House of Commons

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

Thursday 8 September 2011

The House met at half-past Ten o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport was asked—

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

1. What estimate he has made of the level of revenue and capital funding for sports projects in Nottinghamshire in 2011-12; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

Before answering, on behalf of the whole House may I congratulate the England and Wales cricket team on becoming the No. 1 test playing nation in the world? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That was a popular one. I also congratulate our rowing and athletics squads on winning 14 and 17[Official Report, 12 September 2011, Vol. 532, c. 5-6MC.] medals respectively at their world championships last weekend, and William Fox-Pitt on a record sixth victory at the Burghley horse trials.

The figures for the 2011-12 funding period are not yet available, but I am pleased to report that Nu2Sport, in conjunction with the university of Nottingham, Nottingham Trent university and Sport Nottinghamshire, secured a grant of just under £250,000 in national lottery funding from Sport England to help more students participate in sport. Nottingham will also benefit from funding invested throughout the country by the national governing bodies of sport. I will write to the hon. Gentleman once the full figures are available.

[Mr Allen]

We hear a lot about the legacy of the Olympics. Can the Minister reconcile talking up the legacy of the Olympics with the whole sport plans, which will at the same time reduce expenditure across 46 sports by about £70 million, including in deprived constituencies such as mine? Will he look again at the future funding to maintain what we do at the Olympic level?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, certainly. I would need to look at the figure that the hon. Gentleman has produced and understand how he has got to it. One thing that we have used the increase in lottery funding to do is to preserve funding through the whole sport plans. I need to understand exactly what is behind his figure. We have also produced Places People Play, which includes the iconic and inspired facility funds that are designed specifically to invest in facilities to draw more people into sport. I hope that any clubs in his constituency that are affected will apply to those funds, but I will certainly look at his figures.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to promote women’s football.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

I spoke at the launch of the Football Association’s new women’s super league in April. In June, I attended a reception at Downing street for the England women’s team ahead of the World cup in Germany. At the junior level, we made strong representations to the FA to increase the age at which girls can play in mixed teams from 11 to 13. I am delighted that that will happen from next year.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating all the teams, especially my own team, Lincoln Ladies, on the successful first season of the FA WSL? Lincoln Ladies’ attendance rose on average by more than 400% compared with the previous year. Does he agree that the first season laid an excellent marker for future seasons and that it highlights the continuing growth of the women’s game in Lincoln and throughout England?

[Hugh Robertson]

Of course I do. My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that I had the opportunity to meet a number of the Lincoln Ladies players during a visit to the city on 14 June. There is no doubt that the new league has been a fantastic success and I hope it will be a great driver of more women playing football.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Will the Minister raise with the FA its girls’ talent development programme, which has meant that my constituent, Jaime Gotch, who used to go to the Watford centre, is now left without any support for her very talented football career?

[Hugh Robertson]

I certainly will. I visited the Watford centre before the election when I was in opposition.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

It’s closed.

[Hugh Robertson]

I know; that was my point. If the hon. Lady wishes to write to me or directly to the FA, I will see what we can do to help.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Women and girl’s football is a growing sport and is one of the fastest growing sports among girls. As I am sure the Minister is aware, it is enormously important to have women in coaching and being trained as coaches. What is being done to get more women into coaching?

[Hugh Robertson]

I am glad to say that there is a very simple answer to that question: the development of St George’s Park, the FA’s new centre of excellence in the midlands. Its specific remit is to drive up the number of coaches, both male and female, across the community game. Many football writers, who have been urging this for a long time, think that it will be the single biggest seminal change to English football over the next decade. I hope that it will make a huge contribution to sorting out this situation.

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

3. Whether he has had discussions with (a) the BBC Trust and (b) Ministers in the Scottish Government about the broadcasting rights for the 2014 Commonwealth games.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We have had no discussions with the BBC Trust or Ministers in the Scottish Government on this issue, which is a matter for the rights holders and broadcasters, but we welcome the recent announcement that the games will be broadcast on BBC television.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am obviously disappointed that the Government do not think it important that the BBC lives up to its responsibilities to all nations and regions and acts as the host broadcaster. Will he explain why he has had no such meetings? Does he not accept that we are losing millions of pounds of training opportunities through the Government’s failure to act?

[Mr Vaizey]

The BBC does not always act as host broadcaster for the sports events that it covers. As I say, given that the BBC is covering the Commonwealth games, I am not sure what the issue is.

[Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

4. What recent progress his Department has made on implementing the recommendations of the Shott review into local television; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

8. What recent progress his Department has made on the development of local television.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

Last month I announced that 65 locations in the country could be pioneer locations for a new generation of local TV services, and we will be laying three orders before Parliament before Christmas to make that happen.

