Westminster Hall

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 13 July 2011

[Mr James Gray in the Chair]

High-speed Rail

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Stephen Crabb.)

09:30

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Before we start the first debate, may I say that it will not come as a surprise to hon. Members that a large number of people are seeking to catch my eye? While there can be no formal limit on speaking times, as there can be in the Chamber, it will be helpful, and a great courtesy to each other, if Members are able to keep their remarks to three or four minutes apiece. Anyone who speaks for 10 minutes will get dirty looks from other hon. Members.

09:31

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

I am pleased that the building of a high-speed rail line, which was first proposed by the previous Labour Government, is supported by the present Government, as it is important that there is consensus on the issue. The project certainly makes sense. It is ridiculous that, by rail, I can get from London to Paris faster than I can get to Wrexham, and get to Brussels faster than to Liverpool. Should I so wish, I could get to Rotterdam a full hour faster than I could get to Glasgow. France, Germany, Italy and Spain are all enjoying their high-speed rail networks, but in the country that invented railways, we are still just talking about it, and that needs to change.

I secured the debate because although the Government are committed to the project—I welcome the fact that it appears in the coalition agreement and the Government parties’ manifestos—I fear that it may be under threat from not just outside but within the ranks of the Government. I am of course talking about the Secretary of State for Wales. I welcome the fact that the official Wales Office business plan states, as one of its aims, that it will:

“Ensure that Welsh interests and needs are reflected in the Government’s improvements to transport infrastructure”.

However, the Secretary of State for Wales opposes High Speed 2 and, as a Minister, she refuses to justify herself. The Wales Office’s annual report, which was published earlier this week, tells us that, over the past year, every one of 41 named day questions to the Wales Office were answered on the day specified, yet the answers to two questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) were over a week late. Strangely enough, they were both to do with the assessment that the Secretary of State has made of benefits that HS2 would bring to Wales. We must assume that that was because she was held up trying to find any research that does not foresee massive economic benefits to Wales from the high-speed line.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly well-attended debate. Despite the Wales Office’s silence on the issue, research by Professor Stuart Cole at the university of Glamorgan points to real benefits to Wales due to speedier connections and greater capacity. Does my hon. Friend find it strange that the Secretary of State has not referred to that research in any way?

[Susan Elan Jones]

I do find it strange, but not when one considers the Secretary of State’s personal opposition to the project. Professor Cole has made it clear that the project would also bring great benefits through inward investment in Wales.

The Secretary of State said of her opposition:

“This project goes right through my backyard”.

If that is not nimbyism, I do not know what is. It is not even disguised nimbyism; it is self-interest pure and simple. In a debate on the issue in March, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) recounted tales of people stating:

“I am not a nimby, I just don’t want a railway line built near my house.”—[Official Report, 31 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 177WH.]

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

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing the debate. On that point about residents’ concerns, does she accept that lessons have to be learned? My constituency recently had High Speed 1, but then standard services were reduced and High Speed 1 fares went up by 30%. If we want more people to use high-speed rail, it has to be affordable, and we cannot have it at the expense of standard services.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I totally agree. We have to look at all those issues sensibly. However, equally, as a representative of a Welsh constituency—I know that Members from other parts of the United Kingdom feel this too—I am not prepared to see HS2 delayed on the grounds of pure and simple nimbyism. That is quite different from the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

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

Does not the hon. Lady have any sympathy for the plight of those Members of Parliament who represent seats on the route? I represent an area where Crossrail is infuriating, angering and frustrating many of my constituents. It has done that for many years and will do so for decades to come. As it happens, I am a keen supporter of Crossrail and am willing to make the case. Perhaps the hon. Lady should be setting out the argument that MPs who are on the line should be making a robust case, particularly about capacity, which I think is one of the big issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) was pointing out, if general capacity is reduced, that undermines many of the perceived benefits of such a new scheme.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I have considerable sympathy for that view, but the difference is that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) does not aspire to be Secretary of State for Wales—

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Not yet.

[Susan Elan Jones]

Indeed.

There is a conflict here. I understand that people are likely, as they are entitled, to complain about local developments to which they are opposed, but we need our Government to take a broader national view, and Wales certainly needs a Secretary of State who will do better. That is why I am here to make the case for high-speed rail, and specifically the Welsh case, because I fear that it is not being made by the person whose job it is to do so.

The official ministerial answers on the benefits of HS2 for Wales may be missing, but there is plenty of evidence from elsewhere in Europe with which hon. Members can form their own opinion, such as the case of Lille. In the early 1990s, the French Government chose to divert their high-speed TGV line through Lille, as opposed to using a more direct route through Amiens, because of high unemployment and post-industrial decline in that area.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend says that high-speed rail and rail electrification are particularly important for economic development. Does she agree that it is important that we get that for the lines in the valleys and in other parts of Wales, and particularly for the Cardiff-Ebbw Vale line?

[Susan Elan Jones]

I am in total agreement with my hon. Friend’s point, both for south Wales and for north Wales.

In the case of Lille, the French Government decided that following the slightly less direct route was worth the extra €500 million that it cost because of the massive potential for regeneration and employment that the project would bring to Lille. Professor Stuart Cole of the Wales transport research centre at the university of Glamorgan, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned earlier, submitted evidence to the inquiry of the Welsh Affairs Committee on inward investment to tell us what happened next. Twenty years later, Lille is ranked as the fourth most accessible European city and has been described as a boom town. As the French Government showed that they were serious about investing in the area, private sector investment followed. A major commercial centre, a retail centre, hotels and offices all sprung up around the terminal. An elite university opened a campus in the town and tourism flourished. The expansion is continuing. A major conference centre is scheduled to be built, along with significant new office accommodation and housing. Public investment in connectivity, accessibility and profile led to private investment, jobs and growth.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

We have heard from the south and north of Wales, but in regard to economic development, the hon. Lady must not overlook mid-Wales. In the absence of a direct line from Aberystwyth to London, we would welcome reduced journey times from London to Birmingham, which is part of our journey.

[Susan Elan Jones]

It is no secret that the slow pace of rail journeys to parts of mid-Wales is scarcely believable. I agree totally that the London-Birmingham high-speed link would make a tremendous difference to that, or at least part of a difference. This is our opportunity. I want to see benefits of the kind that the TGV delivered in northern France brought to Wales, as well as to the midlands, northern England and Scotland, through HS2.

Although the planned route for HS2 does not go directly into Wales, that does not matter. Getting the journey time from London to key hubs such as Manchester or Liverpool down to an hour and 10 minutes would be a massive improvement for us. Some tube journeys take longer than that, as I am sure many hon. Members realise. Suddenly, getting business representatives from London to north Wales and back in a day would look easy.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

On that point, I travel down by train from Chester or Runcorn simply because the North Wales Coast Railway line is so poor. How does the hon. Lady think that the economic case for north Wales will be improved by making the journey time to Manchester 1 hour 10 minutes rather than 1 hour 50 minutes, when north Wales will still be three-and-a-half hours away?

[Susan Elan Jones]

There is work to be done in north Wales. We are talking about a link that would speed up the entire journey down here. The examples that I gave earlier show how it is much quicker to travel to parts of Europe than to parts of north Wales, which bears testimony to my argument.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

At present, many people travel by car to Manchester and hubs. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) said, if we get the high-speed rail network, there will be connectivity between Birmingham and various other cities, and north Wales. People from north Wales will travel by train, which will save the environment and save time.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree totally with my hon. Friend. When the north Wales main line is electrified, a small number of trains—one or two a day, for example—could be diverted off the main track at Crewe or another convenient point to travel along that track. A passenger would therefore be able to travel from continental Europe to Rhyl, Bangor or, indeed, my hon. Friend’s constituency. Of course, I would also argue for the inclusion of Wrexham directly. Wales, and north Wales in particular, is on the periphery of Europe, but a high-quality transport plan could bring us into real contention for business.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is ahead of me because she is talking about the benefits that HS2 will bring to north Wales passengers via Crewe. Does she agree that the Secretary of State for Wales does not need to look as far as Lille for evidence of that? She could merely talk to the Secretary of State for Transport—her colleague in the Cabinet room. In an answer to the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), he said that HS2 will bring significant benefits to north Wales rail passengers, with all the obvious economic benefits that my hon. Friend is talking about.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree totally with my hon. Friend. Technically, there is nothing to stop such a plan in the long term. High-speed trains in France make some journeys across regular track, such as to Cannes. If the routes of Brussels to Bangor, Rotterdam to Rhyl, or Frankfurt to Flint sound a bit far-fetched, that is evidence of how inaccessible some of our towns are perceived to be.

[Mr Mark Field]

A number of people are worried that the route will lead to an overheated south-east England, which many would regard as undesirable. If travel times from London to Manchester or to Liverpool are 45 or 60 minutes shorter, does not that simply make London even more attractive for people from the north-west, or indeed from north Wales, rather than necessarily bringing great benefits to Wales?

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I thank him for his thoughtful contributions.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that high-speed connectivity is vital? At a time when we are talking about rebalancing the economy, particularly for the Merseyside area, this is not just about speed. We want to develop our port and make it the port of the north. We need freight and people connectivity, so high-speed rail is vital.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady. If hon. Members will excuse me, I must try to make a little progress because otherwise they will not be able to make their speeches in the time available.

It is not just Wales that stands to benefit. Ninety business leaders in Yorkshire recently wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport to tell him that the project is vital. The Sheffield city region local enterprise partnership said that 91% of 200 firms surveyed agreed that the benefits of HS2 to the city would be huge. The Northern Way alliance of regional development agencies from the north of England said that it valued the wider economic benefits of north-south high-speed rail at £10 billion, and described the high-speed link as

“an opportunity to create a new economic geography”.

The Scottish Minister for Housing and Transport said:

“the case for high-speed rail…is compelling, robust and clear”.

Manchester council says that high-speed rail will enable local business to compete and will boost tourism, and Stoke-on-Trent council says that it will open up national and international markets. Liverpool supports it and Birmingham supports it. The message from across the UK is loud and clear. We cannot let a small group of people railroad this debate. People welcome major investment in infrastructure to bring about new jobs and new business.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the new economic geography. On Rotterdam to Rhyl, does she agree that if the London stop were Stratford and the trains bypassed St Pancras, the length of the journey from Rotterdam to Rhyl and the other journeys she had mentioned could be significantly reduced, which would have widespread advantages?

[Susan Elan Jones]

I am certainly open to that idea, which I had not previously thought about. In terms of UK-wide economic benefits, HS1 offers some concrete feedback. Despite some criticism, independent reports have put the value of investment attracted by the line at £20 billion, which is 40 times more than original estimates. The operation has not been sold at a loss, whatever the HS2 Tamworth Action Group says. The lease has been sold, and will be re-sold again and again on expiry. Two more sales will bring the scheme into profit, even without taking the massive wider economic benefit into account.

[Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)]

The economic benefit is well known in rail terms: it is known as the spark effect. As my hon. Friend knows, we in Swansea are fighting hard for electrification of the whole rail system to Swansea. We want that economic development. The spark effect is happening across Europe and we would like it in Britain, please.

[Susan Elan Jones]

My hon. Friend speaks with considerable expertise in this area and I am grateful for her intervention.

Indirectly, HSl enabled the delivery of three major development schemes, in Ebbsfleet, Stratford and King’s Cross, which are all areas in need of regeneration. Some 15,000 homes and 70,000 jobs were created. The project delivered £3.8 billion of transport benefits, which, combined with the operating surplus, offsets the whole project cost.

Independent reports found, in conclusion, the following:

“it is clear that overall the scheme represents high value for money”.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the project will provide wider access to Birmingham airport, with a journey time of just 49 minutes? That will ease congestion in the London area and make Birmingham and the west midlands more attractive.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady. The project will also make her journeys to Wrexham quicker, which I believe is her old home.

[Chris Ruane]

The interventions we have had across the piece seem to show that there is a national consensus for this 21st-century rail project to go ahead. Why does my hon. Friend think there is a delay? Is the reason political?

[Susan Elan Jones]

I would hope not. On HS2, the 2008 Atkins report concluded that a high-speed rail network would deliver more than £60 billion-worth of benefit to the UK economy in its first 60 years. In 2009, the British Chambers of Commerce calculated revenues and benefits to the economy worth £55 billion. The Government’s consultation paper puts the benefits at around £71 billion in revenue and benefits.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

On the subject of benefits and the point about delay, it might be worth putting on the record that the business case for High Speed 2 puts the net benefit ratio of the project at 2.6, which is higher than Crossrail, Thameslink or HS1.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but not with the Taxpayers Alliance, which suggests that the business case is unproven. I confess that that is not the only thing I disagree with the Taxpayers Alliance on.

Wendover Action Against Chilterns HS2 Routes claims that passenger demand forecasts have been overestimated. It ignores the fact that, after 10 years of 5% annual rises in passenger numbers, HS2 envisages just 1.4% annual growth. Again, it does not offer its own projected profit figures. The RAC has offered the following gem of a critique:

“the analysis so far has been largely uni-modal and future analysis will need to be multi modal so as to assess HSR against rival and complimentary investments, particularly in the air and road sectors, whilst further work may also be required to analyse the inter-relationships with the classic rail sector and to test the robustness of modelling results”.

Perhaps we can pass that on to the Plain English Campaign, so that it can translate it for the rest of us. Ultimately, it is clear that the experts all agree on one thing: there will be economic benefits and, even if we cannot agree on every penny, we know they will be hefty. Whether someone lives in the Chilterns or not, they cannot escape the economics. If it is done properly, high-speed rail works. Once we accept that, it only remains for us to consider whether those benefits are outweighed by any overriding negatives. As we have heard, the Secretary of State for Wales believes that one such negative is the fact that the line will pass through her backyard. Putting the right hon. Lady’s begonias aside, what are the real facts on environmental impact?

I totally agree that areas of outstanding natural beauty must be protected. Indeed, a new such area is on its way in my constituency. I believe that they must be protected and preserved wherever possible; I do not accept, however, that HS2 will cause unacceptable blight in the Chilterns. In fact, all but 1.2 miles of the route through the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty will be in tunnels, and one cannot get much less obtrusive than that. We will not be able to see it—it will be under the ground. Other parts of the route will be hidden in deep cuttings, or run alongside motorways. A lot of work has gone into ensuring that the line will cause minimum disruption. In fact, route changes mean that only 340 properties will be affected by noise, of which 210 are in central London, itself hardly a haven of peace. Just 10 properties will be affected by high noise levels. That does not add up to irreparable damage to the countryside. The fact that it will be possible to see and hear this rail line in the distance does not outweigh the very real economic and social benefits it will bring.

I have one point to add, regarding the residents in Holborn and St Pancras whose homes may be demolished. That may be classed as irreparable damage and I would not want to see that outcome; I hope very much that a solution can be found to avoid that demolition. I would back any amendment to the plan that could avoid the destruction of homes.

[Mr Mark Field]

So, doing that in Labour-held seats is acceptable, but not in Conservative-held seats?

[Chris Ruane]

They are not knocking them down in Tory seats.

[Susan Elan Jones]

It is a shame. The hon. Gentleman should have known that I would have said exactly the same had it been in his seat. I am reluctant to take back my earlier compliments for his interventions.

Having overcome the environmental argument, what about the costs of building during the recession? Let us look at the figures. HS2 will cost £2 billion a year during the building phase, which I believe is roughly the same as Crossrail. Construction will start at roughly the same time as Crossrail finishes, meaning that the overall transport budget will stay quite steady, but HS2 will spread jobs and benefits much more widely than Crossrail. Initial estimates predict the creation of 40,000 jobs. Some of those jobs will be in London and the south-east, but many will be spread along the line. Several thousand will be non-permanent construction jobs, but many will be permanent. At a time when the construction industry is struggling, I, for one, would welcome that.

Even if the budget has to stretch to pay for the build, which I do not believe it will, the figures all show that we can expect a return of £2 for every £1 invested in the project. If we think long term, and we should, that is an attractive proposition. If aliens from Mars turned up and heard about a project set to create 40,000 jobs, to link north and south, and to boost our national profile, they might well guess that the Government had decided to subsidise such a project for the public good. I am sure they would be shocked to hear that it was being opposed, despite being set to earn double the original investment. The cost is not a barrier to HS2; the investment is sound. Only the most blinkered, short-term thinking can conclude anything else—the costs add up.

What about the suitability of the UK for a high-speed line? Detractors say that the UK is too small to benefit from high speed, that our country is densely populated and already well-served by lots of railways. However, the distances between our major cities are very similar to those with successful high-speed rail abroad. Frankfurt and Cologne are 110 miles apart, which is the same distance as London to Birmingham. Tokyo and Osaka are 325 miles apart—roughly the same distance as London to Edinburgh.

While it is true that we already have railways, our lines are full. On capacity, fares are going up and up as demand increases, a point raised earlier by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). The cost of some season tickets in the south-east rose by almost 13% this year. Anyone who says that HS2 fares will be too high should consider the situation with our existing network. Sir Roy McNulty’s review of fares, published in May, suggested that off-peak fares should rise by 30% “to manage capacity”, as thousands of people pack on to trains with cheaper fares. We are actually having to price people off our trains to prevent them from bursting. That cannot be the right approach. We want to encourage public transport use, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said earlier, not suppress it.

We need more trains, and our existing network cannot provide them. For example, management at the west coast main line, which has recently had a major £10 billion upgrade that caused huge disruption to passengers, has announced that it will be at full capacity again within six to 10 years, even if extra carriages are added. It is not possible just to run more trains: there simply is not enough space. Even though there is the demand for more fast, direct trains up the west coast, the local commuter services and freight trains that use the lines do not leave extra space for the extra trains. We need more capacity. Network Rail has acknowledged that, and it spells it out very simply:

“HS2 solves the capacity problem”.

HS2 not only allows the existing network to operate at full capacity during its construction; it is the only option that will release real, significant extra capacity when in operation. Current services would continue to run on the existing lines, but the high-speed routes would no longer be hemmed in by them. Instead, they would have a free run on the new lines. Towns without HS2 stations will benefit as space for more trains is freed up on existing lines, with less crowding and more services. It is a win-win situation.

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that for towns such as Northampton, which are not directly on the route but feed into it at Milton Keynes, the issue of capacity is vital, specifically when we recognise that population will increase by 120,000 by 2026? If HS2 does not happen, we will have serious problems, and I thank her for making that point.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful contribution—many thanks.

Finally, let me deal with the so-called Rail Plan 2, which could apparently solve our capacity problems for a fraction of the price of HS2. That plan contains such major flaws that even its supporters are having to modify it as they go along. I have already heard of Rail Plan 2a, for example, which is supposed to be more “sympathetic”. RP2 basically involves doing almost nothing, maintaining and improving our existing tracks in a hotch-potch manner, and improving capacity a little bit here and a little bit there. Of course it is cheaper—it has not achieved anything that we would not have done as a matter of routine upkeep. Of course, it is quicker as well. It will have to be quick, because rebuilding a line that is still in use as the main line route will cause massive disruption. I wonder whether the cost of that massive disruption has been taken into account in these very low cost estimates for RP2, let alone that the horrible experience of using a line which is half dug up may put a lot of people off rail travel for life.

If we want a top-class railway system, it is not enough just to fiddle around little by little. High-speed rail is the way forward. It has worked in other countries and is backed by all the key figures around the UK. Of course, we can and should improve our existing network as well. I have already said that I hope that the north Wales main line, referred to by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), will be electrified soon. However, such a piecemeal investment project will have no wider economic benefits and create no draw for inward investors, and it will create such chaos on the railways while being built that it could make the whole idea of inter-city travel less attractive altogether. If we never begin a long-term project, we will never finish it, either.

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

rose—

[Chris Ruane]

On the issue of crowding on the north Wales line, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), I am a weekly user of the line. It is already at capacity. Everybody has to stand up on the Arriva trains between 4 pm and 5 pm. We need that investment and we need it soon.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside wished to intervene.

[Mark Tami]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) mentioned, I am not a regular user of the train. There are connection problems. I used the train last week, only to find that I waited for a connection for nearly 40 minutes. That is an issue. It is all very well having high-speed rail, but if the connection time is so out, we will not get the benefit.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that point.

As I was saying, if we never begin a long-term project, we will never finish it, either. Even if HS2 takes many decades to build, the benefits it will bring will make it worth it many times over in the long-run. RP2 may work for a while but, ultimately, it will leave us continually plugging leaks, while the rest of the world races away with new technologies and coherently planned schemes.

In conclusion, we need more capacity, faster journey times, jobs, investment and better access. HS2 can give us all that, and it is heartening to see so much support among hon. Members this morning. I call on the Government to face down the saboteurs and stick to their promises. Only a small number of people oppose the scheme—regrettably, they include the Secretary of State for Wales and the Chilterns—but everyone else backs it, and so do I.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I point out that I intend to call the Front Benchers no earlier than 20 minutes to 11, although I might seek a little bit of a squeeze on that at a later stage, because 14 people have written to Mr Speaker asking to catch my eye. In my estimation, that gives two and a half minutes a piece, and anyone who speaks for longer will be squeezing out someone else.

