means of holding other member states to account. We will continue to press others to fulfil their aid commitments.

Water

The Hungarian presidency is expected to deliver proposals on the role of water in EU development policy, for which Council conclusions are due to go through Environmental Council in June. The Government agree that water for growth and development as well as water supply and sanitation for human development need greater policy priority within the EU. We will therefore support proposals to update and renew the EU policy on water in EU development co-operation. This should support the efforts to redefine and revitalise the EU water initiative, set up in 2002 as part of the World Summit on Sustainable Development to mobilise and co-ordinate EU resources to achieve the water-related millennium development goals. We believe that water should be central in preparations for Rio+20 and that the EU should play a leading role in the preparatory processes and conferences. We will continue to insist on these points in negotiations with EU partners.

Cote d’Ivoire

This is an opportunity to emphasise the need for firm international support for stabilisation, reconciliation, and justice under President Ouattara’s new Government. Close co-ordination of international community efforts, appropriately resourced and structured UN involvement; active and effective UN agencies; and a UN and EU sanctions regime that supports the goals of political, economic and social progress will be important.

I will deposit copies of this note in the Libraries of both Houses. And I will update Parliament on Foreign and General Affairs Councils after the meetings.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (Luxembourg 6-7 June 2011)

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will meet on 6 and 7 June.

The presidency is likely to ask Ministers to debate the sustainability of care systems and health issues related to migration.

The presidency is also expected to propose the adoption of Council conclusions on the following:

the European pact for mental health and well-being: results and future action;

successes and challenges of European childhood immunisation and the way forward;

towards modem, responsive and sustainable health systems; and

innovation in the medical device sector.

The UK supports the adoption of these Council conclusions.

Under any other business, information will be provided from the presidency on antimicrobial resistance and on a number of conferences that took place under their presidency. The Polish delegation will give information on the priorities for their forthcoming presidency, which will run from July 2011 until the end of the year.

Section 19 of the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Section 19 of the UK Borders Act 2007 will come into force on 23 May 2011. Section 19 restricts the evidence an appellant can rely on at such an appeal to that which is submitted to and considered by the UK Border Agency in support of an application.

Reforming the immigration system and reducing the level of immigration to a sustainable number is one of the big tasks of this Government. Our goal is an improved system that commands the confidence of the public and serves our economic interests. We have made it clear that we will take a robust approach, that we will tighten up our system, stop abuse and welcome only the most economically beneficial migrants. This Government have already delivered a new annual limit on non-EU economic migrants and have announced reforms to the student visa system to be implemented over the course of the next year. These measures are aimed at attracting the brightest and the best, while reducing the level of net migration and tackling abuse.

People wishing to remain in the UK under the points-based system are required to submit all relevant evidence in support of their application at the time that application is made. This enables caseworkers to make the right decision in the first instance, often avoiding unnecessary and expensive publicly funded appeals. It also protects the integrity of the immigration system, ensuring all necessary checks can be made and any deception identified.

But this system has been subject to misuse at the expense of the taxpayer. Individuals already in the UK but unsuccessful in their application to extend their time here have been using the appeals system as a free second application process—putting in evidence at the appeals stage which should have formed part of their application. Our management information shows that around two thirds of PBS appeals allowed by the tribunal are due to submission of further evidence at appeal.

It is not right that the taxpayer should foot the administrative and appeals bill where this information should have been put forward as part of the original application or where a second application including all the necessary information, for which we will charge, is the most appropriate route to securing a grant of leave. Section 19 will restrict the type of new evidence that can be taken into account by the tribunal. It will prevent circumvention of checks, helping restore public confidence in our immigration system and contribute to wider improvements to reduce the overall cost of the appeals system.

The commencement order will come into force on 23 May and will apply to all appeals heard for the first time against refusals of applications to remain in the UK under the points-based system, regardless of the date that appeal was lodged. Appeals that have been part or fully heard by the first-tier tribunal (immigration and asylum chamber) by this date will not be affected.

Equality and Human Rights Commission (Triennial Review)

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

The first triennial review of the Equality and Human Rights Commission “How Fair Is Britain?” was laid before the House on 11 October last year. A second printing which incorporates a small number of typographical changes has now been laid before the House. Copies will be made available in the Vote Office.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Extraordinary Council which focused on interior issues was held on 12 May in Brussels. I represented the United Kingdom.

The Council started with an EU ministerial breakfast with the Director of the Joint Situation Centre (SitCen) who presented his assessment of the situation following the death of Osama bin Laden and changes in north Africa. Gilles de Kerchove, EU Counter-terrorism Co-ordinator, highlighted that cargo security was a priority for the EU and engagement with north African countries was essential. The UK noted that the death of Osama bin Laden was a strategic blow but the risk remained serious including from reprisal attacks and the events in north Africa served to undermine the al-Qaeda narrative.

Next the Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states), received a state of play update on the Frontex regulation. The presidency said they would not be able to reach agreement with the European Parliament by June unless member states were flexible. Compromise would be necessary on several of the Parliament’s demands, including the precise name of its proposed “European Border Guard System”. The presidency stressed that the whole deal should not collapse because of disagreements over terminology. The UK is excluded from the Frontex regulation; however the UK can support activities on a case-by-case basis with the agreement of the Frontex management board.

Next there was a discussion on immigration, preparing the forthcoming June European Council discussion on migration and the Commission communication on migration. Commissioner Malmström introduced the communication and set out the Commission’s priorities across all aspects of EU immigration and asylum policy. She put particular emphasis on: an effective EU response to developments in north Africa; agreeing a package deal on asylum; building conditionality into the EU’s third-country agreements to deliver immigration results; and effectively combining mobility with security. On reintroducing intra-Schengen border controls, Commissioner Malmström underlined the fundamental importance of Schengen, highlighting that (based on existing legislation and an EU-level approach), the Commission’s proposals would reinforce, not undermine, the Schengen framework. Guidelines would address differing interpretation of the rules, and new co-decision proposals would strengthen Schengen monitoring and evaluation to better define when and how controls could be used; that is, in exceptional circumstances and through an EU-level procedure.

The UK stated that, in order to achieve tangible results, the immediate priorities had to be border security, returns and practical support to member states. The UK wanted to see a border control taskforce sent to Tunisia to support capacity-building, provide technical assistance and support Frontex’s efforts against people smuggling. On returns, the EU should do more to help return third-country nationals in north Africa back to their countries of origin. We were seeing increased numbers of asylum claims already; the Support Office should help responsible member states deal with them. Relocation was not the answer. The UK said that co-operation on migration should be an integral part of the EU’s partnerships with third countries. Building stability and prosperity was in everyone’s interests, and would help relieve migratory pressure. But the EU had to reinforce the principle that each country must readmit its own nationals—that was not dependent on financial incentives or visa liberalisation. The UK would not want to see a single system of European border guards, but did support greater co-ordination and co-operation. We were surprised to see proposals for further harmonisation given current high-levels of unemployment within Europe. On asylum, the UK was clear that any talk of invoking the temporary protection directive was premature and that it did not support relocation proposals as they carry a risk of acting as a pull factor to the UK. The UK was supportive of any reforms decided on by the Schengen countries that would help combat illegal immigration and strengthen the external border. Free movement was an ideal at the heart of the EU, but it was an ideal that was jeopardised when abused. Every action had to ensure that member states could maintain fair and robust immigration systems, and do nothing to create an incentive for illegal immigration into Europe.

The main Council commenced with the Commission outlining its proposals for a revised strategy on EU readmission agreements. The Commission defended increased references to human rights provisions and the introduction of a post-returns monitoring mechanism for returnees. If member states wanted the European Parliament to agree to future negotiating mandates, they would have to accept an enhanced profile for human rights. The UK believed that readmission agreements were operational instruments for facilitating returns and protection needs were already carefully considered before a return decision is reached. Therefore it was not necessary to include additional references to human rights in the agreements. Any decision on whether it is safe to return, an individual should be made on a case-by-case basis and the Commission’s proposed blanket approach to suspending returns was misguided. The UK added that the Commission’s proposal for a post-return monitoring mechanism was inappropriate as it could put returnees at risk. The UK stated that the starting point for any readmission strategy should be a country’s obligation to readmit their own nationals and co-operation should not be solely dependent on incentives such as visa facilitation. The UK supported the Commission’s proposal to refocus its readmission strategy on key countries, but noted that objective criteria would be needed as member states would have different geographical priorities. The presidency said they would draft Council conclusions (which would make reference to the importance of human rights) for consideration at the June JHA Council.

The Council received an update on the situation in Japan at the request of Belgium. The Commission said that member states had made an impressive contribution to the effort in Japan, but that this had been a wake-up call. The Commission had developed an action plan and had already started to implement the communication on strengthening disaster response. There was a need to prioritise scenario development, and they would be developing legislative proposals by the end of the year. The presidency said that the subject should be further discussed at the working level.

The Commission presented its evaluation report on the data retention directive. Most member states seem to be happy with the current directive, but it was a flexible instrument and there were large differences in how it is implemented. Member states had the opportunity to revise the directive and the Commission would submit a proposal later this year. The UK said that retained communications data were a critical tool. Ninety-five per cent of serious crime investigations used retained data, as had all major counter-terrorism investigations. It was also used on a daily basis to secure convictions and alibis. The UK did not wish to see changes made in the name of harmonisation since it should not undermine operational effectiveness.

Finally, over lunch Ministers discussed the asylum aspects of the Commission’s communication on migration. The presidency and Commission tried to set up a political deal on asylum at the June European Council. The Commission said it was time to compromise; technical meetings could go on for years a package deal was needed to break the deadlock of red lines that included an emergency mechanism in Dublin in return for law enforcement access to Eurodac. Recognising that they were the most difficult directives, Commissioner Malmström set out the features of the forthcoming amended proposals on procedures and reception conditions (simplification, clarification and reduction of financial and administrative burdens). The scope for using accelerated procedures would be extended and it would be easier to reject repeated abusive claims.

There would be more flexibility on border procedures to address national security and public order concerns and a lower reporting burden. Access to the labour market could be delayed if applicants did not co-operate. The UK opened the discussion: the goals of the EU’s engagement in asylum had to be practical, not legislative—both in relation to the current situation, and looking to the long-term. Refugees had to be protected, but protected where they were—they should not be expected to move around the EU. The Asylum Support Office would help member states do that (as with the Greece action plan), but further legislation to meet an artificial deadline was a distraction. The UK could not support an emergency mechanism under Dublin—it would undermine the very principle of member state responsibility for asylum claims, remove the incentive to make necessary reforms, move the problem from one place to another, and would encourage asylum seekers to target particular member states (knowing they could then move to their destination of choice). The presidency would ask COREPER to try to prepare a package for political agreement at the European Council.

Draft Charter for the Coroner Service for Consultation

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Government are today publishing a draft charter for the coroner service for public consultation. This is part of the Government’s work to drive improvement in the current coroner service to address current inconsistencies and inefficiencies in the delivery of services across England and Wales.

The draft charter for the coroner service sets out the minimum standards expected from coroners. The charter will apply to all bereaved people, witnesses and other interested persons who come into contact with the coroner service.

The charter will for the first time provide a national framework that sets out the standards of service that bereaved family members, witnesses and other properly interested persons in a coroner’s investigation can expect to receive from the coroner service in England and Wales. It will ensure that all coroner offices in England and Wales know the standards they should already be meeting, and that bereaved people and other service users know their rights and responsibilities throughout the investigation process. The charter will also clarify what options are available if someone wishes to make a complaint against the level of service received or against a coroner. I must stress that we are not imposing any new obligations on coroners. We are merely setting out for the first time, in an accessible and transparent format, what the current standards are.

I propose to publish the draft charter alongside the Ministry of Justice’s current “Guide to Coroners and Inquests”, which sets out the role of a coroner and the investigation process. This is so that people can access information about the process, and the standards that should be met, in one booklet. No major changes have been proposed to the guide and therefore I am not consulting on the guide itself. The guide and the charter will be updated as and when changes to the coroner system are introduced.

This publication marks the latest in a number of steps that the Government plan to undertake to bring about much-needed improvements to the coroner system. The charter will be followed by a review of coroners’ rules and regulations, development of guidance for coroners and their officers and implementation of key provisions in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

In taking this work forward I am also considering how best we achieve, maintain and monitor those changes in the absence of a chief coroner. I continue to have positive discussions with Parliamentarians, the judiciary and representatives from civil society groups about the transfer functions of the chief coroner, including the leadership role, and we will be making a statement setting out the Government’s plans in more detail in the near future.

Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office. The document is also available online, at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/consultations. htm. The consultation on the draft charter will run until 5 September 2011. A response paper and the final version of the charter will be published in December 2011.

Members’ Salaries

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

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

During the debate on 21 March 2011, I endorsed the principle of ensuring the fully independent determination and administration of MPs’ salaries. This position received support on both sides of the House.

On Tuesday I signed an order to commence section 29 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and related consequential provisions. This order has the effect of transferring to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority responsibility for the determination of Members’ salaries, finally removing from the House any role in setting the level of Members’ pay. The order will commence the relevant provisions on Tuesday 24 May 2011.

Copies of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (Commencement No. 5) Order 2011 (SI 2011 No. 1274 (C. 52)) will be made available in the Vote Office.

Review of Investigation/Closure Procedures for Motorway Incidents

Thursday 19th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

Today, I am publishing the preliminary report on investigation and closure procedures for motorway incidents. The joint review carried out by my Department, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Highways Agency (HA), and the Home Office, looked at what needs to be done to reduce the duration of motorway closure incidents and help keep our motorways moving. The report can be found on my Department’s website, www.dft.gov.uk, and an electronic copy has been lodged with the House Library.

As set out within my Department’s business plan, the review supports this Government’s vision for a transport system, which is an engine for economic growth, and their commitment to tackling the causes of congestion and unreliability on the strategic road network.

Motorway closures in England cost the economy around £1 billion a year which is an unacceptable brake on the country’s economic recovery. Tackling the causes of congestion and keeping traffic moving is a vital element in securing the UK’s prosperity.

As such, we completed a review of motorway closure incidents to identify what improvements could be made to achieve the shortest timeline possible for managing such incidents.

The review led by this Department makes 10 recommendations, the delivery of which will ensure that there is overall improvement in the time taken to reopen motorways following an incident. The recommendations are contained within the report.

I am also announcing DFT funding of around £3 million for laser scanning technology that can be used by the police for surveying incident scenes. Recent trials by the police and HA have demonstrated that this can make a real difference in speeding up the investigation process. The £3 million will be used to set up a fund which police forces can bid from to put towards the purchase of this technology. The fund will take a match funding approach thereby potentially enabling a larger number of forces to purchase and use this equipment across the strategic road network and local road network.

Later today, I will be chairing a national summit with representatives from all key incident management parties to discuss the review’s findings, and to formally agree the high-level action plan on the way forward. The majority of the review’s recommendations are expected to be completed by the end of the year, and we remain on track to deliver on a further business plan commitment to set up and implement measures to reduce congestion caused by incidents by December 2012. I am confident that by having open dialogue and by continuing to work closely with the emergency services and colleagues across Government in this collaborative manner, we can manage incidents effectively, efficiently and consistently.

House of Lords

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 19 May 2011.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Children: Parenting

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked By

[Lord Northbourne]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to define more clearly the responsibilities of parenthood.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, the Government recognise that the vast majority of parents in this country understand their responsibilities and take them very seriously. They are doing a good job in bringing up their children. It is not government’s role to tell parents how to raise their children. The state already has clear powers to intervene where parents fail in the care of their children and we have no plans to add to the legislation on this issue.

[Lord Northbourne]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I was particularly interested in the latter part of what he said—what one might call the no-nanny-state argument. It seems to me that the Government are on the horns of a dilemma. As I understand it, it is their policy to increase equality and social mobility. In February, we had two debates on the importance of early parenting in which speaker after speaker emphasised the importance of early parenting in enabling a child to succeed in school and in life. How do the Government plan to ensure as far as possible that parents understand and know the needs of their children, even if they—the parents—did not have a happy home life? Are the Government prepared to make it clear to parents that they are responsible for providing the parenting their children need, or at least to raise the issue?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I am extremely aware that few noble Lords in this House have done more than the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to champion the case for parenting, and there is broad agreement in this House about the importance of it. The noble Lord asked whether we have plans to specify parental responsibilities through more legislation, perhaps in the way that it has been done in Scotland. The answer is that we do not. Our view is that the Children Act 1989 sets out a very clear framework and having a new definition of responsibilities could complicate that. I am not sure that setting a declaratory definition would help. Most parents know what it is to be a parent and perform their role well. I am not sure that those who do not would be helped by something written down on a piece of paper. The priority is to give practical help to those parents, which I think all sides of the House agree is an important job.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Does the Minister agree that it is not the job of the state to do the job of parents? Rather than definition, surely we need action. Action was promised in the coalition document, but action there has been none. What will the Government do in terms of fiscal incentives and general improvements in the context within which parents can bring up loving families?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am glad that the noble Lord agrees that there is no need for more definition around this. In terms of practical steps that have been taken, I disagree that the Government have done nothing. A range of steps have been taken including extending free nursery care for two year-olds to disadvantaged families, extending the offer to three and four year-olds, doubling the number of people working in family-nurse partnerships and increasing the number of family health visitors, so a number of practical steps have been taken. Clearly there are families in which parents have problems in performing their duties properly. There are lessons we can learn from the extremely important and valuable work of the previous Government with family intervention projects, which we can try to extend.

[Lord St John of Fawsley]

My Lords, could the Government not arrange economic affairs so that more parents are encouraged to get married?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, the question of what those economic incentives might be is clearly a matter for my friends at the Treasury. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider any proposals there might be for such incentives and bring them forward at the appropriate time.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, international surveys of child happiness show the experience of childhood in this country not to be as positive as in many other countries, particularly in Europe. Therefore, I wonder whether there is not at least some case for codifying the proper expectations of a child in relation to parenthood, as has been the case, for example, in the Napoleonic Code in France for many years. Is there a case not for the nanny state but for some codification that might help the process of personal and social education in schools?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

To revert to my earlier answer, I am not convinced of the need for a codification. I do not know how one would set about it or, in practical terms, the benefits it might bring. The priority should be to focus on and to help those families who most need help, rather than to draw up an approach for all parents and families, as I am not aware that there is a particular problem in most families and with most parents.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most successful initiatives designed to help parents to understand their responsibilities was the introduction of Sure Start centres? Is he concerned about the level of cuts being imposed by cash-strapped local authorities, which is estimated to be around 22 per cent in real terms? Will his department reconsider its decision not to ring-fence the Sure Start centre grant?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, about the contribution that Sure Start centres make. Other initiatives, such as the family intervention project, pioneered by the previous Government, achieved a lot and we can learn from that. I agree about the importance of Sure Start centres. There is a difference of opinion between us about the degree of local discretion and autonomy that one allows, which is why we have removed the ring-fence. We have put enough money into the early intervention grant to maintain a universal network of Sure Start centres, which is what we want to do.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, given the strong evidence showing the adverse impact on children who are exposed to high levels of damaging parental conflict, as so clearly highlighted by the Kids in the Middle campaign, what plans do the Government have to help parents to understand and meet their responsibilities to children when relationships break down?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, given the circumstances, I think that it probably is best to speak to my noble friend later and pursue that point with her.

Education: Bahraini Students

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:15

Asked By

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make representations to the Government of Bahrain on behalf of those Bahrainians studying in the United Kingdom whose courses have been terminated.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, we urge the Government of Bahrain to meet all their human rights obligations and to uphold political freedoms, equal access to justice and the rule of law. The British Government are aware of allegations about the Bahraini Government’s actions towards some Bahraini students studying in the United Kingdom. These are clearly of considerable concern. Our ambassador in Bahrain raised the issue with the Bahraini Minister of Justice on 4 May, saying that it was wrong for students to be punished for exercising a right to peaceful demonstration, as recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We will continue to make our concerns clear to the Bahraini authorities.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, has my noble friend actually made representations to the Bahraini authorities that they should restore the grants to these particular students, who will otherwise be left destitute in this country? Does he think that these students are likely to obey the summons to return to their country when, this morning, the court sentenced demonstrators to 20 years’ imprisonment?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We have certainly made representations along those lines, in very strong terms. I could not speculate on what kind of result the pressures will have, but we have made the point that students are free to carry on activities here as long as they do not commit a criminal offence. That is the law and we have made the situation absolutely clear to the Bahraini authorities.

[Lord Ahmed]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that MINAB—the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board—has expressed deep concerns about the Bahraini authorities’ demolition of 10 Shia mosques? As a Sunni, I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will make representations to the Bahraini Government asking them to refrain from demolishing places of worship.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, we certainly will do so—and may well have done so already. I appreciate very much the insights of the noble Lord, as he understands the tensions, difficulties and divisions of this situation. In addition to making representations—which of course is not good enough unless one gets results—we have noted that the authorities in Bahrain have agreed to lift the state of emergency and to accelerate investigations into deaths in detention, and they have invited in the UN to investigate abuses at the Salmaniya hospital. That goes beyond the question of mosque demolition, but it indicates that we have the sustained pressure and that we might be getting some progress. However, there is a long way to go before we move to the dialogue that we want to see the Bahraini authorities organise in their country.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in addition to the sanctions against the students here in the UK—who, as he said, were exercising the democratic right to protest peacefully that is available to them here—their families have been arrested, locked up and told that they will not be released until the students stop protesting and opposing the regime? Can my noble friend tell the House whether the UN and other international bodies working on this Bahraini impasse would consider appointing an envoy to go to Bahrain and investigate these abuses?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I have not had reports this morning about the first point that my noble friend raised, but obviously there is concern in all the international bodies about what has been happening. As I have said, we have urged the Government of Bahrain to create the environment in which a dialogue can take place. This is the pressure being put on the Bahraini authorities at the moment and we intend to pursue it. The issue of taking wider action at the UN has not arisen and, at the moment, there is no sign of organised support for any movement of that kind. But, obviously, these matters are always in our minds.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation in Bahrain is very complex and different from a lot of the other centres of unrest that we are witnessing in the Middle East, not least because of the problems alluded to by my noble friend? There is the Shia-Sunni conflict, the problem of outside influences and, indeed, tensions within the Bahraini Government themselves. Would the Minister consider chairing a meeting of those of us who are interested in Bahraini issues so that we might have an opportunity to discuss some of these issues in perhaps greater detail, perhaps with some briefing as well from the Foreign Office? I think that that would be immensely helpful and I would be grateful if the noble Lord would consider doing it.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As far as I am concerned, I am always free to do that—of course—and I suspect from the noises that I hear around me that that would be a good move. Let us work to see if we can find time to get together and move ahead on that basis.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, at the risk of striking a discordant note, could I put it to my noble friend that the business of the Government is governing this country rather than telling eternally almost every other Government in the world how to govern theirs?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am very surprised that my noble friend is striking a discordant note, but he makes the perfectly serious point that we cannot resolve every issue in every corner of the earth. However, there are our interests—and our interests happen to be rather acute in this very sensitive area of the Middle East, where not only does one of our major allies have a huge fleet and we have our contact and communications operations for trying to control the piracy that is a direct affront to our interests, our shipping and our prosperity, but there are many other British interests as well. I think that we are entitled to look after our interests in a reasonable way without—my noble friend is quite right—interfering in every conceivable situation.

EU: Transfer of Iranian Refugees

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:20

Asked By

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to a proposal from a European Parliament delegation to Iraq that the European Union Council of Ministers and European Commission seek international support for the voluntary transfer of Iranian refugees at Camp Ashraf to European Union member states, the United States and Canada.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, we are aware of the recent visit to Iraq by the European parliamentary delegation and its proposed solution to the complex challenges that Camp Ashraf presents. Resettlement may represent a way forward, although we do not assess that residents would qualify for resettlement in the UK. Responsibility for Camp Ashraf lies with the Government of Iraq, and we call on all sides to engage in constructive dialogue to reach a lasting solution. We deplore the recent loss of life and injury.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

Will the Minister understand that attempts peacefully to resolve the position of Ashraf cannot begin until Iraqi and Iranian forces stop the brutal murder of residents of Ashraf, the wounding of literally hundreds of residents and the use of psychological torture through 280 loudspeakers around the camp perimeter, threatening the lives of those in the camp? Will he now ask the Prime Minister to urge the UN Security Council to take over responsibility for the protection of Ashraf residents, to secure the withdrawal of Iraqi and Iranian forces from the camp and to ensure that the wounded get the treatment and the medical supplies that they need to get better?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As the noble Lord knows very well—indeed, he must be saluted as the campaign leader in this very ugly situation—the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, UNAMI, has requested that another humanitarian monitoring mission be sent to Ashraf as soon as possible, and we fully support that. The problem, as the noble Lord appreciates, is that this is Iraqi sovereign territory and there are limits to what those of us outside can do. Despite making constant representations, our own visit on 16 March and our deploring of the confirmed killing on 8 April, we cannot intervene in the internal affairs of Iraq without the recognition and support of the Maliki Government, which we need. That is what we must work for all the time and what we back the UN in doing as well.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My Lords—

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

Did the Minister have the chance to see the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in the European Parliament on 10 May, where she reiterated the duty to protect which the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, referred to a few moments ago? The noble Lord asked the Minister about the role of the United Nations and the declared doctrine of the duty to protect. Given that, in April, 35 people were killed and 350 were injured, is this merely an internal question for the sovereign Government of Iraq or is it not something that the international community has a duty to be involved in?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It is a matter that should and does concern us all. I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has now agreed to take the Ashraf issue on to the agenda at the next European Union Foreign Affairs Council on 23 May. We are moving in that direction.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that not only are the wounded still not gaining medical supplies but that these people have not even been allowed to bury their dead in their own cemetery? Will he accept that, under the Geneva protocols, these are protected persons? At the risk of offending the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, again, can I add that international law requires other states to take positive action to protect innocent civilians in these circumstances? Will the international community come together to resettle these people voluntarily, either within Iraq or in other countries?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I referred earlier in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, to the problem about resettlement in different countries. Neither this country nor our neighbouring countries are in a position to resettle these people; they simply do not qualify. On the medical treatment issue, these points have been raised and the UN, again with our support, has stressed the importance of the Iraqi Government co-operating with the camp’s leadership to ensure that residents get the treatment they need. After the dreadful 8 April incident, a number of the injured were transferred to a US hospital and all those have now returned to the camp. The issue of serious medical deprivation and serious medical assistance is very much in our minds and in the minds of the United Nations, and we will continue to watch the situation very carefully. There appear to be some transfers of cases to hospitals in Baghdad and Erbil. The situation is not totally black, but it is very dark indeed.

[Lord Eden of Winton]

Does my noble friend agree that this situation has now reached the point where a fresh approach is required if it is ever going to be resolved in a sensible and humanitarian way? Is it not clear that Iraq would like to have this issue settled one way or the other but that it is choosing a route that is resulting in grotesque crimes against the civilian population in Ashraf? Surely the moment has come when the United Nations and the European Union together should take the initiative to find a lasting solution that will satisfactorily rehouse the residents of Ashraf elsewhere out of Iraq?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I certainly hope that that moment will come. The present course of Iraq appears to be that, by means that are not at all acceptable, it can shrink the perimeters of this very large camp. This has led to the kind of horrors we saw on 8 April and so clearly that is the wrong route. I hope that at the meeting of the European Union Foreign Affairs Council, which I have already mentioned, the prospects for redirecting the Government of Iraq into a wiser course and taking broader steps with the support of the European Union will crystallise. That is what I hope will happen.

[Lord Clarke of Hampstead]

My Lords, on the protected persons status under the Geneva Convention, is the Minister aware that his colleague, Alistair Burt, wrote to me on 9 May saying that my concerns about this protected persons status were not sustainable because there was no warlike “scenario”, as he described it, in Camp Ashraf? Does the Minister agree that the people who were attacked on 8 April, when the camp was invaded at four o’clock in the morning and resulted in at least 38 people being slaughtered, including eight women, could be forgiven for thinking that it is a warlike situation? Mr Maliki should be told that his freedom in Iraq is there only because of the sacrifice of British and American troops all those years ago.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I agree with the feeling behind the noble Lord’s statement. If the underlying thought of the question was whether these people could be protected by the fourth Geneva Convention, I am afraid the answer, again, is negative; it is not, in the sense recognised by the convention, a war situation. It remains, nevertheless, whatever the lawyers tell us, a very unpleasant situation, and we must all move to see whether we can advance towards a creative solution.