[Mr Brine]

I thank the Secretary of State for his reply and for driving forward local TV with such belief; that is all credit to him. May I draw his attention to a bid for a local TV licence that is being put together in my constituency, which places the media and journalist facility at the university of Winchester and Southampton Solent university in Southampton at its heart? Does he agree that if local TV is to work this time around, and the next generation of Dimblebys is to be found, we must draw on the technical expertise within our universities and the students and what they have to offer?

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He of course knows about this as a former journalist. Those at universities have been among the most enthusiastic people about local TV, not least at Birmingham City university, which has hosted two events on local TV in the past year. The reason is that they see this as an opportunity to found a new sector in the creative industries, which employ more than 50,000 people in the United States. That makes the opposition of the Labour party all the more extraordinary.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hunt]

But the shadow Secretary of State wrote to me in July saying that this was a waste of ministerial time. I hope that he might review that position, because this is a big opportunity for jobs.

[Mr Hanson]

May I give the Secretary of State half a cheer for his proposals? The town of Mold in my constituency has been chosen as a potential hub, but it is the same town where a BBC TV and radio studio has closed, in part because of financial pressures. What guarantees can he give that the capital and revenue streams will be there to develop that network of local television services, and that any advertising will not diminish the ability of local print media to have such advertising and make them viable as well?

[Mr Hunt]

All the evidence from other countries shows that having local TV stations actually grows the local advertising markets. I am sure that the Flintshire Chronicle and The Leader will continue to thrive in Mold. I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman appearing on Mold TV, but for reasons of consistency we expect the shadow Culture Secretary to boycott his own local TV station.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Channel 7, a local TV station based in Immingham in my constituency, is, I believe, the sole surviving local station from the initial batch, and it has been a success due to forging its partnerships with institutions such as the Grimsby institute of further and higher education. People at Channel 7 have asked me to convey an invitation to one of the ministerial team to visit them and benefit from the success they have had. May I pass that invitation on and look forward to a visit?

[Mr Hunt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that enticing offer. I travelled to Birmingham and Manchester, and tomorrow I am going to Belfast and Glasgow. I will certainly see whether I can put his constituency on the list as well.

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

In response to the Secretary of State’s plans for local TV in Wales, a senior BBC source was quoted in The Western Mail as saying that he is

“an advertisement for the devolution of every aspect of broadcasting policy to Wales without exception”.

Will he unburden himself and agree to such a sensible proposal?

[Mr Hunt]

Very unusually, this is an issue on which I find myself in disagreement with the BBC. I want to encourage local broadcasting, of course, but broadcasting should remain an issue for the national Government at Westminster.

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

5. What estimate he has made of the likely change in the level of participation in sport as a result of the London 2012 Olympics.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

Over the past year, we have increased the share of lottery funding for sport across the United Kingdom and invested £135 million in a mass participation legacy programme and more than £100 million to increase competitive sport through the school games. Increasing participation will be a challenge, and it is one that no previous host city has achieved, but it is our aim to deliver on the pledges made at the time of the bid.

[Mr Dodds]

I welcome what the Minister has said. I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State is going to Belfast tomorrow; I am sure that he will be warmly welcomed there. I hope that he has discussions, along with his colleagues, on the issue of increasing participation in sport across the regions and in Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if he could say what discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive specifically on increasing participation in Northern Ireland in sport as a result of the Olympics.

[Hugh Robertson]

I am delighted to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I visited Belfast on 9 March. I visited the university of Belfast and Sport Northern Ireland and saw a number of participation schemes that I thought were being well run and had every chance of increasing participation across the Province. Indeed, it is the first time that I have been there since I was a soldier 20 years previously, and the change in the whole place was remarkable. He absolutely has that commitment and I will do everything possible to help.

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

Does the Minister agree that in increasing participation in sport post-2012, it is essential that we protect our playing fields?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, I absolutely do, and there is now a really effective triple lock on playing fields: all planning applications have to go before Sport England; under the Localism Bill people will have the opportunity to designate playing fields as local community facilities; and there is now a specific fund, administered by Sport England, for the improvement of local playing fields.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that no one measure can increase participation in sport. Does he accept that what has happened in London, and the leadership shown by the Mayor of London in ensuring that money gets down to the grass roots, is crucial? If we really want to increase participation, we all have to work together in partnership across the whole of sport.

[Hugh Robertson]

I could not agree more, and I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she has done in London to bring that about. London is an extremely good example of what can be done at community level to meet the policies coming down from Government. Without real inspiration in different areas to meet different needs, we will not achieve that.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Let me add my congratulations to the sports teams and British sportsmen and women whom the Minister listed earlier.