10:00

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

I will try to be quick, Mr Gray, and I am most grateful to serve under your direction.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on a comprehensive and wide-ranging explanation of the need for High Speed 2, which, to my mind, is absolutely clear. The hon. Lady made the point that high-speed rail is increasingly a feature of advanced economies. It is vital for business purposes, because it is about not only individuals going up and down an important line, but the well-being of economies in many areas of the country and Britain’s future. As the hon. Lady has said, the experience of high-speed rail has been immensely positive for so many areas in France and for Lille and Lyons in particular. Many nations and towns are desperately trying to promote the concept of high-speed rail in Europe and, frankly, throughout Asia.

Our economy needs high-speed rail. The issue is to do with business, because the existing network will not be able to cope with the anticipated growth and the pressure it inevitably faces now and in the coming decades. There is a blockage at Birmingham coming down from the north-west; freight is having great difficulty getting through to the south-east; and passengers are finding journeys immensely difficult. The construction of HS2 will increase the corridor capacity of the west coast main line threefold, which is massive, in return for a sizeable investment.

The southern part of the west coast main line is set to be running at full capacity within 15 years—that bit unblocks the whole problem in Birmingham and impacts on my town, Northampton. We are on the growth agenda of both the previous Government and this one. We are expected to build 59,000 homes by 2026, which is an additional 120,000 people, creating a town of 350,000. Already, 5,000 people a day commute to London, and we will have at least another 12,000 who want to do so; we will fail without high-speed rail and releasing capacity on the west coast main line. We need to create 85,000 new jobs, and we will fail without high-speed rail. Consequently, I support the plea of the hon. Member for Clwyd South and add the voice of the people of Northampton: without high-speed rail, we will have the population growth but we will not have the jobs growth; it is that simple.

10:03

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing the debate and on the case that she has made for High Speed 2. There is no need to repeat the benefits for the business environment and the economy or the point about capacity constraints, because those points have been well made.

I want to touch on a couple of issues relating to Scotland and to my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. The Minister is aware of the group High Speed 2 Scotland, which has published papers looking at the benefits of high-speed rail for Scotland. I want to reiterate some of its key points on the environmental benefits in particular. Currently, some 7 million journeys to London from Glasgow and/or Edinburgh are undertaken every year, but 6 million of those are by air. I freely admit that I do the same more often than I would like to, which is the case for many people I have spoken to who must travel to London for business purposes. They would rather not do the journey by air but, unfortunately, the time taken by rail at the moment is too long. There is an issue to do with the opportunities for business in Scotland as well.

In the past, the Minister’s predecessors had discussions with Scottish Ministers about HS2 in Scotland. She will be under pressure to respond to many points, but I hope that she will touch on whether such discussions have continued and when she last met Scottish Ministers. I also hope that she will touch on the feasibility of, if we eventually reach consideration of an extension beyond the initial phase of HS2, and potential for building from north to south, rather than from south to north, because that might be useful.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is discussing Scotland. Other hon. Members have spoken eloquently about other parts of the country, and as a Northern Ireland MP my request concerns the HS2 opportunities for Stranraer, where the Northern Ireland traffic goes. Something should be done there, because all parts of the United Kingdom should benefit from HS2.

[Tom Greatrex]

I agree that all parts of the United Kingdom should benefit from HS2, which is why it is important that we look beyond the initial stage and start some of the planning discussion now, and why I want an assurance on looking at the feasibility of building from north to south.

[Chris Ruane]

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has mentioned Northern Ireland, but it is important to connect the whole island of Ireland. Holyhead to Dublin is part of a trans-European network route connecting Ireland to the centre of Europe. We ought to be good Europeans and support that route, ensuring that the link is put all the way through to Holyhead.

[Tom Greatrex]

I am sure we all support the benefits of greater connectivity. Every Member who has made a contribution, and those who will subsequently do so, would attest to that. I hope therefore that the Minister will respond favourably to my points, which I made in particular about Scotland.

10:07

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing the debate.

I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport, and we are midway through our inquiry into high-speed rail, which is one of the most fascinating subjects that I have had to consider in my time as a Member. In the interests of time, I will not rehearse all the arguments for and against. I want to do two things in my contribution. First I make a plea to all sides in the debate to keep their remarks objective and evidence-based, and not to indulge in unhelpful and insulting point scoring; I say that to everyone. To those who support high-speed rail, it is incredibly unhelpful and insulting to polarise the debate as jobs in the north against lawns in the south, which is insulting to lots of people who have real and passionate objections to the concept of high-speed rail.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. The problem is that little evidence is available in this country. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) has asked the Wales Office for a detailed analysis and to collate the data, so that we can have an evidence-based argument and put forward stronger cases.

[Iain Stewart]

That is one of the things that the Transport Committee is digging into, to ensure that we make a decision based on fact.

To those who oppose high-speed rail, I have seen evidence of threatening letters to some proponents of high-speed rail and some exaggerated claims. My plea to everyone is to stop it. This is the most significant strategic, long-term transport decision we will take for a generation, and it has got to be right. The project will outlive several Governments, of goodness knows what colour and composition, so the decision has got to be right and we must have agreement on it.

Secondly, I would like some reassurance from the Minister about the scope of the Department for Transport inquiry and that that inquiry is not a simple choice between the current High Speed 2 proposals and doing nothing, but that a range of other options can be considered. The Transport Committee has just returned from a visit to France and Germany to look at their high-speed networks. One conclusion that I came to is that what matters is not just building a line, but how it is connected into the existing rail network, the connectivity to the termini on the line, and how it fits in with the wider transport strategy involving freight and aviation. That is what makes high-speed rail a success or failure. We must look at it in the round.

The hon. Member for Clwyd South has mentioned Lille. Yes, it has been successful, but we found that that has often been at the expense of neighbouring towns. The French have recognised belatedly that better connectivity is needed to Lille, and that that is what drives the benefits.

Time precludes me from going into many of the other issues that I wanted to raise, but one is the operating speed of the route. High Speed 2 has been designed for an operating speed of 250 mph, but all the evidence from Europe, China and elsewhere is that although the trains can technically run at that speed, for all sorts of practical reasons they are limited to about 200 mph. That opens up the possibility of other route options. We can build High Speed 2, but not necessarily along the proposed route. The latest generation of Shinkansen bullet trains, which tilt, opens up the possibility of building lines alongside an existing transport corridor, such as the M1 or M40, which would mitigate much of the concern about environmental intrusion. That is what the Germans have done.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the M1 stops just north of Leeds?

[Iain Stewart]

It does indeed, and the current proposal is to go only as far as Leeds. There may be a further development alongside the A1 in future, but I will not argue for that.

The hon. Member for Clwyd South has mentioned the Frankfurt to Cologne line, which was built largely alongside the autobahn, and there has been no concern in Germany about the noise and visual intrusion of that line, which has been welcomed. My request to the Minister is that we examine all the options, because it is vital to get the details right. If we do, we will have a transport system that we can be proud of; if we get it wrong, we may have an expensive white elephant.

10:12

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

I want to make a brief point with a constituency interest. I have supported the principle of high-speed rail for several years as part of the campaign to avoid the need for a third runway at Heathrow, so I was extremely pleased when the Government ruled out that runway and came out in favour of high-speed rail. However, the way in which the consultation is taking place is undermining support for high-speed rail in my constituency, because it is focusing on high-speed rail throughout the London borough of Hillingdon without commencing the consultation about links with Heathrow, which will take place after the consultation on the main High Speed 2 link. We have been told that we will have information on that at the end of the year, or perhaps in 2012 or later.

The Minister knows that I have raised the matter before, and my view is that if there is to be consultation on the various routes, it should be comprehensive and include the whole route. I agree with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who has said that there are other options that need to be thoroughly investigated, but to consult on High Speed 2 without consulting on the Heathrow link at the same time undermines the consultation process.

My constituents have successfully fought off the blight of the third runway, despite BAA buying up half of Sipson village and not selling off the houses, but they are now affected by the blight from high-speed rail, because we do not know the exact route into the airport. If we could at least have had the full consultation at the same time, my constituents would have more certainty about their future and would be able to reach a view. Staggering the consultation is breeding suspicion—unnecessarily, I hope—that their homes will again be affected.

The Government have gone about the matter in completely the wrong way, and I urge the Minister to ensure that information on the Heathrow link is published no later than the autumn, and that the consultation starts no later than the autumn. We would then have an accurate view of what Hillingdon residents think about the concept of high-speed rail.

10:15

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing this debate. I am an enthusiastic supporter of railways in general and of high-speed rail in particular. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) has said, time does not permit development of too many of the economic and environmental arguments, but they are generally proven.

My constituency has much to thank the railways for. When the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway eventually arrived at the coast, it effectively created the resort of Cleethorpes, and the neighbouring port of Immingham. The MSL railway was known as mucky, slow and late, but I am not sure whether that description was affectionate. The key route from Cleethorpes to Manchester is still the main rail route into the resort, but I have a few caveats on which the Minister could perhaps provide some reassurance.

[Mr MacShane]

I am often on that train, although I do not go as far as Cleethorpes, but I know the line well. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a fine campaign by the Yorkshire Post, which should be sent to all hon. Members, the whole of Yorkshire articulated that it wants high-speed rail to happen? I hate to play the north against the south, but there is a real feeling that this is a golden opportunity for the north of England, particularly Yorkshire. I hope that opposition to the scheme, even if the scheme has to be modified—the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) has made some perfectly good points—does not derail this important initiative.

[Martin Vickers]

I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point. Anything that can advance economic regeneration of the Yorkshire and Humber region is obviously welcome, and anything that we can do to get visitors from his area to Cleethorpes, is also welcome.

Cleethorpes and the area more generally is desperate for a direct route to London, and one worry is that HS2 will suck up all investment resources. The minor infrastructure changes that would improve capacity on the east coast main line, and therefore provide capacity for a direct service to the Cleethorpes area, may be lost. Perhaps the Minister will reassure me on that.

The other brief point that I want to make in my allotted two and a half minutes concerns the supply chain. I am encouraged by what the Secretary of State said after the Bombardier announcement about how we must ensure that the supply chain involves British manufacturers, if possible. Many of my constituents who work at the steel works in the neighbouring constituency of Scunthorpe are under threat of redundancy. Tata Steel in Scunthorpe has benefited greatly in recent years from the worldwide renaissance of railways, and I would like some reassurance. Perhaps the Minister can build on what the Secretary of State said about ensuring that the benefits of production are retained in this country.

10:18

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on initiating this debate, and on her contribution, which set the right tone. I agree with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who said that we need an evidence-based debate. We also need a debate that is led by hon. Members from throughout the United Kingdom, and this debate has provided that opportunity. It is hugely important to include peripheral areas such as the Isle of Anglesey, which I represent.

I will heed your advice, Mr Gray, and limit my contribution. I will not go into the full details of the history of the Irish mail from Euston to Kingstown via Holyhead, which started, as you will know, in 1848, when it took some 10 hours to get the mail from the centre of London to the centre of Holyhead, and then on fast ferries to the Republic of Ireland, which took two days.

Over the past 10 years, we have seen a huge reduction in the journey time between my constituency and London. When I was first elected some 10 years ago, it took more than five hours to get from Holyhead to Euston. It now takes three hours and 40 minutes, which is the result of investment in the west coast main line. We have more frequent—indeed hourly—trains to Chester, and although that is the wrong side of Offa’s Dyke, it provides a connection to north Wales, linking it with the major cities of Manchester and Birmingham via Crewe, and getting people and trade—which is vital—from the south-east to periphery areas. That is a sort of evidence base. I do not have the data, but when I make that journey of three hours and 40 minutes, I often speak with business people—many of them travel in first class and I travel in standard class, but we have the opportunity to speak. Organisations such as the CBI and others mention the benefits that investment in the west coast main line has brought to periphery areas such as north-west Wales. It is important to use that evidence and collate more data for the future to make a stronger case for high-speed rail, which I greatly support in principle.

I want to raise two issues with the Minister. I had the opportunity to speak to her about these matters a couple of weeks ago, but I would like her to respond on the record. In her opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South pointed to the position of the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not want to personalise the issue, but we need a strong voice at the Cabinet table to represent Wales and to set out the benefits that a high-speed network throughout the United Kingdom would bring to Wales. I hope that the Minister will ask her colleagues in government whether an analysis has been made of those benefits by the Wales Office, because that is its role. We are talking about strategic rail travel in the United Kingdom, and it is important that the people of Wales have a voice at the Cabinet table.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Perhaps I have not followed the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but it is not clear why the proposed Y-shape route will benefit Wales. Will he recap his point?

[Albert Owen]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not listening; I was providing evidence that investment in the west coast main line has benefited the peripheries. Joining up periphery areas with main lines and having faster trains will get people and trade to those areas. I thought that the Government were in favour of that; I have supported them in that and in the idea of spreading wealth and prosperity throughout the United Kingdom. The idea is not new—it happened in Victorian times, which is why I gave the example of the Irish mail. The Victorians recognised the importance of Dublin. This Government have bailed out the Irish Government because they understand the importance of trade links with Ireland. It is important to have full integration between all parts of the United Kingdom and our near neighbours.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, as he seems to suggest, that there is not enough evidence to prove the benefits of regeneration outside the areas at the two ends of the proposed initial line, and that far more work needs to be done to provide evidence of those benefits? If the issue is about curing the north-south divide, the case is simply not proven.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Lady is coming at the matter from the wrong angle. I am saying that the huge investment over the past 10 years has brought benefits to periphery areas but that the data have not been put into one package to make the case.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Albert Owen]

I am not going to give way again, because of the time restraint. We need to look thoroughly at the benefits to the whole United Kingdom, but there is no doubt that connecting periphery areas with main line stations works. We have seen that in Europe and in other areas.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Albert Owen]

I am not going to give way again. I appreciate that the hon. Lady has her opinion, but I am trying to make my views heard. I hope that she and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) have understood my argument. I will move on, but I believe that the Minister should press the Secretary of State for Wales and the Wales Office to make a proper analysis of the benefits of high-speed rail for Wales.

My second point is more negative, because we should also look at the disadvantages of the scheme. Will the Minister look at the issue in the context of Euston station, where the redevelopment for the high-speed rail link would take place? I know that the Transport Committee heard evidence about that yesterday, but the case for high-speed rail would be slightly undermined if there were to be a long period of redevelopment at Euston. As was said yesterday, it would take up to eight years to redevelop that station, and services to the north-west and north Wales would be cut during that period. I know that the Minister will look at all the options, but perhaps she could look at undergrounding or some other way to alleviate the problem with main line stations such as Euston in the future. I know that the Minister is keen for the project to proceed; she has listened and is in tune with what hon. Members are saying throughout the United Kingdom. I ask her, however, to look at the issue of Euston and put pressure on her colleague, the Secretary of State for Wales, to make the case for Wales.

10:25

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will try to be brief because I have taken part in debates about this issue in the past.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing this debate. I like the fact that the debate’s title as set out on the Order Paper is positive, and I will resist joining in the accusations against the Secretary of State for Wales—I will wait for her performance this afternoon before the Welsh Affairs Committee.

I want to keep the debate positive because it is important that those of us in favour of High Speed 2 galvanise a campaign in support of it. I have seen the comments of business leaders in the Yorkshire Post in support of the scheme, but that is not enough and we need to bang the drum much louder. A high-speed rail link will not solve the north-south divide, but it will go a long way to remedy some of the problems. It will help us to rebalance the economy so that growth is moved across the country and is not only in the south-east of England. As has been mentioned, we must start dealing with problems of capacity. The west coast main line is already creaking; passenger numbers have doubled over the past six years, with 28 million passengers a year on that line alone. From a personal point of view, it is predicted that 40% more passengers will travel through Leeds station. We must start planning now, and it is time to start looking at high-speed rail. I believe that faster journey times will increase the prospect of investment in other parts of the country.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend and I have had many discussions about this issue. The most recent Government papers suggest that up to 73% of the line’s usage will be for leisure travel. How will that contribute to curing the north-south divide?

[Stuart Andrew]

I think that the Government are being conservative in their estimates of passenger numbers and who will use the high-speed network. I was about to say that even with our current creaking transport network, Leeds enjoys the second largest financial sector in the country. If we have a high-speed route to Leeds, the prospect of increasing and expanding that financial sector could become a reality.

Figures suggest that current proposals for a line between London and Birmingham will generate 40,000 jobs. When we move to the Y-shape, there will be greater prosperity and more jobs. Globalisation means that we need to start meeting the demands of a much smaller world so that those of us on the periphery, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, can also enjoy the benefits of that.

Let me refer to some of the criticisms of the scheme. Too often we hear people referring only to the line to Birmingham. The whole point about HS2 is that it will go beyond that. The Y-shaped route was the best decision made by the Government. If they had chosen only the line that went to Manchester and then Leeds, I, too, would be a critic, but the fact is that the Y-shape will bring benefits to the whole country, as was confirmed by the Prime Minister on 22 June. I have heard critics say that the line will never get that far north, but the Prime Minister has been clear on the issue.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the consultation being for only the leg between London and Birmingham, which is the hardest part to achieve and the part with the weakest business case. The business case for the entire project is much better, because the line becomes easier to build as we go north. Does he agree that even though the business case for the initial part is stronger than those for Crossrail and Thameslink, it is a problem that there is consideration of only that first part?

[Stuart Andrew]

I completely agree. That is why I say that we must consider the project in its entirety and think about going beyond what is currently proposed and on to Scotland. We must think of the very long term, not just the short term. On the one hand, people say, “Oh, this is too many years in advance. It’s not worth doing,” but there is no excuse for doing nothing and we have to plan now to deal with the problem. On the other hand, however, people say, “We shouldn’t be spending this amount of money when times are hard,” but construction will not happen until 2017 and it will take place over two decades. I believe that the cost will be about £2 billion a year, which is similar to the cost for Crossrail, and if that was good enough for London, it is good enough for the rest of the country.

Yesterday, I sat for a short while at the back of the room in which the sitting of the Transport Committee was taking place and I heard the arguments against HS2. They seemed to centre on the claim that existing infrastructure would miss out. In fairness to the Department for Transport, it has invested lots of extra money for projects. When the people appearing before the Committee were asked what they wanted instead, they said, “Roads.” Well, we have seen what has happened before in that respect. They said that the M25 junctions could be improved, which would be very helpful to those of us in the north—thanks very much.

HS2 is not a panacea, but it will dovetail into the northern hub so that we can get people to the north and around the north, and so that business can thrive. That is something that we cannot wait for and Britain needs to catch up.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. We have nine minutes for six speakers.

10:31

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this high-speed debate, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing it and on her excellent speech.

My party has long supported high-speed rail as an essential part of the development of Britain’s public transport infrastructure. Such investment is vital to create a society in which people are free to pursue their ambitions. Economic growth has been too concentrated in London and the south-east. If the rate of growth in that area had been replicated in other areas in the past decade, the UK would have been £38 billion better off. High-speed rail is a vital investment to ensure that we manage to rebalance the economy along more equal regional lines.

One of the other arguments for high-speed rail is that it represents the type of sustainable, environmentally conscious economic growth that we need. High-speed rail is not in itself a low-carbon form of transport, as should be obvious, because machines that run at very high speeds need more power than machines that run at low speeds. However, the modal shift to which many hon. Members have referred makes it much more environmentally sustainable. In fact, that makes it vital for the long-term sustainability of our country’s infrastructure. We have heard about the likely effects for Scotland of a move from air to rail. We have also heard that long-distance services on the high-speed line would free up capacity on other major rail routes. In addition, it is important to remember that the carbon benefits of rail over aviation are likely to improve, and to continue improving, as we develop new ways of decarbonising the electricity supply.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have to take issue with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because the Government’s own figures suggest that the shift from air to rail is likely to be only about 7% and a number of airlines have said that that would give them the capacity to put on more long-haul flights, so it is not at all clear that there is any modal shift from air to rail. In addition, traffic flow on the M1 is expected to reduce by only 2%. Not even the Government are trying to advance the green argument.

[Dr Huppert]

I agree, in that I wish that the Government would advance environmental arguments more often. I do not have all the figures available, but we have heard the figures on links with Scotland. With a full Y-shaped network, about half the 7 million passenger trips that are currently made would be captured by High Speed 2 and I think that we would continue to make greater progress on that.

The nature of the route is not the only thing that matters. When we talk to people about the state of our public transport, a number of themes crop up. People find it hard to get the right information, to get the right connection at the right time and to buy the ticket that best suits their needs. I want the Government to make doubly sure that this new venture is not what some have said that it will be—a costly train for the well-off. The Liberal Democrats have long called for rail fares to be reviewed and, if possible, cut or refunded in the case of delays or bus replacement services. We must ensure that the same principles apply to High Speed 2. It is essential that, alongside the planning of the route, the Government adopt an approach that is designed to ensure a gradual improvement in terms and conditions for passengers on both bus and rail.