Courts: Super-injunctions

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:29

Tabled By

[Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that the public interest is taken into account in the granting of super-injunctions.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, and with his consent, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of finding the right balance between individual rights to privacy on the one hand and the right to freedom of expression and transparency of official information on the other. The Government will await the report of the Master of the Rolls’ Committee on the use of super-injunctions before deciding on next steps.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I thank my noble friend for his reply. Does he accept that every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland? So how can it be right for a super-injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague? If true, it would be a serious breach of corporate governance and not even the Financial Services Authority would be allowed to know about it.

[Lord McNally]

I do not think that it is proper for me from this Dispatch Box to comment on individual cases, some of which are before the courts.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I agree with that and the extent to which one should not use privilege to go against the terms of court orders. To what extent are the Government considering how much the hearings in which super-injunctions or indeed any privacy injunctions are granted are open to the press? One of the problems is that people do not know what the process is. The press are reliable when directed not to disclose what goes on in criminal trials. Why can they not be present when secrecy injunctions or super-injunctions are granted?

[Lord McNally]

That is an extremely interesting question, one I hope that the Master of the Rolls has been considering and one to which he will give the answer tomorrow—I think.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Would the noble Lord accept that, of course, the judges take the public interest into account at the moment when deciding whether to grant a super-injunction? Would he also accept, as has been said so often, that the public interest in this connection is not to be equated with what may be of interest to the public?

[Lord McNally]

That goes to the nub of it. Quite clearly, what is of interest to the public can include areas which intrude into private life. Again, we are looking carefully at these matters. The fact that there is so much public discussion and debate means that it has been sensible to get the Master of the Rolls to look at these issues. When we have the full knowledge of his deliberations, we will make statements on steps forward.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Will my noble friend be good enough to tell us how many super-injunctions have been issued and are extant? Hugh Tomlinson QC, the leader in privacy law, tells me that the Ministry of Justice has no idea. Perhaps the Minister would send a runner down to the Royal Courts of Justice and find out exactly how many there are. The Times says 30; other newspapers say 800.

[Lord McNally]

I have to confess that the Ministry of Justice does not have a figure on the number of super-injunctions. I understand that the Ministry of Justice statistician, a post I was not aware of—

[Lord Bach]

The chief statistician.

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has more experience on this. The chief statistician is looking into the matter. We hope to be able to give those figures shortly.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, is not a right to a private life and respect for privacy an essential, indeed defining, characteristic of a free society? Of course, there must always be an over-ride where there is a connection between private behaviour and the fulfilment of public responsibilities, including voting and speaking in Parliament. In that connection, is it not intolerable that important sections of the media, in pursuit of a commercial agenda in competition for getting more titillating material to increase their sales, think nothing quite regularly of bribing informants, of surreptitious surveillance and photography, of tapping telephones and of using the methods normally associated with the activities of a secret police in a totalitarian society? Is this not a national disgrace and should not Parliament and the Government face up to their responsibilities and legislate on the issue?

[Lord McNally]

I think I was with the noble Lord right to the last bend, there. Of course, in a free society we have to recognise those rights that he has just recognised, but also in a free society we recognise the need for a robust and free press. The noble Lord laid down a catalogue of sins, which throws a challenge to our press. I know that noble Lords on all sides of the House want to defend a free press, but the press has a duty to put its own house in order to see whether some of the faults that the noble Lord outlined should not be more robustly dealt with by the self-regulation that the press claims to be so proud of.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Section 12 of the Human Rights Act strikes a balance between free speech and privacy—

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we have had 30 minutes and I think we will go on to the next business.

Localism Bill

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:36

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Timing of Debates

11:36

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Irvine of Lairg set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Lord Beecham to two hours.

Motion agreed.

Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2011

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Export Control (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2011

Motion to Refer to Grand Committee

11:37

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the draft orders be referred to a Grand Committee.

Motion agreed.

European Convention on Human Rights

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Debate

11:37

Moved By

[Lord Irvine of Lairg]

To call attention to the European Convention on Human Rights; and to move for papers.

[Lord Irvine of Lairg]

My Lords, my purpose is to dispel some of the many myths peddled about human rights. In fact it is the Conservative Party, not Labour, that can make the strongest claim to credit for the European convention. Its main proponents were Churchill, Macmillan and John Foster, with some Liberal and Labour support. Its principal author was David Maxwell Fyfe, the future Conservative Chancellor, Viscount Kilmuir. The convention was substantially the work of British jurists within a tradition going back to the Petition of Right of 1628 and our own Bill of Rights of 1689.

Britain became the first state to ratify the convention, on 8 March 1951, yet it was not until December 1965 that the then Government accepted the right of individual petitions to the Commission and the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. Then for a long period, until 1993, both major parties were united in rejecting incorporation of the convention into our domestic law. That in itself was extraordinary, because it meant that our citizens could not argue for their convention rights in our own courts but had to take the long and expensive road to Strasbourg.

Then came the late John Smith’s seminal Charter 88 speech on 1 March 1993, committing Labour in government to incorporate. That translated into a 1997 manifesto commitment, and the Human Rights Act 1998, which began its parliamentary progress in this House, followed. Its purpose was to bring home to be enforceable in our own courts the rights contained in the convention. Our courts are of course closer to the traditions of our society, and through their judgments they can make a distinctive British contribution to the development of Europe-wide human rights laws.

To Conservative critics of the Convention and the Act, I recommend the recent short study by Norman and Oborne, Churchill’s Legacy: The Conservative Case for the Human Rights Act. They detail the history and debunk the myths. They emphasise that,

“A large element of the selling power of some British newspapers depends on their ability to break stories about the private lives of celebrities”,

and conclude that,

“it is unlikely that reform of the HRA would be on any political agenda, were it not for the potent advocacy of the most powerful media groups in the country”.

In Chapter 4, “Dispelling the Myths”, they accuse the media of a culture of deception about the Act since the media believe that they have an interest in its destruction because of its protection of privacy in Article 8:

“Any politician who denounces the HRA, however incorrectly, is generally guaranteed a round of applause from the press”.

They say that a politician who argues the contrary, “tends to get pilloried”.

Among the most controversial recent cases are those where the courts have granted injunctions to prevent the press publishing details of the private lives of celebrities. The Prime Minister himself has entered the fray, on the side of the press. Unsurprisingly, he has secured a good press. He said that the judges were creating a privacy law, whereas what ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy is that Parliament should decide,

“how much protection we want for individuals and how much freedom of the press”.

Essentially, the charge is that the judges are usurping the role of Parliament. This is either ingenuous or disingenuous; your Lordships can decide which.

There are two straightforward answers to the charge. First, the judges are under instruction from Parliament in the HRA to balance the right of respect for the claimant’s private and family life against the right to freedom of expression in Article 12, and of course the judges obey. The scales are weighed in favour of freedom of expression because the Act requires the courts to have particular regard to its importance. No other right is given this privileged status. We should remember that in those cases it is often not only the Article 8 rights of celebrities that are at stake but also those of innocent third parties, including children. There is typically no significant public interest in the disclosure of the peccadilloes of actors, footballers or reality television contestants, although that helps to sell newspapers. A prurient interest does not equate to a legitimate public interest. The weight that the courts give to freedom of expression is strongly illustrated by the recent Strasbourg ruling in Max Mosley’s case in favour of the media.

The second answer to the charge is that the Government could introduce tomorrow a freedom of expression and privacy Bill compatibly with the convention if they took their courage in both hands. Members of the other place would undoubtedly show huge interest in such legislation, equalled no doubt only by the inevitable wrath of the tabloids—so your Lordships should not be in the least surprised if no such legislation is ultimately brought forward. Far easier to go on berating the judges, however unfairly, for doing what Parliament has instructed them to do than to take the knock of legislation oneself.

I should not leave this subject without emphasising that the media have gained greatly from the convention and the Act: enhanced protection for journalistic sources; a dramatic reduction in the level of libel damages; and the right to report on a much wider range of court proceedings. However, I emphasise that when impartial courts hold the balance between privacy and freedom of expression, the media cannot expect to have it all their own way.

I move to another recent controversy—votes for prisoners—where misconceptions also abound. We have clear primary legislation in Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, which prevents convicted prisoners being registered to vote. No other interpretation of Section 3 is possible. Although Section 3 was declared incompatible with the convention by the courts, voting claims brought by prisoners under the HRA were rejected on the grounds that Section 3 was clear and the sovereignty of Parliament must prevail. All that the European Court held was that our blanket ban should be reconsidered. However, as a result of the HRA, it will be reconsidered in the proper forum: Parliament.

Your Lordships should know that our blanket ban has put us out of step with a clear majority of the other states in the Council of Europe, most of whom, including Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, allow some or all of their convicted prisoners to vote. In that context, it is surprising that the Prime Minister went as far as to claim that he felt physically ill at the prospect of giving the vote to prisoners. All that was held at Strasbourg was that the blanket ban was disproportionate because it applied irrespective of the length of the sentence or the gravity of the offence, and without regard to whether the prisoner had completed that part of the sentence relating to deterrence and punishment. At any rate, it is now up to Parliament, which will want to consider whether some opportunity to participate in democratic elections could help prisoners’ restoration to the mainstream of society.

Another example is the sex offenders register, a subject on which the Prime Minister and his Home Secretary have become so choleric that your Lordships should worry for their peace of mind. The antidote that I would prescribe is a strong dose of rationality. The Supreme Court recently considered statutory provisions that imposed on certain sex offenders lifelong notification obligations to inform the police of their whereabouts or foreign travel plans. The basic point was that they could not even apply for their names to be removed from the register, regardless of the rehabilitation that they might have achieved over many years. The Supreme Court made a declaration that the provisions were incompatible with the convention in the absence of a procedure that allowed an individual to apply to be taken off the register. It would be for Parliament to determine the criteria for success, when an application could first be made and who would decide. Alternatively, the Government are free, under the Act, to do precisely nothing, wait to see if it is taken to the Strasbourg court, and argue there why any review would always and for ever be inappropriate.

The Prime Minister and his Home Secretary joined in telling Parliament how appalled they were by the decision, with the Prime Minister adding that the decision was completely offensive and flew in the face of common sense, while the Home Secretary questioned its sanity. However, all that the judges were doing was applying the law. Surely, this intemperateness must stop. Respect for the rule of law underpins our democracy. That respect is not a commodity to be marketed away for perceived short-term political advantage. When it is, Ministers undermine respect for the rule of law and diminish both themselves and our democracy.

I greatly look forward to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to this debate. On 18 March, the Ministry of Justice announced the establishment of an independent commission to investigate the case for a UK Bill of Rights. Its terms of reference follow the language of the coalition agreement—namely,

“to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates … all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties”.

So, the European Convention will continue to be a guaranteed floor, but not a ceiling, for the protection of human rights in Britain. I congratulate the noble Lord’s party on these terms of reference. The commission provides an excellent opportunity for his party to put—if this is the correct expression—clear blue water between themselves and their coalition partner. I invite him to take this opportunity to confirm that the continued incorporation of the European convention rights into our domestic law is non-negotiable. I beg to move.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

The Question is that this Motion be agreed to.

[Lord McCluskey]

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he comment on the matter of the judges doing what Parliament instructed them to do? He will recall—

[Baroness Hayman]

The Question has been put. We are now into the debate. The noble and learned Lord could, of course, speak in the gap if necessary, if he is not on the speakers’ list.

11:51

[Lord Mayhew of Twysden]

My Lords, I shall look forward to that intervention.

I begin by expressing my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for giving us the opportunity to debate this topical and extremely important subject. Unfashionable though it may be, I remain glad that our country has ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is not often recalled—I was very glad to hear the noble and learned Lord do so a few moments ago—that we did so by one of the first acts of Sir Winston Churchill’s second Administration. We were the first of the member states of the Council of Europe to do so.

Like many of your Lordships, I am old enough to recall, and to have shared in, the surge of international idealism that flowed from the full realisation of the horrors that had been experienced in the recently concluded world war, and which had been inflicted on human beings before and during it. Those horrors had been inflicted by tyrants upon victims in a Europe that had lacked the political will to formulate, let alone enforce, any statement of their basic rights as human individuals. On all sides the determination was “never again”. So uncontroversial was the new convention, that to the best of my knowledge its ratification was never debated in Parliament. Though we became one of 12, our particular participation as a country was, I believe, to offer oppressed people elsewhere in Europe and beyond a beacon of hope and faith. From it they took heart and strength.

More controversially, however, I am also glad, though more critically, that 60 years later we remain bound by the convention, and that the coalition Government have declared that we shall continue to be so bound. That is not to say that there is not an urgent need for reform. In 60 years there have evolved, in large part with the consent of the member states, very significant changes to structures and jurisdiction. Whereas initially there was no court but only a Commission and a Council of Ministers, now the Strasbourg Court is at the heart of the convention, and, it must be said, at the centre of its problems. There is, for example, the horrifying and absurd backlog of applications to the court. Perhaps predominantly, there is the popular conception, which some of the court’s decisions have allowed to develop, that its decisions are typically out of touch with reality and with what is sensible. It is very damaging, surely, that this development should have led an authority of the stature of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, the former Law Lord, to be reported as saying that

“human rights have become, like health and safety, a byword for foolish decisions by courts and administrators”.

He has written that,

“the Strasbourg court has taken upon itself an extraordinary power to micromanage the legal systems of the member states of the Council of Europe”.

The Justice Minister, on behalf of the Government, has endorsed—though more gently—the thrust of that criticism. I think that there is much of which complaint in a similar vein can be made in the development by the court of its own jurisprudence. But it has been unfair in the main. Here I very gladly follow what the noble and learned Lord has just said. It has been unfair to attach that criticism to our own judges, who are obliged under the Human Rights Act 1998 to “keep pace with” the jurisprudence of Strasbourg.

It is not therefore wholly apt—to put it mildly—merely to assert that human rights should be determined by Parliament, not by judges. Whatever the words employed by Parliament, it will always fall to the judges to interpret and apply them to each individual case that comes before them.

Nevertheless, something must be done, and it is easy to understand how impatience can give rise to the answer, “Have done with the convention and all its works. Renounce it and make a fresh start”.

I believe that such a course would be an act of almost wanton destruction. Just as the convention itself derived from international determination to remedy for individuals the absence of legal protection against tyrannical abuse, so its renunciation by this country, of all countries, would tragically undermine the valiant efforts of protestors everywhere to secure basic rights and freedoms for themselves. That would be hard to forgive.

The wiser course, surely, is that now adopted by the coalition Government: the appointment of the commission in March to investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on our obligations under the ECHR, ensures that those rights continue to be enshrined in UK domestic law and protects and extends our liberties.

It has been our destiny to be, for oppressed millions, a beacon of hope and faith. We can and must remain true to that destiny.

[Baroness Northover]

I would remind noble Lords—and my noble and learned friend was admirably within time—that this is a time-limited debate. When the clock hits seven, noble Lords have completed their seven minutes. We also have a noble Lord who wishes to speak in the gap.

11:58

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, I congratulate my friend of many years, my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine, on the presentation that he has made today and on the call for these papers on human rights to be brought forward. There could not be a more appropriate time than now to raise this particular issue. The role of human rights and the protection of private interest and public interest, as embodied in the European Convention on Human rights, were not challenged for a number of years but that has not been the case over the past five years. Clearly there is a fundamental challenge under way. The Minister of Justice in the other place has now admitted that the Government are looking at how they might change human rights legislation. We will have the presidency under the Council of Europe perhaps to do some of that. We look forward to the debate and the conclusions of the Government.

I should perhaps declare an interest, as the leader of the Labour group in the Council of Europe, leading a delegation from these two Houses. We have been concerned about the reforms that are necessary in human rights legislation. We made recommendations 10 years ago about the length of time taken for cases and about other matters. There is a need for reform, as has been said in this House on a number of occasions. However, I say to my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine that our debates in 1997 which he led in this House made a compromise that has not helped the situation. I refer to the role of the press complaints body that deals with some of the obligations of the press in observing public and private interests. We made a rod for our backs by not making public bodies accountable regarding the Council of Europe and human rights obligations. We exempted the Press Complaints Commission from that. If we did not have a body that claimed the right to be self-regulatory, we would be able to bring standards and provide advice to editors when dealing with these cases. The point that I want to make today is that in referring newspapers to another body for further discussion, the role of the Press Complaints Commission should be considered.

I attended the other place when it discussed the right of prisoners to vote. That was not a simple issue, and the Government recognised that the House should decide on whether there should be a vote for everyone or whether there should be an area of discretion or appreciation. We can decide on whether the right should be limited depending on how long a person is in prison and the offences involved. The House was not denied the opportunity to make that decision—and many other Parliaments have done that. Only three have said that they are not prepared to accept the ruling. However, the issue behind the debate in the Commons was about getting out of Europe. Those who wanted that did not distinguish between the Council of Europe or the European Union. They wanted to get out of those bodies. They said that Parliament should be the supreme body for legislation. They were same people who voted for us to join the European Union—and I voted against it in 1972. What gives them the right to override the supremacy of those bodies? The Lisbon treaty again makes that clear. We recognise that that is something that already happens to our legislation. The debate was really about how you get out.

I also heard during that debate that judges are ignorant, they are from foreign countries, and they are not elected. I have to say that I am one of the people who elected the judges to the European court. I do not know what the press will make of that, but nevertheless we were involved in exercising that democratic right through our delegation.

The other example was the Max Moseley case, in which our courts—our courts—under our legislation actually said that there was a breach of privacy that was relevant, if you like, to Articles 8 and 10 of the Council of Europe convention, and found a balance in that. Moseley went to the Europe court to seek a ruling on notification—that a person should be told in advance of publication. When I hear the Press Complaints Commission saying that we have a right to notification, we all know what that means. There is a call at 5 pm on a Saturday night saying, “We’ve got this story. Do you want to comment?”. They do not give you notification, and if you can afford to sue them, they do not give you notification, because they know you might go to the court. That is precisely what Moseley did. I can see what is involved in all this talk about rich people getting that right, but an awful lot of people cannot afford it. Why? It is because the press is made up of powerful rich bodies that prevent you taking any action under our legal system.

It is interesting to note that our press praised the common sense of the judges who rejected Moseley’s application for notification, but they condemned the same judges over the issue of prisoners. All of a sudden, those judges became well informed and wise. Frankly, that is all we can expect from our press. I am not a fan. Even the recent super-injunctions are sought under our law, not the European court’s law. I will not go into those arguments. I can see why people are getting increasingly concerned about them. I must say that I am not excited by the idea that some footballer can say, “Publication might affect my sponsorship money”. That is not about human rights; it is about commercial interests, which is the motivation of most of these injunctions. So there is this kind of anti-European dimension, which is not at all helpful.

I come to the point that I really wanted to make in this debate. I think we agree that Articles 8 and 10, which identify these rights, are rights in our constitution and in the European legislation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, pointed out in a debate in this House on defamation, the American system provides no rights for people or celebrities. There is just media freedom. That is what the press here is after. There is a clash between what we might call the European tradition and the American tradition. The American tradition hands over the freedom to the press. We have to decide here whether we have in legislation protection for individuals or a balance between the public interest and freedom of speech and indeed freedom of the individual. We will do that in legislation and we will do it in the consultation. However, I am worried about the Press Complaints Commission believing that somehow it can rule on that. In many cases the PCC ignored the Information Commissioner, who said that thousands of pieces of information were being obtained illegally and that thousands of pounds were being paid by hundreds of journalists. The PCC did nothing about it. It totally ignored that in the hacking inquiry. The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee said that the inquiry was “simplistic”. It did nothing other than mouth the arguments of the press. Indeed, the chair of the PCC was found for a libellous statement in that very case. It is not very good for the chair to be accused of putting out unfair information.

Therefore, we need to look at the Press Complaints Commission. It was left out of the legislation but I hope that it will be covered by it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, tried to seek out the essential issues, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his Defamation Bill. We should ensure that this whole matter is covered by legislation. I am not necessarily talking about statutory control but about the need for a body which is independent, accountable and answerable and which is concerned about the private individual, not just the editors who control them on their editorial board.

12:05

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, the introduction of the Bill of Rights into Hong Kong in 1991 towards the end of British government put into effect the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in that territory. It was a Conservative Government who introduced it and, with the aid of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, and later the noble Lord, Lord Patten, negotiated that the Bill should be enshrined in the basic law which now applies to Hong Kong.

That Bill of Rights remains as a bulwark of the right to life, to freedom of expression, assembly and religion, the right to equality and to the presumption of innocence, the right to property and to privacy, a right to travel, and a prohibition against arbitrary arrest, detention, imprisonment, search and seizure. I mention these matters because you have only to go a few miles over the border to see what it is like to live in a country where no such rights are enshrined in the constitution or, if they are, they are not put into effect. It is a stark contrast with what happened in Hong Kong.

The Bill of Rights in Hong Kong in its original form gave the courts the power to strike down any law that was incompatible with those rights. The Privy Council here in the case of Lee Kwong-kut in 1993, in which I was involved, tested that power in relation to a criminal charge where the burden of proof had been reversed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who gave the judgment in that case, concluded:

“The issues involving the Hong Kong Bill should be approached with realism and good sense, and kept in proportion. If this is not done the Bill will become a source of injustice rather than justice and will be debased in the eyes of the public ... It must be remembered that questions of policy remain primarily the responsibility of the legislature”.

The Labour Government, led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and possibly in the light of that 1993 judgment, were less ambitious than their predecessor. The remedy for a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights under the 1998 Act, as the noble and learned Lord has already said, is merely a declaration of incompatibility, and it is left to Parliament to remedy the defect that the court demonstrates.

We have yet to consider the legislative reaction of this Government to the decision of our Supreme Court in the case of F in April 2010, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, has already referred. When a Statement was recently made by the Home Secretary and repeated in this House, I said that I was shamed by the language used. The noble and learned Lord has referred to the Home Secretary using expressions such as “disappointed and appalled” and to the Prime Minister finding the judgment “offensive” and questioning the sanity of the court.

We have not heard any more about that. The issue was whether a person could have the right to apply to remove his name from the sex offenders register and not have to give notice of wherever he happened to be in the world. Perhaps it is now realised that the solution put forward by the Home Secretary—that it should be left to the discretion of a policeman to revoke the order of a court—has not been further advanced because clearly it would not survive scrutiny.

I concur with the wise words of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Irvine and Lord Mayhew, about current criticism of the European convention. I will deal with the beneficial effect of the incorporation of the convention by illustrating the changes that have taken place in courts martial, largely as a result of the work of Gilbert Blades and John Mackenzie, who took a highly unsatisfactory system of courts martial to be examined by the European court. I was surprised two weeks ago to be approached by a senior judge advocate who praised the reforms to the system that had been caused by the application of the European convention. I thought that he might have been one of those crusty old judges, but he was not.

The court martial system was challenged in the European court by Corporal Findlay in 1996. The soldier had pleaded guilty at his original trial, but complained that the system whereby the convening officer appointed the members of the court and the prosecutor, directed the charges and then, post trial, became the confirming officer, was not independent. The European court upheld his complaint, which was the catalyst for the Armed Forces Act 1996. Parliament passed the Act, which set up an independent Army prosecuting authority with prosecuting officers who were drawn from professionally qualified lawyers and were independent of the chain of command. Further cases followed in the European Court that led to other changes. Some noble Lords may recall that it led to the ending of the practice in naval courts martial where the defendant was pushed in at the point of a cutlass.

The Armed Forces Act 2006 created a single tri-service prosecuting authority, known as the Service Prosecuting Authority, under the leadership of an independent director of service prosecutions. There was opposition. When I proposed that the pool for the panel should be widened, a noble and gallant Lord said to me in the corridor on the way to the Bishops’ Bar: “You should be shot”. The first DSP is Bruce Houlder, a civilian Queen's Counsel. He has introduced further excellent changes that make the system the envy of military courts in other jurisdictions, as I found out last month at an international seminar at Yale University. That is the way in which the European convention has changed the military justice system so much for the better. It is no longer a case of “march the guilty bastard in”, but a court that gives justice to the defendant.

I consider the Human Rights Act 1998 to be the outstanding piece of legislation of the previous Labour Government—next to the Government of Wales Act 1998. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, not simply on introducing the debate but on being the architect of an important piece in the structure of justice in our country.

12:13

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 was due in very substantial part to the ministerial and parliamentary skills of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. It was due also to the persistent advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I pay tribute to both of them for their remarkable achievement. I also thank the noble and learned Lord for giving us this valuable opportunity to remind ourselves—and, I hope, the Government—of some basic principles that may have been forgotten during recent controversies.

I will make two points. First, I will address the suggestion made by many Members of Parliament that judges simply have no business involving themselves in matters of policy such as votes for prisoners or the notification requirements for sex offenders; these are, they suggest, matters for Parliament to decide. What those MPs fail to understand is that one of the central purposes of human rights law is to protect the interests of those sections of the community who lack political power, who Parliament has failed to protect against unfair treatment by the majority. The great cases of the past 30 years in which judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg persuaded Parliament to change the law of this country arose precisely because Parliament and the Executive failed to secure a fair balance in the treatment of persons who did not have the support of MPs and the press.

I declare an interest as an advocate involved in some of these cases, sometimes for the United Kingdom Government, sometimes for applicants—cases such as those concerning gay men and women who were excluded, entirely unreasonably, from military service; children subjected to corporal punishment; the refusal to recognise basic rights for transsexuals; and the prohibition of the involvement of politicians in the setting of tariffs for murderers. These unfair laws, and many more of them, were simply not addressed by Parliament until the European court identified the unfair treatment. This is quite simply a better country because of the judgments of the European court in such cases. Indeed, it also needs to be emphasised, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, did emphasise, that Parliament remained sovereign on all these issues, but it was the judgment of the European Court that persuaded Parliament that it was time to change our law.

That is not to say that I agree with all the judgments of the Strasbourg court. Who would? The court gave 1,500 judgments last year alone. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, about the urgent need for reform of the procedures of the Strasbourg court, not least to address the unacceptable delays. I would also like to see the European court recognise that, now that our judges apply the Human Rights Act, Strasbourg should give greater weight to the views of our distinguished Supreme Court judges when it is deciding difficult issues. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, made this point very forcefully.

The other matter that I want to address, like some other noble Lords who have already spoken, is the quite extraordinary conduct of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary in March when they stated that they were appalled by a judgment of the Supreme Court given in April 2010 in relation to sex offenders. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referred to this matter, as did the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Many lawyers and judges are appalled not by the Supreme Court judgment but that the Government should think it appropriate to use such language in relation to a judicial decision. In each and every Government of the past 40 years there have been tensions between Ministers and the courts. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who acted as Treasury Counsel in the 1970s, wrote:

“When I die there may be found burnt on my heart the names Laker, Congreve, Tameside and Crossman just to name a few of my defeats when acting for the Government”.

All Crown counsel since then could make a similar statement. I have represented in court most of the Home Secretaries who have served during the past 20 years and I have the scars to prove it. Some of them were more tolerant of legal setbacks than others, but the wise ones understood that those countries in which the Government win all their cases in court are not places in which any of us would wish to live. The Government and Parliament are of course entitled to disagree with a Supreme Court judgment or a ruling by the European court on human rights issues, but Ministers have a responsibility to encourage reasoned debate and not to shout out abuse and insults which undermine the rule of law.

Difficult though it is for the public to understand this principle, and tempting though it is for politicians to try to win support by fighting a battle of Parliament Square against the Supreme Court, the current Administration need to be reminded that there are many issues where the dispassionate assessment of public policy by an independent judiciary, and by a reference to standards of fairness and proportionality, serve a valuable public purpose.

12:21

[The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, for initiating it. The tradition of human rights legislation was forged, as other noble Lords have said, in the mid-20th century as a consequence of the experience of the depth of humanity’s inhumanity. Human rights legislation has its very roots in Europe’s Christian heritage and embodies the church’s teaching on the moral significance of every person. We may say, therefore, that the ECHR is one of the remedies against history repeating itself. Recent experience in the Balkans should warn us that totalitarianism is not so distant that it can be treated as a thing of the past in Europe.

The term “human rights” finds its first usage in the Middle Ages. However, from the very earliest laws, such as the code of Shulgi in Mesopotamia, the need to establish dignity and justice was recognised. The king of Lagash in 2094 BCE promised the native god that,

“he would never subjugate the orphan and widow to the powerful”,

nor,

“surrender the man with one lamb to the man with one bullock”.

The king concludes,

“I did not demand work, I made hate, violence and the clamour for justice disappear. I established justice in the country”.