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the decision by his colleagues to withdraw the funding for school sport partnerships, which have led to more than 90% of children doing at least two hours a week of sport in school, compared with less than 25% eight years ago? Is it not the case that sports facilities across the country are being closed, that fees and charges are being increased and that, despite the Olympics, the risk is that the outcome of his Government’s decisions will be fewer youngsters and adults taking part in sport across the UK?

[Hugh Robertson]

Let me say at the outset that the reason why the funding decisions were taken was to tackle the deficit, which would have had to happen whoever was in power. There is a political argument about the scale and speed of it, but the fact is that there would have been cuts under any Government. To mitigate that, we have increased the amount of money that sport gets through the lottery and put in place a specific mass participation programme under Sport England. I have been watching the matter very carefully, and there is as yet—I do not say it will not happen—no evidence that there are mass closures across the country. There is a dichotomy between local authorities that hold facilities in leisure trusts, which are not affected, and those that hold them directly, where they are under threat. We will watch the situation closely.

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

6. If he will attend the Brighton digital festival in September 2011.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Very sadly, neither the Secretary of State nor I will be able to attend the festival this month. I must say, it looks absolutely fantastic and we wish it well, and I am delighted that the Arts Council is giving it £50,000.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am disappointed that the Minister cannot make the festival this time, and I hope very much that he will next year. Will he give a boost to the city’s growing digital sector by using his good offices and those of other Ministers to support a move towards all public sector contracts of less than £100,000 being given to small and medium-sized enterprises, and larger public sector contracts being broken down so that SMEs, particularly in the digital sector, have a much better chance of getting them?

[Mr Vaizey]

If I am still in this job, I will certainly try to attend next year—and even if I am not, I will try to attend. I will be in Brighton at the beginning of October for the Museums Association conference, at which the hon. Lady is the keynote speaker. I heartily endorse what she says, because we must do all we can to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises can get Government contracts.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

7. When he plans to publish the UK high-speed broadband balanced scorecard.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

We published our initial proposals for a broadband scorecard just before Christmas. We are absolutely committed to having an objective way of measuring how to get the best superfast broadband network in Europe, and we will continue work to ensure that we can do that.

[Stephen Timms]

But the right hon. Gentleman did say, I think, that the scorecard would be published in the summer, and we have not seen it yet. Will it cover progress towards universal broadband as well as high-speed broadband? It has been reported that the 4G spectrum auctions, which should have taken place early this year, are now going to be delayed further beyond their revised date of the beginning of next year. Is that correct, and is he dismayed, as many of us are, by what looks like a yet further delay?

[Mr Hunt]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, as a former broadband Minister, will know that we have committed ourselves to universal broadband coverage, which will be one of the things measured in the broadband scorecard. However, before he criticises this Government’s progress he should show a little humility. He might like to know that the first thing that broadband officials told me was that the amount of money that had been allocated for universal broadband roll-out was half what was necessary.

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

Does the Secretary of State recognise the strength of feeling that exists for a 98% coverage clause in the 4G auction that is to come? Will he urge the mobile operators to think long and hard before launching any legal challenge that would merely delay the process and affect the economy?

[Mr Hunt]

I am very keen to get on with this auction, because it is clear that the high-speed broadband revolution that we need must also be a mobile revolution—we must assume that most people will access the internet through mobile devices going forward. We are looking very carefully at the possibility of increasing the coverage requirement to 97% and will await Ofcom’s findings, which we expect shortly.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with television distribution companies on the variation of digital transmitter sites across the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I meet the main parties of the digital switchover programme regularly to review progress. The distribution of digital transmitter sites is part of the digital TV switchover process, which is progressing well and is on track.

[Gemma Doyle]

I thank the Minister for his correspondence with me on this matter, but the fact remains that following the digital switchover, my constituents who receive their television signal from the Milburn Muir transmitter get an inferior TV service. Will he please commit to looking at ways to incentivise companies to provide an equitable service? Alternatively, will he consider a grant scheme for my constituents, who would have to fork out something in the region of £200 to get the same service?

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Lady and I have been in extensive correspondence on this issue, and she is a formidable advocate for her constituents. I hope she will come to the video relay service conference on 15 September. Perhaps we could talk about this issue there and arrange a meeting to discuss it further.

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

I am looking forward to switching from having four channels to having 15 channels to view in two months’ time, when the Tacolneston transmitter switches over. One thing that concerns me, however, is that ITV3 will not be available on the relay transmitter from Aldeburgh, which is a great shame. Licence fee payers should be the ones who choose the channels they receive if they are not to have the full range of services.