I want to see more commitment from the Government on what will happen in the longer term with regard to Scotland. I want to know whether they have a vision to ensure that the Y-shaped route will eventually run all the way to Glasgow and Edinburgh. We have the prospect of an exciting scheme that will be very good for the economy and for the environment. I look forward to working closely with the Department for Transport, the Minister and other stakeholders as we try to ensure that the project provides value for money, environmental and economic benefits and a public transport infrastructure that works and is in the best interests of passengers.

10:35

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

For the benefit of hon. Members, I will try not to repeat points that have already been made. I will also try to obey the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) about the north-south divide, although I do want to say something about that.

Like others, I will avoid references to long history, although I shall mention the original high-speed line—the west coast main line in the 19th century. It went from Euston station in London to the Euston hotel in Fleetwood. We also had at one time a ferry to Scotland and to Northern Ireland, so the Scots and the Northern Irish had the benefits of coming to Fleetwood. Unfortunately, we have no ferry now. We still have a railway line in Fleetwood, but we have no trains on it. Nevertheless, we are supporters of High Speed 2, and that is despite the fact that most of my constituency is 50 miles away from Greater Manchester. For the benefit of those who are not north-west MPs, I should point out that the north-west is not just Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

For us, the issue is the capacity that the project will release on the west coast main line. According to the figures that I have seen, the only increase in capacity that we are going to get in the next 10 years is one of 12%. However, the passenger load has already hit that figure, as anyone who travels on the line will know. We need capacity to be released.

There is a solution to all our problems and the debate about where the line should go in the south: we should start the other way round by building now from Glasgow to Edinburgh, and then slowly build downwards while there is a discussion in the south about where the line should end up. However, I am not sure whether civil servants could cope with that thinking.

Let us consider the figures and the real issue about the north-south divide with reference to my own county of Lancashire. If we look at gross value added in terms of what we contribute to the national economy, we see that it has been going down for the past 10 years. In 1995, the gross value added figure for Lancashire was about 88.7% of the average. By 2008, we had gone down by 10 points—that is the real issue. When the average transport spend per head in London is £802 yet it is £333 in the north-west, people rightly ask questions. For me, the key is capacity and maintaining what the coalition Government promised, which was to try to rebalance the growth in the regions, which were clearly failed by the previous Government in the past 10 years.

I want to finish by putting a technicality to the Minister. I understand that the hybrid Bill—I am not an expert on such measures—will deal with only the route from London to Birmingham. We desperately need to maintain support for the project. Somewhere in the Bill, there needs to be a mention that that is a first step that will lead to a second step to Manchester and Leeds and then, we hope, a third step to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

10:38

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing the debate. I have not hidden my full backing for the proposed high-speed rail link, and I certainly cannot be accused of hiding my disdain for some of the bogus arguments made by its opponents, who have now given up even pretending that they are not nimbys. Take the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), for example, who just this week said:

“There’s nothing wrong with being a Nimby, openly and absolutely.”

However, I do not intend to waste any more time on them.

The last time that we had a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall, I focused on busting the myths of the opponents. In this debate, I shall explain how my constituents and the constituents of the hon. Member for Coventry North West—indeed, all our constituents—will massively benefit from a high-speed rail link between London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. When I say “our constituents”, I really mean our constituents’ children and grandchildren, because this is a long-term decision, not an election gimmick or a vanity project. Most of us in the Chamber will not be around to take the credit when the first high-speed trains arrive in Manchester. This is about taking the right decision now to ensure that our economy can compete in the decades ahead so that the next generation, which has already been saddled with huge levels of debt thanks to the previous Government, is not also stuck with a jammed-up rail network, which would have crippling effects on our international competitiveness. After all, we would not want to run a 21st-century economy on A and B roads when we could build motorways.

All our major global competitors already have high-speed rail lines or are investing in them right now. If we do not go ahead with High Speed 2, we will be left behind. Network Rail estimates that London-Manchester passenger demand will grow by 61% by 2024. It is clear that “upgrading is not enough” and that

“incremental improvements in the existing network are unlikely to be able to keep up with rapidly growing passenger demand”.

That should be a warning to opponents.

[David Mowat]

I want to touch on one quick point that my hon. Friend and others have made in error. They suggest that this is all about Manchester to London, Leeds to London or Edinburgh to London, but it is not—it is about getting to Europe as well. The links to High Speed 1 are fundamental to our communities, and we must not let the debate become polarised so that it focuses only on London.

[Graham Evans]

I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and I take his point.

Network Rail is clear about what the solution should be. It says that High Speed 2 “solves the capacity challenge” and that the proposed line would

“deliver a very large increase in capacity, including freeing up capacity on the existing network for freight, more frequent services for cities not served by the high-speed line and increased commuter services.”

That means that the constituents of the most earnest opponents of High Speed 2 will benefit directly from the plans. The point about freight is also crucial. If we are to rebalance our economy, with more northern-based manufacturing—figures show the Government are already making strong progress on that—that will involve demands for additional freight capacity.

High Speed 2 therefore directly benefits a wide range of people, from commuters in Cheshire to manufacturers in Coventry. A lot of flim-flam will be spoken about the business case for high-speed rail by its opponents, but the business case is strong. The estimated benefit to the economy is more than £40 billion pounds.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Graham Evans]

No, I need to finish.

More than 40,000 new jobs will be created, with an additional 30,000 jobs created at the ends of the line and around the new stations. The taxpayer will enjoy benefits worth more than double what the project will cost. However, hon. Members should not just take it from me or the Government that the business case is strong. Hundreds of leading businesses across the country back the plans, and Network Rail, having carefully examined all the different options, said that it

“found the business case for a new high speed network was robust.”

[Steve Baker]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Graham Evans]

No, I need to finish.

Hon. Members will forgive me if put more stock in the words of Network Rail and Britain’s business leaders than in those of, say, the South Northants Action Group Against HS2. High Speed 2 will help to deliver economic growth.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Graham Evans]

No; I am sorry, but I need to finish. My hon. Friend should have come earlier.

High Speed 2 will deliver low-carbon economic growth, dramatically reducing the demand for domestic flights and shifting 6 million journeys from aviation to rail. Finally, let me try to humanise the benefits. In the previous debate, I talked about how High Speed 2 will give businesses and families—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Andrew Gwynne.

10:42

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) on securing the debate and on putting her case. She added a distinctively Welsh dimension to the debate on high-speed rail. As someone who studied at college in north-east Wales, and who travelled weekly from the Shotton and Wrexham stations to Manchester for a good three years, I fully understand the issues she raised about connectivity, particularly with north-west England.

Across the world, our major competitors are investing in high-speed rail, and it is important that Britain is not left behind in the race for faster connectivity. As my hon. Friend said, the prospect of bringing our major cities closer together brings with it the potential to boost investment and economic growth in the regions of England—and particularly in the north of England—Scotland and Wales.

During its period in government, the Labour party began the process of moving Britain into the high-speed age. Through electrification, more advanced trains and investment in new technology, we cut journey times on our major inter-city routes. Where there was a need for a new line, we delivered it, constructing the first major new railway for more than 100 years, between London and the channel tunnel.

Before we left office, we began to plan the next stages of the process of moving our rail network into its high-speed future. We prepared for the next phase of electrification and the procurement of the new generation of more advanced inter-city trains. We began to work with Network Rail to identify the next priorities for investment to increase capacity and reduce journey times, such as the northern hub proposal.

We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to take forward much of the electrification that we planned, although we are disappointed at the decision not to stick to our commitment to electrify the final part of the great western main line between Cardiff and Swansea. A commitment should also have been made to ensuring that the midland main line is the next important priority for electrification. We also welcome the decision to proceed with the inter-city express programme following the further review carried out by the Secretary of State, although we still have to hear an adequate explanation of why the number of new trains has been scaled back so considerably.

Of course, Labour Members also welcome the Government’s decision to continue to plan for the new high-speed line that is proposed to address the capacity issues on the west coast main line, which will get worse in later years, as we have heard from the hon. Members for Northampton South (Mr Binley), for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans). Within the next 20 years, the average long-distance west coast main line train is projected to be 80% full and routinely to have very severe overcrowding for much of the time. The new line will also bring reductions in journey times.

We welcome the Government’s decision to drop their pre-election insistence that passengers should have to go via Manchester to get to Leeds, which the hon. Member for Pudsey mentioned. We also welcome the alterations that have been made to the route to do more to mitigate the scheme’s impact on local communities and the environment, although there is still concern about the impact of the new line, and that needs to be addressed.

Thanks to the decision to take only the powers needed for the route from London to Birmingham, there is considerable scepticism about the Government’s commitment to take a new line further north. Labour’s plan was always to have one hybrid Bill for the entire new Y-shaped line. Of course, that would have meant that the Bill was delayed—perhaps by a year—but it would have saved considerable parliamentary time across the project. I therefore urge the Minister, as I did in a previous contribution, to think again about that.

The Minister cannot be surprised at the scepticism that exists, when even her own MPs are giving the game away about the true reason for the Government’s conversion to high speed. Only yesterday, writing on ConservativeHome, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), who was here for the debate earlier, said:

“Indeed, the genesis of the project was a response to relentless business criticism of the Party’s decision to oppose a third runway at Heathrow. HS2 allowed the Conservatives in Opposition to cloak itself in a visionary, environmentally friendly, long-term transport policy.”

That suggests that, for the Government, the policy is not necessarily about narrowing the north-south divide, but a fig leaf for their lack of an aviation policy and, I might even add, a growth policy.

In contrast, the Labour party’s support for increasing speed and capacity is something we delivered on in government and is rooted in our genuine commitment to the rail network. It is vital that we think it terms of a single high-speed rail network across Britain, and that we achieve reduced journey times and increased capacity through a programme of electrification, new advanced trains and new lines, where that is the best way to address capacity issues.

In the policy review we are carrying out, we are looking at what the future strategy should be for rail in Britain as a whole. It makes no sense to look at proposed new lines in isolation or to preclude them from our review. A number of issues are being raised with us as part of our review, and the same is no doubt true of the Government’s consultation. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s response to a number of those issues.

First, there is considerable concern that any new lines should be fully integrated into the existing rail network. We must ensure that we can maximise the benefits of the proposed new lines, with rail all over the country and with major London projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink.

There is a view that the precise alignment of the route the Government have chosen is driven very much by the very high top speeds proposed for the new line. That speed is considerably above that on high-speed lines in use across the world, and some countries—notably China—are even slowing down their high-speed trains to address cost, energy use, safety and environmental concerns. Some believe that the need for the route to go through a sensitive part of the Chilterns is entirely down to the speed calculations that have been made. It would be helpful if we had some clarity on that.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Do the Opposition intend to respond to the consultation by 29 July?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Opposition will take full part in all these debates, I assure the hon. Lady of that.

There is widespread incredulity at the fact that the cost of actually using the new lines does not feature at all in the current consultation, when, surely, that is a critical factor. If the whole point is that passengers will make the switch from the existing lines to reduce overcrowding on them, how can any assessment have been made of the likelihood of that happening without any knowledge of the likely difference in ticket price between the two lines? We know that it costs more to travel on High Speed 1 than on other services along that route, and there is no reason to believe that the proposed new line will be any different. Speaking of HS1, the Secretary of State for Transport announced in an interview in the Financial Times a few days ago that, just as with HS1, he proposes to sell the new line even before it has been built—something I would have hoped he might announce to Parliament.

A further issue that comes up frequently in our policy review is the decision not to join up the new line to Heathrow from the start, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) suggested. That is of course our only major hub airport. In opposition the Minister said that

“failing to take HSR through Heathrow would be a big mistake”.

Instead, what is proposed is an expensive further spur to be built at a later date.

Not surprisingly, the cost of the scheme continues to cause concern. It has previously been acknowledged that the construction costs for major projects in the UK are significantly higher than for comparable projects elsewhere in Europe. It is vital that the Government work with Infrastructure UK to find ways to ensure that the cost to the taxpayer of the scheme is kept under control.

Finally, I repeat the concern already raised that the proposed hybrid Bill includes only part of the new line. Surely one hybrid Bill on high speed is enough.

Rail is thriving in Britain. More people are travelling than at any time since the 1920s. There are 1.3 billion journeys by train every year, and predictions of a doubling of that figure in 30 years. Increased capacity and continuing reductions in journey times are essential to the continuation of such success. That is why we made great strides towards high-speed rail in government, and why the debate about how any new lines that are needed are delivered is so important.

10:52

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones)on securing a debate on this important issue, and I welcome the widespread support for the Government’s plans, expressed from both sides of the House by a clear majority of the hon. Members present. I hope that all colleagues who attended, including those who did not choose to stay to the end, will encourage all their constituents to take part in the consultation, which closes on 29 July, and make their support for the Government’s proposals clear.

In answer to the questions, there is no delay; the timetable that we are taking forward is the same as the one proposed by the previous Government. On the allegation of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), repeated yet again, that we are not serious about going to the north of England, we supported a link to the north of England before Labour did. We supported a national network while Labour’s 30-year strategy for the railways ruled out high-speed rail at all. They are the people who are late to the party on high-speed rail, so the hon. Gentleman is in no position to criticise us. Nor is he in any position to criticise our approach to international connections. Labour had no connection to Heathrow in its plans, and nor did it put forward proposals to connect HS2 to HS1. Both those facts show that Labour was not serious about international connections. In response to questions on this point, and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), I repeat my support for taking high-speed rail to the north of England.

Questions were asked about a hybrid Bill and yes, the first hybrid Bill will cover the first phase, but we hope to go on in due course to an informal consultation next year on phase 2 to the north of England, with a hybrid Bill in due course in the next Parliament. I emphasise that the Government entirely recognise the concerns of communities about the preferred route and the potential impact on their local environment. We are listening to all those concerns. We have already made changes to about half the route that we inherited from our predecessors. As has already been mentioned, while our preferred route passes through the sensitive Chilterns area, all but 1.2 miles of it is in either a tunnel or a cutting, or alongside a main transport corridor—the A413 being a particular example. I am convinced that the result of the extensive process of consultation on the hybrid Bill will not be nearly as negative for communities as they fear. I am confident that with careful mitigation we can address the most serious local impacts, as happened so successfully with HS1. Intense controversy surrounded that first stretch of high-speed rail for the UK. Because of the hard work that went into getting the right route and the right mitigation, HS1 has not had the disruptive impact that communities feared it would. We can do the same with the route for HS2.

On what my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said about HS1 somehow pushing up fares on the conventional service, the fares decisions taken by the previous Government were related to capacity enhancements and improvements on the conventional existing line, and not to HS1. The hon. Members for Clwyd South and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made points about Euston, and of course there is more work to be done in relation to Euston—and the rest of the route. That is why HS2 Ltd is working with Camden residents, and why it is entirely legitimate for Members of the House to make representations about the Government’s preferred route.

As to points that were made about the Secretary of State for Wales, we are, as I have said, undertaking an extensive consultation on a preferred route for high-speed rail. No decision has been taken about the right route. All we have is a preferred option. It is entirely appropriate for MPs, including members of the Government, to take part in a debate about what final route should be chosen and make representations on behalf of their constituents.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

No.

Several points were made—

[Albert Owen]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am afraid I really do not have time. We have had a good debate.

[Albert Owen]

On the Welsh Office.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sorry; I have many points to respond to, and only about another seven minutes—[Hon. Members: “Four minutes.”]—four minutes.

There was strong support from my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), for Warrington South (David Mowat), and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). I also note the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). A fundamental reason for our need for high-speed rail is to deliver the capacity we need to meet the growing demand for inter-city travel. Despite significant capacity upgrades in recent years, with more to come on the west coast, Network Rail predicts that the line will be pretty much full by 2024. That saturation point could come earlier. If we fail to provide the capacity we need, we will significantly hinder economic growth and worsen the north-south divide. No Government can afford to sit back and ignore that. High-speed rail can provide the capacity we need, as well as shrinking journey times between our major population centres, spreading prosperity and creating jobs, without a net increase in carbon emissions. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) said, that is just the sort of sustainable growth we need.

High-speed rail will reshape our economic geography and start to tackle and reduce the economic divide between north and south, as my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood and for Pudsey pointed out. The full Y-shaped network is expected to generate about £44 billion for the economy. We are convinced that high-speed rail will do a tremendous amount to integrate the economies of Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds, and to spread prosperity well beyond the cities that are directly served by the line, including destinations in north Wales. As the hon. Member for Clwyd South pointed out, examples such as Lille show that those regeneration benefits are felt well beyond the cities that are directly served by the stations. We believe that the country should aspire for the future to a genuinely national network, which we hope, of course, will include Wales and Scotland. However, long before that point, passengers in Scotland are expected to benefit significantly from shorter journey times resulting from the Y-shaped network, with journeys of 3.5 hours from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London providing an attractive alternative to flights, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex).

North Wales is also likely to benefit as a result of the project we are considering today, because of a GDP boost resulting from taking high-speed rail to Birmingham and then on to the north-west, with benefits in inward investment and tourism. We are determined to do as much as we can to respond to the points that have been made today about the importance of ensuring good connections from the conventional network into new HS2 services. That is one way in which we will succeed in spreading the benefits as widely as possible. Such good connections should enable north Wales passengers to benefit from faster journey times. HS2 would also release capacity on the existing network, benefiting north Wales and destinations in the west and east midlands and the north of England, including Northampton—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I congratulate hon. Members on the fact that 14 of them have been able to speak in the debate, which is a pretty reasonable number.

Youth Unemployment (Mitcham and Morden)

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have been given the chance to speak in Westminster Hall, but I am sorry about the circumstances that led to my asking for this debate.

In my constituency of Mitcham and Morden, which the Minister will know well, the number of unemployed jobseeker’s allowance claimants has reached 2,776. From the moment when I was elected in 1997, it looked as though unemployment had slipped off the agenda, because it fell during my first 12 years as a Member. In April 1997, weeks before I was elected, the unemployment rate in Mitcham and Morden was 5.4%. Even in April 2009, at the height of the recession, it was only 3.7%. However, it is now back up to 5.2%.

The effect of unemployment is perhaps greatest on our young people. If they cannot get work early in life and learn the discipline of the workplace, it becomes harder to find work. For older people, gaps in a CV can make life difficult when applying for jobs, but for young people it is much worse. After a decade during which we invested enormously in education, exam grades have risen and young people’s aspirations are high, but their aspirations cannot be met.

Nationally, unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds has risen to 895,000. In Mitcham and Morden, the unemployment rate for the under-24s has shot up to 11.6% in the past year. Today, only 39 constituencies have a worse ratio of vacancies to JSA claimants than in my constituency. In May, our local jobcentre had only 124 jobs.

The scarcity of jobs has made life more difficult for young people looking for work. They have the disadvantage of lacking experience. We must not allow a return to the 1980s, when a whole generation of young people lost out and many drifted into a life of benefit dependency, which affected not only them but their children. We still feel the social effects of that period of long-term unemployment.

For many communities, the jobs have returned, but on some estates a culture of worklessness has taken hold. A generation on, we are still dealing with the consequences of young people having been unemployed in the 1980s—I say, never again. In the 1980s, youth unemployment continued to rise for four years after the recession was over. I want to stop another generation of young people in Mitcham and Morden having to go through that.

When the coalition Government were elected, their first steps were like a war against young people: they increased student fees; they abolished the education maintenance allowance; and they slashed the future jobs fund. It is true that youth unemployment across the country rose as a direct consequence of the recession, but a year ago it started to fall, and many believed that the future jobs fund was helping unemployed young people to gain opportunities that would help them into work.

Just over a year ago, however, the Prime Minister described the future jobs fund as a “good scheme”, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson said that

“more help is needed for young people, not less.”

It is baffling that the fund has been scrapped. Last summer, I met a group of young people who had enrolled through the future jobs fund and who were getting good work experience at a local charity, the Commonside community development trust. I wanted to hear about their experience.

There were nine youngsters on the scheme—one dropped out, but the others had a better time. They were given a range of things to do, from helping to run a community centre to dealing with older people in the lunch club and undertaking basic admin duties. I am told that, a year on, four are now in work, and three have gone back into education. I see one of those young people regularly at my advice surgery every Friday—not, I hasten to add, because he needs to see me about problems, but because he has a full-time job on the ground floor of the same council building. His name is Kyle Bryant, and he believes that the future jobs fund helped him to get his current job. It certainly showed that he was willing, and his experience there gave him a better CV.

I take this opportunity to congratulate Kyle and his fellow graduates of Commonside’s future jobs fund programme. They did the right thing by helping out a worthwhile local charity, and getting some good experience, and many are now reaping the rewards. I am sure that other hon. Members have similar tales, but for me, meeting young people like Kyle brought home just how difficult it is for young people who cannot find work to get the necessary experience without extra help. Now that the future jobs fund has been scrapped, the opportunity to gain good experience is even harder to come by.