One might say that the objective of human rights is to end hatred, violence and the clamour for justice, but what is noticeable about the role of the king is that he acted as a mediator between gods and humans, and his legitimation came from “above”. Today, much human rights legislation is compatible with Christian theology and some would argue—I would include myself among them—that they require a concept of the divine if they are to be coherent.

We may illustrate the danger of a wholly secular approach with reference to the Enlightenment. Towards the end of the 18th century, the philosophers, Hegel and Weber, took the view that all had been prepared in universal history so that, in Hegel’s words, Europe was,

“the end and centre of world history”.

There is little doubt that such a view led not only to European expansionism and superiority but to exploitation and, ultimately, the godless totalitarianism of the 20th century.

The aim of human rights is to treat human beings as ends and not means. One of the dangers of a liberal democracy and market economies is to reduce the human person to certain activities, units of labour, consumers and voters, and when human beings are treated as ends, unscrupulous Governments and regimes open the possibility of the torture chamber and holocausts of ultimate meaninglessness.

Equally, however, we cannot regard human rights as simply a list of just entitlements dropped into the cradle. If we ask what it means to be a human being in today’s world, we may conclude that there are the time-honoured material essentials of food and drink, shelter and a safe, healthy and hopeful environment, but these are hardly sufficient in themselves. Humanity requires an environment in which to experience the benefits of the virtues of dignity, love, freedom, justice and relationship. In the African concept of ubuntu—I am because you are, because you are, I am—my rights and my humanity and yours are inextricably linked. People who are dignified through human rights also have the responsibility for others.

No system of human law is infallible. In relative terms, the European Convention on Human Rights is short. Undoubtedly there is much to be improved upon. Reform may well be necessary in certain circumstances, and there is probably some baggage to be discarded. There is certainly the need for a better understanding of what it is to be human. It has been said that we are not human beings on a spiritual journey, but spiritual beings on a human journey. Such a journey should include the disappearance of hate and violence, and the clamour for justice. I continue to believe that in some small but very significant way, the European Convention on Human Rights offers a positive contribution to it.

12:27

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on securing this debate. More than 10 years after the enactment of this momentous piece of legislation, it is time to consider whether the Human Rights Act has lived up to expectations. It is a subject rarely out of the news, but a dispassionate look at its successes and its failures is required.

The title of the White Paper, Rights Brought Home, published in 1997, echoed the consultation document published earlier by the Labour Party entitled Bringing Rights Home. The rhetoric surrounding the introduction of the legislation created a picture of rights invented by us at last being brought into our courts, sparing citizens the long, tedious and expensive journey to secure justice in Strasbourg. It is not without irony that the recent publication by the Policy Exchange is entitled Bringing Rights Back Home. This paper advances the case not for steps to “give further effect” to the convention, as did the Human Rights Act, but rather that control should now be retaken of the convention so as to limit or even eradicate the effect in this country of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

No one in your Lordships’ House or outside can be against the idea of protecting human rights. Few would quarrel with the identification of fundamental rights included in the convention, which we signed in 1950, but even the most fervent supporter of the Act must have quietly despaired at the popular disaffection with it. Sadly, the idea of human rights, once such a noble aspiration, has become trivialised. Since the passing of the Act, I have been engaged as a barrister representing public authorities in claims in tort and now under the Human Rights Act, mainly in the Appeal Court. The Act did not make an immediate impact in this field, but I can tell noble Lords that there has now been a positive explosion of activity. Was this to be expected?

More than a decade ago, a great deal of time and money was spent in educating judges and the legal profession about the forthcoming legislation. Revisiting some of the literature now, it is instructive to see how speculative were the views of commentators about the likely impact of the Act. Perhaps it should have been more obvious that those who would rely on the Act would not be, for the most part, the most attractive members of society. Unfortunately, it has not always been the poor, the sick, the disabled and the homeless who have used it, but prisoners, bogus asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. This has not helped to endear the public to the Act.

One of the more surprising features of the Act has been the response of our judges to the challenges that is has thrown up. Section 2 imposed an obligation on courts to “take into account” Strasbourg jurisprudence rather than to follow it, but the House of Lords Judicial Committee in the case of Ullah said that it was the duty of national courts,

“to keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves over time: no more: but certainly no less".

I do not think that Parliament truly expected such acquiescence.

In the passage of the Bill, an amendment was put down the effect of which was to limit the binding effect of Strasbourg case law. In opposing the amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, said:

“As other noble Lords have said, the word ‘binding’ is the language of strict precedent but the convention has no rule of precedent …We take the view that the expression ‘take in account’ is clear enough … it is important that our courts have the scope to apply that discretion so as to aid in the development of human rights law. There may also be occasions when it would be right for the United Kingdom courts to depart from Strasbourg decisions”.—[Official Report, 19/1/98; col. 1270-71.]

The way decisions are reached in the ECHR is very different from the approach in this country, where there is a strong regard for precedent and consistency in decision-making. Our courts have expended enormous intellectual energy in trying to impose some sort of order on the ad hoc decisions that emanate from Strasbourg. Despite these efforts, considerable uncertainty has resulted as to what the law is, with the result that many Human Rights Act cases reach the appellate courts, with consequent expense to all parties, principally public authorities.

For those who were prospectively concerned about the potential loss of identity in our law by reason of the impending legislation, reassurance was offered by the prospect of the “margin of appreciation”. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr Jack Straw, said on 3 June 1998:

“The doctrine of the margin of appreciation means allowing this country a margin of appreciation when it interprets our law and the actions of our Governments in an international court, perhaps the European Court of Human Rights. Through incorporation we are giving a profound margin of appreciation to British courts to interpret the convention in accordance with British jurisprudence as well as European jurisprudence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/98; col. 424.]

Those who were concerned that the Human Rights Act would have insufficient impact on our law were afraid that too much respect would be paid to the margin of appreciation—that there would even be a double margin of appreciation—but the reality is that it has featured hardly at all in the responses by courts here to the often-controversial decisions emanating from Strasbourg, which have largely been remarkably creative interpretations of the fundamental rights embodied in the convention. The courts have thought it appropriate not restrict to themselves to the protection of fundamental rights but frequently to reinterpret United Kingdom obligations in areas such as policing, social services, education and even the administration of prisons. These are surely areas where one would expect the courts to reflect the margin of appreciation.

Judges here have been perhaps slightly supine in the face of some curious decisions coming from Strasbourg, but there has of late been a flicker of a response. In the recent case of Horncastle, the Supreme Court declined to follow a decision of the ECHR and encouraged what it described as a “dialogue” to begin between the courts here and there. Experience suggests that any such exchange is less likely to be the elegant exchanges of a Noel Coward play and rather more a Beckett monologue, with Strasbourg the only speaking part.

This leads to prisoners' votes. A significant majority of the UK population is against them voting, although some might regard the right to vote as slightly less controversial than the right to receive heroin substitute, which has been the subject of a large number of claims against those responsible for the “health” of prisoners. However, Strasbourg has decided that the parliamentary ban is insufficiently nuanced and has persisted in this view, notwithstanding the view expressed by the House of Commons in the recent debate.

I welcome the commission set up by the Deputy Prime Minister, which has an enormous and vital task to perform. The members of the commission will not be short of advice. I am sure that they will not be swayed by the tabloid headlines that have so disfigured the debate so far. I only wish that I could tell the House that all the newspaper stories were fundamentally wrong, but they are not.

No one who followed the introduction of the Act can question the motives of those behind the legislation. It took tenacity and intellectual courage to see it through. It would take even greater courage to accept its major shortcomings and the need for change.

12:34

[Baroness Whitaker]

My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg has put into brilliant context a most important subject, but one that is stereotyped and made into a ridiculous Eurosceptic nightmare in the pages of the tabloid press and the minds of some people.

The reality is the opposite. The domestication of the European Convention on Human Rights, via the Human Rights Act, far from licensing various kinds of absurd or even criminal behaviour, has achieved respectful, compassionate and fair treatment for very many of our fellow citizens oppressed by systems or bureaucracy or misguided or oppressive elements of the state, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, eloquently described. Enemies of red tape and bureaucracy should welcome the Human Rights Act. It is there to give a human dimension back to state operations. It is not, pace noble Lords, primarily for lawyers any more than water is for water engineers. It is for citizens to rely on and public servants to have regard to.

As a board member of the British Institute of Human Rights, I draw some examples of this reality from its experience in training public sector officials such as those working in the NHS or empowering groups such as pensioners to access appropriate facilities fairly. Many of the successes that they have told me of have used the Human Rights Act to avoid going to court.

The parents of a mentally ill son in residential care were not allowed to visit after they complained of unexplained bruising. Human Rights Act training enabled them to challenge this successfully. Children in foster care were not allowed to see their mother, prone to mental ill-health after the death of their father, because of the lack of supervisory staff, to the great distress of both parties. The mother's advocate was trained to argue, successfully, that the children had a right to see their mother. They now remain very close.

Of course, some problems end up in court—I have many more examples of those that do not, but it is important to realise that they can. One such decision was that, before the closure of care homes, effects on the residents must be investigated and their rights safeguarded. Vulnerable old people in all care homes are more secure because of this. Another case overturned the dreadful decision that a woman fleeing her violent husband made herself intentionally homeless.

The courts found that the Mental Health Act 1983 did not comply with the Human Rights Act because it did not put the onus for proving the need for continued detention on the detaining authorities. As your Lordships know, only Parliament can change our laws. In the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we agreed new regulations to redress this plainly oppressive state of affairs. People have had their liberty restored because of this use of the Human Rights Act.

Many of these rights are not absolute. They need to fit in with other rights. The Human Rights Act provides a mechanism for balancing those rights.

Some say that our emerging human rights culture is deficient in the concept of responsibility, but human rights are inextricably also responsibilities. If a person has a right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, other people have a responsibility not to interfere with that—the law would notice that. The proper understanding of rights produces socially responsible behaviour and therefore leads to greater social cohesion.

And in our multicultural society, for it is one whatever politicians say, we need one universally accepted set of basic values to share, to underpin our differences, so that we can be equal before the law. The separate faiths cannot all of them provide that; the Human Rights Act can. The fact is that “human rights” is simply an international legal description of what we would in ordinary speech call respect for the dignity of a fellow human being.

Anyone who believes that every person is of equal worth will find in the Human Rights Act the process to safeguard that worth. That is what it is for. That is what the European Convention on Human Rights is for. We could add to the convention rights, for example, jury trial or freedom of speech. We could have something easier, for instance, to teach in schools to fix it in our sense of national identity—a sort of Gettysburg address for Britain. But let us not try to impair it in any way.

12:40

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine for securing this important debate.

Memories fade—not all politicians have as good a memory as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. He reminded us that the ECHR was inspired by Winston Churchill, was largely drafted by British lawyers and was seen after the horrors of totalitarian tyranny as a way of protecting the individual against the arbitrary power of the state. The Human Rights Act incorporates those protections into British law so that British citizens can seek them in British courts. Yet too often now, these rights are viewed as an irritant by politicians seeking easy headlines and by journalists who are eager to write them.

Human rights can challenge everyday assumptions in a modern democracy and, in interpreting legislation to protect fundamental individual rights, courts can sometimes reach judgments that upset majority opinion—and, of course, courts here and in Strasbourg can err. However, while the rule of law must command broad respect in society for it to be sustained, this should not come at the price of requiring majority support for every legal judgment. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, set out, this could leave powerless individuals and minorities defenceless. This has been forgotten today by those who oppose such protections for unpopular minorities and individuals and who dislike anything that emanates from Europe on the basic assumption that anything that comes from over there must be damaging here.

As my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine set out so cogently, such views are often based on a toxic stew of misinformation and misinterpretation. As my noble friend Lady Whitaker has reminded us, the Human Rights Act works well in protecting individuals against the arbitrary actions of the state—a mission that everyone ought to be able to sign up to.

The most recent myth—and it is a myth—is that the European Court of Human Rights dictates the interpretation of human rights instruments by British courts. It does not. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has reminded us, Section 2 of the Human Rights Act requires British courts to take into account Strasbourg case law but no more than that—they are not bound by it. In taking such account when interpreting the Human Rights Act our courts also frequently rely on our common law and other sources of authority. There is a margin of appreciation to British courts to interpret the convention in accordance with British jurisprudence as well as European jurisprudence.

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—who is a most distinguished lawyer and, as is evident to your Lordships’ House, I am not—I understand that in a number of early cases—for example, in Alconbury and Anderson—even though British judges determined that they were bound by Strasbourg jurisprudence, they were careful to make clear the room for discretionary judgments. In Alconbury, Lord Slynn said:

“In the absence of some special circumstances, it seems to me that the court”—

this judgment was given in the House of Lords, as the Supreme Court then was—

“should follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights”.

In endorsing this in Anderson, Lord Bingham said that the House of Lords,

“will not without good reason depart from the principles laid down in a carefully considered judgement of the court”—

that is, the European court. I am not a lawyer, but the qualifications “in the absence of some special circumstances”, “any clear and constant jurisprudence”, “without good reason” and “carefully considered judgement” signal considerable freedom of action for the British judiciary. On more recent occasions this clearly seems to be the prevailing trend. In Animal Defenders, for example, UK judges have acted as if they are not bound by Strasbourg jurisdiction.

This is not an academic discussion. The Government have said that they want to bring in a new Bill of Rights and they have set up a commission including distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House to pave the way. There is nothing necessarily worrying about that. The previous Government launched a Green Paper—I was the Minister responsible for it—which discussed the possibility of a new Bill of Rights. However, for us, the purpose of that consultation was not to scrap the Human Rights Act but how best to build on it: how sufficient was it; did we need to go further; was there a case, for example, for entrenching further economic and social rights that we have so far taken for granted?

In contrast, the Conservative Party has said that it wants to scrap the Human Rights Act, although it would not withdraw from the European convention. However, if a Conservative Bill of Rights will still incorporate the ECHR then, whatever the detailed tweaking, the question must arise: why bother? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Conservative Party has fallen victim to the occupational disease of politicians—raising expectations in search of short-term political advantage, reckless of the fact that they are doomed to disappoint such expectations in the longer term.

Conservative talk of scrapping the Human Rights Act must give rise to expectations that human rights judgments that have provoked disquiet in sections of the media and the wider population will no longer occur. This is simply not true—not least because many of such cases have resulted not from judgments in British courts but from the European Court of Human Rights. Conservative policy would not prevent such judgments; it would simply force British citizens to go to Strasbourg to seek protections, once again exporting British rights to Europe.

It might be argued that if the Government replaced the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights that simply reworded it, it would not be anything other than a waste of precious legislative time but the damage would be only presentational. But is that really the case? If the Conservative Government tried to deincorporate the ECHR through scrapping the Human Rights Act and then reincorporate it in some other way, there is at least a real risk that the Strasbourg court, to which British citizens would still have recourse under Conservative policies, may well be less inclined to defer to rulings by British courts. In other words, any such legislation would be likely to restrict the margin of appreciation rather than extend it.

It is with relief that all of us who care about human rights see the presence of the Liberal party in the Government. Its members have been admirable advocates of the Human Rights Act. At Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who is a founding father of the Human Rights Act, called the Bill well designed and well drafted. I look forward to his speech later in the debate and to that of the Minister; they have been redoubtable defenders of the Human Rights Act.

There is an important debate to be had but it should not be about replacing the Human Rights Act. As the late Lord Bingham said:

“The rights protected by the Convention and the Act deserve to be protected because they are … the basic and fundamental rights which everyone in this country ought to enjoy simply by virtue of their existence as a human being”.

The debate we now need to have is not about scrapping the Human Rights Act but about how to build on it.

12:47

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has introduced the debate on this very important subject. I am delighted for two reasons: first, we have heard far too few speeches from the noble and learned Lord since the day in June 2003 when he was suddenly expelled from his office as Lord Chancellor; secondly, it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, who, in the early days of the Blair Government, secured the enactment of the Human Rights Act. Without him it is doubtful that we would have had anything like as good an Act as we now have.

The purpose of the debate is to draw attention to the European Convention on Human Rights. The element of that convention and of the Human Rights Act on which I wish to concentrate—along with the noble and learned Lord and several other speakers in the debate—is the endless delay of British Governments to alter the law to allow some prisoners to vote in elections. This has been held by the European Court of Human Rights to be a breach of the prisoners’ rights. This has aroused aggressive responses from much of the media and many citizens, not least the Prime Minister.

However, if we think a little more about the situation, we may decide that this is a strong conclusion at which to arrive. There will be no particular pleasure for prisoners in casting their vote. In the open world, casting votes is a right, but it is also regarded by many as a duty—not a legally binding duty, of course, but a civil obligation. Many prisoners have never voted—sometimes because they have failed to register, sometimes because they have never bothered to go to the polling station. Prisoners getting towards the end of their sentences should be encouraged to take an interest in public life and what is going on outside the prison—that includes voting.

Providing opportunities to vote should be regarded not as some sort of gift or present to the prisoners but as part of the rehabilitation process. I do not believe that prisoners serving a life sentence or with many years to go before release should have a vote nor that the European Court of Human Rights would require them to but prisoners with, let us say, less than four years of imprisonment remaining should have the right to vote. Given that most forms of election in the United Kingdom run in a four-year cycle, this means that prisoners would be released while the winners of the elections in which they voted were still in office.

The issues involved in voting by prisoners reminds me of the great penal reformer from the 1920s to the 1940s, Sir Alex Paterson, and his dictum that,

“men come to prison as a punishment, not for punishment”.

The loss of liberty is the punishment, not harsh treatment in prison. The issue of prisoners voting is an interesting and unusual example of human rights. Voting, as I have said, is a mixture of right and of obligation. I do not think that it is an absolute right which can be exercised by everybody in prison but the duty element of voting needs to be kept in mind, as must the quotation from Alex Paterson. There is no reason why, for prisoners approaching release, deprival of voting should be regarded as a justifiable punishment. Instead, voting should be regarded as training for release. This is how the Government should handle it.

12:51

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, for obtaining this important debate. As with other noble Lords, I will concentrate on the issue of voting for prisoners, which has already been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and the noble Lords, Lord Prescott, Lord Thomas and Lord Goodhart. As the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, said, when the issue was raised in the other place on 10 February, the discussion appeared to be nothing about voting for prisoners but objections to Europe, which was not the point. When we look at the issue in the context of human rights, it deserves better than that and so do we if we think of ourselves as a civilised nation in our approach to the resettlement of offenders—as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has mentioned.

I must declare an interest, first as an advisory member and now a trustee of an organisation called the International Centre for Prison Studies. Its job is to go round the world advising international prison systems on what is described in its manual as a,

“human rights approach to prison management”.

The reason for this is that when people have looked at the way prisons are run, there is absolutely no doubt that the decency which accompanies a human rights approach is most likely to result in successful resettlement. To quote from this manual:

“The legitimacy of this handbook on good prison management comes from its solid grounding in these international human rights standards, which are recognised around the world …. [The] concept of human rights is not merely another subject to be added to the training curriculum. Rather, it suffuses all aspects of good prison management and is integral to it”.

That manual was launched in January 2002 by the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. I have personally used it in Libya and Turkey, and have been fascinated by its reception by Governments who saw—and still see—their prisons as a way to improve their reputation for human rights around the world.

I was Chief Inspector of Prisons in 1998 when the European convention was introduced into English law. At the time, a large number of people said that this introduction would be followed by an absolute torrent of litigation by prisoners who would claim that their human rights had been breached by the way that they were treated in prison. I asked a lawyer to run prison rules against the European convention and alert me to where there were any discrepancies. There were none. In other words, if prison rules were breached, the European convention was being breached. It is fascinating that, when one looks at the amount of litigation brought by prisoners since then, nothing has really been brought about the European Convention on Human Rights, with the exception of this alleged breach of Article 3 of the First Protocol, about prisoners voting.

Article 3 of the First Protocol merely says that,

“free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”,

are guaranteed. It makes absolutely no mention, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, said, of prisoners voting. When this lack was brought to my attention, I asked the Home Secretary why prisoners were being denied the vote. He replied that prisoners had lost the moral authority to vote. I did not know that moral authority came into voting and suggest that, if it is applied, there are several other people who would be denied the vote.

So began the litigation which has been the subject of quite a lot of today’s discussion. I do not intend to go through it, but it is now more than seven years since the European court ruled unanimously that we were in breach of the convention because we did not allow prisoners to vote. The solution has been in our hands ever since. I recommended to the Government in the first consultation document, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, published that we should adopt the same approach as Germany and France. At the time of sentence, and bearing in mind the crime committed, the judge should remove the right to vote during the period of that sentence. I seriously believe that that would have taken the whole of this issue out of the realms of where it has got to. Parliament would have made the decision, which is what Parliament wants to do. The decision would be related to the crime. When you look at the people in prisons, there are vast numbers in the sad category or the short-term category, not masses of rapists, arsonists and all the other people who are quoted in particular in the 10 February debate—which was, frankly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggested, an exercise in getting overexcited.

That is the way to go. I hope that what happens now will put this seven-year delay behind us and that we will take this away from any suggestion that the European convention or the European Court of Human Rights is at fault. When we sign up to conventions, we agree to their conditions. We cannot pick and choose. Any Government who deliberately appear to be either breaking the law or picking and choosing send an appalling message to those people whom they imprison—the very people we are trying to resettle.

12:58

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend, Lord Irvine of Lairg, not only for initiating this debate but also for the enormous contribution that he made as Lord Chancellor to the development of human rights in this country. Many noble Lords have referred to the responsibility of Parliament and of politicians. I want to develop that theme. After all, we have in this Parliament the Joint Committee on Human Rights—of which I am a member. That committee itself has a big responsibility for ensuring that we adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights and that our legislation works sensibly in relation to that.

We have a good story to tell, so I am disappointed that, as a country that did so much work historically in developing the concept of human rights, we are now treating it as a bit of a political football rather than as a very serious issue and one fundamental to the values of our society. We have had reference made to the part that Winston Churchill played, and the Labour Government played an important part in developing the Human Rights Act. Of course, nothing is perfect, and of course it is right that those of us who support the European Convention on Human Rights and the European court and the Human Rights Act have criticisms to make, and it is right that we should be able to make them. Of course, human rights are not just for lawyers, although lawyers have made very powerful contributions to this and previous debates.

I would like to say a little bit about the backlog of cases in the Strasbourg court. My understanding is that 70 per cent of the court’s judgments concern the repetitive applications defined as issues that the court has already decided but which have not yet been properly implemented at a national level. Clearly, if there is a delay in implementing a decision, other people will also bring their cases forward, which apparently accounts for a large proportion of the backlog of cases. The Hirst case regarding prisoners’ rights has already been referred to by a number of your Lordships, but it is one example of an issue that results in repetitive applications coming forward.

The other way in which the heavy pressure on the European court can be lessened is for all member states to have proper parliamentary scrutiny of their legislation. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has as its responsibility looking at all legislation coming forward to see whether it complies with the Human Rights Act. Clearly, on occasions, we have been very critical of Governments and have had Ministers come before us to challenge them on why they were not producing legislation compliant with the Human Rights Act. Better parliamentary scrutiny across countries would result in fewer cases going to Strasbourg. Of course, it is one of the key responsibilities that the Human Rights Joint Committee has, as well as the responsibility for following up on Strasbourg cases.

I do not want to spend a lot of time on the Hirst case and votes for prisoners, because it has been fully dealt with, except to say that I am astonished by what has happened with an issue that is important in principle but is actually trivial. If the Government had given the right to prisoners serving up to four years, apart from one or two newspapers commenting for a moment, it would have all happened. I do not think that elections would have been determined by the votes of prisoners in our jails. So it is a very minor issue, although important in principle—but goodness, we have been making a fuss of it, and not just now. When I was in the Commons, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill dealing with giving rights to prisoners. Although it concerned mainly rights about letters, cells, visits and so on, it did have one clause giving rights for prisoners. No one mentioned anything about the rest of the Bill, except the fact that I was suggesting rights for prisoners, and the media got very excited about it. Nevertheless, the issue has come back, thanks to the Strasbourg court. I hope that the Government will get on and do something about this, as it is a disgrace that we who believe in the rule of law should be disobeying a basic law from a basic court that we have helped to create.

Of course, I realise that human rights are not easy for Governments, which is why Parliament has to be active and why an effective culture of human rights depends on the part that national parliaments play. I wish that other parliaments had a human rights committee, as we have here.

I mention in passing the vexed question of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has occasionally dealt with in Answers to Questions here. There is a hold-up there which I hope will be eased so that the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, which was agreed in the Good Friday agreement, will be proceeded with.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights produced a report some time ago on a Bill of Rights for this country. Some of the issues in it have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Wills. We suggested that a Bill of Rights for this country should include social and economic rights—something that is quite contentious but which has happened in South Africa, for example, and which would give human rights even more of a cutting edge than they have had so far. I hope that the Government will consider that.

I am disappointed by the Government’s attitude to human rights, but I note that there are some excellent people on the commission that they have appointed, some of them in your Lordships' House. I hope that that will achieve a sensible report.

From November this year, the United Kingdom will hold the chairmanship of the Council of Europe. Some Members of this House are active in the Council of Europe. I hope that it will enable this country to argue for increasing parliamentary involvement in human rights as a central theme during its six months of chairmanship. Human rights are fundamental to the values of this country and I hope that they will stay an important part of the culture and attitudes of the British Parliament.

13:05

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble and learned Lord for securing this fascinating debate. I want to address the impact of the convention on press freedom and privacy. I declare an interest as chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance, which funds the Press Complaints Commission and appoints its chairman, and as an executive director of the Telegraph Media Group.

As a starting point, I make it clear that I am an ardent admirer of the European convention, which as we have heard was established after the Second World War to limit the power of the state—an aim that I wholeheartedly support. I think it no coincidence that the British Member of Parliament guiding the drafting of the convention was a lawyer at Nuremberg, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who saw up close the horrors of totalitarianism. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, in his opening remarks, characterised the media, of which I am part, as wanting to destroy the Human Rights Act. Let me make it clear that I do not wish to see the Human Rights Act destroyed, not least because I see the great good that has come from it, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, outlined with his customary eloquence. But there are valid criticisms of it, and I want to make one or two today.

I am no lawyer, but I believe that the architects of the convention intended it to be used, in the words of the White Paper preceding the Human Rights Bill,

“to enable people to enforce their Convention rights against the State”,

not as a charter to regulate private dealings. If the convention has become the subject of some opprobrium in recent years since the passage of the Human Rights Act, it is because it is being deployed as it was never intended—to enforce those rights in private disputes. That is why real problems have now arisen, in particular with the developing privacy law.

There is an important point here, which has been made a number of times but which I want to reinforce. It is commonplace to attack judge-made privacy law and lay the blame for this at the door of the judiciary. That is wide of the mark, and I agree with the comments of the noble and learned Lord. It is not the courts that are responsible for the changing balance between privacy and freedom of expression; they are merely interpreting the law, which does not spring from some form of public policy ether but from the Human Rights Act and the manner in which it incorporated the European convention into our domestic law. Parliament is responsible for that—not the judges.

Indeed, those involved in scrutinising the Human Rights Act who understood the delicate ecology of personal privacy and freedom of expression warned of such consequences. My noble friend Lord Wakeham, for whom I used to work, speaking in Committee on this legislation, told this House that the Bill,

“would damage the freedom of the press and … inevitably introduce a privacy law”.—[Official Report, 24/11/1997; col. 771.]

He added specifically on the issue of injunctions, with his typical prescience,

“in privacy cases the courts would inevitably err on the side of caution and would not refuse an injunction, despite the fact that a newspaper said that there was a public interest defence”.—[Official Report, 24/11/1997; col. 773.]

The Government took those concerns to heart and amended the legislation, with Home Secretary Jack Straw committing that,

“we have no plans to introduce legislation creating a general law of privacy”,

adding, on prior restraint,

“interlocutory injunctions should be granted … only in the most exceptional of circumstances”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/7/1998; col. 541.]

That it has not worked out that way is because Section 12 of the Act did not, I believe, deal explicitly enough with the mischief that was predicted and the way in which claimant lawyers have now abused the legislation with injunctions, sometimes anonymised injunctions, increasingly becoming the new weapon in the armoury of reputation management for some whose reputations do not deserve to be defended. I can only speculate what Sir David Maxwell Fyfe would think about the convention being used by cheating footballers to protect their commercial image.