[Mr Vaizey]

I am afraid that about 10% of the population does not get the full range of services, but the core 15 channels. As I have said, that is a commercial issue for the people who operate the transmitters in this country. That issue certainly concerns some Members of Parliament, and if my hon. Friend wishes to join the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and me for a meeting to discuss this further, I would be happy for her to do so.

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

10. What recent progress his Department has made in delivering broadband to rural communities.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

16. What steps he is taking to improve broadband provision for rural communities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

In August, I announced indicative funding for all parts of the UK for our ambition to have not just universal 2 megabit coverage, but 90% coverage of superfast broadband.

[Julian Smith]

North Yorkshire is grateful for the Secretary of State’s Department’s support, and we are getting on with our project, but may I press him further on the 4G auction? It seems that the auction is a Treasury as much as an Ofcom issue, and I would be grateful for any update on any discussions that he is having with the Treasury. I believe that we must nail that issue for north Yorkshire to get the broadband that it needs.

[Mr Hunt]

I should first like to congratulate my hon. Friend, because north Yorkshire and Cumbria are two of the regions of the UK that have made most progress—they have pretty much moved to tender stage on the 90% superfast broadband ambition. I have a lot of sympathy with his view on coverage, and we are having many discussions inside the Government about how best to handle that. That matters because on all the projections that we see at the moment, the amount of mobile internet data will triple every year, and over the next four years we expect it to increase twenty-sixfold.

[Mike Crockart]

The unfortunate truth is that many rural areas, including Kirkliston, South Queensferry and Ratho in my constituency, are still crippled by poor broadband services, with speeds significantly lower than the 2 megabits per second minimum target. Will the Secretary of State update the House on any discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on matching the £68.8 million investment recently announced by his Department?

[Mr Hunt]

We had what can best be described as a rather curmudgeonly response from the Scottish Government about our broadband allocation. That is not a total surprise, but given that the amount of money allocated to Scotland took account of the additional costs of rolling out broadband in sparsely populated rural areas, and that the amount was much greater than it would have been under the Barnett formula, we were expecting a little more enthusiasm. However, now the challenge is on for the Scottish Government to match what the UK Government have contributed, and to ensure that we deliver universal broadband access to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and 90% superfast broadband access as well.

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

I accept that the Secretary of State has gone some way to providing resources, including to the Scottish Government, but does he agree that to ensure universal broadband coverage some of the most rural communities will require access to affordable satellite broadband? Will he consider bringing forward some of the unallocated money currently in his budget to operate a pilot project in Scotland—in conjunction, I hope, with the Scottish Government—on that very issue?

[Mr Hunt]

I am a localist. That is why our broadband strategy does not prescribe how local authorities and devolved Administrations meet their targets. However, we have calculated the costs and provided half the money, and we expect them to match-fund. I am pleased to say therefore that in all the areas on which we have had discussions so far there has been a willingness to provide that match funding. If satellite is the right solution in Scotland, we will support that, but we want to leave it to the Scottish Government to come up with the right solution.

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

11. What plans he has for the future of public service broadcasting.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We are considering the future of public service broadcasting as part of the Government’s communications review.

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether the Minister is a physics graduate, like I am, but does he expect a slimmed-down BBC to maintain excellent science programmes, such as those presented by Professor Brian Cox, which have been credited in part for the 20% increase in the number of students taking physics A-levels?

[Mr Vaizey]

It is not for me to tell the BBC what programmes it should make, but I know that Brian Cox’s programmes, which I have seen, have been enormously successful. The BBC’s power to make a difference in this area is significant, and I hope now that it will find a charismatic presenter for a history of computer science, so that we can increase interest in computer science education.

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

Does the Minister remember when, two years ago at the Edinburgh festival, James Murdoch said that he wanted Sky to replace the BBC as the most trusted broadcaster? He might well recall that. Given the events of the recent weeks and months, can this ministerial team and Government start embracing and supporting the BBC, both at home and abroad, as so many viewers in my constituency do by listening to it?

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Edinburgh festival, which reminds me that I should have said how pleased all the festival organisers were with the extensive coverage that the BBC gave them. They were full of praise for it. May I also take this opportunity to praise BBC Radio Oxford, which I praised last night in the House and which incorporated my remarks in its breakfast programme jingle this morning?

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

On public service broadcasting, will my hon. Friend condemn the decision by the BBC to stop broadcasting the Israel Philharmonic orchestra at the Proms? Will he also take this opportunity to condemn those extremists who disrupted the Proms and attacked the orchestra?