Internships have been seen as a way to get ahead. However, the Deputy Prime Minister rightly criticised the way in which internships often favour those who already have good connections. Indeed, he has used privileged access, through his family, to secure top-notch work experience. However, that is not an option for many in Mitcham and Morden. We tend not to have many people with connections to top jobs in the public sector, let alone to senior bankers or business people. I therefore wondered what sort of role I might play.

In some respects, Members of Parliament are the hub of their community. We have no real power on our own and we do not have access to public funds, but we know our constituencies and the people and businesses that make them tick. I therefore decided to facilitate a work experience programme in Mitcham and Morden for our unemployed young people. The idea came after chatting with the Stranks of Strank Roofing, a successful local firm that I know through the charities that it supports and through its sponsorship of our local football team, AFC Wimbledon. I hope, Mr Gray, that you will not stop me congratulating the team on getting into the Football League after only nine years.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

They are no longer unemployed.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

They were not unemployed before, but they are now in the full-time league.

Irene and Paul Strank told me that they wanted to help young people who could not find work, but that they found Government schemes a little too prescriptive and bureaucratic. For instance, the new Government work experience scheme that began in January requires employers to sign service level agreements, complete health and safety questionnaires, and to receive visits from the jobcentre. Those requirements often put off people such as the Stranks.

Anyone who has offered work experience to schoolchildren—many Members do so, including me—will know what a hassle it can be. I perfectly understand why employers are reluctant to participate in Government schemes. However, the Stranks were sure that other firms would feel the same as they did and would want to train young people—if they were any good, there might be a job at the end of it—but without the hassle, the form-filling or the sense of being monitored by the authorities.

I therefore decided to contact every local business and voluntary group in Mitcham and Morden, and a few others just outside our borders, to see whether they would offer work experience for a couple of months to unemployed youngsters from my constituency. Thanks to Anna in my office and some amazing volunteers from my local Labour party, particularly Ross Garrod, who has been trying to build up a new set of skills after leaving university, I have been able to convince nearly 40 organisations to take on at least one young person.

These organisations cover a wide spectrum, and include many organisations that I thought would not have wanted to become involved. Indeed, the Minister will know some of the organisations at first hand; they include the premium hotel Cannizaro House and Cosmopolitan, the women’s magazine—although he probably knows less about the latter. The youngsters have opportunities from retail to tyre fitting, and from schools to legal firms. The Elective Orthopaedic Centre has offered two placements for people thinking about applying to medical school, but who have no medical contacts in their families. That is extremely exciting for the people in my constituency. Shelley Engineering, a local architectural metal work company, is a family firm that employs 20 people. It said that it is desperately looking for the right young person, and if it finds one it will happily award an apprenticeship. In short, there is something for a wide range of abilities and interests.

I also contacted all the companies that infamously auctioned internships to raise funds for the Conservative party. I explained that not everyone in Mitcham and Morden could afford to bid thousands of pounds for the sorts of privileged opportunities that seemed to be available to Conservative sponsors. I said that, as work experience with them was so prestigious, it would be nice if they were to spread the opportunities around. Unfortunately—perhaps it was not a great surprise—those firms would not join in. I imagine that the kind of people who would auction their best openings to raise money for the Tories would want to restrict them to privileged people like themselves. That only served to convince me more of the need to press ahead with creating opportunities for my young constituents.

After I received promises of up to 50 placements, I put together a brochure and sent it to every household in Mitcham and Morden that included someone under the age of 25. I would like to thank Rob Geleit, a Labour party member from Epsom with design skills, for laying out the brochure, the Communication Workers Union for agreeing to print it and Asda for agreeing to post it. I would also like to thank Liz Sherwood, a local Labour party member, who has taken early retirement from Camden council, for agreeing to act as mentor for both the young people and the businesses. A couple of weekends ago, she met more than 23 potential applicants and helped them write letters and e-mails to potential employers. It was a heart-warming experience to see the mums who came in with children who had learning difficulties and the women in their 40s who came for a hand to get a work experience job.

I also thank my local jobcentre for its advice and its willingness to give this project a go. I must confess that a couple of years ago I called a debate here to complain about how unhelpful it was, so I was nervous about how it would respond to me this time. I was concerned that it would insist on a level of bureaucracy that would put off potential providers, or that it would tell our young people that if they went on a placement they would lose their benefits. Nothing could have been further from the truth, and the jobcentre has been amazingly accommodating—perhaps that is because our work experience scheme is so much more flexible than the Government’s. Obviously, even while young people are on their placements, they can still be looking for work and be available to start at a moment’s notice, and no organisation wants to be seen as a bad boss.

The jobcentre has not had the reputation for being the most enterprising organisation. However, any such criticism could not have been further from the truth. Ailsa Evans, in particular, was both helpful and flexible. Each work experience placement can last anything from eight to 12 weeks and cover a range of hours. In essence, I have been a facilitator between organisations and young people, but they come to their own arrangements, and Ms Evans has been happy with that.

The brochures have now been delivered and there have been hundreds of applications. Most organisations have told me that they have had a positive response. Merton chamber of commerce, for instance, has had more than 40 applications. Several placements have already begun, and later this year I plan to host a party for everyone who has taken part—host organisations and young people.

There has been a buzz about the scheme that has taken me by surprise. One potential applicant, Sambavi, applied for one of the medical positions. It is not the sort of opportunity that often arises for people from places such as Mitcham, where he lives. He said:

“Thank you for your Work Experience booklet. I have been spending the past 4 weeks trying to find work experience that is suitable for Medicine...I received your letter and booklet, earlier today, and I am very thankful.”

On the whole, the potential employers have also found the process worthwhile. Jeffrey Ward, the General Manager at Cannizaro House hotel said, “It’s great.” Nilmini Roelens of Roelens Solicitors said:

“We hope to accommodate at least two or three applicants over the summer and to provide the young people concerned with what I hope will be valuable insight into the work at a firm of solicitors. It may be that, from the two or three people we will have met, we can consider at least one for a longer term position at some point in the future.”

We have also had positive e-mails from Merton adult college, St Mark’s family centre, the Vine furniture project and the Ursuline high school.

The reason why I asked for this debate today is that I want to encourage more MPs to take a similar approach, especially in areas such as Mitcham and Morden, where youth unemployment is high and where there are few people who can find opportunities through their daddies or who can afford to enter auctions to support political parties. I recognise that many Members will need help on this, and I hope that the Department for Work and Pensions will be able to offer it.

It is a terrible mistake to have ended the future jobs fund and to have taken away opportunities for people like Kyle in Mitcham and Morden and elsewhere. I am concerned that any new scheme will be so bureaucratic and inflexible that few organisations will want to participate. I understand that Jobcentre Plus will run the scheme. Rather than being hands-off facilitators as I am, jobcentres will hold lists of potential employers and send work experience people to them.

From this summer, it will be mandatory for jobseekers to take placements, so even those who do not want a placement will be placed. I do not think that many people will want to take on an unwilling conscript for work experience. Moreover, as the work experience that is being foisted upon jobseekers could be for as little as just two weeks on the new Government programme, it is hard to see what anyone will get out of it.

In my own experience, such short placements often create more work than they save. An employer spends two weeks showing someone how to do a job, but by the time the jobseeker has learned how to do it, they have left. Then the employer themselves has all their own work to catch up on. Worst of all, though, the new Government programme suffers from exactly the same pitfalls of bureaucracy and inflexibility that the Stranks complained about. Participating employers will have to fill out service level agreements and health and safety questionnaires, and there will be visits from Jobcentre Plus-appointed employer advisers. Firms also have to provide a dedicated mentor or supervisor. As a result, small firms, which make up the majority of employers in my constituency, are unlikely to want to participate, and the quality of work is also likely to be compromised. Those that want to participate will very much be in a minority. We need high quality organisations, big and small, offering a variety of opportunities to young people who want to find an internship, but who cannot afford it or do not have the right connections.

I am not saying that my scheme is perfect. It is not an alternative to investment in jobs or to the economic growth that we need to create jobs. Of course my party believes the coalition’s cuts are too soon and too hard, and that that will endanger jobs and growth. None the less, I hope that my model of flexibility, with MPs or other community leaders acting as a hub for local organisations and local people, will be looked at and learned from. I hope that this debate has been helpful for the Minister.

11:16

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Gray. It has been a frequent occurrence in recent times. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate.

I will divide my remarks into two halves. First, I congratulate the hon. Lady on a project that is very big society, and exactly the kind of thing local MPs should be doing. She is right to describe our ability to open doors in constituencies, to secure involvement in community projects and to go places other individuals and groups perhaps cannot go. She has clearly done that in her constituency and I praise her for it. I will talk a bit more about that in a moment.

Much of the rest of what the hon. Lady said was complete hokum. She is rewriting history and misrepresenting some of the realities of our work. None the less, I praise her for her sincerity in calling this debate and for the work she is doing; it is absolutely right. I am delighted that Jobcentre Plus is working well with her, but that is no accident. It has specific instructions to do just that. In particular, she talks about the issue of two weeks versus eight. Under the previous Government, a jobseeker lost their benefits if they did work experience for more than two weeks. It was a crazy situation.

One of the first things I received on becoming a Minister was an e-mail from the mother of a young woman who said that her daughter had arranged a month’s work experience for herself with a local firm, but the Jobcentre Plus office had told her that if she did it she would lose her benefits. That is clearly a crazy situation, and one that we moved quickly to change. A jobseeker can now do work experience for up to eight weeks while on benefits. If they are moving from that eight weeks into employment or an apprenticeship, that programme can be extended to 12 weeks. Therefore, it is down to the policies of this Government that the hon. Lady can deliver her scheme. Under the previous Government, that would not have been the case. Those young people would have lost their benefits after two weeks.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

My scheme came about because the future jobs fund had been scrapped. The future jobs fund, for me, was the way forward. I was looking for an alternative and I came up with this idea; it does not replace the future jobs fund.

[Chris Grayling]

I will come back to that in a moment. The hon. Lady is right to say that it does not replace the future jobs fund; it is part of a package very different from what we had before. My point is that it would have been impossible for her to put together a scheme under the rules that operated under the previous Government. Her scheme is worth while and valuable and I commend her for it.

Let me give some context to the youth unemployment challenge. Youth unemployment today is lower than it was at the general election. The picture of youth unemployment has been building up over a decade. One of the myths is that it is a problem simply linked to recession. If we look at the trends in youth unemployment, we see that it began to rise in 2003 and the problem became more and more significant as the years went by. It was becoming a problem through good times as well as bad.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Since the general election, youth unemployment in my constituency has risen, not fallen. The problems are greater now than they were before the general election.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady is right to say that; there are now 95 more young people on jobseeker’s allowance in her constituency than at the time of the general election. I accept that point and I accept that she has challenges in her constituency, but I am making a more general point. A number of her colleagues have said—although she has not—that they see youth unemployment as a crisis of the current Government. I am simply making the point that, happily, youth unemployment today is lower—not by a lot, but it is still lower—than at the time of the general election. It is a big challenge for us to bring youth unemployment down, and I regard it as a big problem that we must address, deal with and solve.

Of course, there are different challenges within the overall headline figure of 895,000 young unemployed people that the hon. Lady referred to. Some 300,000 are actually in full-time education, and they show up in the unemployment figures simply because they are looking for a part-time job. The actual figure for young people who are not in education or employment is around 650,000 at the moment. That figure is much too high, but the reality is that within it is a core of young people who represent a real challenge, and I suspect that among them are the young people in the hon. Lady’s constituency whom she described. To me, that core represents one of our biggest employment challenges.

The approach we have taken to tackling youth unemployment has three dimensions. I will walk the hon. Lady through them, step by step. To begin with, however, let me address head-on the issue of the future jobs fund. The future jobs fund was an extremely expensive scheme that provided work placement opportunities in the public and voluntary sectors, not in the private sector. It had virtually no private sector involvement at all. All of the jobs created in this country in the last 12 months—all of the increase in employment—have come in the private sector. The future jobs fund is some three or four times more expensive per job outcome than even the new deal for young people under the previous Government. So, the future jobs fund was an extremely expensive scheme that steered young people towards what I believe is the wrong part of the economy in terms of building experience. We took a view very early on that it was not the right solution for the future. The key step that we have taken to replace the future jobs fund is not work experience; it is a dramatic increase in the number of apprenticeships. That is the first part of our three-legged response to the youth unemployment challenge.

During the past 12 months, we have increased the number of apprenticeships available by the best part of 100,000. We introduced an extra 50,000 apprenticeships in the first year, we announced an additional 25,000 apprenticeships to follow, and we topped that up still further in this spring’s Budget with an extra block of 20,000 apprenticeships that specifically target young unemployed people. We think that increased numbers of apprenticeships are a better option than the future jobs fund. We have looked at the nature of the challenge in the labour market, and we believe that finding young people opportunities in private sector businesses over an extended period—an apprenticeship lasts one, two or three years—and where there is an ongoing training opportunity alongside that apprenticeship, provides a better foundation for a lasting career than a short-term placement of the kind that the future jobs fund offered. Of course, the future jobs fund was also massively more expensive than apprenticeships.

We have taken that decision. I know that Opposition Members do not agree with it, but it is a clear strategy that says, “We think apprenticeships are better than the placements the future jobs fund offered, and they are also much more affordable, given the very straitened financial circumstances we inherited.”

I am very pleased that my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been as successful as they have in securing employer participation in the apprenticeship programme, and that they have met their goals for getting employers to provide apprenticeship places, which did not happen under the previous Government. Apprenticeships are a really powerful tool that will make a big difference in the years ahead.

Alongside that approach, we are dealing with what I have described as shorter-term youth unemployment. The reality is that the vast majority of young people who are unemployed move off JSA within nine months; there is a pretty steady off-flow and after nine months there is a much smaller core of young people who are struggling to get into employment. First and foremost, I want to see that shorter-term group move into employment more quickly, because even a few months without employment is too long in my view. So we designed the work experience scheme to provide a bridge for young people who did not have previous experience in the labour market or the workplace, to get them into the workplace and give them an extended period of working opportunity of up to eight weeks. The hon. Lady and I are absolutely of like mind about the need to give people an extended opportunity in the workplace and a chance to demonstrate to employers what they can do, so that hopefully—at least in some cases—those employers can offer them jobs. That has certainly happened in many parts of the country.

The hon. Lady is not right about the nature of the rules for the work experience scheme. The scheme is voluntary. The “bureaucracy” that she described is on one sheet of A4 paper. It simply involves signing a piece of paper that says, “I will treat this person responsibly, in the way that I treat my own employees”. That is important, because we do not want excessive bureaucracy. I have been through those forms personally and I can assure her that that is the case.

There will be contact between a Jobcentre Plus employment team member and the employer because that is what the team member is there to do. We have tasked Jobcentre Plus staff not only with changing the rules about the number of weeks someone can do work experience without losing benefits, but with finding work experience opportunities. That is why I am really pleased that the Jobcentre Plus staff in Mitcham and Morden are working in partnership with the hon. Lady. I expect and want our Jobcentre Plus staff to continue to provide her with every support they can provide, because having an engaged local MP working with local employers to increase the number of work experience opportunities is hugely valuable. I commend her for the work she is doing, and I hope it continues and that the Jobcentre Plus staff will be there to work with her to help ensure that the work experience scheme is happening.

Around the country, Jobcentre Plus staff are looking for opportunities. There are now some 35,000 committed work experience places for young people, and thousands of young people are in work experience placements as we speak. Many have succeeded in going into apprenticeships or full-time employment, and I hope that the number doing so will increase as the months go by. We hope to build the work experience scheme over the next two years, so that we provide 100,000 places to deliver the kind of benefits the hon. Lady has rightly described today.

Then, there is the third leg of our stool. The hon. Lady rightly mentioned the challenges that some young people face. There are many young people who have grown up in difficult circumstances and have been on benefits for a long time, and for whom getting into the workplace is a bigger challenge than for other young people. Perhaps they also lack the right qualifications, motivation and experience, and the knowledge of how to get into the workplace. That is where the work programme comes in. It is designed to deliver much more specialised, personalised and tailored support than has been provided in the past.

Young people who do not have significant issues in their lives will enter the work programme after nine months, which is sooner than under the previous, and much less substantial, new deal programmes. However, young people with particular challenges will enter the work programme after three months and will receive personalised support to help them identify the right opportunities: providers who will secure placements for them, work trials, work experience, training courses and other things that will better equip them to enter the workplace.

Of course, the great benefit of the work programme is that we do not seek to design it from the centre. The hon. Lady talked about bureaucracy earlier, but the whole point about the work programme is that bureaucracy is not there. We are saying to the providers, “You do what you think is best. You develop the right programmes to support these young people and others into the workplace. We’ll pay you when you’re successful.” In each area up and down the country, there are teams of specialists led by prime contractors, including organisations that have real expertise in working with young people, such as the Prince’s Trust.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

From my experience of my own constituency and of London as a whole, those contracts are so large that many of the small local organisations, such as the Commonside Community Development Trust, have been unable to get involved in the work programme, and yet they have the experience on the ground. What can the Minister do to ensure that those small local organisations get a look-in with that programme?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, the whole structure of the work programme is designed to reward excellence. Any organisation that is really good at its job of getting people into work will find a willing entrée with the providers. A whole mix of organisations is involved—from the largest voluntary sector organisations, such as the Prince’s Trust, through to a walled garden project in Yorkshire. We have a whole mix of different organisations providing the support. What matters is what works and that we have solutions that deliver real options for young people, getting those who are unemployed—particularly the long-term unemployed—into the workplace. For me, that is the challenge.

I accept the hon. Lady’s analysis: that we have a problem, in that many young people are stranded and struggling and need to be given a helping hand into the workplace. I hope and believe that the mix of programmes we have put in place—increased numbers of apprenticeships and the work experience scheme, helped by big society projects such as hers, and the intense support provided through the work programme—will start to make a difference, and in a way that I must say is much more affordable to Government than the future jobs fund was. In addition, those programmes will steer young people to where the jobs really are: in the private sector businesses that represent our employment hope for the future.

I believe that that is the right approach. The hon. Lady and I share a commitment to tackling the problem of youth unemployment. We may not agree on all the solutions, but she should know that the Government are committed to solving that problem.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Gypsy and Traveller Planning

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Weir in the Chair]

14:30

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Weir. I am delighted that Mr Speaker has granted this debate, and I am thrilled to see so many colleagues here who clearly have a similar interest in the subject. That demonstrates the extent of the significant problems with the issue across the country.

It has been seven months since the debate on 7 December about Gypsy and Traveller sites. Given the Government’s decision to extend until August the consultation on the proposed new planning circulars on Traveller sites, this is an opportune moment to discuss the matter directly with the Minister—I am grateful for his time.

The issue has taken on additional importance in the county of Essex after the decision to evict the occupants of Dale farm, a large site in Basildon. The decision could have a knock-on effect as those evicted seek places to live in other parts of Essex, and probably across the east of England. This is likely to be the last opportunity to debate the matter in Parliament before the consultation period ends, so I know that the Minister will listen closely to the views expressed and the representations made today.

I have a constituency interest in the subject. During the past 14 months, I have heard about several cases of significant concern about the planning system for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Those cases have involved the Planning Inspectorate overturning the decisions of local authorities and granting permission for unauthorised sites. Although I appreciate that those incidents were caused by the inadequate planning system that was inherited from the previous Labour Government—a system that epitomised their culture of top-down targets, particularly through the infamous planning circulars 01/06 and 04/07—this is an opportunity to get it right. People throughout the country have put their faith in the Government to rebalance the planning system through the localism agenda, and it is imperative that the Government do not let them down, so they must take prompt and significant action.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On her point about the top-down culture, the Medway local authority was faced with a regional body saying that we had to take an extortionate quota of Gypsy and Traveller sites, which was completely wrong. I urge the Minister to take on board the fact that it is absolutely right and proper for residents and local authorities to be able to determine need where it arises, rather than having a quota imposed on them.

[Priti Patel]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. I will mention some local examples before I move to the substantial points to which I would like to draw the Minister’s attention.

The Minister will be aware from a vast amount of correspondence that I have several such sites in my constituency, including Pattiswick. A few weeks ago, the Planning Inspectorate decided to impose a Gypsy site on Pattiswick retrospectively. The site has been an unauthorised development since last autumn, when the occupants arrived—this might sound familiar to colleagues—over a weekend, which is the time when local authorities are least able to respond. The local community in Pattiswick then came together to press Braintree district council to take action. I pay tribute to the local residents of Pattiswick, who worked hard and rallied a lot of resources to start a good campaign. Dozens of letters were sent by members of the community and a petition was started opposing the development. That petition received widespread support, and in the absence of a planning application, Braintree district council began enforcement proceedings against the occupants of the site.