I will not spend time on the injunction issue other than to say that one of the reasons Governments of all persuasions have opposed privacy laws is that they know how statutory legal frameworks are too slow to keep up with the breakneck speed of media development in a digital age. The internet has had a permanent, transformative and highly positive impact on the press, one aspect of which has been the huge propagation in the number of platforms available to it. When the Human Rights Act was put on to the statute book, Google, Twitter, Facebook and other social media were all far off in the future. The law has remained static but the media have changed, which is one of the reasons I believe Jack Straw talked during the passage of the Act about the need to preserve self-regulation—in an internet age, it will always be the only truly effective way to protect personal privacy in a manner that can keep up to date with the bewildering and rapid pace of media development.

Indeed, the Press Complaints Commission has proved highly adept at dealing with often highly complex privacy issues in a common-sense, unobtrusive way that does not raise all the problems of public court cases or secret injunctions. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, treated us to his customary bashing of the PCC. I do not think that that is borne out by facts; you need only to look at issues such as harassment, a key aspect of personal privacy, where the PCC has been hugely successful in dealing with so-called “media scrums”. There is also the PCC’s vital but unsung pre-publication work, of which the noble Lord himself once made use, which helps to deliver privacy to many ordinary people without impinging on freedom of expression.

Those successes—and they are successes—help to bring perspective to this issue. It is easy to think that there is some sort of crisis of privacy in this country. Yes, there are problems with injunctions and the relationship of the law to social media, but the truth is that, while not perfect, and I accept that point, in recent years the British media have greatly improved the way in which they deal with personal privacy, particularly for ordinary people who could never afford to use the courts. The problems are at the margin and we do not need new legislation to deal with them; in my view, that would be the wrong course. Instead, one of the ways in which we could help to deal with the issue of injunctions would be for the courts to say to claimants, “There is a code incorporating your convention right to privacy that binds all newspapers, and a body that enforces it. Try that before coming to us”. That is the logic flowing from the very welcome European Court judgment in Mosley, which I hope the Secretary of State will ponder during the review that he is conducting.

I finish as I began. The European convention is something to be celebrated. One of the best ways that we can deal with the controversy surrounding it is for the Government to go back to Section 12 of the Act, look at the issues that gave rise to it, assess its efficacy and, if necessary, put a hand on the tiller to adjust it as I have suggested. I am sure that there is no more delicate hand than that of my noble friend the Minister to do just that.

13:12

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine is to be congratulated on the Human Rights Act, which he introduced when Lord Chancellor, and which introduced the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. I particularly want to commend this aspect of my noble and learned friend: he did so and then was the Act’s champion in the years thereafter, sometimes in the face of a touch of authoritarianism that came from Home Secretaries, even those whom he sat with in Cabinet. He was a great liberal Lord Chancellor, and I pay tribute to him for the role that he played.

My noble and learned friend reminded us of the gear change that took place back in March 1993 when John Smith gave the Charter 88 lecture, which I had the great privilege of chairing. It was a gear change because John Smith committed the Labour Party then to this change in law and its ability to protect our rights.

When my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine introduced the Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill into this House in 1997, he indicated the weakness of the traditional position of our unwritten constitution. He explained that it gives no protection from the misuse of power by the state, nor from acts or omissions of public bodies that harm individuals in a way that is incompatible with their human rights under the convention. Of course, he was right. I now chair Justice, the lawyers’ organisation that has membership across all parties and none, which has long supported the incorporation of the convention and supported the Human Rights Act. Some 11 years on, it is our view—it is certainly mine—that our constitution is immeasurably the better for that incorporation.

These positive rights are not alien imports, as my noble and learned friend has said; they are largely a distillation of English common law, often misunderstood by many in the public and in the Conservative Party. It was about reintroducing many of our own principles into European law. It was an organised code, drafted by lawyers from our own Foreign Office and by our own parliamentarians. There is a great pamphlet that I recommend to the House, written by Peter Oborne and Jesse Norman—not the opera singer but the Conservative Member of Parliament—describing how the Human Rights Act is rooted in common law.

The first major case in which our domestic judges seriously grappled with this changed world was the Belmarsh case. The judgments of the House of Lords in that case provide a revealing comparison with the infamous decision in Liversidge v Anderson, a case during the Second World War. The point was almost the same: the rights of those who faced internment or imprisonment without trial. Mr Liversidge was a Jewish émigré whose original name was Perlzweig. Because he had changed his name, he became a subject of suspicion and ended up being incarcerated without trial. The earlier case is famous for Lord Atkin’s dissenting speech where he talked about the rule of law and justice prevailing even amid the clash of arms.

The majority of the then House of Lords saw no problem in depriving people of their liberty on the say-so of the Home Secretary. In Belmarsh, though, under the Human Rights Act, the judiciary, led by Lord Bingham, carefully compared what the Government had done with the provisions of the convention and found it wanting. We saw how the common law has been enriched by the incorporation of the European convention.

In this way the Belmarsh judgment demonstrates what my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine had talked about, and talked about again in his Tom Sargant memorial lecture in 1997 where he spoke of the Human Rights Act providing a citizen with the right to assert a positive entitlement and for it to be expressed in clear and principled terms. The incredibly positive thing is that it is provided not just to citizens but to any human being. As the right reverend Prelate says, the Act recognises the moral significance of every person, not just citizens.

The convention has proved its worth in the intervening decade. It has encouraged our judiciary seriously to hold the Government to account, particularly with regard to their approach to terrorism. I see that from my own experience in those cases. Indeed, the European Court established by the convention has given the domestic judiciary a lesson in how to interpret the convention in key decisions, where their own domestic decisions were too deferential to the Government of the day. Those included the retention of DNA taken by the police from innocent people; the misuse of police powers under the Terrorism Act, in the case of Gillan; and the extent of control orders, in the case of A. They are all cases where the judges of the European Court were bolder than our judiciary, which is always being complained about. In my view, the European Court was correct there.

In a small number of cases, the jurisdiction of the European Court has been challenged as having gone too far, and some of them have been mentioned today. There has been considerable adverse comment against the decision in Chahal that the prohibition against torture should extend to a prohibition against a state effectively conniving in torture by sending someone back to a state where there is a reasonable likelihood that they will be tortured. In the light of what we now know about the US extraordinary rendition programme, how right that decision was—and how shameful that the UK Government thought to intervene in another case, Saadi v Italy, to overthrow the principle.

The Arab spring has shown us the true nature of a number of the regimes to which the UK wanted to expel people. For example, there can now be few illusions about the regime of Colonel Gaddafi or about the true nature of his English-educated son. Yet the UK wanted to close its eyes to the reality and send people back on the basis of undertakings that were likely to be of little worth. It took the courts to express scepticism of the value of undertakings from such sources in the cases of AS and DD, and in a case that I was involved in to do with possible undertakings from Pakistan.

The European Court of Human Rights is an important part of the apparatus of the ECHR. Its doctrine that the convention is a living instrument has kept it up to date and avoided some of the absurd originalism associated with the American constitution. Its value has to be recognised. I accept that there are problems around the issue of the margin of appreciation. I hope we will be able to visit that in our commission, which I sit on and which will look at how the court’s decisions should deploy that doctrine. Another issue concerns judicial dialogue. I hope there can be more of that in the case of Horncastle, which is currently before the European Court’s final chamber. It is a case that we should follow with some interest.

Finally, the convention is to be welcomed. The new commission that will look at a British Bill of Rights recognises that there is a guaranteed floor—the ECHR. We as a country have gained immeasurably from the way in which the Human Rights Act has brought it more visibly into our constitution. In proclaiming his crucial role in this process, I salute the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine.

13:21

[Lord Hart of Chilton]

My Lords, I am extremely happy to join other noble Lords not just in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on securing this topical debate today, but in paying tribute to his work on human rights. The Act that we are discussing will constitute a permanent monument to him far better than any statue we may later think it right to erect.

The Human Rights Act has enabled British judges to make their own distinctive contribution to the development of human rights law in Europe. It has also achieved major improvements in our domestic law when the state overreaches itself. Let me cite just a few examples: the right to attend peaceful demonstrations without interference from the police; a duty on local authorities not to house vulnerable people in insanitary and dangerous accommodation; a requirement for the DPP to clarify his position on prosecuting in cases of assisted suicide; and an end to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

A constructive dialogue has also developed between the British courts and the Strasbourg court, which has benefited the development of European human rights jurisprudence. Sometimes we have had to accept a correction from Strasbourg. A good example concerns the extensive and previously unchallengeable DNA database, as in the case of Marper in 2009.

Far more common have been situations in which the Strasbourg court has followed the British courts in rejecting a human rights complaint, having had the benefit of the reasoned judgments of our own Supreme Court. A good example of the interplay between our courts and Strasbourg is provided by the decision in the case of Horncastle, which has been mentioned twice in this debate. Our Supreme Court held that where Strasbourg decided a case with insufficient understanding of our domestic law, it could decline to follow Strasbourg. The Supreme Court felt that Strasbourg had failed in a previous decision to take proper account of our carefully crafted statutory code for the admission of hearsay evidence in criminal cases. Thus, the Supreme Court declined to follow Strasbourg and held that the defendant’s convictions should be upheld. Effectively, the Supreme Court was asking Strasbourg to think again. This is precisely how a constructive dialogue should develop.

Finally, a major triumph of the Act has been to change the culture of Whitehall. As your Lordships know, every Bill that comes before Parliament must be accompanied by a ministerial statement of its compatibility with convention rights. I know that Whitehall takes this very seriously. Much effort goes into the preparation of legislation to ensure that this statement can be made properly. This is a cultural change that does not hit the headlines but is a huge gain from the Human Rights Act.

13:24

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I salute the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for his courage and liberalism. It is probably not generally understood that when he was Lord Chancellor there was a sustained campaign by the media to obtain a complete exemption from the Human Rights Act. I helped the noble and learned Lord to stand up against that. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, was the compromise that we secured to achieve the passage of the Bill. First, I salute the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, because he paid a personal price for his courage. The media campaign against him was not about the price of wallpaper or whether he peeled his own oranges, but came very much from straight hostility to him for standing up against this completely misguided media campaign. I emphasise that at the beginning.

Secondly, I very much regret the fact that the previous Government refused my repeated requests to publish the preparatory work on the Human Rights Act. I will probably not live long enough to see the full record. However, on this issue the public would find it very beneficial to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was the true architect of the Human Rights Act, although his colleague, the right honourable Jack Straw, would contest this. I hope it may become possible to see that record published.

Thirdly, one of the ingenious provisions of the Human Rights Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hart, just referred and which none of us thought significant at the time, was the obligation on Ministers, under Section 19, to make a statement on the compatibility of a Bill. That, coupled with the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I served on that committee—has meant that instead of human rights being the property of judges and lawyers, they have been made part of the other two branches of government, the Executive and the legislature, through the scrutiny of Ministers’ statements and reasons why particular measures are or are not compatible with the convention. New Zealand has a weak version of that but no other country that I know of, in the common law world or beyond, has anything like the Joint Committee on Human Rights or that compatibility statement. It is admired across Europe and there are suggestions that it should be adopted elsewhere. It is a very important part of our legislation.

Another very important part is the compromise between parliamentary sovereignty and effective legal remedies. My original Private Member’s Bill on human rights sought to give judges the same power that they have under European Union law to strike down inconsistent legislation. The judges came to me and said, “We don’t need that and the Commons will never allow it. Why not do something more moderate?”. The declaration of incompatibility was invented to reconcile parliamentary sovereignty with the need for effective remedies. That was wise and my first efforts were misguided in terms of our own legal system. Much money—£6 million—was spent on training every judge, magistrate and tribunal chair for two years before the Human Rights Act came into force. One of the master strokes was the appointment of Lord Bingham as president of the Supreme Court—or the Law Lords, as they then were—to lead our most senior court, which he did magnificently. We miss him very much today.

It is very important for our judges, lawyers and the public at large to approach European convention law through our law and not around our law. By that I mean that it is very important to make what we regard as European convention rights, but are in fact British rights, part of the fabric of our legal and political system, and not to tear holes in that fabric. I believe that much of that has been done by our judges already, but perhaps more needs to be done to protect our common law traditions in a way that is compatible with the convention. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, I am privileged to serve on the Bill of Rights commission. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that I would not be there if I thought there was the slightest risk of weakening the current protection of human rights. Indeed, if he does not mind my saying so, I spent 18 fairly futile months in his department trying to persuade the previous Government to do something rather similar to what I hope the commission might eventually achieve. This is an area in which political parties sometimes do well. We were a coalition in opposition, were we not, in the 1990s in seeking to get the Human Rights Act on to the statute book. I was on the Cook-Maclennan commission at the time, as was the noble Lord, Lord McNally.

One of the terms of reference of the new commission is to look at the reform of the Strasbourg court. Since I have been arguing cases there since 1967, I think that I understand the weaknesses, as well as the strengths, of the system. Suffice it to say that in my view, if we really want change, there is a need not only for fundamental reforms of some aspects of the court and its procedures, but for more human and financial support. Unfortunately, there is zero growth and even the meagre resources devoted to the court, compared with the much greater ones for the Luxembourg court, have been held up by the Interlaken process. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, nods. There were to be at least new staff, resulting in more effective case management, but that has been put in the freezer pending the Interlaken process. That is quite ridiculous. The resources, having been voted, should not have been held up in that way. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I and others, will be going to Strasbourg and thinking about reform of the court. I very much welcome the fact that the terms of reference allow us to do that.

13:32

[Lord Kirkhill]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on securing this debate. Nowadays, when we discuss fundamental rights, we inevitably have to talk about the European Convention on Human Rights. This convention is by no means the only international instrument in the field of human rights, but it is certainly one of the most important.

Until the beginning of this century—that dates me a bit—I was for almost 14 years a member of the United Kingdom Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. For about four years within that period, I was chairman of the council’s committee on legal affairs and human rights. Therefore, I observed the functioning of the human rights convention and, to a certain extent, played a role in its implementation. We should continue to remind ourselves that the convention is based on the Atlantic Charter signed by Churchill and Roosevelt in the middle of the Second World War and the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet, the history of human rights is much older than that—it goes back to the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. This means that in many respects the convention has its roots in our own past. Those who pretend that the convention is entirely a continental matter, and has continental legal implication, are wrong in my view.

Half a century ago, the French, under de Gaulle, refused to accept the convention, arguing that it was “too Anglo-Saxon”. The truth is, however, that the convention is a well balanced product of the best of western European legal traditions, of which Britons, French and other Europeans may be equally proud. The convention was concluded in 1949, which means that it is now 60 years old. Since 1949, additional rights have been added and the mechanism of the convention has been modified and strengthened. There is now, of course, a permanent court sitting in Strasbourg, with the judges permanently resident in Strasbourg, which did not apply in days gone by.

Today there is only one country in Europe that is not a member of the Council of Europe and does not adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights—Belorussia. All the 47 other European countries adhere to the system. A large number of them were communist or fascist dictatorships only a few decades ago. Parliamentary democracy in some form, human rights and the rule of law did not exist in these countries until very recent times. Whereas in the United Kingdom the court of human rights may correct marginal imperfections, for the new democracies the court plays an essential role. I do not need to underline the importance of this if we want to prevent their sliding back into some form of dictatorship. It is mainly for this reason that the United Kingdom should do whatever it can to support the court of human rights and to strengthen it.

The court of human rights and the convention itself are often criticised in our Parliament and popular press. Sometimes this criticism is justified although, of course, not always. No man-made thing is perfect. The court is made up of human beings who, like all human beings, may not always be perfect in their decision-making.

One of the problems of this criticism is that it tends to oversimplify things and to disregard the nuances. However, the court hardly ever takes decisions in which it categorically states that this or that is right or wrong. Normally its decisions are couched in much more prudent formulae such as, “under these conditions”, “in this particular situation”, “in the absence of”, and so on. This was the case with the court’s decision on the voting rights of prisoners, which raised a storm of protest in this country. Yet most of the effects of the court’s decision could be removed were we to pass adequate legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has just indicated. On the other hand, if we have serious objections to one or several provisions of the convention, it is not unlikely that other European states share those with us. The convention could be changed, and although this would admittedly be a long and very cumbersome process, it is possible. Indeed, Britain might envisage taking the initiative in such a case.

In international human rights Britain has always played a leading role. I believe that it could, and should, do so in the future as well. Too often in European co-operation our country takes a “wait and see” attitude, to discover later that it has to jump on a running train—a train which might have been better adapted to our needs and traditions if we had been on it from the beginning.

13:39

[Lord Scott of Foscote]

My Lords, I must add my own expressions of gratitude to those of many others in your Lordships’ House to my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg for introducing this debate on an interesting and important subject. I have found myself in broad agreement with nearly all that has been said by your Lordships, but I want to say one or two things about the status, function and relevance of the Strasbourg court decisions.

The Strasbourg court is the court of the convention. One uses the expression “the convention” in a slightly misleading sense because the convention as such was not incorporated into our domestic law. What were incorporated were the specific articles of the convention, which are set out in the schedule to the 1998 Act. For convenience, however, I will continue to refer, as others have done, to the convention having become part of our domestic law. The authority of the Strasbourg court, in so far as it was provided for under the convention, was not dealt with by incorporation; it was dealt with in the body of the Act by Section 2, which said in terms that the courts of the UK, in determining questions which arose in connection with convention rights, “must take into account”—those were the critical words—any,

“judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion”,

of the Strasbourg court. Surely the words “take into account” must mean what they say: no more, no less.

The judgments of the Strasbourg court are highly persuasive. The court is composed of a number of very eminent jurists and the judgments that they produce, when they are relevant to issues being decided by the courts of this country in relation to the incorporated articles of the convention, are highly persuasive. However, the judgments are not binding. The fact that they are not binding was recognised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, when that Bill was before this House on Report. At that time he said:

“There may … be occasions when it would be right for the United Kingdom … to depart from Strasbourg decisions”.—[Official Report, 19/1/98; col. 1271.]

So it is that domestic courts are not bound by Strasbourg decisions.

In a fairly recent House of Lords decision, Kay v London Borough of Lambeth, when the House of Lords was the final court in this country, this House held unanimously that where there were conflicting decisions between the Strasbourg court on the one hand and the House of Lords on the other—it would now be the Supreme Court—the obligation of other domestic courts was to follow the House of Lords, not the Strasbourg court. I believe that it is important to bear that in mind: the Strasbourg court decisions are not part of the law of this country. They are highly persuasive and they may be followed, but they do not have to be.

My second point concerns the nature of the Strasbourg court—the court of the convention—as a court of final resort. The Supreme Court now and the Law Lords in days past constituted the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom, not just England and Wales but Scotland and Northern Ireland as well. From time to time, courts of final appeal mould existing law in order to cater for new situations which appear to have arisen, or to take account of new ideas which have been formulated and appear relevant to cases for decision. That is what the Supreme Court does, what the Law Lords used to do, what the Supreme Court of the United States does and what the High Court of Australia does.

All of this is, in a sense, inconsistent with the strict constitutional principle of the separation of powers. Yet that does not matter because, in all those jurisdictions I have mentioned, there stands over the court a democratically elected and accountable legislature which can always reverse judicial decisions if the legislature considers that that is necessary and the judges have gone too far. That safeguard makes development of the law by judges acceptable and desirable, in my opinion. However, so far as the Strasbourg court is concerned, there is no comparable control from a democratically elected and accountable legislature. That feature of Strasbourg jurisprudence has to be borne in mind: the judges’ decisions cannot be reversed, which is another reason for underlining the requirement that the judgments should be treated in this country not as binding but merely as highly persuasive.

The case of prisoners’ votes is illustrative, or may become so. Strasbourg ruled that it was contrary to human rights to have a complete bar on prisoners voting. However, that is not binding in this country. It is persuasive, and there may be very good reasons for allowing prisoners, or some prisoners in some circumstances, the right to vote, but Parliament would have to decide that. In my respectful opinion, however, it is quite wrong to say that failure to follow Strasbourg is a failure to accept the rule of law. Strasbourg does not form part of the rule of law so far as this country’s jurisprudence is concerned. It is highly important to make sense of the relationship between the Strasbourg court and the courts in this country.

13:40

[Lord Tomlinson]

My Lords, I have the privilege to be one of the representatives of your Lordships’ House in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I immediately opted to serve on the political committee in that Council but quickly asked if I could additionally serve on the legal affairs committee, which had an agenda that I considered far too important to be left as the exclusive preserve of lawyers, so I serve on both those committees.

There has been an absolutely exponential growth in the workload of the European Court of Human Rights. If we take the years from its formation through to 1998, the total number of applications to the court was 45,000. If we look at last year, the total applications were 61,300—a 50 per cent increase in that single year on the total for the first 41 years of its actions. That is one reason why the court desperately needs reform. Its delays are very long. At the beginning of 2001, there were approximately 139,650 applications pending before a judicial formation, more than half of which were from four individual countries: Russia, Turkey, Romania and Ukraine. Yet by the time those long-delayed cases are heard, 97 per cent of them are judged to be inadmissible. That is causing an astronomical blockage in the court’s work and needs to be addressed.

The noble Lords, Lord Prescott and Lord Pannick, and a number of others referred to the need for reform. Sorting out earlier judgments on admissibility is a priority in that reform. Stopping some practices that have emerged after the prisoner voting case is another problem. As noble Lords will know, applications to the European Court of Human Rights are made individually, but since the view on prisoner voting several firms of solicitors have been touting themselves around prisons, signing up prisoners on a no-win no-fee basis and submitting thousands of individual applications. That is also clogging up the system, so that sort of legal abuse needs to be sorted out.

However, the most important reform needed is to the financing of the court. No one so far, I think, has referred to this. The Council of Ministers of the European Union gets all its resources for making decisions from the same treasury that coughs up the money for the contribution to the European Court of Human Rights and the work of giving effect to the European convention. In the last decade those people, who get their money from exactly the same source, found no difficulty when the outcome of the Convention on the Future of Europe was running into difficulty at a European Heads of State Meeting in finding a bribe for the Austrian Government. They could not get unanimity at a European Council meeting and, in order to encourage unanimity, they created the fundamental rights agency in Vienna. That fundamental rights agency was unnecessary. It largely replicated the work that was being done by the European Court of Human Rights, but the same Ministers who pleaded privation when it came to properly funding the European Court of Human Rights threw money at Austria, and we contributed to the European budget as if money was no object. They could in effect get plenty of money for one useless purpose: undermining the useful purpose of the European Court of Human Rights.

I am not asking the Minister to solve the problem. That would be asking too much even of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. However, I ask him to tell us whether it will be a fundamental part of the British presidency of the Committee of Ministers to finance those two organisations relatively sensibly. My view of relative sense is to take it from the fundamental rights agency and give it to the European court. I do not expect him to agree with me, but I give him a possible solution. We have a European Court of Human Rights starved of resources, but the same Ministers of the 27 EU countries have no difficulty finding them for other purposes.

When we come to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, we have to accept that they cannot be regarded as some kind of à la carte menu from which we pick and choose judgments that we like. We are obligated, particularly if we expect all those newly emerging democracies that are encompassed within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights to observe the rule of law in the same way as everyone else. We cannot pick and choose the judgements that we observe.

I very strongly subscribe to the view of the European Human Rights Commissioner, Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg. I read one small sentence of his views:

“Prisoners, though deprived of physical liberty, have human rights. Measures should be taken to ensure that imprisonment does not undermine rights which are unconnected to the intention of the punishment”.

He goes on to elaborate on that. That is fundamentally important.

This has been an excellent debate, and I am truly grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg for initiating it. I hope, because of the importance and utility of this debate, that the Minister, when he winds up, will perhaps tell us that, after the six-month presidency of the Committee of Ministers, when we have an agenda for reform, he might well produce a report and score sheet on our activities during that period, and then arrange for a similar debate early in 2011.

13:53

[Lord McCluskey]

My Lords, first, I apologise to your Lordships and to the House for being out of order in seeking to intervene at an early stage, which was plainly the wrong time to do so. If I may, I will now put a brief question to my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg—indeed, I hope it will also be addressed by the Minister. The noble and learned Lord referred in his speech to the judges doing what Parliament instructed them to do. He will recall, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, and others reminded us, that when the clause that became Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 was before Parliament, he and his fellow Ministers repeatedly advised the legislature that it meant what it said—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, has referred to this—that the courts of the United Kingdom had to “take into account” any relevant judgment or opinion of the Strasbourg court. Ministers, including my noble and learned friend, said that those judgments and opinions were not to be treated as a strictly binding precedent for the United Kingdom courts.

My question is this: is the noble and learned Lord—and is the Minister—able to reconcile that advice with certain recent judgments of both the House of Lords and the Supreme Court that hold that the UK courts had no alternative but to apply definitive judgments of the Strasbourg court? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, put it in a case in 2009, which was quoted with unanimous approval by the judges in Horncastle:

“Strasbourg has spoken, the case is closed”.

My question is: is that what Section 2 of the 1998 Act must now be taken to mean?

[Lord Irvine of Lairg]

My Lords, I believe the advice that I gave to the House at the time of the passage of this Bill was correct, but I am not going to be drawn into a commentary on subsequent decisions.

13:55

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, it has been an impressive and important debate. Not one speaker suggests that we leave the European convention or resile from the incorporation of the convention rights that we have incorporated into our law.

I join noble Lords in congratulating my noble and learned friend, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on procuring this debate. There are people who have played their part in procuring the incorporation of the human rights convention into our law. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, are among them. However, one person above all others stands out in procuring it as part of our law. There is no doubt that it would not have become a part of our law without him—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.

I point to two particular things that the noble and learned Lord did. First, he persuaded my party—and we were the only party who took this view—that we should make it a part of our commitment to the future. He did that by persuading Mr John Smith and Mr Tony Blair, and when we got into Government he made sure that it happened. Remember, this sort of law is not popular among politicians. I can assure you, having been there, that without the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, it would not have become a part of the domestic law of this country. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hart of Chilton that it is better than any statue or portrait that one has the Human Rights Act 1998 as one’s achievement. The Act has had a profound effect on our law and on the culture of our constitution. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells might well be right when he says that it provides a positive contribution to humans on a spiritual journey.

The twin pillars of our constitutional settlement are our parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. The rule of law carries with it two principles. The first is that the conduct of individuals should be judged in accordance with the law applied equally to all by an independent judiciary. The second is that each of us is entitled to have our human rights protected. The incorporation of the convention into our domestic law confirmed that the rule of law did indeed carry with it the entitlement to the protection of our human rights, and it provided, for the first time in English law, a definition of what those rights were.

For all the strengths of the common law, it had never, before the Human Rights Act 1998, offered a comprehensive definition of what an individual’s human rights were. In consequence, it had not provided to the individual protection of those rights. Real protection of human rights can come only from the law and not through politics. Politics reflects domestic democratic tides. Politicians are swayed by what is popular. The people, or a majority of them, will frequently favour courses that do not respect the rights of individuals. If the rights of individuals cannot be protected against the state expressing the will of the majority, irrespective of an individual’s rights, there is in reality no adherence to the rule of law. I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend, Lord Wills, said when they said that one of the purposes of our convention is to protect people who are unpopular and who the majority, given a chance, would not protect.

The effect of introducing the convention into our domestic law is that there is immediate and real protection for people’s basic rights. Let me give just one example. In the mid-1990s, three members of our Armed Forces were investigated by the military because it was thought they might be homosexual. The investigation discovered that they were homosexual and they were dismissed from the forces. They appealed to the English courts, saying, “This can’t be right”, and the English courts said that it was not right, but nothing could be done about it because no part of English law protected them. The men went to the European Court of Human Rights, which held that their treatment was a breach of the convention, but the court could do nothing for them, because it happened just before the convention had been introduced into our domestic law. Now the position is different. Such rights can be enforced in our domestic courts. As a consequence, when people talk about human rights, the “basic fundamental rights”, as Lord Bingham described them, exist and there is protection.

Since the Human Rights Act has been passed and these rights have been incorporated into our law, they have been the subject of sustained criticism and attack—not just because the media want to publish salacious stories, but because, in essence, the rights are frequently there to protect people who cannot protect themselves because they are not powerful enough or are unpopular.

The right to privacy comes from the convention. It is a right that prevents the publication of personal secrets. It is a right that prevents the newspapers revealing that a child has AIDS. It is a right that allows you to make telephone calls without someone else listening in to see whether they can publish the contents of those calls. It is a right that allows you not to have your voicemail box hacked into by the press. It is a right that allows you to live your family life behind closed doors without anyone knowing what is going on.