[Mr Vaizey]

I was present at the Israel Philharmonic orchestra’s performance at the Proms. It was an occasion when one realised how wonderful the Proms and the promenaders are. It is salutary to remember that even in 1968, when the orchestra from the USSR was playing at the Proms and the USSR had invaded Czechoslovakia, the music was not disrupted. There should be a separation between art and politics, particularly in this case given the astonishing history of the Israel Philharmonic orchestra, which saved so many Jews from death at the hands of their Nazi oppressors.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

What representations has the Minister received from Scottish Ministers about setting up a Scottish digital channel, and what resources and support does his Department intend to give to this fantastic cross-party initiative?

[Mr Vaizey]

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Scottish digital network, I discussed the matter with the Scottish Culture Minister at the Edinburgh festival. I know that she is a strong advocate for it. However, I also know that our plans for local television are as exciting for Scotland as they are for England.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

12. What recent representations he has received on the implications for the broadcasting sector of the decision by News Corporation not to proceed with its proposed acquisition of BSkyB.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

It will not surprise the House to know that I received a number of representations over the News Corp BSkyB bid during its progress and considered them all carefully.

[Alex Cunningham]

Does the Secretary of State now agree with the Opposition that one of the lessons of the phone hacking scandal and the attempted takeover of BSkyB is that new, tougher cross-media ownership laws are required in this country and that no one media organisation should have such a concentration of power again?

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to look carefully at cross-media ownership laws. I agree with him as well that this needs to be done on a cross-media basis; it is not about the dominance of any individual platform any more. We also need to look at whether the merger rules for media takeovers work as effectively as they might. We will listen very carefully to the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson before taking action.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

Let me say to the Secretary of State that I may have included the words “Ministers” and “waste of time” in the same sentence, but not in the context of local television. I appeared on Channel M, the example of my local TV station, but the project ended in tears because it was simply not viable.

Throughout the BSkyB process, the Secretary of State maintained that he could consider only plurality and that allegations about phone hacking and other illegal practices were not covered by the relevant legislation. Is he now willing to work with me and the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) to introduce amendments to the current legislation on an all-party basis to include a wider public interest test and to allow regulators to apply a “fit and proper person” test? That would close loopholes in advance of the longer-term reform of media ownership that will come as a result of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. Is the Secretary of State willing to work with me and the right hon. Gentleman on an all-party basis to bring forward those amendments?

[Mr Hunt]

Of course I will listen to all representations made, but I do not think that the shadow Culture Secretary quite understands the way the law works. If the bid were re-presented, under the Enterprise Act 2002 it would count as a new bid and, as Secretary of State, I would have the power to refer it to Ofcom on the basis of broadcasting standards, media plurality or, indeed, national security, so safeguards exist. However, if what the hon. Gentleman is really trying to say is that Rupert Murdoch and his children are evil and must be stopped at all costs, just wait until he sees “The Godfather”.

[Mr Lewis]

I think the Secretary of State should speak for himself on those issues. It is absolutely clear that if there were to be a new bid, the only basis on which he could consider it would be plurality and broadcasting standards. He could not ask regulators to look at the wider public interest, nor could he insist that they apply a “fit and proper person” test. That is why we urgently need action now.

Let me turn quickly to a related issue. Can the Secretary of State clear up once and for all whether he discussed News Corp’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB with the Prime Minister at any stage during the quasi-judicial process? To be clear: I am not asking whether he consulted the Prime Minister on any decision that he had to make, but whether they discussed it during that period.

[Mr Hunt]

As I have told the shadow Culture Secretary, the decision was mine and mine alone, and I did not consult the Prime Minister about that decision. Not only that, but I consulted Ofcom and got independent advice, which I followed. However, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that he still does not appreciate that section 3 of the Communications Act 2003, which was passed by his Government, gives Ofcom the duty to ensure that all holders of broadcast licences are fit and proper at all times and the duty to remove them at any time, so these powers exist. We want to strengthen them in specific areas, and we are working hard to ensure that we make the right changes to avoid what happened before happening again.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

13. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Government’s policy on human trafficking in respect of major sporting events.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

Regular Olympic briefings take place between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, me, Home Office Ministers and the Olympic intelligence centre to discuss threats to the games, including human trafficking. Although there is currently no evidence of an increase in human trafficking linked to the games, the Government are aware of the threat, which is real, and will remain vigilant.

[Mr Bone]

I thank the Minister for that full response. The danger of modern-day slavery at the Olympics is great. I appreciate that the Government have recognised that in their new strategy on human trafficking, which talks about the intelligence leading up to the games, but can he tell us a little more about how that works?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, of course I can. We have a bespoke Olympics intelligence centre, which looks specifically at intelligence leads surrounding information of all sorts feeding into the Olympics. As my hon. Friend correctly says, there is evidence that hosting world-class sports competitions can, in certain circumstances, lead to an increase in human trafficking. As yet there is no hard evidence that that is happening, but the threat remains and we will remain vigilant.