The case went to the High Court. The council had some success in the Court, but the occupants of the site appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against the original enforcement action. A subsequent hearing with the Planning Inspectorate took place in Braintree during the Whitsun recess. I attended it, and I must say that it was quite an eye opener and an education. Although the occupants had shown absolutely no regard for the planning process, the inspectorate gave them planning permission.

Two reasons were given for the decision. First, the inspectorate claimed that permission had to be granted due to a lack of any suitable alternative sites. It then concluded that unless the occupants continued to live on the site, their human rights would be violated. The inspectorate wrote that the

“dismissal of the appeal would have a disproportionate effect upon the rights of the appellants under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights”,

which deals with the right to a private and family life. According to the inspectorate, requiring the appellants to vacate the site

“would represent a significant interference with their home and family life which…outweighs the limited harm caused by the development in terms of its effect upon the public interest.”

However, it is clear to me that any disruption caused to the occupants by requiring them to leave would be no more than the disruption that they caused themselves when they came and occupied the site in the first place. Such a use of the European convention on human rights is clearly misplaced and wrong.

It is wholly unjust to local residents of Pattiswick that although the Planning Inspectorate gave significant weight to what it felt were the human rights of the occupants, it failed—colleagues will not be surprised to hear this—adequately to consider the rights of the local settled community and the disruption that the incident caused them. Although the council did the right thing in supporting the community through an enforcement action, the planning system ultimately failed the community by favouring people who refused to go through the correct planning process to occupy and develop the site, and who then chose deliberately to play the system and cause maximum cost and disruption to the council and community.

Braintree district council contacted me yesterday, because I asked for the figures on how much the incident cost. The council has racked up considerable costs. Including VAT, the fees for counsel for the High Court injunction came to just under £10,000. The cost of getting the injunction was £20,000, and fees relating to obtaining the breach of stop notice were £14,000. We should not forget that that is hard-pressed taxpayers’ money. Not only did the decision run roughshod over local people’s views, but the costs involved will deter local councils from taking action when other unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller sites appear.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I agree fully with everything that my hon. Friend has said, but does she agree that one thing that causes lots of problems is the fact that the system—whether it is the local authority’s planning system or the Government’s—never seems to be even-handed? If anybody else were to create an illegal development, it would be taken down in five minutes flat, whereas Gypsies appear to get away with anything they like. Does my hon. Friend agree that the system should treat everybody equally in the face of the law?

[Priti Patel]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. What is lacking is fairness, transparency and a level playing field.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Lady makes a strong case for the unacceptability of unauthorised development, whether that is a shop, a factory, a house or anything else, including an encampment of the type that she is discussing. Planning law clearly needs to be enforced. However, if Gypsies or Travellers had the opportunity to live on authorised sites, there would be no need for such developments. Does she not agree that the Government and local authorities must concentrate their minds on ensuring that we increase the number of authorised sites available for Gypsies and Travellers throughout the country?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The fact that that there are not enough authorised sites is a significant challenge to local authorities.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the point being made about Travellers and Gypsies also applies to settled organisations? In one area of my constituency, it is difficult to find land to build on, let alone to put caravans on. We need a balanced approach.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. There is no doubt that this is about balance across all our communities. I shall refer to two other cases before I talk about the consultation.

My constituency has had endless cases. In Tolleshunt Knights, a planning application was made for a site for travelling show people in a wholly unsuitable location, but again Maldon district council’s decision was overturned by the Planning Inspectorate on the basis of the requirements in the current planning circulars. The council rightly pursued a localist agenda while the Planning Inspectorate remained wedded to the paradigm of centralist command and control. As the Minister will know from the substantive correspondence I sent to the Secretary of State about the case, it was badly handled by the Planning Inspectorate, which clearly showed no regard for the Government’s planning policies as laid down in the coalition programme for government. There is a problem with the Planning Inspectorate.

The final case is about Lea lane in Braxted, where a planning application for a Gypsy site is pending and is with the Planning Inspectorate. The development is clearly inappropriate for the area, but there are concerns that the Planning Inspectorate, which has form, will grant permission on the basis of the applicant’s arguments about limited site provision and, again, human rights, despite serious question marks over the validity of the application and a series of irregularities that have been pointed out. While it is under consideration, I ask the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate fully and comprehensively reviews the representations made by Maldon district council and the local community. It would be shocking and appalling if the Planning Inspectorate continued to progress applications and grant permissions for all the wrong reasons.

Many Members have mentioned a common theme that councils and communities still have their hands tied by previous targets, and it seems that the Planning Inspectorate values the human rights of one group over the rights of the settled community. That has created an unsustainable planning system full of problems, which is a big problem because our communities do not trust the system: they have no faith and confidence in it, so they automatically feel discriminated against; and if they do not have a voice, they do not feel represented. Our communities are left feeling pretty disfranchised and our councils feel powerless to act. There is a challenge for the Government, because they have a strong localism agenda that this problem could undermine.

Those are the reasons why we are here and why the system needs substantial reform. I am strongly in favour of giving local communities greater say and ensuring that their voices are heard. At the last general election, I was pleased to stand on my party’s manifesto, which would have addressed many of those fundamental problems through the pledge to give communities greater control over planning, to limit appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and to return decision-making powers on housing and planning to local councils. “Open Source Planning” highlighted that the Conservatives’ would take action in government to ensure fairness between the settled and the Traveller communities. We need to start to address the problem.

[Andrew George]

On fairness and even-handedness for the settled community and the unsettled community, which includes those who live in squats and caravans who are “settled” but cannot find adequate accommodation, does the hon. Lady agree that all reports have shown that the life expectancy of Travellers and Gypsies is significantly lower than that of the settled community and that infant mortality and maternal mortality are much higher? In addition, Travellers are hugely disadvantaged in education, with 75% of children regularly in education compared with—

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions must be brief.

[Priti Patel]

We have touched on the fundamental problem, which is the real unfairness in the planning system. Ultimately, that has to be resolved.

We can see in the detail of the proposed circular some of the problems that local communities and councils will encounter. It still instructs local authorities to set pitch and plot targets for 15 years and to identify specific plots for the first five years. As now, those targets could be legally challenged in the courts and appealed at the Planning Inspectorate, with people trying to get planning permission or to fight enforcement action by arguing that the targets set are inadequate. It would also force local authorities to consider favourably applications for temporary planning permission if they cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of desirable sites. It states that councils should determine applications from Travellers from anywhere, not only those with local connections, and that provision can be given to Gypsy and Traveller developments on green belt land.

Although the emphasis on locally agreed targets is an improvement on the previous Government’s insistence on top-down national and regional targets, I hope that the Minister will look again at the necessity of implementing the draft circular, which will maintain a damaging imbalance in the planning system. That imbalance must be redressed. We need real balance and fairness.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech. Does not that same policy also require local authorities to take into account historical demand? That could lead to communities such as mine, which have historically had a Traveller population, having an influx of people who have no real local links.

[Priti Patel]

I absolutely concur.

Returning to the circular, I have talked about the damaging imbalances in the planning system. If Ministers want to continue to have a separate planning circular for Gypsy and Traveller sites, I encourage them to consider including measures to support the rights of settled communities. For example, the circular could contain a presumption against retrospective applications and appeals to the Planning Inspectorate. It could also emphasise the importance of decision makers valuing equally the rights and representations of the settled community and of Gypsies and Travellers. Communities such as those in Pattiswick, Tolleshunt Knights or Braxted are not asking for special treatment or favours: all they want is a planning system that fully represents their views, gives them a fair chance and does not disadvantage them because of their residential status.

I want to impress on the Minister the importance of ensuring that councils and communities are adequately resourced and able to set appropriate pitch allocations. I can tell him now that that is a grave concern to the three local authorities that cover my constituency. They simply do not have the resources they need; when they try to deal with the problem, they come up against endless barriers. Any requirements in future policies on local authorities to set targets must enable them to do so with the confidence that they are in control of developments and not at the mercy of the courts or, in particular, the Planning Inspectorate.

Finally, I would like the Government to tackle what I consider to be an alarming culture in the Planning Inspectorate. From the cases I have come across in the past 14 months, it seems that the inspectorate is too willing to cower down in the face of human rights arguments, which are the first port of call in the cases that I have seen. That is not surprising given that the Planning Inspectorate has held workshops for its inspectors to learn from Gypsy and Traveller groups about their planning needs. In the interests of balance, I ask the Minister to encourage the Planning Inspectorate to hold workshops with our constituents, who have all been disproportionately and inappropriately affected by developments, so that the inspectorate gains a better understanding of their needs and rights. There is a greater than ever need for that now, because we will have neighbourhood plans that our constituents will influence.

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

My hon. Friend is making some powerful points about planning law being applied equally to all people. Does she agree that there are also laws about how people live, whether they are settled in a legal camp or not? Gypsies will not earn the respect of the settled community until they agree to be subject to the same tax laws as everybody else, start paying into the national insurance system, give an address by which they can be contacted, abide by the byelaws of an area and start cleaning up after themselves. They will not earn the respect of the settled community until they live and plan like everyone else.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks.

I am about to wrap up—

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Priti Patel]

No, I am going to make some final points. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) is right: with rights come responsibilities.

I address my final points to the Minister. Will he ensure that Government policies support councils in taking enforcement actions against unauthorised developments and that the planning system is genuinely fair to all parties? Action needs to be taken to end the practice of placing the rights of one group above those of others, and the powers of the Planning Inspectorate to interfere with decisions taken by democratically accountable councils should be limited. Finally, will he guarantee that local communities and councils are in control of future development in their areas and that they have their destinies in their own hands? That is very much at the heart of localism. I thank the Minister for his time today and for listening to me, and I look forward to other contributions from colleagues.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

Order. A large number of Members wish to speak in the debate. I hope to start the wind-ups at about 3.30 pm, so I plead for the briefest possible contributions. I also remind hon. Members that interventions should be brief.

14:50

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing the debate and on her excellent speech. My constituents would want to be associated with many of her points. I declare an interest as a serving councillor on Kettering borough council.

I would like to tell hon. Members about a village called Braybrooke in my constituency. There are 22 villages in the parliamentary constituency of Kettering. Braybrooke is situated between the towns of Desborough and Market Harborough, right on the edge of my constituency and on the edge of the county of Northamptonshire. About 325 residents in Braybrooke are on the electoral roll, so it is a small village. However, it is unique in having the only primary school where the pupils are 100% Traveller children, and where the local settled community do not send their children at all. Such a situation exists because of the increase in settlements—pitches—from the Gypsy and Traveller community around the village.

The planning system’s failure to deal with the spread of unauthorised development means that the demographics of the village are being changed in an unacceptable way. I lay the blame for that on the circulars issued by the previous Government and the previous Deputy Prime Minister, which my hon. Friend the Member for Witham mentioned. However, the coalition Government have a chance to change that. My constituents in Kettering, the residents of Braybrooke and myself are looking to the Minister to do something about the matter. We have been in government for 15 months and a consultation is under way. We need to get a move on because my constituents’ hopes have been raised by initiatives such as the Localism Bill and the consultation. We want the Minister to introduce some appropriate policies to stop these unauthorised developments in the future.

[Mr Ward]

I would be very surprised if all the children attending the school were living on unauthorised sites. Many schools in Bradford are 100% white or 100% Asian. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should not allow those schools to exist?

[Mr Hollobone]

No. What I am saying is that local primary schools are comprehensive and they should attract children from the local area, regardless of their background. This is not an issue of race; it is an issue of behaviour. When I visited the school recently—it is an excellent school that provides good education—I discovered that one of the big problems was that, especially in the summer term, a lot of the Traveller children do not turn up because they are off travelling. A member of the settled community would be reluctant to send their child to a school with such a disruptive atmosphere. I am trying to approach the subject in a sensitive and thoughtful way without going down the route of saying that this is some kind of racial problem. It is an educational and behavioural problem, which needs to be addressed.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

As usual, my hon. Friend is making a very astute speech. Does he share my concern that the disruption and huge turnover of children in the Traveller community has a massive impact not only on the education of children who are not Traveller children, but on resource allocation for teachers and teaching support staff in those schools? In the long run, that has an impact on standard assessment tests and other results.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He speaks out on behalf of his constituents in Peterborough extremely well. On this issue, I am sure he has the pulse of not only his constituency but the nation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witham said, Travellers are using the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to access to local schools and as a way to get permission for their previously unauthorised developments. I am trying to say that we should look at the matter the other way round. What about the rights of the settled community in the village of Braybrooke, who are not sending their children to the local school?

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

After pressure from me and my constituency office, we have managed to persuade Brighton and Hove council to charge some long-term van dwellers at Medina house some rates to pay for the services they use. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a good way forward and that some councils could consider doing that to make these people integrate more into the community, or at least to get some return for the services they use?

[Mr Hollobone]

I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention; he makes an extremely powerful point. As our mutual hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) said earlier, it is all very well for Travellers and others to jump up and down about their rights, but on the other side of the equation is their responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) makes an excellent point. Everyone else pays their taxes in the normal way, so Travellers should also pay their fair due to society.

[Andrew George]

As indeed they do on the authorised sites, where those charges and, indeed, local taxes are paid in the proper manner. I do not know about the circumstances in the villages in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but the conundrum that we as Parliament and the Government are facing is that we have to accept—the hon. Gentleman said he is looking at the matter in a sensitive and thoughtful way— that there is a significant unfulfilled need for Traveller sites in this country. The question is, how do we fulfil that need in a way that does not involve Travellers taking their rights and demanding to live on unauthorised developments? We clearly must not allow that to carry on.

[Mr Hollobone]

I just do not get this point. In the borough of Kettering, lots of people do not have access to the accommodation and housing they need, and thousands of people are on the local authority housing waiting list. It would clearly be wrong to say that, because somebody cannot find the house they need, they can go into the countryside and start building a home of their own. The law would rightly come down on those individuals. Yet members of the Travelling community seem to be able to do exactly that, and they are using the Human Rights Act to get away with it. That is wrong.

My constituents’ fears are being heightened by the latest development around the village of Braybrooke: a site called Greenfields, which is a 37 acre plot. According to the map that has been given to me, the site seems to have been divided up into some 60 plots. It was acquired in the 1990s by a property speculator and the plots are being sold off individually, largely to members of the Travelling community. Buildings—dwellings—are already on some of those plots. The worry is that retrospective planning applications are being made in respect of those dwellings. Given the very poor decisions that are being made by the Planning Inspectorate, the applicants are pretty confident that they will be given retrospective permission to remain there.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that one of the ways to deal with the matter is simply not to allow—

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. I suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.

14:59

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:14

On resuming—

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

The debate will now continue until 4.15 pm.

[Mark Garnier]

I thank my hon. Friend again for giving way.

[Mr Hollobone]

It has been a long intervention.

[Mark Garnier]

I think it has been one of the longest interventions in the history of Westminster Hall. My hon. Friend mentioned the planning rules in relation to illegal sites. Does he agree with residents of the village of Churchill in my constituency—an illegal Traveller site has been set up there in the way he has described—that one answer would be to get rid of the rule that allows retrospective planning permission? Planning permission would therefore have to be sought before sites were set up, rather than retrospectively, with all the nonsense about human rights and the rest of it that goes with that.

[Mr Hollobone]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, and I agree with him. The Government need to be far more proactive in tackling the problem of retrospective planning applications, particularly where it applies to the countryside.

There is another issue, which probably affects Wyre Forest as much as Kettering. Those of us with rural or semi-rural constituencies hear all the time about the protections against development in the green belt, but the open countryside in our constituencies seems to have less protection than the green belt. That is sad and regrettable, and it is enhancing the problem of unauthorised development by Gypsy and Traveller groups.

Before the break, I was talking about the new Greenfields site in Braybrooke, which has 60 plots on 37 acres. If it were developed in full, it would be bigger than the village of Braybrooke, near which it is situated, and the local demographics would be changed even more. The difficulty the local council has lies in enforcing the existing planning regulations.

Let me give Members a brief potted history of the site. The land was first acquired in the 1990s by a business that subdivides fields and then sells small parcels of the land via the internet as what it calls leisure plots, or simply as land investments. Early sales resulted in some plots being fenced off, and physical works were undertaken, which were unrelated to agriculture. Caravans were brought on to some plots and used for residential purposes. Wooden buildings were built, and the land was used for keeping horses.

Enforcement notices against such development were issued and served on two specific plots and on the site as a whole. None of the owners appealed the enforcement notices, and those requiring the removal of caravans and associated development are still in force, placing a continuing liability on the landowners. Since the early 1990s, a series of other enforcement notices and stop notices has been served, but the council’s hands are increasingly tied by the guidance on enforcing enforcement notices, which imposes on it the duty to weigh up the likelihood of success, the costs and the proportionality of different courses of action. The end result is that nothing is done.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that existing enforcement powers in relation to unauthorised encampments such as the recent one at Happy Valley in Woodingdean in my constituency are totally insufficient, and that temporary or permanent sites can be only part of the solution? We need to be clear that councils need more powers to enforce notices on what are clearly unauthorised encampments.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am grateful for that helpful intervention. We are beginning to get from the debate some specific courses of action that we would like the Minister to take on board. One would be to deal with the issue of retrospective applications; another would be to beef up the enforcement mechanisms. Unless we have an effective enforcement regime, the problem will grow and become even more of a headache.

We have talked a little about whether there should be a requirement for local authorities to plan for authorised Traveller pitches. If the Government make that a requirement, the proposal is for there to be transitional arrangements whereby local authorities will have six months to put in place a five-year land supply for Traveller sites. My local authority, Kettering borough council, says that six months is not enough and it needs at least 12 months to identify suitable places.

Another thing I want to stress is that, even though consultation is under way, I understand that proposals to change planning policy guidance should be treated as emerging legislation as far as local planning authorities are concerned. Yet there seems to be doubt among some Kettering borough council officials about the weight of the advice. I should like the Minister to state clearly that local authorities should heed the direction of emerging planning guidance from the Government when they make decisions on planning applications.

Finally, please can we do something about the planning inspectorate in Bristol? It is not good enough that it has taken some of the decisions it has, especially on Gypsy and Traveller planning applications. Often, the people concerned do not visit the local authority in question. They do not really know about the local area on which they make decisions. If the coalition Government are serious about devolving decision making down to local residents in the communities where they live, we must take those appeal decisions at a more local level, to ensure that the true voice of local opinion is heard loud and clear.

15:21

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I shall try to be quick, and will concentrate mostly—directly or indirectly—on enforcement. The Minister can turn to his page on enforcement, so he will be ready.

One thing that I like about the consultation, which has been mentioned already, is the sentence:

“Many people think that current planning policy treats traveller sites more favourably than it does other housing and that it is easier for one group of people to gain planning permission particularly on Green Belt land.”

Hear, hear. In my area, Surrey, 87% of the land is green belt. The situation is difficult for Travellers and Traveller sites, and it is also difficult for the settled community. My constituency has a number of official Gypsy sites. There are few or no problems, and the Gypsies are part of the community. Everything is settled and clear. We have two planning authorities in my constituency, Mole Valley and Guildford. Because we are close to Epsom downs we have trouble, particularly with Gypsies who come in from across a little patch of water, with a distinct accent—not mine; not even similar. They come and squat.

The Travellers tend to use expert legal advice. There are a couple of agencies involving solicitors that are expert in such matters, and they are paid for by Travellers’ groups. They enable the Travellers to become the Artful Dodgers of the planning system. One of the techniques, in some of the better areas of my constituency, is to purchase a patch of land where there is no hope of any form of planning permission for residence. Either Travellers or people pretending to be Travellers make those applications, forcing the locals to panic, club together and purchase the land at an outrageous price. If enforcement were sure, and those local people knew that the inevitable refusal of the application would be followed by enforcement that really happened, those scams would fall apart.

The second technique that I want to mention is squatting, something which the Government are, I understand, looking at. Squatting in rural areas is done by Travellers. They do not squat in buildings, but they bring their buildings with them and squat on the land with caravans and so on. In my area, they also squat on the land with their animals—horses. The difficulty is that at the moment when the bailiffs arrive, after a court order has been obtained, at least one mare, if not every one in the paddock, is about to give birth. A human would be put in an ambulance and whisked off to a maternity ward, but if the bailiffs approach a mare that is about to give birth, the rules apparently require the animal to be left there. Whether a birth happens or not is highly speculative—I am quite sure that it does not. However, what happens is that some of the farmers in my constituency—I know of one in particular—cannot use the land, because it is occupied by a couple of dozen horses.

When, finally, enforcement happens, the mess that is generally left behind is unbelievable. Perhaps the way the site is left could be included in consideration of the matter, so the people pushed off by the enforcement order pay for the removal, clean-up and restoration of the site. That would be helpful and might encourage many of those who cover the site with gravel and other things not to do so.