My noble friend Lord Prescott put his finger on it when said that we can make a choice as a society; we can say that press freedom is so important that anything goes and you can publish anything you like about people’s lives, or you can make the choice that we rightly make whereby certain things are private and should be kept private. If you are serious about a right to privacy, it has to be enforced by the courts. That means looking at each individual case and asking, “Is this part of someone’s private life?”. If it is, we will protect it unless there is a public interest—for example, if that person is taking a hypocritical, commercial or political stance that entitles people to know about it. Otherwise, they should be entitled to privacy. The only way in which that can effectively be enforced is by the courts looking at each case.

The consequence of my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine’s courage is that that is effectively the current law. Do not change it. Do not listen to the beguiling appeal of the press, which says, “We want to be able to tell you which footballers are having affairs, even though we know it will damage their children. They should have thought about that before they had the affairs”. How does that protect their children? There may well be footballers who are acting purely for commercial interests, but the courts can draw the balance between the two.

The effect of incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights is that we have a law that is there and is sensible. The attacks on the judges are, with the greatest respect to those who do so, utterly misplaced. All those noble Lords who have said in this debate that the judges are only doing what the law says are absolutely right. That is but one example of the effects of incorporation. There are so many. For example, the European convention ensures that you will not be separated from your wife when you are elderly because it is convenient for the local authority to put one of you in one care home and one in another. That would be a breach of Article 8. The convention also helps you if, for example, you are in a care home and left for long periods on a commode because the local authority will not provide adequate care for you. That is part of your personal dignity which the Human Rights Act ensures will be protected.

The effect has been not only on individual rights but on the culture of the courts. No better example was given than that given by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws on the comparison between Belmarsh, where the judges see themselves as having to protect individual rights, and Liversidge v Anderson, where the judges, in the middle of the war, saw their role as being simply to back up the Executive. That is a very significant change.

What changes have been suggested? It was suggested that the European Court of Human Rights act more quickly—I agree. More money should be spent on it—I agree. There should be better parliamentary scrutiny—I agree. The margin of appreciation issue should be addressed—yes, but that does not require a change in the law. The coalition has set up a commission of distinguished people, including the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. They will ensure that incorporation is not retreated from. However, I think this is a mistake. The important thing is to defend the principle of those rights and their incorporation into our law. Setting up the commission raises expectations that something will change when, as I understand it, it does not intend to change anything.

I ask the Minister to give a guarantee that the Government are not going back on the incorporation of human rights into law. He will give that assurance because he is a decent man who represents a political party that is not going to go back on incorporation. Do not create the expectation that we are going to change the position. Say that we are proud that we incorporated these rights and that it has made a real difference. It was a moment in time when we did it, because my noble and learned friend was there and he managed to achieve it. It would never happen now, because political parties are not brave enough, but there is no going back. That is a very good thing, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will say so.

14:06

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

I love following the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, because he always finishes as if he has made the final case for the prosecution in some case where the poor mutt in the dock has to stand up and say, “I did it; I did it”.

It is always a little daunting for a non-lawyer—like the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I am a non-lawyer—to reply to a debate opened by one former Lord Chancellor and closed by another former Lord Chancellor, and with half the contributions coming from QCs. Our learned friends were truly out in force. That is partly a tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and the standing that he still holds in the legal profession and more widely. I was delighted when I saw his name down for this debate, because I knew that it would attract speakers of quality and knowledge about the issue. When opening the Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill, he said:

“People will be able to argue for their rights and claim their remedies under the convention in any court or tribunal in the United Kingdom”.

That is in no doubt and it is the major success of the Act. He also said that he hoped that:

“A culture of awareness of human rights will develop”.—[Official Report, 3/11/97; col. 1228.]

That has not happened sufficiently so far.

I would recommend reading the part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, before he reached his grand peroration. There he set out in a list, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, our human rights and how the Human Rights Act protects the rights of individuals. Of course the media are always going to find cases whereby the seemingly most undeserving rascal is given protection. However, in some ways, that in itself is what makes us a civilised society—we give guarantees in those cases, not always just to the saintly and the deserving.

I welcome the contributions of all speakers today and I think that they will help those who take the trouble to read the debate. I hope that our distinguished commission will take the Hansard report of this debate as useful evidence, because there have been many contributions which deserve recognition.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, rightly paid tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, over the birth of the Human Rights Act. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, in his turn, was generous in his tribute to the consistency of my party on these matters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, among others, valuably pointed out to us the history of the Conservative Party with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights. I recently attended a dinner at Gray’s Inn, at which Sir David Maxwell Fyfe’s daughter was present. A treasure trove of long letters had been found that Sir David had written from Strasbourg about the creation of the Human Rights Act in the days before the internet and before it was so easy to make telephone calls. It was very moving to have his family there and to hear about his commitment and about how Churchill pushed and guided him on these issues. Therefore, I hope that, when we debate this matter, we remember the various contributions that the parties have made.

In answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I have never said that the Human Rights Act is some precious vase that should be kept on a high shelf and never be looked at. Indeed, I think that the greatest damage that could have been done to it would have been to allow the various criticisms of and attacks on the Human Rights Act and the convention to remain unchallenged and unexamined. Therefore, we have taken it down from the shelf and have put it in good hands to be examined. I hope that this debate serves as an illustration of the kind of informed discussion that we want on how the Act works and how it impinges on our system of justice.

A number of issues have been raised and I shall try to deal with them. Prisoner voting was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and the noble Lords, Lord Prescott, Lord Faulks, Lord Goodhart and Lord Ramsbotham. The old ministerial fallback position of “We are considering the position” is as far as I can go on that, but I am not sure that it is a particularly edifying exercise. The other night, I watched an excellent documentary on BBC Four about the abolition of the death penalty in this country. In a way, I came to the same conclusion that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, came to about the passage of the Human Rights Act. I doubt whether this Parliament would abolish the death penalty in the way that Parliament did in the 1960s. However, that does not mean that in my opinion Parliament has not improved over the past 40 years or so in terms of its courage in addressing some of these issues.

I liked the statistic that at the recent general election in Ireland every prisoner had the right to vote but only 0.5 per cent exercised it. On the sex offenders register, my ministerial fallback position is that we are looking at the implications of the judgment. However, I also note that it has been applied in Scotland for the past year. Before I leave the subject of prisoner voting, and before people get ready to castigate this weak, flaccid and vacillating Government, I look at the Lord Chancellor who sat on the judgment for six years and did nothing.

The debate on press complaints was useful. The contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Prescott and Lord Black, showed the two sides of the debate that is to be had. The Press Complaints Commission has a job to do in convincing the public that it can be the robust, independent regulator that it was agreed it should be when the special arrangements were made at the passing of the Act. The implications of Section 12 were drawn to my attention. Section 12 asks courts to give proper regard to public interest, and I think that the question of whether that needs sharpening and defining will bear investigation.

I am not supposed to tell your Lordships that the Master of the Rolls is going to deliver his report tomorrow. Government secrets are not what they used to be so I shall be very surprised if he does not deliver it tomorrow, as the Daily Telegraph has already said that he will be doing so. More seriously, I hope that we will be able to look at what he says about procedure with a view to making it more effective—a point emphasised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—as well as looking at the procedure for super-injunctions. The noble and learned Lord pointed out that super-injunctions can be issued in secret without the press being able to make their case, and I suspect that the Master of the Rolls will be looking at that, and properly so. However, let us wait to see his recommendations. They will certainly be treated extremely seriously.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I have discussed the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights before. It was a commitment in the Good Friday agreement. However, I think that successive Governments have said—as has been said about so many things in relation to Northern Ireland—that, when we can get agreement in Belfast, there will be no problem on that issue.

On the specific question of the sex offenders ruling, further to the Home Secretary’s Statement in the House of Commons on 16 February, the Government will shortly bring forward proposals to implement the ruling of the Supreme Court. However, a robust review, led by police and involving all relevant agencies, will be carried out so that a full picture of the risks to the public can be considered. Sex offenders who continue to pose a risk will remain on the register, and will do so for life if necessary.

I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prescott and Lord Black. The noble Lord, Lord Black, said that the law was reasonably easy to apply to the print media but very difficult to apply to the new technologies. This matter is also being tackled by the Joint Committee on the Defamation Bill. Some of the recent publicity about super-injunctions illustrated that it is difficult to track down messages on the new technologies. I am beginning to sound like a judge now, aren’t I? As I even have to ask my son James to send texts for me, you will know why I struggle with these things. But new technologies make it difficult to make the law applicable. We are consulting widely on that and I hope that we will have some agreements, certainly about the internet—guarantees that prevent some of the abuses that have arisen in terms of libel law and freedom of speech in that regard.

I was interested in the interventions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. I will not presume to make judgments on the matter any more than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine. The noble Lord’s warning was about whether it was worth making the court rulings as subjective as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, seemed to suggest, so that we lost the powerful leverage that the court’s judgments have on human rights across Europe as a whole. That debate will go on. The noble Lord says that you cannot pick and choose; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, says “Persuasive, but not binding”. Our Supreme Court has said that, to get things right, it will follow Strasbourg decisions as it generally does, unless the effect could be inconsistent with a fundamental substantive or procedural aspect of our law.

I will just check quickly through my notes whether I have missed any points that noble Lords made. On the list of good things, I had not realised the real benefit of the Human Rights Act as it applied to courts martial, as spoken about by my noble friend Lord Thomas. He also made interesting comments about Hong Kong.

In reference to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, perhaps it needs saying that respect for the rule of law includes total respect for the independence of the judiciary. Occasionally individual Ministers—it has happened in other Governments as well—get tetchy about what judges do, but we should not get too excited that that is somehow an assault on the judiciary. Until 12 months ago I did not regularly mix with the higher ranks of the judiciary, but since then I have had some experience of them. They are fairly tough old characters, so I think that they can stand the occasional word of criticism—as politicians occasionally get words of criticism from the Bench. It is a good and healthy dynamic tension.

I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, spoke, because it was important that the debate had the case for the prosecution, as it were. Has the Act been trivialised? Has there been too much acquiescence by our courts—a kind of mission creep? He made the case for a proper examination of the Act, and that is what we intend to do in bringing forward the commission to look at it.

The noble Lord, Lord Wills, made a point about human rights protecting the unpopular and the minority. That is the essence of a civilised society, as I said before.

By the way, I have just remembered the bit of technology I had forgotten: Twitter. Twittering is hard to track down. The other day I was at a meeting of senior high-tech advisers, and I kept talking about biscuits. Nobody said anything until, in the end, one of them said, “What was that about biscuits?”, and I said, “Where they store all this information”. He said, “Those are cookies”, and then all the experts confessed that they had not interrupted because they thought that the Minister must know about some new technology that they were not aware of.

I am always petrified because the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, finishes his speeches with a pointed finger and a question to the Minister, but this time it is easy. I will report back to the Lord Chancellor about the piece of European skulduggery that he outlined in terms of financing. Of one thing we are certain. Ken Clarke went recently to a meeting of the Council of Europe’s body in Izmir in Turkey and outlined our ambitions for reform, and the response was extremely encouraging. We will make a really determined effort during our presidency to press the case for reform, advised by our commission.

Let me end as I began. We are deeply in debt to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine—first, for the Act; and secondly, for inspiring the debate. It has set the parameters of how we will look at the issues, safe in the knowledge that this country had an amazing role in creating the European Convention on Human Rights. We will go forward in the 21st century as firmly committed to that as the generation who, as was rightly said, experienced personally, at first hand, what happens when the state gets out of control—when it does not have checks and balances, and when there are no human rights.

14:28

[Lord Irvine of Lairg]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, and thank many of them for their kind words. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Civil Legal Aid

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Debate

14:28

Moved By

[Lord Beecham]

To call attention to the case for civil legal aid; and to move for papers.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an unpaid consultant in the firm of solicitors of which I was previously senior partner, and which practises in part in the area of legal aid.

We follow a debate on human rights with a debate on one of the most fundamental human rights—access to justice. I say immediately that the credit for this Motion coming before your Lordships’ House today belongs not to me, but to my noble friend Lady McDonagh, who drafted it and would have moved it had she been able to do so. Alas, she is not able to be present today for personal reasons, so I am in a sense instructed by her—a familiar condition for me, because she used to instruct me on behalf of the trade union for which she was an officer many years ago, and after that as general secretary of the Labour Party. I follow my instructions today with perhaps a little more alacrity than I did in that former case.

The legal aid system was one of the great pillars of the post-war welfare state. At one time affording access to justice to 80 per cent of the population, it has undergone many changes in the past 62 years. Currently, around 36 per cent of the population fall within the financial eligibility limits—both income and capital—for legal advice and assistance, or representation in matters of civil law. Some areas have long been excluded from the civil legal aid system, including most personal injury claims, which ironically were removed from the system's scope because of the conditional fee system that the Government now propose to abolish in the guise of an attack on the so-called compensation culture, the extent of which is surely exaggerated.

Last week, I confessed to having form in the matter of police reform. I have a similar confession in respect of legal aid. My noble friend Lord Bach will recall that I was responsible for a debate at a Labour Party conference which was somewhat critical of the previous Government's legal aid policy—this was just before he became a Minister responsible for it—and chaired a very constructive working party that made some improvements to that policy.

At present, legal aid and advice are available across a wide range of issues, including debt, employment, housing, education, family law, immigration and clinical negligence, and more besides. In some of these areas, legal aid does not extend to representation: in others, it does. The total cost is around £900 million a year for civil legal aid and £1.2 billion a year for criminal legal aid. The Government's Green Paper on legal aid reform proposes a massive cut in the civil legal aid budget of £279 million, with a much smaller reduction of around £71 million in the criminal legal aid budget. It achieves this by substantially reducing the scope of the scheme across most of the categories currently covered, while several categories are removed entirely.

The effects are stark. The Government's assessment of the number of individuals affected by the withdrawal of access—not the overall number, which would include family members—is around 500,000 to 550,000. This figure appears to understate the real effect by around 150,000, based on the latest Legal Services Commission data that show that some 725,000 cases will not be assisted. The Legal Action Group’s estimate is 650,000—still substantially more than the Government's estimate. No doubt those figures reflect rising demand stemming from the effects of the recession both in terms of the need for advice and the increasing numbers becoming financially eligible.

What are the implications of this massive cut—around 70 per cent—in the number of cases for which funding will be available? In round figures, funding will be available for 250,000 fewer cases involving family disputes; 140,000 fewer cases involving welfare benefits; 110,000 fewer cases involving debt; 50,000 fewer cases involving serious housing problems; and 30,000 fewer cases involving employment problems. The impact is concentrated on the poorest. Currently, 80 per cent of legal help cases and 90 per cent of cases where legal representation is funded involve the poorest 20 per cent of the population.

No doubt other noble Lords will give examples of the kind of cases for which assistance will no longer be available. I will confine myself briefly to four. In the area of housing, tenants will not receive help in securing the repair of their homes; in the area of education, the parents of disabled children will not be helped to secure proper provision from the education authority; in the area of employment, help will be available only in discrimination cases; and in the complex world of clinical negligence, no claims will be assisted, not even those of children.

The Government believe that greater reliance on two factors, mediation and the support of voluntary organisations, will substantially mitigate the effects of the draconian cuts. However, mediation already exists—it has to be considered now by the parties and the courts—yet only in some 4,000 cases a year is it adopted. Moreover, as I remarked when we discussed the Statement launching the Green Paper, mediation is not suitable when, as in many family cases, there is disequilibrium in the material or psychological resources of the parties, with the pressure on the weaker party to agree often being irresistible. By definition, the objective of mediation is agreement, not adjudication.

As regards alternative sources of support, law centres and Citizens Advice, too, are under extreme financial pressure, both from the withdrawal of government funding implicit in the proposals of the Green Paper and from local councils struggling to cope with the largest ever reduction in government grants. The Law Centres Federation anticipates a loss of something over 50 per cent of law centres’ income, and there is a fear that 50 out of the 56 existing centres may be forced to close if the Green Paper proposals are implemented. Many are already struggling with cuts in grants from local councils such as Birmingham or Hammersmith and Fulham, where the entirety of local authority funding has been withdrawn. Citizens Advice faces similar pressures at a time when demand is increasing.

The Government rightly claim that our legal aid scheme, when compared internationally, is one of the most, if not the most, generous. However, as the Bar Council points out, if one looks at the cost of the justice system as a whole, adding the cost of the courts to the legal aid bill, the gap is much narrower. Reducing the costs of administering the system should be the first priority. Paradoxically, the reduction in legal aid and advice might drive up costs, as the courts contend with the problems of dealing with litigants in person. International comparisons of expenditure are inevitably rough and ready, taking little or no account of different legal systems, let alone different social and economic structures or pressures. Citizens Advice, in its response to the Green Paper, demonstrated that the taxpayer saves substantially by investing in legal aid. In the case of housing, the saving is £2.34 for every £1 spent on legal advice or legal aid; in the case of debt, £2.98 for every £1 spent; in the case of benefits advice, £8.80; and in the case of employment, £7.13.

Clearly, the justice system cannot be immune from the pressure to engender savings at a time when deficit reduction is a given, even if the scale and timing of reductions continue to be contestable issues. However, I urge the Government to consider very carefully the Law Society's proposals for savings. It identified £249 million-worth of savings for the Ministry of Justice from a range of measures, including improving the efficiency of the prosecution service and capping an individual lawyer’s fees derived from legal aid. In addition, it accepts £62 million of the savings that the Government propose in the Green Paper, plus further savings from barristers' fees. I observe that the Law Society is rather quick to suggest reductions in barristers’ fees; its enthusiasm may not be shared by the Bar Council. In addition, it suggests areas where revenue can be raised: for example, by a modest 1 per cent levy on the alcohol industry, which contributes significantly to the need for legal services not just in the criminal courts but in such areas as family law, housing, debt and welfare—or, on another track, by simplifying housing law. It estimates that £158 million could be raised from a variety of such measures. If all the savings suggested by the Law Society were to be adopted and implemented, they would bring a total of £469 million-worth of savings—substantially more than in the Government's proposals contained in the Green Paper.

There may be other ways of contributing to reductions in the civil legal aid budget. In earlier days, legal aid lawyers suffered a levy of 10 per cent on their costs, as eventually assessed by the courts or agreed with the other side. Perhaps we could revert to that system to generate money for the legal aid fund: or perhaps we could introduce a contingency fee system under which legally aided clients would contribute a proportion of their damages or sums that they recover to the legal aid fund, but preferably not to their lawyers. I recall suggesting such a scheme at a meeting where my noble friend Lord Boateng, then a Minister in another place, had roundly denounced fat-cat lawyers. Speaking, as I said at the time, as a moderately plump-cat lawyer, I thought that my proposal was worth investigating. He did not, and it was not: yet it still seems to me that such a system, coupled with the former practice that cases had to be independently assessed by practitioners as having a reasonable chance of success, and authority obtained to incur significant expenditure, would be better than the conditional fee system that is supposed to incentivise lawyers to undertake weaker cases—on the grounds that swings and roundabouts would apply—many of which might fail. Those cases would be subsidised from the fees from cases that they won. Of course, the conditional fee agreement is now to go.

The Lord Chancellor has made a refreshing start on reforming penal policy, distancing himself from both his Conservative and Labour predecessors. I applaud him for that, though not for yesterday’s unfortunate pronouncements, but in this area of civil legal aid, he is in danger of making a grievous error. In the words of the current Lord Chief Justice, the proposals fail,

“to recognise the depth of the problem”,

and,

“the proposals would lead to a huge increase in the incidence of unrepresented litigants, with serious implications for the quality of justice and for the administration of the justice system”.

Consider the following from the Jackson report from which the Government have cherry-picked recommendations about costs and conditional free agreements:

“I do not make any recommendations … for the expansion or restoration of legal aid. I do, however, stress the vital necessity of making no further cut backs in legal aid availability or eligibility. The legal aid system plays a crucial role in promoting access to justice at proportionate cost in key areas”.

Those are very salient words from a distinguished judge looking at this key issue of public policy.

I have quoted the present Lord Chief Justice, and I conclude by referring to a most distinguished predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who is not in his place today. Two or three years ago, the noble and learned Lord published a volume which is a distillation of his jurisprudence, wisdom and humanity. It is called The Pursuit of Justice. The title is derived from the biblical injunction:

“Justice, justice shalt thou pursue”.

I hope that this House in the course of this debate will endorse that sentiment and urge it on the Government.

14:41

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I should begin by declaring an interest as a practising barrister and also as chairman of research for the Society of Conservative Lawyers and editor of a pamphlet submitted to the Government and the Ministry of Justice as part of the consultation process in relation to the Government's proposals for the reform of legal aid.

The Government must cut £350 million by 2015. Although comparisons are not easy, we spend much more on legal aid than countries of an equivalent size and economic status. Legal aid, like other areas of government spending, must bear its share of pain. I agree with the Government that court proceedings should be very much the last resort and that encouragement should be given to people to seek remedies by other means.

The party opposite has accepted that had it been in power—I rely on what the shadow Minister in the other place, Sadiq Khan, said—there would have to have been significant cuts in any event. However, consistent with its approach generally, there has been a lack of specificity about where those cuts might fall, thereby leaving plenty of room for manoeuvre to criticise the proposals that the Government have put forward.

However, I welcome the debate secured by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and give credit to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, for initiating it. If one accepts that cuts have to be made, the question is where the axe should fall so as to cause the minimum of pain and to try to ensure, so far possible, that there remains meaningful access to justice. I share the concern of, I suspect, many noble Lords that the vista of unrepresented litigants will not necessarily be much of a saving in terms of the administration of justice. Cases tend to take longer and sometimes there are appeals on difficult points.

There is little time to deal with all the many issues that the Government's proposals involve. I shall refer to two. The first is clinical negligence. Some clinical negligence cases are of immense complexity—to take an example, an obstetric case which may result in a brain-damaged baby. These cases will involve myriad experts, quite rightly. They will include obstetricians, midwives, neuroradiologists, paediatric neurologists and neonatologists. A great deal of expertise is needed from them and from the lawyers to investigate what is often a very difficult matter: whether there has been a departure from the appropriate standard of care and, often even more difficult, whether such departure has or has not caused damage. An enormous amount of literature has been generated by this. It really does involve a great deal of skill. Very often the conclusion is reached by lawyers that there is no case, and the matter does not go forward. There is not to be any legal aid, even for the investigatory steps, and I suggest that is potentially going to cut off some very important cases. It means that those who really need compensation in the years to come may well be denied.

The Government’s answer is the CFA system, but because of the changes in the CFA system that they propose following the partial implementation of Jackson, it will be very unattractive for many lawyers to take these cases. I fear that the limit to the success fee—25 per cent of damages excluding really sizeable amounts—and no recovery of after-event insurance mean that many firms are going to restrict their activities to very straightforward cases of egregious errors, the sort of cases, in fact, that would attract claims managers rather than responsible and experienced lawyers. I suggest to the Minister that if he does nothing else as a result of my observations he goes back to Sir Rupert Jackson and asks him whether he would approve of this effective pincer movement on those very worthwhile cases that are going to be prevented as a result of the Government’s changes.

I will have to deal with my second point very briefly. The tone of the Government’s response seems to suggest that there is some possibility of additional funding in cases where they may feel that they would be in breach of treaty obligations if they did not do so. Reading the subtext, I take this to be a suggestion that anything to do with Human Rights Act cases may still require legal aid. There are some very important Human Rights Act cases, but let me tell the House that there is an enormous number of very trivial Human Rights Act cases. The Government should not be frightened to say that if cases are not serious, do not involve large amounts of money and are not truly human rights issues, there should be no legal aid for them. There would be savings that could be better spent elsewhere.

14:46

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I wish to focus on one particular aspect of the Government's plans for legal aid: the proposal to take social welfare law out of scope. Of the cuts to be made, more than £l00 million will be cut from social welfare legal aid and, as a result, most social welfare law and legal advice will no longer be covered. I want to draw attention to the context in which these proposals are being made. The Welfare Reform Bill is currently making its way through another place. Its proposals are, frankly, a revolution in welfare benefits. Even the DWP, which is not given to overstatement, has described the Bill as,

“the biggest change to the welfare system for over 60 years”.

The Bill will abolish most of the income-related benefits we know about—income support, jobseekers’ allowance, employment and support allowance, tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit—and replace them with a single benefit called universal credit, many of whose key features are not yet clear, even though the Bill is about to come out of Committee in another place. There will also be other changes. There will be more conditionality for people already in jobs. Noble Lords will be aware of tests already being used to determine whether people are entitled to disability benefits. There is a dramatic change in the shift to local decisions on a range of benefits and provision, and there are proposals on the table which would significantly reduce access to the statutory system of child support. These proposals combined will dramatically change the landscape for poor people over the next few years.

My concern is that when Governments make changes on this scale, mistakes inevitably happen. It takes time for those administering new systems to calibrate the decisions that they make and to understand whether new systems will in fact achieve what they are meant to achieve. Many of the decisions made turn out in practice to be good. Others turn out not to be. Having those tested in court or tribunal often helps government as well as individuals understand what Parliament intended. Benefits law is very complex. The new system may be integrated, but anyone who has read the Welfare Reform Bill will know that that will not make it simple. It will simply make it integrated and complex rather than separate and complex. If someone is to challenge a decision if they have their benefits rejected or stopped or they are sanctioned in some way, they will need advice. The evidence is quite stark about the difference in success between those who are represented and those who are not, which is something that will presumably come as a relief to the many lawyers in your Lordships' House. Given all those changes, does this feel like a good time to stop providing advice and help to benefits claimants in those settings? I think not.

As well as the fact that benefits recipients tend to be poor, legal aid is targeted at poor people. Therefore, these changes clearly target the poorest people in our country. I am also concerned, as the CABs have pointed out, that the shift in the criteria for civil funding is moving towards crisis points, such as imminent homelessness, and away from the kind of legal help and advice which might prevent someone becoming homeless in the first place. That does not seem to be a sensible move.

Ensuring the rule of law, as is often observed, is one of the foremost duties of the state. But a citizen who cannot challenge a wrong decision by the state simply because they have not got the money cannot depend on the rule of law. That does not mean unlimited spending on legal aid; but it does mean that one does not remove from the scope of publicly funded legal support an entire aspect of law which is fundamental to the dignity and survival of some of our poorest citizens.

When the Welfare Reform Bill comes to this House, I hope very much that the considerable expertise around these Benches will be deployed in scrutinising it very carefully. It is substantial legislation and its changes will make a big difference to the lives of millions of people who depend on benefits. It is the kind of thing that this House does very well and I am sure that the Bill will not emerge in the same state as it came in. But what is the point of our spending weeks of parliamentary time scrutinising legislation, if, in practice, those who are affected by it have no means to ensure that Parliament’s intentions are implemented?

I would ask the Minister to consider one thing in particular. If the Government will not move on these reforms in general, will he consider at least making no changes to the provision of legal aid, advice and help to benefit claimants at least until two years after the Welfare Reform Bill has been implemented in full? The very least people expect is that if Parliament makes decisions, they should be able to get justice according to them.

14:51

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, there is no point in cutting legal aid if the effect is to increase government expenditure in other areas and at the same time deny access to justice. The Green Paper proposes a radical reduction in the scope of private family law issues for which legal aid will be available. That policy is based on a false premise; namely, that spending on legal aid fuels litigation and that the only alternative is mediation.

Family lawyers, as a group, are committed to settling cases out of court as expeditiously as possible, often by referring clients to mediation, but, more frequently, negotiating settlements themselves. In my early days as a solicitor, I was much involved in that sort of work. The Green Paper entirely neglects the current important role of lawyers in non-court-based resolution of legal disputes, particularly financial and custody disputes. It is very probably because clients were able to see a solicitor that litigation was avoided in many cases. Without professional guidance, ill founded and certainly ill prepared litigation conducted by the client in person will inevitably follow. That will mean a very substantial rise in the number of litigants in person in the family courts. Sir David Norgrove, chair of the Family Justice Review panel, in his interim report, which was published recently, has emphasised this point.

Those who lack the personal energy and other resources to take on litigation by themselves would not get access to justice at all. Those who have not been able to enforce the other party’s private law responsibilities for support and so on inevitably fall back on the state for housing and support, so that is where more state expenditure is incurred. One reason why mediation is currently successful is that the threat of litigation encourages people to adopt sensible positions in mediation or in settlement discussions. With that threat effectively removed in many cases by the removal of public funding for legal representation, successful mediation will be severely hampered.