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

Just to remind the House, today is Paralympics day—a day of celebration up in Trafalgar square of the extraordinary achievements of Paralympians and of achievements to come.

The Minister will have seen the March 2010 report published by London Councils which examined the potential impact of the games on trafficking. I know that he shares my long-standing concern that the games should be safe for women and that London should be a no-go area for evil exploitation by traffickers. The London Councils report suggested that there was a particular risk that the number of Roma people trafficked for begging would increase. Have there been discussions with the Romanian Government and others to ensure that this risk does not materialise?

[Hugh Robertson]

That is a good question. I have not myself had discussions with the Romanian Government because the information I receive is channelled through the Olympic intelligence centre. I can give the right hon. Lady my absolute assurance—I believe she will get a security briefing within the next couple of weeks, so she will have the opportunity to ask that question herself—that I, too, will ask that specific question. As I say, there is no hard evidence to date that anything of this sort is occurring. As I said earlier, the threat is there and we will remain vigilant.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

14. What recent representations he has received on broadcasting rights for Formula 1 races.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

I regularly receive representations on sports broadcasting—I doubt whether that will surprise anybody—including on Formula 1 races.

[Gavin Shuker]

The whole House will be aware that Formula 1 and motor sport more generally in this country is a multi-billion pound industry, with household names such as Jenson Button, Lewis Hamilton, Paul di Resta, McLaren-Mercedes and Red Bull effectively becoming great British brands. Following the shameful decision of the BBC to sell out to Sky, may I ask what the Minister will do to protect this industry so that it is not sold out in the same way that the many fans who will have poor-quality coverage for the next decade are being sold out?

[Hugh Robertson]

The decisions taken by the BBC about how to spend its own sports budget are, of course, matters for the BBC alone. The Government’s remit extends to the free-to-air television regime. Formula 1 has never been on that list. I was the Minister in charge of looking at the matter last time it came up, just after the election. There was no significant pressure at that point to put it on the list. At this time, therefore, it remains a matter for the BBC, which has to decide how to spend its sports budget, but we will, of course, review all these matters when the list is next reviewed in 2013.

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

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

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

I should like to echo what the shadow Olympics Minister said about today being international Paralympic day. The Paralympics have a special place in our nation’s heart because it started here in Stoke Mandeville in 1948. We want to welcome more than 100 chefs de mission from Paralympic teams to London this week, wish the organisers success and, particularly, wish our brilliant Team GB Paralympian success next year. At the Beijing Olympics, they thrashed Australia; they thrashed America; they thrashed Russia; they thrashed every single country in Europe and came second in the world only to China.

[Gregg McClymont]

I add my own congratulations to our Paralympians and would like to return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) about why the Scottish Government have not matched the UK Government’s broadband funding? Does the Minister agree that this is a short-sighted decision, which is inimical to Scotland’s long-term prosperity?

[Mr Hunt]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman because all the evidence on economic growth shows that it is the more remote, dispersed communities that benefit most from having a good broadband connection. This can stop villages losing their economic lifeblood; it allows people to work from home; and it helps disadvantaged, elderly and disabled people to gain access to services that they would not otherwise be able to receive. I strongly encourage the Scottish Government to respond positively to the extraordinary generosity of the UK Government and to get Scotland connected.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

T2. I was pleased to see Members of all parties and of the other place take part in the parliamentary archery competition on Monday afternoon on Speaker’s Green, courtesy of you, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I was certainly all of aquiver that I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), managed to win the competition. Will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers tell us what plans are in place to ensure that British archery and other less well-known sports receive adequate funding and, perhaps, media coverage in the run-up to and beyond the 2012 Olympics, thus giving Team GB the best chance of medal success across a plethora of events?

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I strongly agree that we need to support all Olympic events, which is why we are preserving the funding for the whole United Kingdom elite sport budget for the training of Olympians and Paralympians despite a very difficult spending round. I have been to see our Olympic and Paralympic archers train at Lilleshall, and I know that we all wish every success to gold medallist Dani Brown and bronze medallist Alison Williamson, who are our big medal hopes for next year.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

I have asked the United Kingdom national lottery operator, Camelot, to give me a constituency breakdown showing where lottery tickets are purchased, but it has refused to do so. Does the Minister agree that, for reasons of transparency, it is important for such information to be in the public domain, and will he help me to put it there?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)]

It is not quite clear why this information is so important, but I am very happy to try to understand why. The destination of lottery funding has long been readily and transparently available, and can be found in the Library. However, I do not see why there should be a direct correlation between potentially richer constituencies where a large number of lottery tickets are bought, and constituencies that are in more need and receive a large amount of lottery funding. If the hon. Lady can explain why that direct connection is important, I shall of course be delighted to help if I can.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