The third technique is to buy the land, generally with cash, from whatever source. That generally happens at the weekend, when the people arrive with caravans, trucks, bulldozers, loads of gravel, piping and so on. By the end of Sunday, they are installed. The electricity and water are tapped in, whether legally or not, and then the nonsense starts—hopeless applications, refusals, appeals and more refusals. To be fair, the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol has been quite good in my area and has backed the local authority, mainly. However, when the enforcement notices are delivered, there is an appeal against the notice. Then, as the Minister is obviously well aware, another, subtly different, application is put in. On and on it continues.

As has been mentioned, the people concerned do not pay council tax or taxes. They use the local system—the schools, health authorities, and so on—and the arguments start. The neighbourhood barneys are horrendous—there are accusations of theft and burglary—but I must be fair; I am sure that in one case, although the people who committed the crime might have been associated with the people on the site, they were not people from the site. Nevertheless, there is, to put it mildly, community disharmony.

I want to outline two cases. The first is in Guildford on the A246. It is a greenfield pasture, which is fenced in. There have been three applications and three refusals, and at least two failed appeals. There are two derelict caravans on the site. As one hon. Member has mentioned, the council are wondering whether it should bother with its enforcement notice, because the cost will be astronomical and it can imagine that, once it gets part of the way there, another application will be made, and it will be back to square one. We need that side of enforcement to be pushed.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about planning in general, although not particularly about Gypsy encampments; those who want to abuse the planning system often use the ruse of making retrospective applications, then appealing, and then reapplying, exactly as he has described. It is a weakness of the planning system, which is not necessarily the issue before the Chamber.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I noticed the nature and the subject of the debate, and have not strayed, although the hon. Gentleman has.

Anyone trying to sell or improve their property finds a big sign on the A246, which is the main road, saying “Romany Stables”. Opportunities to sell property have fallen in number because of that apparent threat. The situation is becoming disgraceful.

The second case involves a Gypsy who does not live in Mole Valley. He lives many miles away and used to—he probably still does—drive a lovely Rolls-Royce. He bought greenfield pasture land in the green belt. He sold it to his wife, who sold it to her cousin, who sold it too, and on it goes. Finally, a small group moved in there in the way in which I have described: gravel, electricity and water were built in over the weekend. There were five caravans, one of which looks like two mobile homes linked together. There was the usual pattern of enforcement notices, appeals and planning applications. The last appeal was quite a clever one. The order was to allow temporary accommodation, while the local authority looked for alternative sites over a period of time.

My concern is my local authority. I am worried that, having looked—not very well and in a limited area—and weighed up the fact that a sympathy that has no grounds in planning is being generated, the local authority may use a sympathy consideration, not a planning consideration, and allow the application on a greenfield site to go ahead. If someone such as the local farmer had built a house on that site, it would have been bulldozed—even though his children go to the local school and use the local hospital and doctor’s service—but that has not happened in this case because, as insinuated by the first sentence I read out, such groups are perceived to have an opportunity and a right that the rest of us do not. I ask the Minister to have a look before my local authority stubs its toes and gives permission, to the fury of many of us.

15:30

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing the debate and on an excellent speech. I must confess my utter disappointment that we have to have this debate, the third on Gypsy and Traveller sites in this Parliament: the first was in September, next was the one I secured in December and this one now. What adds to the disappointment is that although during the December debate the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), made it clear that the planning circular was to be reviewed and that the consultation would start early in the new year, we had to wait until April, I think, for the consultation document. Having read through it, I cannot help but voice my deep disappointment at the changes suggested.

In my constituency, since December’s debate on the planning circular and on Gypsy and Traveller sites, another nine pitches have granted in the village of Calf Heath by the Minister. That happened just last week, against the express wishes and desires of local people who do not want those pitches. Why do they not want them? For the simple reason that, in South Staffordshire, more than 40 pitches have been developed in the years since 2007, many of them granted on appeal. It is not a matter of “not in my back yard”. Only the other week, the local planning authority granted planning permission for new Gypsy and Traveller pitches on a site that it believed was appropriate and sensible for such pitches. It is a matter of getting pitches where they are suitable and where there is proven demand—ensuring that they are in the right places. I do not think the Planning Inspectorate gives much consideration to or has much knowledge about where the right places are; nor, I am sorry to say, judging by a decision the Minister made last week, does he seem to have much common sense when looking at this matter or in making the correct decision. Just before this weekend, in the village of Hatherton, we had another invasion on land owned by a Gypsy and Traveller family where hard standings have started to be laid down. Again, it is the taxpayers of South Staffordshire who have to foot the bill to get the enforcement notice to stop the building.

The proposals in the planning circular consultation document are weak-willed and lily-livered and will not deliver on the promises that we made as a party before the general election or in the coalition agreement. I remember quite specifically in the coalition agreement a specific promise to protect the green belt. I must take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who said that the green belt is far more protected than everywhere else; I wish he were correct, but it certainly is not protected when it comes to Gypsy and Traveller policy. More than 60% of applications from Gypsy and Traveller communities on green belt land that go to appeal are granted, compared with 19% of applications from the settled population. Equality for the settled population is not something that the Department for Communities and Local Government understands.

I ask the Minister to deal with protection of green belt land when he winds up the debate. Looking through the consultation document, the only thing that I noticed that seems to be different in the new circular is the removal of the word “usually” from the old circular’s reference to “usually inappropriate development” on green belt land. I am not sure whether that is seen as a dynamic policy shift in Eland house, but in South Staffordshire it certainly is not. I am slightly concerned that the change in the policy will have no effect for residents and for my constituents. We need to make it clearer that inappropriate development on the green belt should not be allowed. Of those sites in South Staffordshire given planning permission by the Planning Inspectorate, every one has been said by the inspectorate to be inappropriate development in the green belt, but it still awards permission. The balance is not right. The policy proposal does not go far enough, it is not strong enough and it is not clear enough.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering picked up on the important point about the six-month transition period. I think he was voicing the view of Kettering borough council in saying that 12 months is an adequate time; I think that even 12 months is an incredibly tight period, bearing in mind that the provision is for a five-year period. We need to be looking at between 18 months and two years. I hope that the Minister takes those comments on board.

Temporary pitches are a real problem. Increasingly, the Planning Inspectorate awards sites temporary permission. I never thought I would be in the Chamber defending regional spatial strategies but, ironically, we would almost be better off had we maintained them, compared with where we are now with Government fudge. I am shocked to be giving some support to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), but the simple reality is that temporary pitches are not being taken into account as part of the provision for accommodation needs in a local area. That is wrong. Can the Minister give us details of how many temporary applications have been granted for Gypsy and Traveller sites over the past 15 years? I am sure his officials, who are busy working away behind me, can provide details of how many of those temporary pitch grants have then been rescinded, enabling them to be got rid of. I hazard a guess—I do not know this, but I am sure your officials will be able to give you the information before you get to your feet—

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

The Chair has not got to his feet.

[Gavin Williamson]

I am sure, Mr Weir, when the Minister gets to his feet, he will say that the figure is between zero and five—closer to zero, I imagine.

The simple fact is that when temporary permission is granted, it might as well be permanent permission, because there is no way of getting the sites closed down and cleared off. In his summing up, I hope that the Minister can explain how the Government will deal with that, so that temporary permissions are indeed temporary. I very much look forward to welcoming the Minister to South Staffordshire, to talk to the many people affected by the decisions of the Department and to give the people of South Staffordshire a clear understanding of what the Government are striving to do to improve the position.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the primary purpose is to bear down on the problem of unauthorised sites. Presumably, however, he accepts that there is substantial unfulfilled need. How does he propose that the Government go about meeting it?

[Gavin Williamson]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, although I am curious about how many Gypsy and Traveller pitches there are in St Ives and the extent to which they are a problem. There are many vacant Gypsy and Traveller sites in my constituency of South Staffordshire. What is happening is that some in the Gypsy and Traveller community are using the loophole in the law for personal gain—they are exploiting it. That is costing my taxpayers in South Staffordshire a vast amount of money to pay for enforcement action. There are surplus sites, but unfortunately the good people at the Planning Inspectorate are not able, or do not seem willing to take that into account. What we have is a community exploiting a bad law—a bad planning circular—for personal gain. That is what makes so many people in South Staffordshire so very angry.

Will the Minister ensure that the consultation results in proper protection for the green belt? Will he also ensure that temporary provision is taken into consideration? If he can offer some guidance on how temporary provisions may be removed, that would be greatly pleasing, as would a date when he will visit South Staffordshire. We look forward to welcoming him to the very few green fields that are left after the previous Government’s policy, which remains in place.

15:40

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on this timely debate in the light of the current consultation. I want to raise the concerns of villages to the north of my constituency near the urban fringe around Coventry, and to concentrate on the planning issues. Given what we have heard about the planning system, it is entirely right that the Government should set out to change the system. I echo the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) about the delays in the Government’s introduction of changes. We spoke about that during the general election campaign and as soon as we came into government. We have raised expectations in communities, but we are failing to realise them. The broad thrust of the Government’s action to deal with such issues is the Localism Bill, which aims to give power back to local communities, and to enable them to shape their areas.

Provisions in the Localism Bill will deal with the existing situation when someone develops land without planning consent. The system is that they are encouraged to apply for retrospective planning consent with a right of appeal against the enforcement notice. The intention in our policy document was that both issues would be dealt with. The purpose of the changes we are introducing is to address the issues of local communities. My communities have raised three reservations, and there are three more that I would like the Minister to respond to.

First, I echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering and for South Staffordshire about the transitional time scale. There is a group in my constituency called BRAID—Barnacle residents against inappropriate development. As at Braybrooke in Kettering, illegal development in Barnacle threatens to overwhelm the village and the host community. I support BRAID’s contention that the imposition of a six-month time scale for councils to put in place a five-year deliverable supply of sites for Travellers is simply too short. BRAID argues that many authorities will not have time to carry out an assessment of needs, and will find themselves having to treat such applications favourably—I will return to that expression—before finalising their five-year plan. Whenever there is a time limit, there may be discussion about it, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire referred to a year. My community would like a realistic period of two years for local councils to carry out that task.

The second issue is the presumption to “treat favourably”. The draft policy document states:

“Where a local authority does not have a 5 year deliverable supply of gypsy and traveller places (within 6 months of the publication of the new policy), a local planning authority should treat favourably any applications for temporary permission”.

Clearly, that provision is intended to encourage local authorities to identify appropriate sites, but communities fear that the phrase, “treat favourably” is likely to reinforce views that there will be special rights for certain communities in planning matters, in a similar way that circular 01/2006 states that “substantial weight” should be given to unmet need when considering temporary permission. There is a real fear that the policy may unintentionally encourage unauthorised developments when a developer knows that they are likely to be “treated favourably” because a council has not yet set out its policy.

A third matter, to which my colleagues have referred, is the behaviour of planning inspectors. Rugby borough council in my constituency has for many years had to consider a variety of applications for new sites, and in 2009 it approved its draft core strategy, which included a requirement that future developments should be limited to a maximum of 15 pitches per main rural settlement or parish area. That decision by locally elected councillors was due to the fact that two areas already have substantial Traveller provision.

When that strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State earlier this year, the planning inspector decided to strike out the requirement for a maximum number of pitches, citing as justification the guidance in circular 01/2006. Local representatives are frustrated that that justification is based on five-year-old guidance, when it is now more than a year since the Government came to power with a pledge to change the system, and that when the consultation is concluded and the law is introduced it may no longer be in existence.

I raised these matters with the Minister, and he confirmed the existence of the circular. Perhaps he will respond to some of the points to which he referred in his letter to me. I recognise that there is a real opportunity now to change the system to achieve a fair balance for both local communities and the Travelling community.

15:46

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

I have just lost my bet. Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Weir.

I shall be as brief as possible, because I know that a colleague wants to speak. My constituency has a long history with the Travelling community, not least because of our historic horse fairs. We have attracted Travellers for many centuries, and some of my ancestors who were horse dealers in the area may have had interactions going back centuries. That does not mean that we do not have problems today. My local council seems to be distinctly unimpressed with some of the Government proposals in the consultation, not least because local communities believe that the planning system has been weighted too much in favour of the Travelling community in recent times. We are not convinced that the consultation will push that back in the other direction.

In particular, my council is worried about the targets, which include, as I said when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), historic demand. The local authority and local residents do not believe that those targets take adequate account of local knowledge, and we are worried that they will lead to attracting more people with no links to the area simply because of historic demand.

Brigg in particular has had a problem in recent years with illegal encampment. One in West Lindsey in Lincolnshire, which is just outside the local authority area, has managed to acquire planning permission in exactly the way that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) highlighted. Planning permission has been granted for green belt land at the end of a country lane through what I believe is an abuse of the planning system.

That does not mean that we in Brigg do not enjoy good community relations between the settled population and the Travelling community. I am always temperate in my language, because I want to ensure that we continue to maintain those good relations, and that our historic link does not boil over. But the risk of continuing the reality that the planning system works in favour of people in the Gypsy and Traveller community must be addressed, and that means that any assessment of Traveller site needs and demands should include the views of the settled community.

I could say a lot more, but my hon. Friends have said a great deal and I am aware that other hon. Friends want to speak. North Lincolnshire council will respond to the consultation, and it seems that it is distinctly unimpressed by what is being offered. I urge the Minister to look at what we promised during the general election. I want to return to both sides of my communities and tell them that this is about fairness on both sides of the debate.

15:49

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

I shall be brief. Given that we are talking about a devolved issue, the Minister may be forgiven for wondering why somebody who represents a Welsh constituency is taking part in the debate. However, perhaps I can share some experiences of a policy that is a little more advanced. Pembrokeshire has the highest concentration of Gypsy sites anywhere in Wales. Almost without exception, they are well integrated into the local community, and they provide value and valuable jobs. Gypsies are part of the community and welcomed by it. With the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), I have been concerned by the general presumption during the debate that all Gypsies are bad. That is definitely not the case where I come from; we have a long, happy history and relationship with Gypsies.

During the planning process, I hope that the Minister will guard against people contributing to the debate with ongoing prejudice and discriminating against a minority community. Such discrimination leads to all sorts of social difficulties such as kids being bullied at school, people not getting jobs for which they are perfectly qualified, and friends being thrown out of pubs simply because they happen to live on a legitimate Traveller site. I hope the Minister will confirm that such pitfalls will be avoided when the measures for England are set out.

There are, of course, some planning anomalies and difficulties in Wales. There is an ongoing case at Clayford lane near Saundersfoot, and there are some difficulties concerning the definition of a Traveller, what constitutes a Traveller in a legal sense, whether an application for a site has to be in the name of a Traveller, and whether those who may subsequently occupy the site would meet Traveller criteria. That case has resulted in considerable anger on the part of the 60 or more residents in the area. They feel that it is somewhat harder for them to jump through the planning hoops as part of the non-Traveller community than as part of the Traveller community, even though that community includes people who may not even legitimately be part of it. There is no doubt that by making special provision for the Traveller community—albeit for all the right reasons—we have almost by accident created a situation in which we are causing resentment towards a community rather than respect for it, which is the opposite of what we intended. I hope that the Minister will take that into account during the consultation in England.

In short, a balance must be struck between the non-Traveller ratepayer, the legitimate Traveller community that brings—certainly in my constituency—so much value, and the ever-present and often misused and misquoted Human Rights Act that makes up part of the overall mix. Unless we get the balance right, it will not only be bad for the ratepayer, but it will be bad for local authorities that have to deal with the situation. Above all, my main word of caution in the social context is that that will be bad for minority communities which, as we stated in our election manifesto, we seek to respect and welcome where possible.

15:52

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing the debate. Debates about the Travelling community often tend to generate more heat than light, but today we have heard some useful contributions. I did not agree with everything that hon. Members said, but we heard some helpful pointers to a way forward. Anxiety about the issue clearly exists in a number of communities—that is stating the obvious—and it is incumbent on Members to represent the views and concerns of their constituents. I would like to make it clear, however, that the Opposition Communities and Local Government Front-Bench team believe that the law should apply equally to all sections of our community. There should be no special favours for any community, whether the Travelling or the settled community.

With all due respect to the hon. Member for Witham, her criticism of the previous Administration was a little unfair. They did not get everything right, and some criticisms are legitimate, but a good deal of work was undertaken under the previous Labour Government and a considerable number of additional sites were created. The introduction of temporary stop notices made a useful contribution to the whole issue of dealing with the Travelling community. The hon. Lady’s faith in the Localism Bill could be misplaced because it might not secure the outcomes to which she alluded.

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Gentleman reminds me of a point about fairness that I missed out during my contribution but would like to put on record. He talks about fairness, but I can give one example of where the system is not working. We have had an application relating to the village green in Brigg for a considerable period of time. A Traveller family has now moved on to that site and we are unable to progress that application properly because the human rights legislation and planning circulars introduced by the previous Government have prevented us from moving that family on. Where is the balance and fairness to both parts of the community?

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point and gives an example from his constituency. The Government clearly need to look at such situations and find a way forward. Such things no doubt cause considerable anger in the hon. Gentleman’s community, so he is right to put that on record.

I will return to the point that the hon. Member for Witham made about the Localism Bill because I am not convinced that it will secure the outcomes for which she hopes. The proposition is that there will be no regional targets, and it is expected that each local authority throughout the country will determine what is appropriate for its area. Given today’s discussion, there is a recognition among most—if not all—hon. Members that one of the biggest problems relating to Travellers arises due to inadequate numbers of legitimate official sites. If we were able to provide those additional sites, the problems of unauthorised encampments would be somewhat diminished.

If we put the onus to provide Traveller sites on to individual local authorities, they may take the view that there is no need for such a site in their area. We have already had that problem, and I fear that such situations may be exacerbated by the changes brought in by the Localism Bill. Paradoxically, the Bill could lead to an increase in the unauthorised encampments about which the hon. Lady is so concerned.

[Priti Patel]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, under the Localism Bill, giving local residents opportunities and empowering them to make their views heard will be paramount when it comes to taking such decisions? Surely that would end the lack of balance in a system in which the views of local residents are not heard and a disproportionate voice is given to the Travelling community.

[Chris Williamson]

I am not sure that the Travelling community is given a disproportionate voice. Hon. Members have outlined examples of abuses and cases in which sections of that community may have exploited loopholes in human rights legislation. I repeat that we all want to ensure that there is adequate provision for the Travelling community, and fairness for the settled and Travelling communities, and we will achieve that only through a significant increase in numbers of legitimate sites. My fear and worry is that localism legislation may make that more difficult to achieve.

The hon. Lady also mentioned workshops for Travellers and suggested—rather tongue in cheek, I suspect—that there should be workshops on planning laws for the settled community. That is perhaps a bit unfair. We are talking about a minority community that has real difficulties, and the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) pointed to issues such as mortality rates and educational outcomes. It is appropriate and helpful to work with that community and to outline not only its rights, but its responsibilities under planning legislation. That was a positive step by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

[Andrew George]

On the subject of Government proposals, what is particularly encouraging is the proposal that they will provide £50,000 to support training for councillors in how the relevant legislation works and how to ensure that the problems that have been raised today can be settled within local communities.

[Chris Williamson]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that intervention because it was one of the points that I intended to touch on if there was time. There are indeed some helpful proposals in the consultation document, and that one is useful. It is important that councillors are given appropriate training and the wherewithal to deal with what is often a thorny and difficult issue when they are on the front line dealing with these complex problems.

I agreed with the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) about rights and responsibilities but, again, the antidote would be more authorised sites—I keep returning to that point. He was probably being slightly tongue in cheek when he suggested that there was a comparison between homeless people building unauthorised settlements in the countryside and the way in which Travelling communities establish unauthorised encampments. Clearly, that is a silly point, if I may put it that way to him, because where would a homeless family or a homeless individual be able to get the necessary building materials and the wherewithal to construct a house without planning permission in the countryside? That false comparison does not help to take the argument forward.

The hon. Gentleman also commented about dealing with retrospective planning permission. I think that he is suggesting that the Government should consider eliminating the ability for planning authorities to grant retrospective planning approval. Although that might deal with the problem that we are discussing today, if it ever came to pass, it might involve unforeseen, unintended consequences that could be very detrimental to his constituents in the fullness of time.

[Gavin Williamson]

I am listening intently to what the hon. Gentleman is saying and trying to understand the position of Opposition Front Benchers. Do they support the old circular? Do they support the proposed new circular? Do they think that it should be tougher or stronger? I would be interested to hear his views about that.

[Chris Williamson]

We are very clear that there is a need for some improvement in the present situation, which does create difficulties. As I pointed out, the previous Administration took significant steps forward. However, we welcome the consultation exercise in which the present Government are engaged and we will fully co-operate with them when that has concluded. I do not want to state firmly that our position is one thing or another at this stage, because we need to wait for the outcome of the consultation. It would be wrong to prejudge what the outcome will be. It might be that helpful improvements could be made, but I do not want to say that we must stick steadfastly with the existing arrangement, or that we should do x, y or z, until we know the outcome of the consultation.