Legal aid is to be granted where there is physical violence. There is an obvious perverse incentive for people to allege domestic violence just to get access to funding for their other issues. The other side to the argument could say, “Well, I never did that”, which will increase more contested court proceedings. Many women who do not disclose domestic violence that they have suffered, or refuse to apply for injunctive relief in relation to it, will not get a proper and safe resolution of the issues. The very class of person which the Green Paper most wants to protect will be left unprotected and in potentially extremely dangerous situations. Domestic violence very often comes to light only through the lawyers’ handling of the case when they learn it from a client who has kept it concealed from their family. Mediation in such cases will not work and should not be tried at all.

Medical negligence cases have played a very important role in improving health care by setting standards, publicising deficiencies and punishing failures. The thalidomide case is a very good example. In many cases, new procedures have been introduced and developed as a result of litigation. According to the Green Paper, taking clinical negligence out of legal aid would save £17 million.

Of the 500,000 avoidable incidents in England alone, as estimated by the DoH in 2009-10, the National Health Service Litigation Authority received only 6,652 claims. Expert solicitors who handle these claims will decide in 75 per cent of them that there is no case. Sometimes there is negligence but no injury and sometimes there is injury but no negligence. It is not possible to assess the chances of success in clinical negligence cases at the start of the case. There must be funding to find out if there is a case and for the higher cost cases. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulks in his pointing out that whether the issue is negligence or causation, expensive expert medical evidence is required to establish a basis for the claim before a decision to proceed is made.

The Government propose to remove legal aid for clinical negligence at the same time—I repeat, at the same time—as changing the no-win, no-fee agreements. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady King, who pointed out to me that children who were said to be still covered for clinical negligence cases are not to be, on which I am sure she will expand. When Sir Rupert Jackson published his proposals, he said:

“I stress the vital necessity of making no further cutbacks in legal aid availability or eligibility … the maintenance of legal aid at no less than the present levels makes sound … sense and is in the public interest”.

His proposals are based on the continuing existence of legal aid. Its removal will deny access to justice to some of the most vulnerable groups in the country—children, the sick and disabled. The need to streamline costs and for systems to be efficient should not be at their expense.

[Baroness Northover]

Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that this is another time-limited debate. When the clock reaches the five, noble Lords have had their five minutes.

14:57

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, anyone who has had elected office as a Member of Parliament or as a local councillor will know how important it is to be able to advise constituents to go to a local law centre, Citizens Advice or even legal aid solicitors. It is perfectly clear that the Government’s proposals will hit the most vulnerable. All the figures point to that: 85 per cent of people who got legal aid were among the poorest 20 per cent of the population. It is clear that the vulnerable will be hit particularly hard. There is also the specifically even more shocking issue that there will be no more legal aid for children who are the victims of medical accidents or negligence.

It is clear that early intervention when people have difficulties is a much quicker way of resolving their problems. It is also more economic. To take the all-too-common case of someone who gets into rent arrears, if they get advice at an early stage, the situation can be dealt with and they do not become homeless. If it is left for too long, they would become homeless, at which point they may get legal aid, but it is costly for the public purse and awful for the individual concerned. We have already heard the statistics about the savings there could be from early intervention as opposed to leaving it late and more public money having to be spent.

I was shocked, as were other noble Lords, to learn that, in the Government’s view, domestic violence is now to be the gateway to receiving legal aid in relation to family law. This is turning the matter on its head because fear of violence often is the key issue—more than the violence itself. Certainly, people could turn this on its head and say that violence is being used in order to get the benefit or that such an accusation is being made.

It is increasingly clear that the procedures governing immigration, education, employment, welfare benefit and so on are becoming more and more complex. Certainly, going to a tribunal requires expert help and advice. Without it, most people will not be able to manage the process. Legal advice is helpful in that it can persuade people that, if their case has no merit, they will not proceed to a tribunal, so a saving is made. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, in 2010 some 50 new statutory instruments covering social security, housing benefit and tax credits were produced. These are complex matters and it is hard to see how people, with the best will in the world, can secure their rights without expert help.

It has been suggested by the Government that telephone advice might work. Of course it will work for some people, but anyone who has had a constituency knows that people come along to the surgery with their documents. They demonstrate their difficulties by showing you the bills they cannot pay and so on. It makes the matter much clearer than it would be on the telephone. Further, urging people to use telephone advice will be particularly damaging to the more vulnerable and the poorer social classes.

I shall finish on a specific issue, that of forced marriages. I attended a meeting here earlier in the week on this subject. These cases mainly concern women who are usually very vulnerable and have no money. By definition their families cannot help them because it is the families who are often the cause of the problem. What can these women do? We have the Forced Marriage Protection Order which can provide some help. But, frankly, accessing that order without legal help is virtually impossible. It is quite a widespread problem. Estimates of any accuracy are difficult to come by, but the joint Home Office/Foreign and Commonwealth Office Forced Marriage Unit was approached last year by nearly 2,000 women. Other estimates suggest that forced marriages may run at between 5,000 and 8,000 cases a year. The only safeguard, or bit of a safeguard, is the Forced Marriage Protection Order, and I do not understand how it can be accessed without legal help.

15:02

[Lord Hart of Chilton]

My Lords, when I arrived in the Lord Chancellor’s Department in 1998, my experience of legal aid had been limited to the pro bono activities of my firm, Herbert Smith, which, from a position of economic comfort, nevertheless looked across the City boundaries to the much poorer London boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Islington, and made contributions to, among other things, local law centres. I shall come back to those in a moment. So it was only in 1998 that I realised the enormity of the legal aid problem, and that there was an asteroid with “legal aid” written on it advancing towards the Lord Chancellor’s Department.

Budgetary restraint that was increasing year by year meant that the greater priorities of health and education placed heavy restrictions on funds for legal aid. This was compounded by the fact that the first claim on such funds went to criminal cases where there was a priority to defend those who faced the prospect of loss of liberty. It was impossible to ring-fence a fund earmarked for civil legal aid. Yet, when I began to make visits to law and legal advice centres, to citizens advice bureaux in the inner London boroughs such as Tower Hamlets and Southwark, and to major cities outside London such as Bristol and Nottingham, I was immediately impressed by the need for greater investment in providing help and advice towards solving civil problems before they involved the courts.

The spiral of decline triggered by one event leading to another was all too obvious from the case studies I saw. For example, loss of income caused by unemployment could lead to debt, which in turn could lead to homelessness, which could lead to domestic violence and bring about marital breakdown, then to ill health in the short and the long term, both physical and mental, along with harmful negative effects on children and their educational performance, thus affecting their future life chances. Of course, the dominos do not all fall at the same time, but the spiral is well documented. I was particularly impressed by the work of Professor Dame Hazel Genn at University College London in her book, Paths to Justice, and she was a great help to the department in my day.

I also pay tribute to the selfless work of those in the law centres and agencies whom I observed at first hand. There were no handsome salaries to compare with the private sector and many were volunteers. Local authorities were unable to offer much help, and it was left to us to provide the seed corn. The law centres correctly pointed out that early advice and intervention could help break the spiral of decline. It was also self-evident that each of the components of the spiral brought with it economic costs for society as a whole. It therefore followed that early successful interventions would not only save costs, but also prevent problems escalating. A cost-benefit analysis outlined by Citizens Advice in July 2010 demonstrates the advantages of early advice in respect of housing, debt, benefits, employment and family. In monetary terms, the benefits are enormous and are real value for money, vindicating the principle and justifying the amount of civil legal aid as a worthwhile investment.

I am proud of the fact that the previous Government introduced the Community Legal Service and, notwithstanding the fact that they were faced with a growing need to effect savings in the legal aid budget, which they did, they always sought to protect social welfare law. My fear is that those who I saw making such a valuable contribution by providing immediate help to those in the most urgent need of it will now be faced with a setback from which it will be difficult to recover. In response to the suggestion that the voluntary sector will fill the gap left by the removal of civil legal aid in the proposed areas, I can see no evidence for such an assertion.

The legal profession can be justifiably proud of its record of pro bono activities. It has provided millions of pounds’ worth of endeavours in that respect. I have checked the policy of my former firm on what is now called corporate responsibility, and the corporate responsibility plan at my wife’s firm, Norton Rose. They are impressive policies, like many of those adopted by other City firms of solicitors, but they just will not be able to close the gap that will open up. In spite of the outstanding achievements of these policies, even all of the City firms put together will not provide enough to cover the expected shortfall in the inner London areas surrounding the City, let alone the rest of the country. We must also remember that local authorities are still strapped for cash and therefore unlikely to be able to help. I hope that the Minister will explain how advice deserts, as they have been called, in some of the most deprived communities in the country, are to be avoided. Without more civil legal aid, I cannot see how they can be.

15:07

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for tabling this timely debate. I share the respect and admiration of the Government for the work of the voluntary agencies in this area, but as the previous speaker said, it is hard to see how they can meet the depth of need. I should like to concentrate on two issues, one of which is the separate representation of children in family court proceedings. It is important that, when parents are fighting with each other, the child’s voice is not lost. I would like a reassurance from the noble Lord that tandem representation of the type developed by the National Youth Advocacy Service is not denied to children because of these changes and cuts. I want also to focus on the impact of the lack of access to justice for young people and adults who have been in local authority care. Despite welcome investment and attention both in policy and legislation, for many young people, care has been an appalling experience. It leaves them vulnerable in later life to succumb to many of the problems that have been described today. Many of them deserve redress for the way they have been disappointed.

At a meeting held yesterday of young people in care, care leavers, foster carers and social workers, a young woman talked about being in care but separated from her siblings. There was another report of siblings being split between several different foster carers. We heard about the anguish of the young person involved as they lost touch with their siblings, and the sense that no real attention was paid to the need to keep in touch with brothers and sisters. We heard from a young man who had had 20 different placements during his years in care. Another young woman had had five different social workers within the last two years. We also heard about the instability that continues to affect care.

We also heard about the welcome report from Professor Eileen Munro into how social work can be streamlined and improved. I pay tribute both to this and the previous Government on their efforts, but there is a long way to go. In particular, we heard from a young mother whose child had been removed from her. We know that if a young woman is in care, she is far more likely to become pregnant during her teenage years and that her child is more likely to be removed from her. This young mother expressed her belief that the reason for her child being removed from her later in life was that her mental health needs had not been met while she had been in care. There is very clear evidence that when children are taken into care and have had trauma, they should be properly assessed by a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist. They are not currently getting that proper assessment. The specialist looked-after children’s mental health teams that have been developed in recent years are expensive, complex to run and are only patchily in place. Many young people are not getting the support they need for their mental health needs in care. The young mother to whom I have referred went in person to the European Court of Justice over the case of her child being removed. Exceptionally, the court accepted consideration of her case.

We heard at the same meeting a barrister who had been in care speak about his admiration for a young person who had gone to court to seek redress from his local authority for the way that he had been treated and how he stood up for his rights.

I should like reassurance from the Minister that young people and adults who have been disappointed by the treatment that they have received in care can have access to justice in order to get the support they need; for instance, in paying for counselling and therapy.

It is very important that the voice of children in family courts is not lost, that they continue to have separate representation when that is appropriate, and that there is every opportunity for young people leaving the care system, and adults who have experienced it, to get redress for the way that they have on many occasions been denied their right to family life and for the disappointing treatment that they have often received.

15:11

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, normally I do not trouble your Lordships on legal matters—they are way above my station. I normally speak on more lowly matters such as business and industry, science and technology. But on this occasion I felt that my noble friend's case was so strong and so compelling that I wanted to show my support. So with apologies to noble and learned Lords for trespassing on their territory, let me try to put this case in a way that we practical people see things.

The first thing that we look at are the numbers. Legal aid is a big number and is paid by a small department, the Ministry of Justice. Is this a true picture? In the world of business, we are pretty good at presenting numbers so as to project the impression that we want to give. Is this being done here?

Many noble Lords have spoken of legal aid in health, housing, employment and criminal negligence. Surely these are matters for their respective government departments, not all for the Ministry of Justice. If legal aid costs were allocated to these various departments, surely the costs would become much smaller—they would become minuscule. So I put it to the Minister that if the costs were allocated differently, the numbers might tell a different story.

We technologists are very keen on understanding the theory behind things, how they work and why they happen. We like to understand the cause so that we can foresee the effect. If there is a theory that we cannot understand, we rather think that there is something phoney behind it.

So what is the theory behind cutting legal aid? We know the effect, but what is the cause? Justifying it simply by the need to save money, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, was doing, is intellectually very weak. It will be to the lasting shame of this Government if we come to look back on things and say that the only reason that we could find was that we could not afford it. So can the Minister be intellectually more robust and explain these civil legal aid cuts in terms of the rights and wrongs of civil legal aid rather than just saying that we cannot afford it?

In my world, we are very keen on testing, both in theory and in practice. We are very suspicious of things that are done in a blinding rush before they can be tested, because that is the way that mistakes are made.

Now, we all know why this Government are in a rush. They have read Tony Blair's book, where he says that his biggest regret is that he did not get on with doing things straightaway. What he did not say in his book is that we spent a lot of time thinking and discussing our way through problems, looking at alternatives, consulting, learning from other people’s experience and trying out different ideas in White Papers and Green Papers so that the best one won, so that policies such as Sure Start came out of several false starts.

Everybody in my world thinks that that is the best way of ensuring success. I find this careful preparation and testing absent in the Government’s attitude towards civil legal aid. Surely we owe it to those who depend on it to search for alternative solutions, such as the reduction in costs mentioned by my noble friend Lord Beecham or the matters referred to by my noble friend Lady Sherlock and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.

Other noble Lords have spoken about injustice, about unfairness, and they are of course absolutely right to raise it. But in my world we seek fairness not only because it is morally right but because, once it is absent, harm starts to happen. In the practical business world, when harm starts to happen, things start to go rapidly downhill. Purely to avoid trouble, will the Minister review the fairness and the injustice of the Government's decision?

It may well be that the Government do not care for that section of the community that depends on legal aid, so all the things that we have said do not really matter. But I do not think that that is the kind of society that we want to live in. It certainly matters to me.

15:16

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Haskel asked why these cuts were taking place. I want to quote to your Lordships something that Jonathan Djanogly, the justice department Minister in charge of legal aid, said at the Conservative Party conference last year. It shows an attitude to legal aid which is to misunderstand it. Mr Djanogly seemed to suggest that legal aid might be a good way of keeping busy women who wanted to return to work after maternity leave. He said:

“Legal aid can be a good filler for those lawyers out of work or women who want to get back into the legal job market after having children”.

Mr Djanogly spent 21 years in practice with the wealthy international commercial law firm SJ Berwin and earned sums which we associate with top bankers. It may well be that lawyers such as he have no understanding that someone would choose to do legal aid work not because they are looking to fill in, not because they have come back after having babies, as I did, but because they chose from the beginning to give voice to those who are usually voiceless within the system.

I have spent my life doing legal aid work and I have done it through choice. Chambers such as mine win the pro bono awards every year despite the fact that all of our lawyers are legal aid lawyers. Why do they win the prizes for pro bono? It is basically because their life experience in the courts gives them necessary expertise in these areas, so that when they come to do pro bono they are not filling in—or coming like a grandee to offer kindness and charity to the poor—but coming with expertise on welfare rights, employment and what it is like to be poor and on the margins. The starting point is wrong and misunderstands the purpose of legal aid. The purpose is set out in the 1949 legal aid Act: to ensure that no one will be financially unable to prosecute a just and a reasonable claim or defend a legal right.

As I have previously told the House, I chair Justice. We have a number of concerns with which I can deal briefly because most of the other contributors to the debate have pointed out the things that I wanted to say. I reinforce the view that the cuts to the scope of legal aid will be particularly damaging to social welfare law, employment, housing and education for the most disadvantaged. I am concerned about how that will impact on those with special needs, the mentally ill and so on.

We have to test and question some of these ideas in the House because legal aid will not be well defended by the public. Generally, if it is health or education, the public will rally, but they will not do so around legal aid because they think that it is about fat-cat lawyers. The reason for that is a malevolent combination between sometimes government Ministers and the media. It has never been my experience that fat-cat lawyers do legal aid; the vast majority who do are usually committed, decent, good people who are fairly slender and certainly not living high on the hog.

A number of the ideas are certainly worth exploring—for example, the idea of a call centre as the first point of access for the many people who do not know how to start finding a lawyer. However, it should be piloted first because there is a real concern that it will fail to deal with those who have low communication skills or complicated cases, as others have said.

I am also worried about the removal of legal aid from matrimonial cases because of the inequality of arms that it will create for women. So often in the courts already the male spouse is privately represented and the female spouse is legally aided and represented by a legal aid lawyer. She will be cut out and, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, this may well drive people to make allegations of domestic violence. Even where there has been some domestic violence it is usually not pursued for strategic reasons, because it would not be good for the children to hear rehearsed the details of what happened inside the relationship between the parents. That might lead to undesirable consequences.

I am also concerned about clinical negligence cases. Given the high initial cost of establishing liability, removing legal aid completely will mean that poor people who suffer terrible things within our hospitals will not be able to sue.

The proposals are rushed and, rather like the National Health Service proposals, they need to be given time. I ask for a little let-up and that we examine the proposals before rushing into a folly that will have serious consequences for the poor.

15:22

[Lord Crisp]

My Lords, I am delighted to contribute to the debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on giving us all the opportunity to do so.

I declare an interest. My daughter is a lawyer practising in legal aid. However, I am not just standing here as a proud father: I have an interest in this topic and I am concerned, as noble Lords will see from what I say in these few minutes, with the knock-on effects in areas such as health and social welfare, which I do indeed know a lot about.

As a layman looking at these proposals I can see that the starting point of reducing dependency on the law and finding better ways to solve disputes is a good aim. I can also see that setting priorities and justifying the use of public funds is entirely appropriate. As a former permanent secretary I understand this well—but I also understand that the devil is in the detail and that there will be unintended consequences that must be managed and mitigated. It is particularly sad in this case that these unintended consequences can clearly be foreseen now. A large part of what is being proposed is about limiting the use of legal aid to crisis points, such as the point at which you lose your house, domestic violence, serious disrepairs and so on. That first begs the question of how well these are defined and interpreted. Then, picking up the powerful points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and others, there is the perverse effect of having to up the ante so that the problem is at that level before you can receive any legal advice.

There is another point. For many people seeking legal aid, the issue that they present with is one of a complex of other issues, not their only problem. Many people have housing problems. They may have health or mental health problems, they may be out of work or have chaotic lifestyles. They must just have multiple problems. The point is that we need to think in terms of not just the seriousness of the issue that is presented but also the scale of the situation and the vulnerability of the people who are presenting the problem. Smaller issues may trip some people over into needing much more help. As I have looked at this issue, I have seen many cases where good legal advice can stop problems and avoid further litigation. As other people have said, there is overwhelming evidence that this can be and is the case in many places.

The Government have also argued in their proposal that alternatives are available. Maybe it is entirely desirable that there should be alternatives available to reaching for a lawyer when you are in these sorts of problems—but are they available? From what other noble Lords are saying, there seems to be a great deal of evidence that there is no guarantee of reliably high-quality advice available elsewhere or everywhere. The point for the Government in making these proposals is that this is an eminently foreseeable problem. How are they going to make sure that alternative services for advice and help really are available—and available to the most vulnerable? In parenthesis, I take the point on the difficulties of having a single source of entry from a telephone system. The reality is that when you are dealing with people with multiple problems and issues you need to look at a range of different channels to reach them, not just one.

I also note that the Government have done an impact assessment of these proposals. Not only are there problems that can be foreseen, but they have foreseen them. They raise a long list of possible problems about social cohesion, increased criminality, the impact of resources on other departments, and a recognition, in their words, that,

“failure to resolve one issue may lead to another arising”.

On health, they recognise that there may be a potential negative effect on health. I will give some simple examples for which there is plenty of evidence. First, on health and housing, we know that unrepaired, damp houses affect both the mental and physical health of adults and children. Research by the LSE for the Department of Health shows that debt advice can not only lower costs for the health, social care and legal systems but can also reduce the risk of individuals developing mental health problems.

Finally, having done that assessment, what are the Government going to do about it? What policies will be put in place to mitigate and manage these problems which are affecting and will potentially affect the health of individuals? There may be unintended consequences of these policies but they are foreseeable. Indeed, the Government seem to have foreseen them.

15:27

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Beecham opened the debate, he told us that the Government had underestimated the number of people who will be denied funding as a result of their changes to legal aid. The Legal Action Group, which discovered this error, stated that the Government had “grossly underestimated” the impact of their cuts. The error came about because the Government chose to base the impact assessment on statistics from 2008-09—more than a year out of date. The Legal Action Group’s director, Steve Hynes, described the Government as using,

“the most generous interpretation of the data it thought it could get away with”.

It is clear from these findings that the number of people seeking help with legal problems is far higher than the Government estimated that it would be. The Law Society’s chief executive, Desmond Hudson, said that it is,

“hard to dispel the suspicion that once again the MoJ has embarked on a programme of painful change, without properly understanding the impact of its proposals”.

At present, legal aid is available to the poorest parents of children with special educational needs who appeal against decisions made by their local councils about additional support for their child. That is as it should be given the fact that 82 per cent of parents win their appeals and 30 per cent of the appeals are conceded by the local authority even before the case reaches a tribunal. Yet the Government now propose to remove all legal aid where it relates to matters of special educational needs. While discrimination claims would still receive support, for many parents the only way to get the help that their child needs is through appeals to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal and support for these will be withdrawn.

The Government seek to justify its removal for three main reasons. First, they say that the education of children cannot be accorded the same level of priority as other important issues. Surely, access to a suitable and challenging education is the right of every child, and if they miss out on such an education they are disadvantaged for the rest of their lives. Disabled children already face many barriers in society, and a failure to provide them with a suitable education puts them at an even greater disadvantage. While the Government have taken some welcome steps to support families with disabled children, they threaten to undermine this by withdrawing legal aid, which many families need to ensure that their children get a decent level of education. The importance of providing an appropriate education to all children, especially those with special educational needs, is such that it should be given the same priority as other important issues.

Secondly, the Government say that they do not believe parents and carers bringing cases like the ones I have mentioned to be particularly vulnerable. But the consultation document from the Ministry of Justice recognises that disabled children are more likely to live with one or more parent who has a disability. Equally, the parents of disabled children are more likely to be in poverty or in single-parent families. These facts make nonsense of the Government’s statement that the parents bringing these cases are not likely to be particularly vulnerable. The withdrawal of legal aid in such circumstances risks taking away support from parents who are already financially disadvantaged and pushing even more families with a disabled child into poverty. Surely that renders such parents particularly vulnerable and means that they should be given the support they need rather than making them the victims of these cuts.

In addition to making the wrong decision when assessing the vulnerability of parents, the Government in their equality impact assessment failed to consider the impact of withdrawing legal aid on the children themselves. Some 60 per cent of pupils who leave school without GCSEs have special educational needs, and they are not likely to be in education, training or employment at the age of 19. Taking away legal aid from parents who are supporting these children is an absolute disgrace.

Finally, the Government believe that there are sufficient alternative sources to justify the removal of legal aid in these cases. To support the argument, they identify the parent partnership service, the Advisory Centre for Education and the Independent Parental Special Education Advice service. The advisory centre and IPSEA already have more requests than they can cope with and the parent partnership service is facing huge budget cuts by local authorities. Therefore, legal aid will be at risk.

None of the Government’s reasons for withdrawing legal aid from those with special educational needs stands up to scrutiny, and I hope they will think again. In a civilised society, this cannot be justified.

15:33

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I also am concerned about the proposed cuts in the provision of civil legal aid, to which a number of noble Lords have already referred. In his introduction to the consultation paper, the Justice Secretary claims that the proposals are justified because legal aid has expanded to cases that should not require legal expertise to be resolved. In some cases, the right to civil legal aid will be retained—for judicial review, homelessness and domestic violence, among others. On the down side, the largest casualty will be private family cases where there is no element of domestic violence or false marriage. Many women who currently get legal aid for ancillary relief will be directed to mandatory mediation, and that is all. Their former partners, if unco-operative, will simply wait out the inconvenience and continue their intransigence. But there is an even worse aspect.

Legal aid will be denied in cases of children who have been victims of medical negligence. It is really awful to think that a child, who could have been disabled perhaps for life as a result of medical negligence, would have no redress. I understand that the Government say that under no-win no-fee arrangements child victims will be able to sue for compensation. However, it seems that those arrangements are under review by the Government. Anyhow, I think that it is an entirely unsatisfactory response.

Those who lose out will be mainly women, their children, and the disabled. Those with disabilities will be disproportionately hit by cuts to areas such as clinical negligence and education, and children such as those fighting cerebral palsy, birth injuries and those requiring additional educational support will be cut out of entitlement.

In the words of a well known lawyer writing in Counsel, the journal of the Bar Council, the consultative paper destroys the coherent national system of legal advice and replaces it with a hideously complicated list of entitlements and restrictions. He concludes that it is outrageous that half a million people on benefit incomes, or just above, will lose entitlement to legal aid because of the excesses of bankers with staggering incomes and, maybe, the incompetence of those managing government finances. I agree. The Government really must think again, particularly about the likely effect upon the most vulnerable—children and the disabled.

A section of the consultative paper deals with employment, and here the Government seem rather confused. The paper refers to “user-friendly procedures” available via the tribunals, where individuals can in effect represent themselves so there is no need at all to provide legal aid in an employment context. The present arrangements are described in glowing terms. However, over at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills an entirely different view is taken. The Business Secretary is now in favour of proposals that make it easier for employers to dismiss workers and more difficult for workers to make claims for unfair dismissal.

To get to a tribunal at all a worker will have to pay a fee, perhaps a large one, and it will not be the nice friendly tribunal envisaged in the Justice Secretary’s paper—oh no. The lay sidespersons currently on tribunals, who are representative of both sides of industry, are to be withdrawn. The unemployed worker must put his case to a judge sitting alone, so a so-called nice friendly set-up is to be transformed into an entirely legal one, with, of course, no assistance provided.

There is only one piece of advice that I could give to an employee: if you are not yet a member of a trade union, join one as soon as you can. Unions are skilled at representing their members, and the Government are introducing an environment in which you will need all the protection you can get.

15:37

[Baroness King of Bow]

My Lords, in the time available I want to make three points about the proposed cuts to civil legal aid. First, the cuts target the poorest but reduce standards for all of us. Secondly, the cuts in their present form actually increase costs to the taxpayer. Thirdly, not only do they restrict access to justice but, as we have heard, they specifically remove legal aid from children who are victims of medical accidents or negligence.

I find that almost unbelievable. Who in their right mind would think that it was an acceptable idea to remove legal aid from a child who had been disabled for life due to a medical accident or, still worse, negligence? I have written to all noble Lords asking them to write to the Prime Minister on this point because I feel so strongly about it. Regardless of our politics, I do not believe that there is a single one of us in this House who thinks that that is a good and proper thing to do. I hope all of us believe that Great Britain should be a country that provides legal aid to children who are victims in these circumstances, not one that would deny those children any recourse to justice.

Giving Members on the government Benches the benefit of the doubt, what on earth is this about? Even more perplexingly, this is not just about saving money; if it were, the Government would welcome the Law Society’s proposals with open arms. These cut more than the Government’s £350 million cuts to legal aid. The Law Society, playing an excellent hand of poker, has raised the Government’s cuts and said, “We’ll cut even more”. So, if this is about saving money, why cannot we take on board the expertise of those who actually work in the sector? Critically, the Law Society’s cuts do not involve removing recourse to justice from the most vulnerable.

Coming to perhaps the most salient point, it is not just the poorest who will suffer. We will all suffer. If we do not have legal aid to challenge Rachman-type housing, for example, housing standards will not improve. If we do not have legal aid to challenge medical negligence, care in the health service overall will not improve. We see how case law in Britain protects all British people. Look at the Hillsborough disaster, the thalidomide case and the Clapham rail crash; all involved elements of civil legal aid and led to safety improvement, whether for healthcare, stadium safety or transport. Therefore, although evidently only the poorest qualify for civil legal aid, the resulting case law protects us all. We will be worse off if this goes through as currently planned. I ask the Government to think again and for intelligent cuts. None of us thinks that no cuts should be made, but they should not be self-inflicted cuts that will wound this country grievously.