T3. In the light of the digital radio action plan, can the Secretary of State or a Minister assure us that the Government will specifically support local commercial radio stations before the switchover?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Yes, we certainly intend to ensure that the move towards digital radio does not discriminate against local commercial radio stations.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

T6. There is a world of difference between a journalist who bribes a police officer for information and a journalist who gets information from a police officer, freely given. The former corrodes our democracy, while the latter protects it. In that light, is the Secretary of State concerned about the recent arrest of The Guardian journalist Amelia Hill?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

As I know the hon. Gentleman will understand, it would not be right for me to comment on a police matter, but I agree with him that there is an important difference between off-the-record briefing and the payment of money by or to the police in return for information. Journalists must operate within the law, but, as the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee, as we go through this entire process we must be careful not to overreact in a way that would undermine the foundations of a free society.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T4. Pendle Leisure Trust sport development manager Joe Cooney is working closely with Colne football club in helping it to apply for iconic facilities funding for new changing rooms at its stadium, which is currently in a poor state of repair. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that bids are encouraged from other groups in Pendle and east Lancashire?

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

Part of Sport England’s Places People Play initiative involves investment in inspired and iconic facilities. In a sense my hon. Friend has answered his own question: the fact that the club is making the application suggests that the promotion is about right. However, I will certainly ensure that Sport England takes every possible measure—indeed, I know that it has done so—to enable everyone to benefit from this £135 million investment opportunity.

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

T7. At the last reckoning, some five companies from Northern Ireland have been successful in first-tier contracts with the Olympic Delivery Authority, and some 43 have won contracts with the supply chain of tier 1 contractors. However, there is grave disappointment in the Province about the level of contracts won by Northern Ireland companies, and also about the failure properly to allocate Barnett consequentials to Northern Ireland and the other regions. Will the Minister undertake to work with the Northern Ireland authorities and with the Treasury to try to increase the number of contracts won, even in the run-up to next year’s Olympics?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, of course I will. When I was in Northern Ireland earlier this year I visited a number of the businesses that have won contracts, Ulster Weavers being a good example. As the ODA has to award the contracts on a commercial basis there must be a good value-for-money case, but I will certainly do all that I can.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T10. My constituent Bethany Gutcher-Dunn is fascinated by England’s heritage, and is now studying the reign of Henry VIII at Aloeric primary school in Melksham. She has entered into correspondence with Her Majesty the Queen about the prohibitive cost of visiting the historic royal palaces. Will the Minister consider extending his support for the free museum entry policy to enable educational visits to these historic palaces?

[John Penrose]

The Historic Royal Palaces organisation is very successful at popularising its various buildings around the country and encouraging people to visit them, and I know that it makes every effort to reach out to educational organisations. Unfortunately, if we start to introduce additional subsidies, that would require additional money, and, as my hon. Friend will know, there is not much money available given the awful financial position we inherited. I will, however, be delighted to discuss this matter with him.

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

T8. I welcome the earlier comments of the Minister for Sport and the Olympics about the state of football governance. When considering the Select Committee’s welcome report, will the Department work with not only the football authorities but Supporters Direct and other football supporters’ organisations to ensure that football supporters have a role in the future governance of football?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

We greatly welcome the Select Committee’s comments, and we will publish our official response in due course. We recognise that now is the time for change in football governance, and one important issue we want to look at is what can be done to boost the role of supporters. I note the Select Committee’s comments on changes to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to make it easier and less bureaucratic for supporters to build up stakes in clubs so that they can have real ownership.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

As the sun is setting earlier every day over the beautiful beaches of Thanet and my seasonal businesses are closing down, what representations will the Department make to the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about the Daylight Saving Bill and the impact it will have on tourism and jobs?

[John Penrose]

As I said before, the essential point is that while many people, especially in the tourism industry and in the south of the country, are enthusiastic about this move, it is important that we take the entire country with us. In particular, it is important that we do not seek to impose a situation on, for instance, people and businesses in the north of Scotland unfairly and without their consent. We will therefore take great care not to proceed without the consent of all parts of the UK.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

T9. I thank the Secretary of State for his recent letter to me regarding tourism ahead of the Olympics. I was concerned, however, that he listed the Lake district as a local treasure of the Wirral, until I realised that the same letter had been sent to all the north-west MPs. So that he can learn a bit more about the geography of north-west England, will he visit one of our actual treasures in the Wirral with me: Port Sunlight village, whose festival in July attracted 20,000 visitors?

[Mr Jeremy Hunt]

I will be delighted to do so as soon as my diary permits. A key part of our tourism strategy is promoting regional tourism and encouraging people to visit what is on their regional doorstep. It was in that spirit that we sent the hon. Lady that letter.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

The position of channels on the television electronic programme guide influences what we watch. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain why we allow some EPGs to list American cartoons way above the British content, given that we want our children to watch more UK-originated content than American cartoons?