I probably do not have time to deal with all the other points that were made, but I shall touch on a few. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) referred to the need for stronger enforcement. Yes, of course there should be enforcement, but until we deal with the root cause of why unauthorised encampments are established in the first place, there will probably always be a need to undertake enforcement, however strong it is. There will always be unlawful encampments unless there is an adequate provision of legitimate, authorised encampments for the Travelling community.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I pointed out earlier that the settled community also occasionally tries to do exactly what has been described, and the enforcement goes through quickly and the buildings are knocked down. However, the deviousness with which the planning system is manipulated by the Travelling community in relation to some of the sites in my constituency, where there is a considerable demand from both that community and the settled community, means that it persists beyond what is acceptable.

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point to which the consultation exercise and the Government will need to respond.

I am delighted by the damascene conversion of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) on the importance of the regional spatial strategies, so I hope that the Government will recognise that.

I concurred with the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who made the very helpful comment that not all Travellers are bad. There is sometimes a dangerous tendency for people to misinterpret these debates and to caricature hon. Members as suggesting that everyone in the Travelling community is a rogue and a bad person—clearly that is not the case. I was delighted that the hon. Gentleman made that comment from the other side of the Chamber.

I conclude by reiterating that we await with interest the outcome of the consultation exercise. We will co-operate fully with the Government when the relevant documentation has been published.

16:06

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Weir. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing the debate and thank all hon. Members who participated. Every one made legitimate and significant points, because these are areas of real concern. I thank the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) for the Opposition’s offer of co-operation once the consultation has concluded.

It is important to put the issue in context and say that we are in the process of consulting. I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will understand if I am at pains to ensure that the Government do not at this stage prejudge the consultation. We are consulting because we recognise that there is a problem. I appreciate, from the observations of a number of hon. Members today, that there is a sense of frustration, but I hope that they, too, will accept that, inevitably, the process of legislation cannot be gone through overnight. Some of the measures that the Government are taking to tackle this issue require primary legislation, which is currently in the other place. In addition, it is necessary to consult before we make changes to policy by way of guidance or regulation.

The Government think that it is more important to ensure that we get this right than attempt to rush it. In the past, things have gone wrong. We do not want a situation like the one that sadly we saw occur under the previous Government, in which the number of caravans on unauthorised developments increased from 887 in 1997 to 2,395 in 2010. No doubt the policies then were well-intentioned, but they were not thought through. We are determined to think this through, get it right and make it stick.

[Gavin Williamson]

I commend the Minister’s keenness to ensure that everything is run professionally and well in his Department, but I am curious about why the consultation period has been extended. Twelve weeks is the usual consultation period. Why did the Department feel the need to extend that?

[Robert Neill]

The Department took the view—this is not a unique case—that sometimes it is better to be a little more generous and sensible in consultation than to rush at fences. I am sure that by the time my hon. Friend has been in the House for as long as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), he will understand that, sometimes, taking things at a gentle pace gets a better end result. We want this to work, and the reason why we want it to work was encapsulated in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). It is essential that we have a system that is both fair and workable in the interests of the settled community and of the Traveller community, because it is right to say that the vast majority of Travellers are law-abiding. The majority of Travellers want to live on authorised sites and have social issues that need to be addressed, so it is as much in their interests as anyone else’s that we get something that is fair.

There is a very strong feeling that there is unfairness in the current system, which has caused the Government to take a number of steps to deal with the problem, all of which have been legitimately highlighted by my hon. Friends. Let me make clear what the Government seek to do. I know that time will not permit me to deal with every one of the legitimate points raised by my hon. Friends, but I undertake to write to them setting out some of the specific details for which they have asked.

I start with what the Government are doing, given the background. There is a real problem. There is a genuine sense in the country that the system is not fair and that it works against everyone’s interests. What are the Government seeking to do? First, we are committed to abolishing the regional strategies under the Localism Bill, which clearly requires primary legislation. It is frustrating for many that it should be necessary to take decisions in accordance with existing policies until they are revoked, but that is the law. When dealing with planning casework, Ministers have to act in a quasi-judicial fashion, but we are taking steps to abolish the regional strategies and the targets that go with them.

The Localism Bill also contains the primary legislation necessary to provide stronger enforcement powers to tackle unauthorised development. The Bill also contains important proposals to limit the opportunities for the abuse of retrospective planning permission. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley and others have referred to that important point. We are determined to ensure that retrospective permission is available if there has been a genuine mistake but not in cases of cynical manipulation, in which members of any community may be involved—I have come across cynical developers, too. We are taking steps to deal with that.

[Simon Kirby]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

I shall give way once more, but my hon. Friends will appreciate that I need to make progress in fairness to other Members.

[Simon Kirby]

Does the Minister recommend that the consultation on legislation to deal with squatting should also cover unauthorised encampments? It seems to me that the two are closely linked.

[Robert Neill]

I hope that all who feel strongly on planning and on squatting will take part in the consultation. Indeed, I hope that all who have spoken in this debate, as well as getting their contributions on the record, will take the opportunity within the extended period of consultation to write on behalf of themselves and of their constituents. The Government take the matter seriously.

We have taken measures to ensure that supply problems are sensibly addressed. We have secured £60 million to help councils and other registered providers build new Traveller sites. The new homes bonus will apply to new Traveller sites to incentivise local authorities. We are applying the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to authorised Traveller sites to give Travellers who play by the rules a better sense of security. At the same time, we seek to deal with areas of abuse. We also want to deal with the fact that, at present, it is possible both to seek retrospective planning permission and to appeal against an enforcement notice. By manipulating the two processes, it is possible to extend the time for compliance almost indefinitely. The Localism Bill will remove that option and close that loophole. We are also considering strengthening enforcement powers.

The hon. Member for Derby North referred to the temporary stop notices introduced by the previous Government. They were a step in the right direction, but I know that concerns have been expressed about how effective they are in practice. We need to consider how they operate. It is critical that local planning authorities have implemented proper plans to deal with the needs of their areas. We are giving them the ability to assess what that need is. Hon. Members have spoken about the tests that should be applied, which is precisely what the consultation is for. We want to hear people’s views on the appropriateness of one test or another, and I hope that Members will feed their views into the consultation.

It is a protection for local authorities to have an up-to-date plan in relation to all planning matters, including the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites. Our approach, which involves an assessment of need and of supply over a reasonable period of years, will treat Gypsy and Traveller needs in a way that is much more closely aligned to that for housing generally. That greater symmetry of approach is part of our attempt to secure greater fairness for both sides. A number of steps have already been taken.

I appreciate the useful points that have been made by hon. Members, and I shall write in detail on the constituency points that they raised. I also encourage them to participate in the consultation. Once the consultation is closed, the Government will want carefully to consider the points that have been raised on this significant matter. It is therefore our intention to put in place a replacement circular, if we conclude that that is the best way forward, although one option proposed in the consultation is not to replace it. Once we have come to a conclusion, we intend to move swiftly.

Missing Persons (Cyprus)

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Westminster Hall

16:15

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

This is the first time that I have spoken under your chairmanship, Mr Weir, and I look forward to this afternoon’s debate.

I start by saying what the debate is not about. It is not about the politics of the continued division of Cyprus, nor is it about the rights and wrongs of Turkish troops continuing to occupy part of a European Union member state. It is about the humanitarian issue of families seeking closure on the fate of missing relatives.

It is 37 years, almost to the day, since Turkey invaded Cyprus. Cypriots, both Turkish and Greek, were involved in the fighting. Many were captured and never seen again. Even today, about 1,500 people are still unaccounted for. Young army conscripts of the Cypriot national guard, reservists and civilians, including women and children, are among their number.

Families have a right to know what happened, whether their relatives are dead and, if so, where their graves are to be found. If those people are dead, why cannot the location of their remains be disclosed and their remains returned? What about those imprisoned in Turkey? Could they still be alive after 37 years and still be in prison? If those who were imprisoned in Turkey are dead, where are they buried?

What about the missing children, such as Christaki Georghiou, the brother of Mrs Hatjoullis, a constituent of mine? He was last seen alive at the age of five in 1974 being taken away by a doctor at a hospital controlled by the Turkish army, but the press recently reported that he is still alive. Do the families not have a right to know? How many other children might have been placed with Turkish families and still be alive in mainland Turkey?

The tragedy of missing persons is a humanitarian problem with implications for human rights and international humanitarian law. The Cypriot Government comply with efforts to identify the missing on both sides, and it is time that Turkey followed suit. The organisations involved in locating and identifying the missing should have full access to the archives of all organisations, both civilian and military. To date, Turkey has refused to allow the International Commission on Missing Persons access to military bases. That is despite the commission operating under careful supervision under the auspices of the United Nations.

The right of family members to know the fate of their missing relatives, including their whereabouts and the circumstances and causes of their disappearance, is a humanitarian matter. The obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding a disappearance is required by international human rights law and international humanitarian law. When focusing on the humanitarian dimension of missing persons in armed conflicts, it is necessary to bear in mind that cases of missing persons can sometimes constitute criminal offences, including war crimes or crimes against humanity. Perhaps that is why Turkey is dragging its feet.

States should ensure the effective investigation and prosecution of all human rights violations linked to missing persons. Turkey continues to flout international law. I know that Turkey claims that the Republic of Cyprus is not co-operating, but I do not believe that to be true. Turkey has repeatedly been found in breach of articles 2, 3 and 5 of the European convention on human rights.

In the case of Cyprus v. Turkey 10 May 2001, the European Court of Human Rights examined Turkey’s obligation to protect the right to life under article 2 of the convention, reading it in conjunction with the state’s general duty under article 1 to

“secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the conventions.”

The court confirmed that

“this requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force by agents of the State”.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this extremely important debate. Will he confirm beyond any shadow of doubt that the campaign for missing persons covers both Turkish and Greek Cypriots and that it is not one or the other?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Committee on Missing Persons, which the EU generously funds—that is why its effectiveness should be a matter of grave concern for our Foreign Office—investigates the cases of both Turkish and Greek Cypriots who are missing. It makes no distinction between the two, and it is important to put that on record.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. This issue affects families right across the island. Does he not think that with the right level of commitment and a speedy resolution, massive confidence-building measures could be delivered for the future?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is not specifically about the politics of the negotiations over the reunification of Cyprus. Both sides in that negotiation are looking to build confidence. There could be no better confidence-building measure than the return of the remains of the 1,500 missing people or information on what happened to them.

[Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on acquiring this debate. He has shown by his knowledge of the Cypriot problem and by his advocacy on this matter, which is heard in the House time and time again, how good a representative he is for the area. I have known about the case of the Georgiou boy for many years. As the hon. Gentleman has said, he is just one of many people who are missing, more than 500 of whom are the relatives of British citizens. Will he comment on how difficult it seems to be for the President of Cyprus to obtain regular meetings in the UK with the British Government? For the life of me, I cannot understand why that should be so difficult, particularly because we are a guarantor power and have bases there and because more than 70,000 British citizens live on the island.

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely strong point. It is disappointing that the Foreign Office, in seeking to be even-handed, has forgotten that on this particular issue we cannot be even-handed. We wish to see equal treatment, but we have a duty to British citizens and the descendants of British citizens lost in the conflict. Indeed, the issue also affects hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly), who has apologised for not being able to attend today’s debate, wanted to speak, because his mother lost four cousins in the conflict. I urge the Minister to take the cross-party views very seriously and try to apply further pressure to resolve this matter.

16:23

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:37

On resuming—

[Mike Freer]

I was talking about the decision in the European Court of Human Rights case of Cyprus against Turkey of 10 May 2001. In fact, the Court’s judgment stated:

“The Court cannot but note that the authorities of the respondent State”—

that is, Turkey—

“have never undertaken any investigation into the claims made by the relatives of the missing persons that the latter had disappeared after being detained in circumstances in which there was real cause to fear for their welfare.”

[Sir Alan Meale]

Bearing that in mind and the fact that Cyprus has the presidency of the Council of Ministers, would it not be appropriate to ask the Minister if he would ask—in his good time—for this issue to be pushed back on to the agenda of the Council of Ministers, to give it more force than it has had in recent times?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am sure the Minister heard his intervention and will seek to address that point in his remarks.

I want to return to the role—or lack of—of the Turkish forces. The ECHR judgment continued:

“No attempt was made to identify the names of the persons who were reportedly released from Turkish custody into the hands of Turkish-Cypriot paramilitaries or to inquire into the whereabouts of the places where the bodies were disposed of. It does not appear either that any official inquiry was made into the claim that Greek-Cypriot prisoners were transferred to Turkey.”

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Like others, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing such an important and emotive debate. He mentioned Cypriot prisoners in Turkish prisons. Has he any idea what percentage of the 1,500 could still be in prison in Turkey?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the numbers. There is no definitive answer, because the Turkish will not release that information. It is estimated that between 500 and 800 people were imprisoned in Turkey. The whereabouts and fate of those people remain unknown.

We talked about the Court’s determination of article 1. The Court also concluded that there had been a

“continuing violation of article 2, on account of the failure of the authorities of the respondent state to conduct an effective investigation aimed at clarifying the whereabouts and fate of Greek-Cypriot missing persons who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances.”

I appreciate that hon. Members may think that the use of words in some of these articles—2 and 3; and 5, which I will talk about—constitutes shades of grey. However, it is important in establishing a pattern of behaviour that unfortunately, Turkey is repeatedly failing to comply with those various articles.

In dealing with article 2, the Court stressed at the outset that

“the unacknowledged detention of an individual is a complete negation of the guarantees of liberty and security of the person, that is contained in article 5 of the convention and [is] a most grave violation of that article. Having assumed control over a given individual, it is incumbent on the authorities to account for his or her whereabouts. It is for this reason that article 5 must be seen as requiring the authorities to take effective measures to safeguard against the risk of disappearance and to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into any arguable claim that a person has been taken into custody and not seen since.”

The Court referred to the irrefutable evidence that Greek Cypriots were held by Turkish or Turkish Cypriot forces without keeping appropriate records. From any humanitarian point of view, that failing cannot be excused. Confusion during a conflict is not an excuse. Fighting during a conflict is not an excuse. The absence of information and the deafening silence from Turkey have made it impossible to allay the concerns of the relatives of the missing persons about their fate. There has been no official reaction to new evidence that Greek Cypriot missing persons were taken into Turkish custody. The Court concluded that there has been a continuing violation of article 5, because Turkey has continued to fail to respond or to conduct an effective investigation.

The lack of an investigation by Turkey into the fate of those who went missing has condemned relatives to live in a prolonged state of acute anxiety. Time has not lessened that anxiety, as anyone who has met the relatives can testify. I have many times been to the green line in Cyprus and met relatives, and I can testify to the daily heartbreak that the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters still endure. No one who has visited and walked up to the buffer zone and met the families, with the pictures around their necks, can fail to be moved by the anxiety and stress the relatives continue to endure. The memories remain vivid in the minds of the relatives, and they endure the agony of not knowing whether family members were killed in the conflict or are still in detention, or, if detained, have since died. The families just want to know what has happened; they want to be able to grieve and to lay their relatives to rest.

The provision of such information is the responsibility of the authorities of the respondent state, and that is Turkey. It has been found to be consistently unco-operative. The silence of Turkish authorities has been classified as inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 3. The Court of Human Rights found no indication that the Committee on Missing Persons is going beyond its limited terms of reference. That committee works under very careful supervision.

It is important to stress that the search for information by the relatives of Greek Cypriot missing persons is not partisan. In fact, the Secretary-General of the United Nations said:

“Determining the fate of missing persons occupies an increasingly prominent role in peace-making...and post conflict peace-building. Handled properly, it can build trust and promote reconciliation…The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus has been a model of successful co-operation between the Greek-Cypriot and the Turkish-Cypriot communities.”

This humanitarian issue must be resolved and, although the resolution should not be mired in the political solution, there is inevitably some linkage. If we are to see a re-united Cyprus, both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots have to have trust and faith in each other. If Turkey is to take its place in the EU, it must be seen to be open, transparent and democratic. A transparent return and identification of the missing would be a welcome confidence-building measure. The UK and the EU have significant influence. We contribute handsomely to the work of the Committee on Missing Persons, but Cypriots are EU citizens, and as such, member states have a duty to intervene. We intervene and apply pressure throughout the world; we must do more on our own European doorstep.

Mr Weir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to raise the concerns of many of my constituents. My constituency has a very large Greek Cypriot community, and it has been my privilege to raise its concerns today.

16:46

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

Along with colleagues, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing what I believe is the first specific debate on missing persons. I welcome that important focus. I am sure the Minister has noted the cross-party involvement in the issue, which is of fundamental importance to all Cypriots, British citizens, parliamentarians and all concerned about basic human rights.

I speak as the chair of the British-Cyprus all-party parliamentary group, which will continue to scrutinise the role of the Government in ensuring progress on the issue. Yesterday, the Organisation of Relatives of Missing Cypriots conducted a lobby outside Parliament. It is a lobby with a difference: it is campaigning not on a one-off issue, but on a matter that has been of concern for 37 years or more. These relatives come year in, year out. They remind us that this issue, which we talk about in terms of human rights, is based in humanity. They hang around their necks pictures of loved ones, some of whom we have heard about today. It is important to realise that we are talking about individuals and loved ones who have been lost for many years.

The attention of Cypriots is rightly focused today on those who were lost in the tragic incident at the naval base in Cyprus, when 12 lives were lost and 62 people injured. We take this opportunity to express our condolences and heartfelt concern. The loss of those loved ones this week is just the same as that of those lost all those years ago. It is still as acute for those who lobbied yesterday outside Parliament. We do not want them to be here next year; we do not want them to say that they still do not know where their loved ones are. We want to ensure we have made progress by this time next year, and that they are no longer in agony.

We would all endorse the robust case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green. Those relatives, who are citizens of this country, feel they are ignored. They feel that these basic issues are not taken as seriously as they should be. They do not want to be tolerated with a “see you next year”. They want to ensure that we and the Government are doing what we can in a number of ways. The contribution through the European Union to the CMP is welcome, as is the important bi-communal work that will now make more rapid progress and receive more funding.

As can be heard from across the community, the basic issue is that the CMP is not being given access and information. The state that must be held to account is Turkey. Turkish military bases know the whereabouts of missing individuals. We implore the Government to do all they can in their negotiations and contact with the Turkish Government to ensure proper access and the basic answers that the relatives wish to have. That can be ensured in various ways. This country holds the presidency of the Council of Ministers. That is an important opportunity to hold a debate on missing persons. I invite the Government to consider how it can be done.

It is plain that this basic issue of human rights must be dealt with before progress can be made on European accession. The questions of information and access must be answered. It is also an international obligation. The Minister is responsible for international human rights issues; no doubt he is concerned about such flagrant breaches of human rights, which remain unanswered since May 2001. They must be answered. This is happening on European soil. We would not tolerate a divided island with troops from Turkey on it, and we must not tolerate this, nor park the issue while awaiting the outcome of the negotiations. It is an issue of not only European rights but basic human rights.

The relatives of missing Cypriots were campaigning outside yesterday. We do not want to go back to them next year and say that progress has not been made. Yes, it is the province of Turkey, but our Government must also do all they can to ensure basic justice, truth and reconciliation for the relatives of missing Cypriots.

16:51

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I thank and commend the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for initiating this important debate and giving Members from all parties, as has rightly been said, the opportunity to contribute. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for his contribution. Before I start, I ought to mention the terrible explosion of which he rightly reminded us, which happened in the early hours of Monday morning in Cyprus. We now know that it has led to the loss of 12 lives and to numerous injuries, as well as having a major impact on Cyprus’s infrastructure. The sovereign base areas have offered their assistance to the Government in the form of firefighters, ambulances, helicopters and any other help that might be required. Explosives experts from the bases have visited the site of the explosion, and a large number of SBA personnel have donated blood to the local hospital. I am sure that everybody wishes to send the House’s sympathies to all those involved and to their families.

The issue of the missing people of Cyprus is another tragic subject, and one that continues to affect Cypriots from both communities. Many families still do not know the fate of their loved ones, nor have they been able to bury them. We understand that it is an important and sensitive issue for all Cypriots and recognise that it needs to be resolved. Therefore, the work of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus is of great significance. Since its establishment in April 1981, it has been one of the only institutionalised, bi-communal committees in Cyprus. The work of the 64 Greek and Turkish Cypriot scientists involved in excavations and anthropological analysis is a shining example of co-operation between the two communities on the island. The committee is all the more remarkable, given the sensitivity of the work that it carries out. Its mandate remains to investigate cases of persons reported missing in inter-communal fighting and the events of July 1974 and afterwards. Once remains have been identified, they are handed over to the family, in an emotional moment that requires and receives sensitive and respectful handling.

The committee does not attempt to establish the cause of death or attribute responsibility for the death of missing persons. I appreciate that that limitation has been criticised, but the committee relies on information to carry out its work, and much of that information is provided by members of the public who might not come forward if there were a threat of a criminal investigation. There are legitimate differences of opinion on the matter, but current practices might be the most likely to reach the desirable objective of bringing the situation to a resolution.