I ask the Minister to reply to me on a particular point to clarify the Green Paper, which says on page 172:

“We propose to retain the current scope of Legal Help and Representation”,

covering legal aid for medical negligence. It uses a few more words than that but that is essentially what it says. It goes on to say:

“We propose to remove all Legal Help and Representation”,

around medical negligence, again using a lot more words. Which is it? I know the Government have said that it was an accident and that they did not mean to give children that cover. However, the good thing about such a contradictory Green Paper is that the Government can do a U-turn and say, “Oh, that is what we were thinking all along”. That is what I hope they will do. Please step back from these proposals. It is bad enough to remove help from the most vulnerable, but to do so when it seems clear that it will increase costs to other departments is frankly insane. I shall write to the Minister with a full list of examples of how costs will increase in other departments.

I fully realise that in this House a law we often pass is that of unintended consequences. However, here the consequences are clear. I implore the Minister to commission an impact assessment before going further with something that could severely damage this country’s fantastic justice system.

15:42

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Beecham for instigating this debate and all noble Lords who have spoken in it. There can be no doubt that this debate is both timely and vital. It is timely because the Government are, we are told, close to announcing their decisions on their consultation paper of last November. It is vital because if the Government stick to their Green Paper proposals, the system of social welfare legal aid will be decimated, if not destroyed. The situation is as serious as that. Nearly 750,000 people will no longer be eligible for legal help. Huge swathes of social welfare law—in housing, debt, education and employment—will be declared out of scope. Legal help that catches problems early will no longer be available in many cases, and the eventual cost to the state, as we have heard, will be much higher.

These proposals are nothing short of an attack on the poor—no more and no less. They are the wrong cuts at the wrong time and hurt the wrong people. It is therefore hardly surprising that many groups have banded together to try to persuade the Government just to think again. This debate is part of that process. I pay tribute to Justice for All, the umbrella group that covers many groups that have taken up this cause, and to the Law Society and the Bar Council. I also pay tribute to many Members of another place from all political parties, who have said: first, that this is wrong; secondly, that there are alternatives; and, thirdly, that to implement the proposals as they stand would be disastrous, uncivilised, discriminatory and hugely counterproductive.

Of course, there must be cuts. We accepted that when we were in government, and we accept it now. Indeed, we cut legal aid, controversially in some cases. If we had been returned to government at the previous election, we would have made some cuts, but not as many, nor as fast as the proposals that we are discussing. We would probably have made cuts in the field of criminal law following the publication of our White Paper Restructuring the Delivery of Criminal Defence Services, which was published in March 2010. Those substantial cuts would have been controversial, but not as substantial as this Government’s. However, when we were in government we refused point blank to cut social welfare legal aid. Indeed, we increased it from £151 million in 2007-08 to £208.4 million in 2009-10—our last year in office.

We also raised the financial eligibility limit for civil legal aid by 5 per cent in 2009, making it possible for many more people to receive the legal help that they needed. Now the Government propose to cut eligibility significantly. The ministerial achievement of which I am perhaps most proud was that of saving the South-West London Law Centre from closure. At a time of economic difficulty it is madness to cut legal aid in this way, but the Government intend to do so. If legal aid does not give at least some access to justice for those who are dispossessed or disadvantaged, whether through poverty, bad housing, unemployment, low wages, the colour of their skin or their mental and physical health, what is the point of having a legal aid system?

The case has perhaps never been as well put as by Helen Grant, the new Conservative Member of Parliament for Maidstone and The Weald, in an article in a national newspaper in February this year. The article states that,

“as civil liberty is to the freedoms of our nation, civil legal aid is to the protection of its citizens. For some of our most vulnerable people, it is the only sword and shield in their armoury”.

Common sense and the expert research of Professor Hazel Genn and others, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hart, tell us that early legal advice changes lives. We know that legal problems come in clusters and not singly and that a lack of such early and comprehensive advice can lead to problems escalating out of control, leading to relationship breakdown, unpaid and hopeless debts, and sometimes a decline into crime, with all the misery that that brings with it. Yet I fear that that will be one of the almost inevitable results of these proposals if they are implemented. Then there is the cost to the state and to all of us as taxpayers when no legal help is given. The savings that the CAB calculates would arise from spending £1 of legal aid money were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Beecham in his opening speech. The Government’s proposals are financially hugely counterproductive.

As has been said, the lawyers who practise this type of law are not well paid. Some of them have given up the possibility of well paid careers in other areas of law. Yet the Government plan to take 10 per cent from each modest fee that they receive for giving social welfare advice. We know that a number of CABs will not be able to carry on, and that private solicitors, who have been under pressure for some time, may be tipped over the edge. However, we should also state clearly that the law centre movement, which does so much for the dispossessed and underprivileged in our society, is likely to be crushed. There is a proposed 77.6 per cent reduction in funding for legal help and an 83.6 per percent reduction planned in the number of legal help cases, all at the same time as local authority spend is falling. Whether intended or not, these proposals may well destroy law centres, with a disastrous effect on their clients.

Why these proposals? On the whole, previous Conservative Governments have been generous in their support for legal aid. The Liberal Democrats have demanded more money to be spent on legal aid—they demanded that of us and criticised our cuts. They, too, have argued for social welfare law. How can Ministers have signed up to these proposals? My own view is not that Ministers want to play the role of the wicked uncle who wants to destroy anything good he comes across. It is simply, and here I follow my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, that they just do not get it. Their view of legal aid is very limited and old-fashioned, so they do not see its relevance to social welfare law. Ministers keep using the mantra that their proposals are to protect the most vulnerable when, quite obviously, they are the exact opposite. If implemented their measures would, far from protecting the most vulnerable, directly harm them. Whatever they do in the end, Her Majesty's Government should stop this 1984 Orwellian-type misuse of language.

In my view, however, the Minister who is to reply to this debate does get it. His whole political history shows him to be someone who understands the importance of what is about to be destroyed. Our request to him is: please fight these proposals within your department and do not let these fundamentally anti-liberal measures be implemented. He enjoys a huge reputation in this House, both personally and politically. If he were to succeed in mitigating these proposals, that reputation would soar even higher. Why should he bother, he might ask? Legal aid is not his portfolio but someone else’s. He should bother because this is not fundamentally a legal issue at all. It is not just one for lawyers, in government or outside it, and it is not one for non-lawyer Ministers and non-lawyers generally to shy away from. It is a simple issue about right or wrong and justice or injustice. In the end, I say to the noble Lord, it is a simple question of morality.

15:53

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, tempts me. I am thinking of Murder in the Cathedral by TS Eliot:

“The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason”.

My objectives in politics, like those of most people in this House, are of course of a moral kind. I did not come into politics to hurt the poor but there is the fact—in this I am not playing the usual party political game—that when we came into government we also came into the biggest financial crisis that this country had faced in 80 years. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, knows full well—because his own Government were planning cuts—that whoever the Ministers were going to be, they would be faced with tough, hard decisions.

To govern is to choose and every department has had to make tough decisions. I do not resile from these. If you are in a department which has only three big-ticket items—prisons, probation and legal aid—and you are asked, as part of the contribution to economic recovery, to find £2 billion in savings, you will have to look at those three big-ticket items. In looking at legal aid, we have tried to look in the most compassionate way at the scope of the areas that we cover. I have answered questions before on this subject. If part of your government system is targeted on the poorest sections of your community and you cut that budget then you are going to hurt those sections of the community. That is the same thing that is happening with local authorities around the country and other departments in looking at their various budgets. It is too easy and I have to say that even with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, at the end, not one of the speakers actually put forward a hard choice as if they were at this Dispatch Box. It is all right to say that we have plans to raid criminal legal aid, or the Law Society is going to shift the cost on to the drinks industry, or—I think the jargon is “the polluter pays”—that it will be spread around Whitehall, but even spreading it around Whitehall leaves the Exchequer with the need to save the money.

I do not doubt the passion that has been expressed today and some very valid points have been made. I will try to deal with specifics as I go through. We are still in consultation. I cannot say that the consultation is going to produce some Pauline conversion at the last moment. As I say, we have made a commitment to savings and we intend to deliver them. What we have tried to do is to look at the whole philosophy of the system of legal aid, which a number of speakers acknowledge had grown and expanded since its introduction in 1949. I went to see the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson—Jeremy Hutchinson from the Liberal Benches—who is now, I think, 96. He is in splendid form, although he no longer attends the House. He was part of the generation that created the legal aid system. He said to me that their hope then was to create the parallel legal system to the National Health Service. I do not doubt that that what was behind, and is behind, the legal aid system. We share that. The consultation that we put out has produced nearly 5,000—4,800—responses in total. I cannot give the detailed government response today. We will be announcing that in the next few weeks. I can assure the House that the various points made today will be fed back into that consultation.

Before addressing the particular points made in the debate, I wish to reiterate briefly some of the considerations the Government bore in mind in making these proposals. The context of the Government’s overall reform is, as I have said, to tackle the deficit we inherited on entering office. Last October the spending review set out the scale of the challenge facing the Ministry of Justice. However, as the Government have stressed, we know that our policy cannot be determined simply by dealing with the deficit—nor are we doing so. There is considerable potential for reform within the justice system. Our legal structures and our legal aid system are capable of reform. Therefore, financial considerations and the need for reform come together.

There are many reasons why we believe it is necessary to reform legal aid, many of which have been acknowledged today. Since the modern legal aid system was established, its scope has been widened far beyond what was originally intended. By 1999, legal aid funding was available for virtually every type of potential issue, including some that should not require any legal expertise to resolve. The scheme now costs more than £2 billion a year, making it one of the most comprehensive schemes in the world, even taking jurisdictional differences into account. We need to understand that even after reform we will still have one of the most expensive schemes in the world.

In developing our legal aid reform proposals, we went back to basic principles to make choices about which issues are of sufficient priority to justify the use of public funds, subject to people’s means and the merit test. The proposals in the consultation paper aimed to take into account the importance of the issues at stake, the litigant’s ability to present their own case, the availability of alternative sources of funding and alternative routes to resolving the dispute, as well as our domestic and legal obligations.

To focus financial support on the areas where it is most appropriate and most necessary, the proposed reforms involve significant change to the scope of legal aid funding. We did not propose any change to the scope of criminal legal aid, and it was also proposed that legal aid will still routinely be available, as a number of colleagues have said, in civil and family cases where people’s liberty is at stake, or where they are at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home.

For example, we proposed to retain legal aid for asylum cases, for debt and housing matters where someone’s home is at immediate risk, and for mental health cases. Legal aid will still be provided where people face intervention from the state in their family affairs that may result in their children being taken into care and for cases involving domestic violence—I note the comments that have been made on that—forced marriage or immigration cases where the appellant’s liberty is at stake. We also proposed that legal aid should be available for cases where people seek to hold the state to account by judicial review, and for cases involving discrimination that are currently in scope. Legal help to bereaved families in inquests would also remain in scope.

However, prioritising those areas requires that we make clear choices about the availability of legal aid in other areas. We therefore proposed to remove from the scope of the scheme issues that are not, relatively speaking, of sufficient priority to justify funding at the taxpayer’s expense. We proposed to cease providing legal aid support for private family law cases unless domestic violence, forced marriage or child abduction is involved. Too often, the long drawn-out acrimonious nature of court proceedings exacerbates disputes between couples, rather than solving them. Under our proposals, we would continue to provide funding for mediation to encourage couples to use more effectively methods to resolve issues between themselves, rather than using the courts. We are not proposing mediation as a cure-all in place of litigation, and I will say more on that shortly.

The Government further proposed to remove from the scope of the civil legal aid scheme claims of clinical negligence, where, in many cases, alternative sources of funding are available, such as no-win, no-fee arrangements. Again, I note the points made on that. We also proposed to remove from scope the categories of employment, education and immigration, some debt and housing issues, and welfare benefits. There would be exceptions for some of these cases where there is a risk to anyone’s safety or liberty, or a risk of homelessness, or discrimination. In many of these cases, the issues are not necessarily of a legal nature, but require information, practical advice or other forms of expertise to resolve.

We recognised that there would be some cases within the areas of law that we proposed to remove from scope where international or domestic law would require funding by the taxpayer. We therefore proposed a new exceptional funding scheme for excluded cases. However, I say to my noble friend Lord Faulks that we will take a very hard look at issues on the international side. There will not be an open cheque-book on that.

We are looking at the impact of the reforms on existing claimants and various groups who would no longer have access to legal aid. We recognise that the proposals would have some impact on existing claimants or various groups if issues no longer fell within the scope of legal aid. However, that does not mean that people would be unable to resolve their issues. Straightforward mechanisms are often available to assist. For example, legal representation is not currently available in many tribunals, such as on employment matters, because they are designed to be used without legal aid. We published initial impact assessments and equality impact assessments alongside our consultation. Partly in answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, we will update the impact assessments when we publish the final response.

There is limited evidence about the impact of the proposals on case length for litigants in person, and the findings are mixed. However, we are seeking to simplify the procedures, forms and guidance available to those using the courts in person.

We recognise that mediation may not be appropriate for all individuals but it is important for them to consider it as an option, and we are currently making its use easier for individuals. When successful, mediation may hold considerable advantages, as it can be a cheaper, quicker and less acrimonious process than contested court proceedings.

Public funding for family mediation has been made available for more than a decade and this has proved to be a successful policy. On 6 April, we introduced a pre-application protocol for family mediation information assessment meetings. Any individual—self-funded or public-funded—will be expected to consider mediation before beginning proceedings. However, family proceedings in relation to domestic violence or emergency proceedings are expressly outside the scope of this requirement. This is a big step forward in improving awareness and encouraging take-up of family mediation.

On civil mediation, the Government are currently consulting on the paper, Solving Disputes in the County Courts: Creating a Simpler, Quicker and More Proportionate System. The proposals are to require all those involved in cases below the small claims limit to attempt settlement through mediation before being considered for a hearing, and to introduce mediation information and assessment sessions for claims above the small claims limit. We recognise that we cannot, of course, compel parties to settle but we can create a better environment within which settlement can be explored. The consultation closes on 30 June.

Perhaps I may now turn to some of the specific issues that I have not covered. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked for a time lag. I am not sure that that can be done but I shall feed that suggestion back to colleagues.

The question of clinical negligence was raised by my noble friend Lord Faulks and by a number of other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. This will undoubtedly be a matter for some debate when legislation reaches the other place and this House. Confidence over whether CFAs will cover that area will, I am sure, be hotly debated, and we can certainly consult Lord Justice Jackson again on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was concerned about forced marriages. I had better double-check my notes before I sell the pass on this but I think that forced marriages will remain within the scope of legal aid. We propose to keep legal aid for those cases, including the power to waive the upper financial eligibility. I hope that helps.

I fully acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hart, about the pro bono help from the legal profession. The question of advice deserts was raised; we will look at that as a concern.

To the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, I say that “polluter pays” is a neat option, but in the end the Treasury wants its money.

We are looking at the evidence given by the Law Society on the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and will give consideration to it and publish our responses in due course.

I take the point that my noble friend Lord Thomas made about people inserting domestic violence to get themselves in scope; that would have to be advised on.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, emphasised the need for advice. We differ on whether the advice needed is always legal advice—whether we force people into legal advice.

I go back to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to say that we will look hard at requests under the human rights issues, and the Government want funding only on serious and significant cases. I will also feed back his concerns—they were expressed by others as well—about clinical medical negligence.

To the noble Baroness, Lady King, I say that the consultation paper was clear. I was passed it; it is around here somewhere. That document clearly states that we were going to take clinical negligence out of scope. If she sees a contradiction, I will be happy to talk to her about it. I too received her letter; there will clearly be a campaign on that issue.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked for assurance about children who need separate representation in family cases. Yes, we propose to keep legal aid for children where they have been made a party for the case in family proceedings.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, took some cheap shots at my friend Jonathan Djanogly, who is a very good solicitor.

I give full deference to the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, a former Permanent Secretary. However, in his long and distinguished career, I am sure that he too must have sat there with a Treasury demand notice and a programme of cuts to be pushed through.

The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, made a point on special educational needs tribunals, which have been designed to be easy and accessible. We are considering the points he made during consultation.

I am now being tugged at; my time is up. If points were made on which I have not had a chance to reply, I will write to colleagues. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bach; this has been an extremely timely debate, because we are still in consultation. It has been extremely useful, because those who have contributed have done so from real expertise and commitment. We are listening. We have some tough decisions to take and we will not flinch from them, but neither will we ignore common sense when it is offered to us.

16:15

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who contributed so seriously and constructively to the debate, and others who indicated interest and support but were unable to attend. I cite in particular the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who very much wished to be here. I extend my thanks and sympathy to the Minister, who struggled manfully with the constraints of collective responsibility—or, as some of us would say, collective irresponsibility. I am sure that he will take back the opinions, facts and suggestions from today's debate and that we will see at least some of them reflected in the legislation that is wending its way towards us. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Employment and Support Allowance (Work-Related Activity) Regulations 2011

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

16:16

Moved By

[Lord Freud]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28 February be approved.

Relevant Documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 24th Report from the Merits Committee.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, these regulations establish a new requirement for some employment and support allowance customers—those who are able to prepare for a return to work—to undertake activity that will help them move closer to employment. The regulations amend current rules to allow people assessed as being able to prepare for work to engage in activities such as training, CV writing or researching local employment opportunities.

The regulations are about extending a hand of support and giving a nudge of encouragement to people who have been out of work as a result of a health condition or disability, but who may be able to return to the workplace with the right level of tailored back-to-work support, primarily under the umbrella of the Work Programme. The regulations are deliberately non-prescriptive to allow this support to be adapted to the individual and to ensure that it is flexible enough to deal with fluctuating conditions.

The regulations apply only to those in what is referred to as the work-related activity group—people who can reasonably be expected to prepare for a return to work. We remain committed to providing unconditional support for severely disabled people who cannot work, but we have also made a commitment to support people with a disability or health condition who have the potential to work in future. We are convinced that work-related activity should form part of that support.

Some noble Lords here for today’s debate met officials from the Department for Work and Pensions and me to look through some of the detail of these regulations. It was a very useful meeting and I hope that the forensic investigation has already gone some way towards allaying concerns.

For our purposes, I will take a few moments to set out for the House the history of the regulations. The powers that we wish to enact today are evolutionary, building on the work of the previous Government. They were taken by the previous Government in May 2007 but never brought into force. We believe that it is crucial to enact them as originally envisaged for new customers, but also to extend them to existing customers, providing the same level of support for all.

The notion that disabled people or those with health conditions should be able to access support to help them move closer to the labour market was in the Conservative Party Green Paper, Responsibility Agenda, published in January 2008. This paper set out, for the first time, that help should be extended to the existing stock—as it is vulgarly called—of benefit claimants, namely people written off on incapacity benefits, many of whom had received little or no support. The previous Government set about implementing this idea with the introduction of the employment and support allowance in October 2008. This included the intention to provide mandatory work-focused interviews and some work-related support for new customers, but no plan to extend the support to existing customers—the “stock”. In December 2008, Professor Paul Gregg published a report recommending extending and improving support for all customers and the Government of the day accepted his recommendations.

Convinced of the importance of providing back-to-work support for all customers by the summer of 2014, all current incapacity benefit claimants will have been assessed for ESA. Those customers placed in the work-related activity group will, if these regulations pass, be able to access this improved package of support. These regulations make participation in work-related activity part of the mandatory package. Quite simply, the evidence of the beneficial impact of work, even for those with a health condition or disability, is too strong to ignore. The regulations before the House today seek to ensure that, for those who can, taking part in activities designed to help them return to work becomes a normal part of the ESA regime.

I stress that these regulations do not apply to all ESA customers. The group we are particularly concerned with are those customers who make up the work-related activity group, who we can realistically expect to return to work at some future point. Once we have recognised that someone is capable of work-related activity, it is vital that we provide opportunities to engage with the labour market and offer support to identify achievable and sustainable work-related goals. These regulations provide for that support to be delivered, empowering individuals so they are able to take real, active steps to improve their chances of securing employment once their health or condition improves and they are ready for a return to work.

The regulations do not specify the type of activity that we expect this group to engage in. Indeed, the definition of work-related activity is deliberately broad, covering any activity which makes it more likely that the person will obtain or remain in work. However, there are some absolutes. We will not require customers to undertake medical treatment nor to seek, apply for or take up work. Beyond that, we do not want to be overly prescriptive. The emphasis is on the relationship between advisers and individual customers working together to tailor a plan of action that will always be reasonable, realistic and relevant.

Customers who do not participate in work-related activity will be sanctioned, and I know noble Lords have some concerns in this area. In response, let me just say this: there are safeguards in place to ensure that sanctions are not improperly applied. Sanctions will apply only to the work-related activity component of the benefit and will be applied only by trained Jobcentre Plus decision-makers, who will have the freedom and expertise to exercise their discretion. The decision-makers receive comprehensive training to enable them to seek out and assess all available evidence to ensure customers are given a fair hearing. In addition, Jobcentre Plus has a robust appeals process for anybody who is unhappy with a sanction they receive. I set out the full complement of available protections in the letter I sent to Peers earlier this week.

The main question that the Merits Committee, which looked at this, was concerned about was adviser training and capacity. JCP will set the standard for employment-related personal adviser services in the UK, and Edexcel has endorsed the learning route ways for personal advisers and assistant advisers. We must avoid the mistakes inherent in previous employment programmes that sought to compartmentalise customers and offered only a narrow range of support options based on predetermined assumptions. Flexibility is the key, and the support provided through the Work Programme will be tailored to individual circumstances, including taking into account any ongoing health issues.

We will guarantee the quality of the support provided through the Work Programme by implementing a demanding payment-by-results structure without dictating to providers how those results should be achieved. This will give providers from the private, voluntary and public sectors the freedom to innovate and find out what works best for different customers, enabling them to deliver a truly tailored approach.

We know that some customers on the Work Programme will be much closer to the labour market than others. To ensure that providers do not simply focus their efforts on the easiest to help, we have designed the payment structure to give providers greater rewards for supporting those with the greatest barriers to sustainable employment, including some of those claiming ESA. To put it simply, we will pay more to providers who work effectively with the hardest to help. That sum is considerable and can be nearly £14,000 in some cases.

Earlier this week, I sent out a schedule of that payment structure for ESA customers. I shall touch on some of those figures. As a reference point, for the jobseeker’s allowance customer group between the ages of 18 and 24, who we know should find work reasonably quickly, the maximum payment will be £3,800 as the contracts start. Within the model, there are now three categories of ESA customers. They are divided between those who are new recipients of ESA and those who have previously received incapacity benefits.

For those new ESA work-related activity group customers who have a short prognosis and are required to participate in the programme, we will pay up to £6,500 per person at the beginning of the contract. One can see the step up from the basic £3,800 being paid to the young JSA customers. For the ESA work-related activity group customers who volunteer for the programme—those receiving contributions-based ESA or with a long prognosis—we will pay up to £3,700 at the early part of the contract. We pay those customers less because, as they have volunteered for early access to the Work Programme, they are likely to be more receptive to support and therefore easier for providers to help than customers who are required to participate in the programme. There is also a financial structure behind this around how the DEL-AME switch works.

The final group are those who come off incapacity benefit on to ESA, and they will be paid up to £13,700 at the early stage of the contract. Our evidence suggests that these customers will be the hardest to help. Many of them will have spent many years receiving incapacity benefits before they move to ESA. The payments for the groups will change as the contracts develop, during which time we will introduce an incentive structure for some groups where a £1,000 incentive will kick in when the providers start to really perform.

The Work Programme is bigger than any previous employment programmes. It will serve a much wider range of customers, including those claiming ESA. Those customers who are self-employed or who have a contract of employment will be supported by Jobcentre Plus. All others will have the option of volunteering to participate in the Work Programme at any point after their work capability assessment. One of the key changes that these regulations would allow is to make participation in the Work Programme compulsory for those in the work-related activity group who have a short prognosis.

I am not going to address the work capability assessment at this stage. Perhaps noble Lords will want to raise it, although it has been debated in great depth recently. I suspect that the subject may have been aired well enough already.

We believe that, with the right support and encouragement, many more people can and should benefit from the opportunities presented by active engagement with the world of work. Undertaking carefully considered appropriate activity to improve job prospects represents a positive, realistic approach to avoiding long-term benefit dependence. I beg to move.

16:29

[Lord German]

My Lords, I welcome these regulations. As the Minister said, they have been in train for some time. Progress on the process of helping people into work has been going on for several years now, so this is part of putting flesh on the bones of a project that clearly needs to be accelerated. As always when it comes to detail of this sort, it is the delivery that will cause the most anxiety in people who are trying to anticipate the conclusions that result from the implementation of these regulations. I would sum this up in an overarching phrase, that of fairness and even-handed treatment in the personalisation process about which my noble friend has spoken.

It is important to note that this marks a cultural change for Jobcentre Plus, particularly as regards how the staff have worked in the past. I approve of that because it is important to empower advisers so that they can make choices and decisions in order to be able to help people towards what will suit their individual circumstances. The consequence of that is that the advisers will have more flexibility that will enable them to treat people in different ways. That will be a considerable shift. Some months ago we observed that there was absolute direction from the centre to Jobcentre Plus offices. That resulted in different interpretations being made on, for instance, the number of job applications you could have before you were sanctioned. That was not envisaged by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Government. That largely came down to the strict top-down instructions being given. Now that we are offering freedom to Jobcentre Plus advisers, it is essential that they have the appropriate skills and training to be able to deal with the vast range of people coming before them. The questions of training and capacity are crucial. We know that the Department for Work and Pensions is not exempt from the overarching cuts that have to be made to budgets, so I wonder if my noble friend can assure me that these advisers, who are going to be so important in helping people get back into the workplace and thus productive in the British economy, will not be affected by the number of jobs available at the sharp end.

Personalisation, if we are going to take this perfectly appropriate approach, raises the spectre of a variation of views being offered to the same kind of people in different places. That is a consequence of offering freedoms. There are two counterbalances to that. The first is a lighter touch, but certainly some form of strategic approach set out in guidance from the centre to Jobcentre Plus advisers. Secondly, each Jobcentre Plus office should have some form of check and balance. People who feel that perhaps they have been treated unfairly should not have to go through a whole rigmarole, so advisers should themselves be subject to a check and balance to ensure that the decisions they take meet with the accord of their colleagues as well. In that light, words are very important. We have the word “appropriateness” to which I shall return later, and the term “good cause”, which covers a subjective decision but is important because it provides the flexibility needed when looking at a case that has been made by a customer which stands up and therefore needs to be tested. Clearly, if this is going to be left open to advisers, we must note that one person’s interpretation may be different from that of another. It is therefore important that a check and balance is available and that a sense of direction is given, but not in too heavy-handed a way that derives a distinct interpretation of good cause.

The personalised approach that these regulations give vent to will be more helpful if advisers themselves are able to access the full range of information about their customers. Why will the work capability assessments not be provided for the advisers? If they need to know about someone’s abilities and disabilities, something is already written down about it. Surely it would be more sensible to provide advisers with access to that information so that they can have a full picture before them when they speak to the customer. Only “some” discretion exists for this information being available to Jobcentre Plus advisers. Why will they not have that full level of knowledge, which one presumes will be available online anyway?

There are some lessons to be learnt from the processes—they have been going through very recently. Professor Harrington’s review pointed out that some considerable changes needed to be made to the way in which we handle customers. Those recommendations were accepted and are presumably being implemented as we speak. I should like an assurance from the Minister that those customers will be approached in the same way as customers who are carrying out their action plans for work assessments. I am anxious to ensure that no guidance is in any sense being misinterpreted or too literally taken. That is the test of getting it working.

I have a number of specific questions on the regulations. The regulations seem to say that there will be discretion for lone parents with children up to the age of 13, which seems to be the cut-off. Will that level of discretion be afforded to lone parents who have children between the ages of 13 and 16? I can think of two distinct examples. The first would be where a lone parent has a child who has some form of disability and needs to be at home when the child comes back from school. The second is the lone parent of a child who has come home from school. Despite their having told the child, “You are going to be on your own at home and you’d better look after yourself”, somebody complains to the school, and the school comes back to the Jobcentre Plus and says, “Why have you forced this lone parent not to be able to look after a child properly?” Discretion should be given in this area so that account can be taken of the fact that some lone parents of children between 13 and 16 need to be at home when their children get home.

The data provided with the regulations show a heavily weighted spread of people who will fall into this group in different parts of the United Kingdom. I come from Wales, which is likely to have the most people wanting help, and I wonder whether my noble friend could indicate whether the support given to advisers will be related to the number of cases that they are likely to take up.

I have two final points on the regulations. The first relates to review and evaluation. Professor Harrington’s work makes it clear that a continuing, rolling review of what has been done and whether objectives have been achieved is very important. This suite of regulations should not be exempt from that review either. Will the Minister consider extending the role of Professor Harrington to look at the impact of these assessments as well? The annexe to the impact assessment states:

“The evaluation is likely to include qualitative and quantitative approaches, alongside internal monitoring”.

I hope that the Minister will assure us today that the evaluation will, rather than is likely to, include some form of support for the regime of reviewing and making sure that it is absolutely correct.

Secondly, the Minister has just said that a big package of financial help will be provided for those who are furthest from the job market. He quoted the figures for the respective ESA groups: £3,700, £6,500 and £13,700. Those are large and sharp shoulders. In this discretionary and personalisation world in which we live, there are bound to be people who will fall just outside those boundaries on one side or the other. My noble friend referred to the issue of incentivisation payments: will they help to smooth out those shoulders? They are very steep steps and if you fall into one category it will be very difficult to get out over that shoulder.

My noble friend outlined particularly well the way in which these regulations will work but safeguards will be needed. The safeguard of reasonable behaviour by both the customer and the adviser is crucial. Will the advisers now have expert support, particularly when dealing with fluctuating conditions, mental health conditions and so on, in order that they can properly advise and be certain that that advice is of the best kind to meet the broad range of conditions they are likely to see?

In general, I am pleased to support these regulations as they appear.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I, too, welcome this short debate about what the state now requires ESA claimants to do in order for them to receive the full benefits they are entitled to. If what happens on the ground is what we are told will happen in the regulations, in the Explanatory Memorandum and in the papers that my noble friend kindly sent us, then everything should go relatively smoothly and the results could be extremely encouraging and very welcome.

However, I fear that for many of us the elephant in the room is still the work capability assessment. I agree with my noble friend that this is not the place to discuss this because the regulations are about activity at least six months after the assessment will have taken place. However, the elephant is still there, lurking in the background, and I, too, look forward to Professor Harrington’s report on how the assessment deals with the two most difficult but commonest causes of people not being able to work—that is, mental health conditions and fluctuating conditions. I have been reminded this week about two fluctuating conditions which hardly get raised at all. They are both quite different from each other and make one realise how wide this field is: one is congenital heart disease, which is comparatively rare and completely hidden on the surface but can make someone feel fine one day and completely exhausted the next; and the other is Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, where a person can be fine for a month or five years and then, without warning, have a severe flare-up which can make regular and demanding employment difficult. Incidentally, today is World IBD day—that is, inflammatory bowel disease day.

I was pleased to see in one of the documents that there is flexibility around the timing of a claimant undertaking work-related activity, which is extremely important. I was also pleased that the Minister in another place reassured our colleague, Stephen Lloyd, that decision-makers in Jobcentre Plus have the power to seek medical advice, if they need it, for people with particular conditions. This is extremely important because, as my noble friend Lord German said, decision-makers do not have access to the result of the work capability assessment. I assume this is for reasons of confidentiality, but it does seem perverse.

I endorse what my noble friend said about more training for JCP staff. I am pleased that they are being given more autonomy and flexibility and I am reassured that the Minister in the other place said that he was looking for ways in which the quality of training for JCP staff could be improved. This is an urgent matter if these new regulations are to be brought in very soon. Can my noble friend tell us which groups are advising him about this new and improved training and when the new guidance will be available?

To follow on from what my noble friend said on the culture at Jobcentre Plus offices, the attitude of personal advisers and decision-makers is as important as their knowledge of various conditions. A sympathetic adviser will do a great deal to reassure an anxious claimant who may be extremely fearful of trying to find work for the first time in a long while. What is the current role of disability benefit advisers in Jobcentre Plus offices? Do they have any specialised training in medical conditions? We heard some weeks ago that quite a lot of Jobcentre Plus offices are being closed, although it sounded as though the staff were being deployed elsewhere. Can my noble friend say a word about that?

Finally, one way to know if these regulations are working is that the number of appeals against a sanction will be low and the number of ESA claimants being helped into work will be high. I hope for a good result.

16:45

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the regulations, and also for the helpful meeting that he convened last week, the input of officials and the follow-up information. That is a productive way to deal with the issues that emanate from regulations such as these. If there is a downside to that approach, having lots more information just gives scope for further inquiry and questions. I shall try to be brief on that front.

It will come as no surprise that we support the underlying philosophy reflected in these regulations. As the Minister said, they derive from legislation of the previous Government—the 2007 and 2009 Welfare Reform Acts. I believe that we have a consensus on the importance of work and the obligations of government to help those who can work get into work and those who are not yet ready for work to get closer to the labour market. There should be an obligation on individuals to engage with the support available and, with appropriate safeguards, sanctions for those who unreasonably refuse. That consensus also acknowledges that there are some for whom it is not reasonable to expect engagement.

As ever, the devil is in the detail, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said. As we have heard, this is the first time that the Government have activated provisions that can require ESA customers to undertake specific work-related activity. For this to work, clearly it is important that the correct judgments emanate from the work capability assessment. As several noble Lords have recognised already, that has recently been the subject of considerable debate in your Lordships’ House. The appropriateness of the descriptors and the capacity of Atos remain issues. As with other noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, we await further developments on Professor Harrington’s work.

What is now required from the WCA is not only to advise on whether an individual is capable of work and therefore directed to JSA, or has limited capability for work-related activity and enters the support group, or has limited capability for work, but also, in the latter case, to make some judgment about how long it will be before the individual can be expected to be fit for work. Is this correct? In a sense, this is a new development. It is important because, as we have heard, those expected to be fit for work within six months will be required to access the support provided by the Work Programme rather than be able to volunteer for it or, presumably, potentially be subject to mandated work-related activity by JCP advisers. Is not the emphasis on the timescales adding another dimension to the challenges of the WCA, especially for those with mental health conditions, fluctuating conditions, autism et cetera?

Can the Minister say how the health professional at the WCA stage will be able to make an authoritative assessment of when an individual to be assigned to the work-related activity group will be fit for work in the absence, possibly, of knowledge of the sorts of work-related activity which are available to the individual? Can the Minister confirm—I think that this came from our meeting—that anyone assessed as being on ESA but with a prognosis of being fit for work in, say, six months will have to be reassessed through the WCA before the designation is changed?

Does not the designation of when someone is likely to be fit for work have a significant implication for providers? Someone going on the Work Programme from an ESA flow deemed likely to be fit for work within three months attracts a potential fee which is nearly double that of someone in broadly similar circumstances but who might be deemed fit for work in, say, six months. Is this right? The argument that the Minister advanced is that the difference is that somebody volunteers. But the judgment that seems to be made is that if somebody from an ESA flow is on a work-related activity group and likely to be fit for work within three months, that attracts something like double the fee to the provider of somebody who is broadly in the same circumstances but who will not be fit for work for a longer period, simply on the basis that they have volunteered for the programme. That second category of person could be argued to be a harder to reach person, yet attracts a smaller fee for the provider.

Obviously, someone deemed fit for work would move to the JSA regime and be subject to wider conditionality—for example, jobsearch. But for the purposes of the payment arrangements under the Work Programme, do they keep the status that they had when first referred to the programme? If so, the WCA assessment would have a particular significance for providers.

Incidentally I note that ESA self-employed customers—presumably, previously self employed—will not have access to the Work Programme. Why is this? The details of payment arrangements provided by the Minister under the Work Programme certainly demonstrate strong financial incentives for some groups, but could we be told the projected annual numbers for the first three years for the following ESA groups—on the ESA flow, those likely to be fit for work within three months, and the ex-IB likely to be fit for work within three months?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord German, have said, the Merits Committee raised concerns over the capacity and training, which I share. The Minister touched on that in his presentation of these regulations. It is clearly of very great significance. The existence and application of sanctions has been the subject of considerable debate both during the passage of the legislation and since. We support the necessity of sanction arrangements as a means of ensuring compliance, provided they have due regard to good cause for non-compliance and are sensitive to the circumstances of vulnerable people. We support the Government in concluding that it will be JCP decision-makers who will make decisions about sanctions, not providers. But perhaps the Minister can clarify for us the policy in relation to vulnerable customers and where responsibility lies.

My understanding is that before any sanction could be levied on customers with a mental health condition, a learning disability or a condition affecting communication and cognitive skills, some personal contact should be made, if necessary a home visit. I detect some weakening of this, certainly in the response given by the Minister of State in the other place when these regulations were debated. What is the current policy? Where will responsibility fall between the provider and Jobcentre Plus? What contact will be made by the provider before referral for a sanction and what contact after but before a determination? Is there clarity on this in the contractual arrangements? What monitoring arrangements will be in place? Can the Minister take the opportunity categorically to confirm that there are no targets operated by Jobcentre Plus relating to numbers to be sanctioned, whether for ESA, JSA or any other benefit?

It is noted that the right of lone parents to restrict availability for work-related activity when there are children between the ages of 13 and 16 is to be considered on a case-by-case basis; again, the noble Lord, Lord German, touched upon this point. This consideration is to take account of the individual needs of the child and, among other things, their ability to remain unsupervised. What on earth sort of guidance is to be given to help with this consideration?

We have touched on the Work Programme a little in so far as it is relevant to ESA and work-related activity. I hope that we will have the opportunity for a fuller debate because it is an ambitious project that we want to see succeed. The flexibility of the black box approach and individually tailored support are to be welcomed. Strong financial incentives for helping the hardest hit to get to the labour market is obviously the right approach. Before we have this debate, though, perhaps the Minister can explain why the ex-IB work-related activity group who are unlikely to be fit for work within three months should have treble the potential reward for the providers than ESA customers who are further from the labour market. Will the Minister say a little more about why the Work Programme negates the need for the work-focused health-related assessment?

I look forward to the Minister’s reply on this and other matters, but these regulations are an important step forward and they have our support.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part for the support for the general principle of what we are trying to do here. This is a component of a very large change, with quite a few moving parts. I note the accusation of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that the only person who has all the moving parts in their head is me. We are slowly getting it out, and this is one element of that process. As I said at the start, those people who are disabled and cannot work will get unconditional support, but we have an obligation to support large numbers of people who could get into the labour market. Many disabled people are in the labour market—not enough, but I think that the figure is around 40 per cent of those who are disabled.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is very fond of quoting my work, which always makes me blush with embarrassed pride. I also said in the report to which he referred that if the Government do not engage with these people, it is a dereliction of duty. One of the things that we are trying to tackle here is to stop that dereliction and help these people get back to work. I emphasise that what we are talking about is not getting people to work and sanctioning them for not working; this is about work-related activity. We are talking not about the intensive requirements of taking a job but about preparing for that process.

I shall try to deal with the enormous number of questions. I am not sure that I will be able to answer all of them, just because of time and volume. One of the issues that noble Lords have raised is training. The training that we offer will provide much greater emphasis on the need for personalisation and flexibility, which my noble friends Lord German and Lady Thomas were concerned about. There are new demands on staff to do with flexibility. We will provide the products and tools to support the front line in diagnosing customer need precisely. As to decision-maker expertise and who takes these decisions, staff receive extensive training so that they are able to make decisions. They have access to comprehensive, up-to-date, clear procedures and guidance for ESA decision-making, which includes how to handle difficult situations and provide customer care. The delivery of that learning is supported by Atos Healthcare.

17:00

My noble friend Lord German was concerned about how good cause would be defined. If it is too specific, it would restrict the ability of decision-makers to take into account the circumstances of individuals. However, examples of good cause include such things as caring responsibilities, attendance at court or at funerals, acute personal illness, and the availability and affordability of childcare. My noble friend raised a specific point about the parents of schoolchildren when they go through the 13-year barrier. The power to set the activity must be reasonable in the circumstances of each customer. The adviser will need to consider all the circumstances of lone parents with children aged between 13 and 16 before requiring work-related activity after school.

The other key issue that my noble friend Lord German raised was that of checks and balances before any sanctioning. I remind noble Lords that the sanctioning regime here is not the tougher one that we are talking about with JSA. It is a sanctioning regime that says that some of claimants’ money will be reduced until they comply. It is a very different and much softer sanctions regime generally. Within the legal framework the adviser must reconsider the action plan at the request of the customer, if the customer feels that it is no longer appropriate. The adviser may then postpone the work-related activity that had been agreed. Clearly, when we talk about fluctuating conditions, this is exactly the kind of area where they apply.

Differential pricing was raised by both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. I am almost reluctant to get into the detail of this; the reasons why particular groups have different prices are very detailed. The blunt answer is that we have never priced people precisely. It has not been done. We have created some categories and we will learn, as the process rolls through, how those prices really work. We had to start somewhere. We had to get some broad categories that were definable, and which we could record and analyse to get this differentiation. It is clear that it would be very tough in many cases to get the people who have been on incapacity benefit for a long time and then moved into the ESA category into work. For some it would be easier but for many it would be tougher. By and large, we have aimed to achieve price differentiation which reflects reality. I expect that that system will become much more sophisticated as it moves along. I am hopeful that we can start to apply differential pricing to groups of people who we know fall into difficult categories, and that this will help us to tackle the most difficult problems. People coming out of prison is an area where I would like to see funding focused to address the problems involved.

We can debate exact pricing all day long but another factor is involved, as noble Lords will be well aware. The DEL-AME switch, on which this process is based, is acutely complex. It is a pretty simple thing to describe in theory but I do not encourage any of your Lordships to negotiate it in detail with the DWP and the Treasury. It is a very complicated matter, which it would be counterproductive to describe in detail.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked a specific question about reassessment. I assure him that after the prognosis of three months or six months is made, another work capability assessment is undertaken before someone moves into the JSA category. The category in which you enter the programme is the one in which you stay. In other words, the providers have every incentive to move someone through the whole process.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I understand what the noble Lord has said about the category in which you end up. I accept that the evidence base is being built, but to a certain extent it is determined by clear objective factors such as whether you have been on IB or are on ESA, but also by the prognosis that the health professional has made at the WCA, which is much more subjective. A lot could hang on that decision—for example, whether the relevant period is three months or a bit longer. What is our experience of the ability of healthcare professionals to make those fine judgments?

[Lord Freud]

The noble Lord makes a very interesting and valid point. We have spent a lot of time on this. Health professionals find it very difficult to make accurate prognoses for periods lasting many months. One of the reasons why we have the three and six-month periods is because the prognosis in those cases is much better and much more reliable. Rather than handing everyone in the work-related activity group over to the providers we thought that we would de-risk the situation by having three and six-month periods. We spent a lot of time wrestling with that point as we devised the groups that were going to go into the Work Programme.

I will write to the noble Lord on his question about the flows as I do not have the relevant figures to hand. My noble friend Lady Thomas asked about the closure of some JCP offices. We are planning to offer all affected staff relocation. Many questions were asked but I hope that I have covered all the key ones. If I find that I have not, I will write to noble Lords.

Let me close by saying I am convinced that this is the right way forward. I mirror what my noble friend Lady Thomas said: get this right and there is a huge prize here. I think, genuinely, that we will do this right—and we will watch it. I was asked about assessment and evaluation by the noble Lord, Lord German. We have a pretty elaborate evaluation program running. We will get that evaluation in two waves, the first this autumn and the second in early 2012. We will look at seeing exactly how this customer experience works in some detail, so we will get some flavour of that pretty soon. I have no doubt that we will be debating it at that stage, which will be quite interesting. I commend these regulations to the House.

Motion agreed.

Social Security (Electronic Communications) Order 2011

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

17:11

Moved By

[Lord Freud]

That the draft order laid before the House on 14 March be approved.

Relevant documents: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, if passed, this order would allow jobseeker’s allowance to be claimed, administered and maintained online and would open the door for some online administration of other benefits. This change would maximise efficiency and improve customer service. In addition, it would reduce the use of paper and develop a platform for electronic claims for other benefits, including the new universal credit. I confirm that the provisions of the draft order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

First, I shall say a few words on the department’s current position in relation to the Merits Committee. I take the duty to provide sufficient information to Parliament to enable proper scrutiny of this department’s legislation seriously. Senior officials from the department have recently had a constructive discussion with Merits Committee staff with a view to improving how we handle our secondary legislation. I assure your Lordships that I will do everything within my power to make sure that we meet the proper and reasonable demands of this important committee. In this instance, I know we were able to provide the additional information that the Merits Committee requested. I hope that additional information will assist this House during the course of this debate.

The Department for Work and Pensions is improving its customer service delivery by increasing access to its services through self-serve online channels. As part of this, the department would like to introduce a secure, automated online service. Customers will still be able to contact the department by writing or by using the telephone and face-to-face appointments will still be available. The current situation is that, at times, legislation requires the use of paper-based documents or signatures, or at least may be interpreted as requiring this. For example, currently a jobseeker’s agreement must be in writing and must be signed by the customer. This order, which is made under the provisions of the Electronic Communications Act 2000, amends social security legislation to allow electronic communication and storage. The order will also develop the department’s use of electronic signatures.

I shall take a few moments to run through the different possible formats of electronic signatures. I know that they are used in a lot of different ways and, if your Lordships will excuse me for being a little bit techie on this, I think that will help our debate. An electronic signature is something associated with an electronic document which performs a similar function to a traditional signature. It can be used to confirm the authenticity of an electronic communication—in other words, that it comes from a particular person. Another use of electronic signatures is to establish that the document has not been tampered with. Industry use is based on codes and ciphers, which essentially make the signature unique. For example, text can be encrypted and turned into letters or numbers, which can be deciphered only by someone who has the correct password or key. For the vast majority of services a combination of source data from the computer, or some other device and passwords, picture and word combinations, and other means of authentication form the basis of electronic signatures.

17:15

Secondly, there is authentication as a form of electronic signature. This involves collecting facts and personal details to enable customers to prove their identity. This may include pin numbers, secret questions and answers, or collecting data such as mother’s maiden name and date of birth. This form of electronic signature means people can log in by answering a series of questions, and we essentially take their successful completion of the authentication process as confirmation that they are who they claim to be.

Finally, there is physically signing an electronic pad, as you do when you accept a parcel. This signature can then be digitally saved and attached to official documents, removing the need to print and store vast reams of paper. Research has shown that the psychology—at least the current psychology—of actually signing a jobseeker’s agreement makes people more likely to follow through on their actions.

The powers that we are talking about allow all of these three ways of getting electronic signatures, although in reality we shall be using only authentication and physically signing an electronic pad.

We have also ensured in Clause 101 of the Welfare Reform Bill that social security legislation will include these broad powers to support the delivery of the universal credit. We will have a chance to debate these matters again when we come to that clause later this year.

In this case, the order will mean that our customers will not only be able to make a claim for jobseeker’s allowance online, but they will also be able to notify us of other changes in their circumstances, such as changes to their income or a change of address. In addition, they will be able to provide their signature using an electronic pad. This would replace current paper signing and would mean signatures collected from people confirming that they meet the conditions of entitlement for jobseeker’s allowance, or agree to the conditions of a jobseeker’s agreement, could be electronically stored.

We know that the majority of customers already regularly use the internet and would welcome the opportunity to do departmental business online. Departmental research has shown that 86 per cent of jobseeker’s allowance customers surveyed were using the internet and 67 per cent had home internet access. So far almost 700,000 customers have used the service, despite very little encouragement or training. With support, the department hopes that, by 2013, 80 per cent of customers will make changes and claims for jobseeker’s allowance online. We know that not everyone will be able to use an online service or will want to. Customers will still be able to contact Jobcentre Plus in writing or by using the telephone. We have no intention to make online services compulsory. We also accept that some customers may need help with online services. Arrangements will therefore be made to provide that support. Interestingly, our research shows that a large number of people with a bit of support can be fairly easily nudged to use this particular channel.

Jobcentre Plus staff will receive training and support so they are able to assist customers and additional support for staff will be provided through the use of coaches and buddies in each office when the service is launched. Jobcentre Plus staff will play a key role in encouraging take-up of the online service. They will be able to provide assurances about safety and security to those customers who may be nervous about using online services. They will also be able to arrange training for customers who have never used the internet before. We will be making customers aware of where they can obtain access to computers—for example, in libraries—and they may be able to arrange access and training via providers such as UK Online.

Customer security will be crucial and must be protected. The department has worked with security experts from both the private and public sectors to develop a robust online service that people will be able to use in confidence. The Government regularly gather intelligence and work with other security organisations to ensure that we keep up to date with new threats to online systems. Numerous organisations, such as banking and insurance firms, already use online services safely and we will continue to draw on their experience as we design and develop our processes.

Anyone choosing to use the online service will have to go through an identification process before they can set up an account and be provided with a unique pin number. We are aware that some customers may need to use shared or public internet access points and we will provide advice and guidance to people to help them protect their online security. In addition, all identified security risks to the information systems will be assessed and addressed through formal accreditation, in accordance with the departmental information security standards. We will review that biannually.

In conclusion, at one level, this order would allow the Department for Work and Pensions to provide another option for people who need to contact the business. It will bring the service into the 21st century and mean that from 2012 the online service will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week—allowing people to access services when it is convenient. In addition, the anticipated shift to using online services will improve the services to customers by freeing up advisers so that face-to-face contact can focus on supporting people into work. The technology will minimise the risk of identity fraud because the electronic signing pads will measure pressure, angle of the pen and speed, as well as matching the signature. An electronic signature is actually more secure and much more difficult to forge than it is when it is on paper. Electronic records will reduce the need for people to repeat information to advisers and for advisers to re-input basic information. It will reduce costs, save paper, and help the department to meet its efficiency challenge. Importantly, almost most importantly, as we press ahead with welfare reform, this will provide the basis for the electronic systems supporting universal credit.

I therefore seek approval for this order and commend it to the House.

[Lord German]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for such a detailed explanation. He has taken away the need for most of my questions, which were all about electronic signatures, but now that I have more information it gives rise to more questioning. However, I should say that this is about welcoming in the 21st century. First, there was the horse, then there was a car with a man with a red flag in front, and then there was a computer, and people went on to learn about what was inside it. Now, your Lordships are able to use iPads, iPods and, of course, Android devices in the Chamber. We are moving to a change that has to come; and it is one that of course is to be broadly welcomed, because all of us accept that IT should release people. It gives you an ability to do more, to do it more swiftly and, I hope, more securely.

Can the Minister readdress his remarks about electronic signatures and security to this House in the way it votes? After all, my noble friend has given a brilliant explanation of why electronic voting would be absolutely secure in this House. That is a debate that we can have for some considerable time. It may not be appropriate, but it would work.

My questions are twofold. One is about the level of take-up that is likely. Has the department taken any soundings of what sort of numbers of people will want to use these services? What flows from that is therefore the provision that the department might need to ensure that it provides the right level of support for customers and, perhaps, equipment for customers to use. If so much more can be done online, insufficient points will be available in Jobcentre Plus offices. People will want to spend more time on them, and clearly the demand for an increase in the amount of equipment will motor ahead.

My second question relates to security. I think I heard the Minister say—perhaps he can confirm this—that once you have set up an account, access to that account will be by PIN alone. That is slightly worrying because there have been instances of people leaving themselves logged on to a public computer in, say, a library, with the next user simply taking over. Of course, there are very clever people who can identify PINs. That is why we are all asked to do more than simply enter our PIN. If you want to do online banking, you certainly have to do more than just enter your PIN. I wonder whether a double check will be there to ensure that people’s data are secure.

Thirdly, in the previous debate we talked about people’s action plans for their activity in this work-related group. Will those action plans be available to customers online so that they can review them and perhaps engage in some sort of dialogue with the adviser in a Jobcentre Plus online, thereby freeing up time but also giving them much more instant availability?

We are all aware of electronic signatures because the whole postal voting system in this country depends on a signature being scanned and being kept electronically as the test of whether people have voted correctly and are who they say they are in casting their vote. Technology has moved on, and I welcome the opportunity to move forward in this area. I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer my questions, but I am pleased to support the order.

[Lord Elton]

In his reply, will my noble friend include a word about whether the arrangements for blind or severely visually handicapped people will change as a result of this system and, if so, how they will be catered for?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order and for not straying into too much technical jargon so that some of us, at least, were able to keep up.

We support the improvement in customer service delivery through self-service online channels. It is an approach which can be more convenient for customers and more efficient for the DWP. It is, indeed, a win-win situation.

As the equality impact assessment indicates—supported by research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—digital services can, in particular, assist disabled people to complete transactions and arrangements personally, thereby reducing reliance on others.

As the Explanatory Note makes clear, the order is enabling rather than mandatory. It asserts that those who do not wish or have the means to take on the new arrangements can continue to use the existing postal, face-to-face and telephony channels. However, it goes on to say that existing claimants will be “invited” to switch to the new service. New claimants will be able to access it via the Directgov website and will be encouraged to do so. As we have heard, the aim is for 80 per cent of all JSA claimant transactions to be done online by 2013. The obvious question to the Minister is: what practical safeguards will be available to prevent customers being encouraged to use the new arrangements when they are unfamiliar with the technology? This could clearly act as a deterrent to individuals claiming or sustaining a claim.

The equality impact assessment explains that all jobcentres will have a “digital champion”, whose role will be to act as ambassador for online services to improve customer confidence and the take-up of digital services. Particularly given the news reporting of job cuts at JCPs, can the Minister say how many jobcentres have a champion in place and what the plan is to complete this commitment? Can he also say something about special customer records and the capacity of the system to provide for appropriate levels of security for these particularly sensitive cases? How are these being catered for within the system?

There is—and has rightly been—strong emphasis on training for Jobcentre Plus staff, especially to be sensitive to customers who may have mental health conditions, fluctuating conditions or communication difficulties, which might be identified at various stages of the customer journey. Is the Minister satisfied that these opportunities are not diminished by the use of online services? Will system failures automatically be factored into compliance failure decisions to prevent people being chased—or potentially sanctioned—simply because the system has gone down?

With those few brief questions, we are happy to support this order.

17:30

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for joining in this debate. I particularly agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord German about how nice electronic voting would be in this House, particularly given the business of the road outside. As contributors to the debate have pointed out, the provisions are really about getting the department into the 21st century, whether with iPods, iPads or Android devices.

My noble friend asked a question about take-up. As I said, our aspiration is to get to 80 per cent. At the moment, 67 per cent of people have access to a PC. Noble Lords may not be surprised to know that we have done quite a lot of research on this. I might share some of those early findings, because they are rather interesting. Well over half of people in the JSA group are now in a position to take this up. The two categories at the top—“Ready, willing and able” and “Able and persuadable”—take us well over half. Then we go through “Nudgeable”, “Unconfident” and so forth, and end up with a small group—below 20 per cent—made up of what we call “Intensive support required” and “Multiple barriers”.

My noble friend Lord Elton made the point that some people will always find this difficult. Some blind people are able to use electronic things, or telephones that translate information; but clearly we are not talking about first-order processing at the moment. For those groups, we are staying with other methods. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, made a point about capacity. By freeing up the capacity of Jobcentre Plus from looking after people who can essentially look after themselves, we can concentrate that time and energy into the people who really need the help.

My noble friend Lord German asked about action plans. They are not the first things that will go on, but in time they will. Clearly, the whole structure of the universal credit is to put it all online; enormous activity is going on in the department at the moment to structure that electronic relationship.

My noble friend asked about the security of PINs: he was cynical about whether the PIN would be enough. The answer is that security is changing all the time. I could give you an answer today, but the department is looking all the time—as are banks and anyone with sensitive online access systems—to change and develop. A war is going on between cybercriminals and those who maintain the systems, and security levels change. I am convinced that whatever we have today in the way of PINs and other security, we will be watching all the time to make sure that we do not get caught out.

We aim to give a lot of information and instruction to people who are not using their own, more secure computer, but a more public computer, that they should log off. We are looking at systems that will make sure that once a file is closed, one cannot get back into it. We are looking at very active systems. That is one of our biggest relative insecurities when compared, for example, to banking products: people may be using not their own computer but a more public one. We are looking at that in great detail.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked rather fewer questions than usual. However, the difficulty and quality of those questions was absolutely up there with his normal track record. He asked about system failure. Clearly we will look to include that under “good cause”. It would be unreasonable to penalise someone who was unable to access our system because it had broken down. I think that I answered his point about training and releasing people to do more face-to-face interviews. Of course, sensitive records will be very tightly controlled as part of our security. On the question of safeguards, we are looking to make sure that when people who are less confident with the system are helped into it, they will be helped in a comprehensive way and we will not do anything that will leave them more vulnerable. That will be part of the process.

This will not be the last time that we discuss technology: I suspect that we will discuss it much more than we have done, in this and many other contexts. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and commend the order to the House.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 5.39 pm.