The UK fully supports and welcomes the excellent work of the Committee on Missing Persons. Although the UK has no control over its work, I hope the committee will conclude its work only after the cases of all the missing on both sides have been investigated fully. To achieve that, the CMP must be granted access to all areas where it needs to excavate. I urge all those in control of such areas, including the Turkish military, to co-operate fully with the committee and allow it to complete its vital work. Similarly, I encourage anyone with information that might be of use to pass it on to the committee.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe visited the committee’s laboratory during his recent trip to Cyprus and was impressed by the progress being made. He met the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot employees and members of the committee, and it was clear that they work together with confidence. He also discussed the committee’s work with the Elders earlier this year just after their visit to Cyprus in February. To date, there have been 797 exhumations, and 286 remains have been identified. Of those 286, 226 were Greek Cypriots and 60 Turkish Cypriots. However, there is still much work to be done before all the families affected finally have a chance to close, in some manner, this tragic chapter in their lives and that of their island.

[Jim Sheridan]

In the few moments left, will the Minister tell us whether he will make direct representations to the Turkish authorities on behalf of the missing persons?

[Mr Browne]

I have heard the point the hon. Gentleman has made, and I will undertake to see what representations we can make to further the objectives I have just outlined. It is the position of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Government as a whole that we wish to bring the process to a conclusion that will be satisfactory to the families involved.

[Sir Alan Meale]

Perhaps I can help the Minister slightly. He said a few moments ago that he would call on the Turkish authorities in the north of Cyprus and on the Turkish military to give access to all sites that might contain the remains of people who were killed. Perhaps one way is for the Foreign Office to approach the Turkish Government regarding allowing the CMP to access sites on the Turkish mainland, rather than on the island. That might be a way to express our view that the matter should be cleared up.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful for the intervention. I underline again the point that the British Government wish this unhappy period of history to be resolved to the satisfaction of the families involved. In our view, barriers to that resolution ought to be removed. Where there are obstacles to exhumations and proper investigations, we wish to see progress made.

As a sign of our support, the UK has made four donations to the committee in the last seven years, totalling more than £100,000. The United Kingdom also donates to the committee’s annual budget through the European Union and recognises that contribution as both important and necessary. The UK will continue to support the work of the committee. It is an excellent example of bi-communal co-operation on the island, as Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots work side by side in the laboratory and on the sites being excavated.

I express again my gratitude to everybody who has contributed to this debate and make an open offer. If Members wish to raise concerns about the issue, the Minister for Europe, who leads on the subject in the Foreign Office, will be more than happy to receive those representations as the British Government try to play our part in bringing the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Worklessness (Wales)

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Westminster Hall

17:00

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I am pleased to have secured a debate on a pressing issue at an opportune time. Unemployment in Wales, particularly unemployment among young people, is worrying. The valleys, for example, have the highest benefit claimant count not only in Wales, but in the United Kingdom. The report, “Tackling Worklessness in Wales”, by Sheffield Hallam university, is therefore timely, and I commend it to hon. Members. It is makes for interesting reading, and it is condensed in both the introduction and the conclusion for easy reading—for some hon. Members.

Unemployment is only one side of the coin, as the titles of the debate and of the report indicate. Unemployment is in some ways merely a consequence of the lack of a job. That sounds self-evident, of course, but I sometimes get the feeling that some commentators—not all, by any means, on the Government side—see unemployment only as an aspect of a personal failing. Reading the tabloid press, it is sometimes portrayed as an aspect of personal wickedness, but obviously people cannot work if the jobs are not there or if their personal circumstances make it difficult or impossible for them to set up on their own. I left a secure job at a university to set up on my own six years before I was elected as an MP and fell in with a bad lot here. Six years of self-employment taught me a great deal.

There are two themes to my contribution: first, I will discuss the dire unemployment and economic activity figures; and, secondly and significantly, I will examine the need to take robust steps to create work. Sheffield Hallam university estimates that we need 170,000 extra people in work in Wales to bring us up to the standard of the best parts of the UK. That is a huge challenge. I immediately accept that the previous Government took great steps to increase the number of people in work. I know that this Government have that aim, but it is a huge number to reach.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

In the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which just met upstairs, the Secretary of State for Wales could not answer the question posed by the Sheffield Hallam report of where the private sector jobs will come from for the thousands of people coming off incapacity benefit due to the Government’s welfare changes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should slow down and look at the dire consequences of what they are doing?

[Hywel Williams]

I agree with the hon. Lady. The changes in welfare are being brought forward too quickly, but I am also concerned that the work on the other side of the coin—creating jobs for people who will hopefully be leaving the benefits system or unfortunately be moving to lower levels of benefit—is not being prosecuted sufficiently.

Figures were released in the report today, and the situation in Wales is particularly worrying. I hope that referring to only some of them will mean that I am not tediously repetitive, but they make for interesting reading. The total number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants in my constituency is 1,245, and there were 364 jobs available at the jobcentre in the month in which the figures were collected, which is 3.42 claimants per job. If one adds in everyone who is on Department for Work and Pensions benefits, the total figure goes up to 5,590. I share the Government’s ambition of moving people who have been long-term sick or disabled back towards work. I agree entirely with that, because work is good for everyone, but it is a huge challenge just in my constituency.

In the most dire example in Wales—Rhondda—there are 2,315 claimants, which is 28.23 claimants per job, so there are 28 or 29 people chasing every job. I accept that some jobs are not advertised, but are available elsewhere. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) is smiling. Hopefully, I have drawn one of his teeth. I accept that statistics can be misleading, but there are 12,540 DWP benefit recipients, which means 152.93 claimants per job. The challenge is enormous. Incidentally, if, Mr Weir, you were sad enough to have looked at the debate on my ten-minute rule Bill about three weeks ago, you would have seen that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) claimed that the figure is 84 per job. Presumably, he knows his constituency better than I do, and possibly the official statistician, but he says 84 and I say 152.93. The challenge is enormous.

I am afraid that the situation is the same throughout the valleys. For example, Cynon Valley has 122 DWP benefit recipients per job. Interestingly, when one looks at the other side of the coin—where the jobs are—Alyn and Deeside has more than 1,000 jobs posted, so the figure there is 1.55 claimants per job, which is almost a job for everyone who is claiming JSA. That is a good situation to be in, but it stands out in Wales as the exception rather than the rule.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that the situation in Deeside, for example, is indicative of the fact that the manufacturing base there is extremely strong? The Government will emphasise developing the manufacturing sector rather than depending on state-created jobs, as the previous Administration did.

[Hywel Williams]

I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I have long been a supporter of manufacturing, although it is not a prominent sector in large parts of rural Wales. The situation in Alyn and Deeside is helped by the fact that it is immediately adjacent to the Cheshire plain, where there are many jobs, and the huge investment in Airbus. There are lots of reasons, but it is a situation to which some people in the valleys might aspire. Alyn and Deeside has had a lot of Government help to reach that position.

The final column of figures is striking. It shows that there are nearly 72,000 JSA claimants, which is nearly 4.5 claimants per job, and more than 350,000 people on DWP benefits, which is nearly 22 claimants per job. The figures are breathtakingly difficult to cope with for any Government, either here or in Cardiff. The total Jobcentre Plus jobs available in June was a little over 16,000. We are talking about an enormous problem, and I do not envy the Minister or the Welsh Assembly Government, who are of a different political stripe but who have the same sort of aim, their jobs.

Some groups are hit particularly hard, and there is an issue of gender. There are now more women claiming JSA than at any point since the previous Conservative Government were in power in 1996. Across the UK, the number of women claiming JSA rose by 9,300 last month to a 15-year high of 493,000. That shows that there is an issue for women. The figures are expected to worsen, because the coming cuts are to the public sector, where there is a preponderance female employment, so women will be hit harder again. About two thirds of people employed in the public sector in the UK are women, so there is a differential effect.

The cuts come at the same time as a report from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development notes that unemployment will remain high across the UK until 2015. The report was produced by crystal-ball gazers, so one has to take the figures with a pinch of salt, but that is their prediction. A real fact, which I think the hon. Member for Aberconwy has referred to, is that we know that 77,000 Welsh people have been claiming out-of-work benefits for 10 years or more. That is a startling and unhappy fact.

The Government’s welfare reforms are predicated on the assumption that jobs will be there for those who move off higher benefits. Welfare reform was originally partly introduced to encourage more people into work during a period of high unemployment, but it is now one of the more controversial aspects of the Government’s policies. The figures show clearly that the jobs are not available. I will not stray too far down this road but, in passing, there is a real danger that the net effect of job cuts, welfare reform and so on will be to force many people not into work but on to lower benefits.

Of course, the Government hope that the private sector will grow and take up the slack, but unfortunately growth is weak in the Welsh economy. In Wales, the private sector is weak and previous jobs growth in Wales was mainly in the public sector. I do not know whether there is a causal relationship and whether growth in the public sector leads to a weak private sector or the other way around—the private sector is weak and so public sector jobs take up the slack. We are talking about a complicated relationship.

We all agree that we must aim for jobs growth in the private sector. I do not blame the private sector in Wales, because we have to accept that the economy in Wales has been dealt successive blows for many years with the closure of heavy industry and the legacy of long-term illness and disability. As someone who belongs to a party that was in government until recently, I say that we must accept that economic policy in Wales, as conducted by Governments of every party, has not been as successful as we all hoped that it would be.

I hardly need to say therefore that I am in favour of developing the private sector. However, the private sector in Wales is intertwined closely with the public sector, and cuts in the public sector might endanger or even hamper growth in the private sector. The picture is complicated. The Sheffield Hallam university report states:

“The loss of public sector jobs will exacerbate the situation.”

We are looking at a complicated picture. Employment in the public sector is important but, of course, those sorts of jobs are going in the cuts. There might be a double blow to the Welsh economy of fewer public sector jobs and less business for the Welsh private sector.

I have long believed that we need to have better integration between job finding, job placements provided through Jobcentre Plus and the Work programme, and those Welsh Assembly Government Departments that can have a profound effect on people’s ability to take up jobs. I refer hon. Members to my ten-minute rule Bill, which I introduced a few weeks ago but did not get a Second Reading. I do not want to repeat the arguments that I made then, except to say that the Welsh Assembly Government have responsibility for services such as education and training, further and higher education, skills development, health and social services and child care—I could go on—and that a certain synergy could be achieved by better co-ordination with Jobcentre Plus and the Work programme. I have no doubt that those services could be better combined and co-ordinated to enhance jobseekers’ hopes of finding work.

The crux of my argument today is that we need not only to equip and motivate jobseekers better, but to introduce a variety of other policies that will provide jobs. We need a concerted effort at job creation and to provide long-term jobs rather than stop-gap placements that disappear after the target has been reached. That has been a feature of job creation in Wales over the past few years.

[Guto Bebb]

I could not agree more on the issue of creating long-term jobs. One of the sad facts of the situation in Wales is, in the 1990s, we were consistently at the top—or very close to the top—of the United Kingdom regional league table in terms of creating self-employment. In the past five years, we have consistently been in the bottom part of that league table and have, in fact, been in last position. The fact that the Government are introducing the enterprise allowance scheme again is a positive development, because a significant number of businesses in north-west Wales that were founded under the old enterprise allowance scheme still survive.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good and pertinent point. As I said, I am very much in favour of encouraging self-employers, and there are steps that we can take to do so. My entry into self-employment could not have been more disastrous. I left university and tried to claim a bit of benefit, as someone who supposedly knew something about the system, only to find that when I was down in Cardiff job hunting, I should have been at home signing on. I was therefore denied a bit of money that I might have claimed because I was not idle at home; I was out searching for that illusive job.

Other measures for which we in Plaid have argued in the past include a temporary cut in VAT to kick-start the economy. Of course, we recently had a vote on that. The Government parties voted against the proposals and I am afraid to say that the Labour party abstained. Some hon. Members will know that, since 2008, we have campaigned alongside the Federation of Master Builders and others for a specific cut in VAT on repair and renovation. Following last year’s ECOFIN decision, VAT on repair and renovation could go down to 5%. Other countries have followed that path by reducing VAT on labour-intensive industries, and they have had effective results. Many pre-1919 houses are in a particularly dire state and need fixing. That is peculiar to some parts of Wales, particularly the valleys. The work is available and there are, of course, the workers. What we need is a more favourable tax regime to encourage those workers to do the work. The Federation of Master Builders estimates that we could create about 100,000 jobs.

[Guto Bebb]

rose—

[Hywel Williams]

I will give way once more, but I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Guto Bebb]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I concur with the comments that have been made? As a Member for an area that is very dependent on tourism, I have also heard the argument for a reduction in VAT for the tourism sector. Any Government who want to create enterprise and employment should look carefully at using the tax system to do that although, obviously, that has to be put in place once we have the public finances in order.

[Hywel Williams]

That is a moot point. I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but when VAT on construction services was reduced in Italy, a large number of people who were working cash in hand realised that becoming legal and paying a lower rate of VAT was worth while. Allegedly, the tax take went up, so given the Government’s current situation, it might be useful to consider that. I have not seen the operation of the famous Laffer curve being proven in such a way before but, allegedly, that was the case in Italy at least.

The 100,000 jobs that it is estimated that such an approach could create would be local, but there is also a strong equality case in favour of the policy. I put this question rhetorically rather than to the Minister: why should a young couple pay more for renovating their terraced house when a banker who retired early with a big pension pot does not pay VAT on his newly built ranch-style property in the south-east? I had to get that one in. There is an equality issue, and lots of young people are trying to renovate their houses, so the proposal would be a great help to them.

Lastly, as I realise that time is moving on, we also need to boost self-employment. I agree with the FSB, which estimates that the self-employed contribute £21 billion to the UK economy every year. It argues persuasively that self-employment is a key driver to achieving economic growth. That is particularly the case in Wales, as self-employment is a feature of much of rural Wales.

I agree with the hon. Member for Aberconwy when he argues for enterprise zones, particularly enterprise zones themed around certain types of activity. The only thing I worry about is that if we have enterprise zones throughout the UK—not just in Wales—they will not act as an incentive hub for a wider economic picture. In some places in the early 1980s, jobs were poached from other areas and the net effect was less than one had hoped for because, rather than creating new jobs, companies moved in to benefit from the improved climate within the enterprise zones. That is a particular worry. I understand that the Government intend to have such an enterprise zone somewhere in the north-west. I am not sure what is going to happen, but I will certainly keep an interest in the matter.

Irrespective of welfare reform, we need in Wales to boost the private sector, to equip our workers and workless people better, and to improve the integration of services to ensure that there are jobs for our people and prosperity for our country. We need a work creation programme—that is the missing part of the jigsaw. If that sounds a bit like the case for a future jobs funds 2, so be it, particularly if that is aimed at those who are inevitably at the end of the queue when jobs are being handed out—the long-term unemployed, and those incapacitated by illness or long-term disability.

17:20

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on securing the debate. I will have to respond to him relatively briefly because I think I have only nine minutes in which to speak.

The hon. Gentleman made his points extensively and thoughtfully, but I do not recognise the degree of bleakness in the picture that he portrays. I recognise that unemployment remains a major challenge for us around the country—it is one of the most difficult parts of our inheritance. I accept that a number of areas of Wales, like a number of areas of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, are affected by deep-rooted problems of worklessness. However, Wales has been one of the brighter spots in the labour market in recent times.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the private sector. In Wales in the past 12 months, the truth is that 31,000 net new jobs have been created. In reality, that represents a higher number of jobs in the private sector because the figure also takes into account job losses in the public sector. In the past year, Wales has proved that it is possible to grow private sector employment. Unemployment in Wales has fallen by 16,000. He asked where the jobs would come from. The truth is that in Jobcentre Plus in the past three months, nearly 48,000 vacancies have been taken in across Wales.

The total number of people on jobseeker’s allowance in Wales as a whole is 71,600. While I recognise that we have a challenge, and I particularly accept that we have a challenge in individual areas of Wales, the picture is not as bleak as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I certainly do not think that it is as bleak as is portrayed by the Sheffield Hallam research, which argues that, in the valleys alone, 70,000 more jobs would be needed. As the total JSA count for the whole of Wales is 71,000, I would have to say that its view is on the pessimistic side.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) is also right—to say that we really need to support the growth of self-employment in Wales. A central part of the task of encouraging and fostering economic and employment growth in Wales is supporting the self-employed. That is why I am committed to the success of the new enterprise allowance in Wales, which will help people off benefits and into self-employment, and it is why I hope that the new Administration in Cardiff will make self-employment a particular focus of its work with business.

If I was replying to a debate about an English region, I would be setting out a number of other areas in which the Government are taking steps to try and deal with the unemployment and worklessness challenge, including through apprenticeships, which are an essential part of our strategy. Particularly for the young unemployed, apprenticeships are a much more cost-effective way of delivering support and opportunity than the extremely expensive future jobs fund, which provided six-month placements in public and voluntary sector organisations at a time when the best job opportunities were arising in the private sector. The cost of that scheme was three to four times more than even the new deal for young people under the previous Government. The scheme was not affordable and did not deliver clearly improved results on either value or outcomes in comparison with other schemes. Investment in apprenticeships delivers a much better alternative, so I hope that the new Administration in Cardiff will pursue that route.

It is also important that the new Administration in Cardiff do a good job on economic development. If we were talking about another part of the UK, I would be talking to the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the regional growth fund to invest in manufacturing, and research and development facilities, in those areas of the country that have lower levels of private sector employment and bigger employment challenges. Again, I hope that the new Administration in Cardiff will take the lead set by the coalition Government in Westminster to set up a similar mechanism to the regional growth fund to invest in precisely the kind of opportunities that he rightly says that Wales needs.

We are taking clear steps to try and deal with the issue of worklessness in Wales. Alongside the introduction of the new enterprise allowance, that is being done through two particular schemes. The first is our work experience scheme, which is designed to address the challenge that young people face to get a first foothold in the workplace. All too often, they face the challenge of not having the experience to get a job, and not being able to get such experience without a job. One thing I learned quickly on becoming a Minister was that the previous Government’s rules said that if people did more than two weeks’ work experience, they lost their benefits. That was crazy. We have now changed that rule and it is possible to do up to eight weeks on benefits while doing work experience.

In addition, we have turned the whole system on its head and are now actively looking for work experience opportunities for young people across England, Scotland and Wales in an approach that will give young people an opportunity to gain initial experience in the workplace and show potential employers what they can do. I hope that that will prove to be a route into apprenticeships. Again, I hope that the Government in Cardiff will work with us to ensure that there is a clear link between the work experience opportunities for which we are looking through Jobcentre Plus, those first few weeks in the workplace, and an opportunity for those young people to move into an apprenticeship.

The other part of our strategy to help the long-term unemployed is the Work programme, which is now operating throughout the whole country. In Wales, we have two providers: Working Links and Rehab Group. Rehab Group is one of our two part-voluntary sector prime contractor groups. Alongside those two prime contractors, there is a network of different organisations around Wales helping to provide specialist support for the long-term unemployed. What makes the Work programme different is that it is all about delivering much more personalised and tailored support to the long-term unemployed and those who are moving off incapacity benefit.

I would take another issue with the Sheffield Hallam report. As a result of the changes we are making to incapacity benefit, no one will lose benefits except those who are currently in receipt of contributory employment and support allowance, which will be time-limited, and those who have other financial means. If people do not have an alternative form of support, they are not suddenly going to be cast on to the streets, but that is a point about which the report gives a slightly misleading impression.

I describe the Work programme as a giant employment dating service. It is about matching individuals to the right job opportunity, and a job opportunity in which they are likely to stay. It is important to the providers that they deliver because we do not pay them unless they get people into sustained long-term employment. They cannot earn their full fees for a conventional jobseeker for 18 months after that person has entered work, so if someone ends up in the wrong job and is likely to drop out, the provider will inevitably lose out financially. The providers therefore have every incentive to ensure that they match individuals to the right job opportunity in which they have the best chance of staying.

The Work programme will deliver a much better support than has previously been the case. It unleashes best practice. It will succeed the most if it delivers what works the best. There are no diktats from Whitehall—no instructions about how to do this—because it is all about delivering what works for individuals. I am confident that the Work programme will take back-to-work support to a new level and help many of those people who are trapped in pockets of long-term unemployment in Wales to find and move into opportunities that arise.

I am confident that we will see economic growth across the country. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting significant growth in private sector employment in the next few years, and that has already been happening in Wales. The key is to ensure—this was not happening under the schemes that we inherited from the previous Government—that those who are trapped on JSA and other benefits have, when possible, the opportunity to take advantage of vacancies when they arrive. Our reforms are all about making work pay, supporting people into work and trying to create an environment across the UK in which business can flourish, grow and develop. In Wales, with the additional contributions that I hope will come from Cardiff to work with us on economic development and creating opportunities for business to grow and develop, I hope that that will provide a solution to the very real challenges of worklessness in Wales that the hon. Gentleman rightly identified.

Question put and agreed to.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.