[Mr Hunt]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Position on the EPG will probably be the Government’s single most important lever in protecting our tradition of public service broadcasting. We are actively looking at how to make that situation better, if necessary using legislation.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

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

1. What progress the House of Commons Commission has made in its savings programme in the financial year to date; and if he will make a statement.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)]

Preliminary estimates for the first quarter of 2011 suggest that we are well on track to achieve the initial savings of some £12 million which were identified this time last year. The HOCC is committed to reducing spending by at least 17% by 2014-15, and the detailed work on that stage of the savings programme is currently under way, with a consultation taking place during the autumn of Members, Members’ staff, House staff and others.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful for that answer, and I know that both you, Mr Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman are committed to the House doing our bit. Has the HOCC had a chance to study the Administration Committee’s report on catering and retail services, and does the hon. Gentleman agree it is vital that we not only raise more revenue where we can but save costs by, perhaps, trying to merge those services from the two Houses?

[John Thurso]

I have indeed had an opportunity to look at the report, which contains many good proposals. On the two specific points, I can tell the hon. Gentleman, first, that raising income will be a vital part of our future plans. Secondly, on shared services, this already happens in respect of both Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology—PICT—and estate services. I am sure that the authorities of both Houses will be looking to maximise this, as it is a sensible way to save money.

The Leader of the House was asked—

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

2. What recent consideration has been given to the role of the Grand Committees of the House.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The Welsh Grand Committee and the Northern Ireland Grand Committee have a valuable contribution to make to the work of the House, and I am pleased that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee will be meeting again in November, following the agreement of the House on Tuesday.

[Mr Dodds]

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his answer. Given the advent of devolution, opportunities for Members from Northern Ireland—I can speak only for them—are somewhat limited, so it is important that meetings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee take place. Will he ensure that there are more frequent meetings at which matters of relevance to the Province can be debated in more time than is available on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Heath]

I certainly hear what the right hon. Gentleman says and I am happy to speak to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to see what arrangements can be made. Obviously, there are limits to the number of times that any Grand Committee can sensibly meet, but I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Earlier this week, my excellent Whip informed me that on 20 October the Welsh Grand Committee will be meeting in my constituency. Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that it was extremely discourteous of the Government not even to have told me about the meeting and for that information to have been conveyed to me by my Whip rather than by somebody acting on behalf of the Government?

[Mr Heath]

I am sure that no discourtesy was intended. Of course the decisions of Grand Committees to meet are presented to the House, and so the hon. Gentleman would be aware of it by that means. I would have thought that any discourtesy was more than outweighed by the convenience to him of having the Grand Committee meet in his constituency.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

3. What recent estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of parliamentary questions for written answer.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The average cost to the taxpayer of a question for written answer is estimated at £239. In the financial year 2010-11, a total of 46,825 written answers were published, at an estimated total cost of about £11.2 million.

[Mark Menzies]

We would all agree that written parliamentary questions are an important way of holding the Government to account, but what steps is the Deputy Leader of the House proposing to take to limit exposure to the public purse? Should hon. Members be in more control of this process?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but I really do not think it is for the Government to limit or try to ration the supply of questions, because, as he says, it is very important that hon. Members have that opportunity to hold the Government to account. However, I do think that hon. Members, like other public servants, should consider the impact of their activities on the public purse. It is particularly important to recognise that the right to table questions belongs to hon. Members, and hon. Members alone.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that if he is to fulfil the Prime Minister’s pledge to

“increase the power of Parliament”,

he should be worrying less about the quantity of questions and more about the quality of the answers? What is he going to do to ensure that Ministers give full and timely responses to Members, and that they end the increasing practice of giving holding answers to named day questions and transferring orals at very little notice? Or is this going to go the way of other prime ministerial pledges, such as those for more free votes on Bill Committees and text updates on the progress of Bills?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady has a very short memory span if she really thinks that this Government are performing worse than the Government of whom she was a member. I recall that many times her Government were quite incapable of providing timely, or indeed adequate, responses to questions. We always try very hard within the Departments to make sure that people get their questions answered properly and on time. If Departments fall short of those ideals, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I are very happy to chase up those Departments to see whether we can improve the performance. However, I have to say that I do not think the performance is lacking at the moment.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to increase the transparency of the lobbying of hon. Members.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

As my hon. Friend the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform announced on 18 January, the Government remain committed to creating a statutory register of lobbyists and are working towards developing proposals for that register. The Government hope to hold the consultation exercise later this year before bringing forward any necessary legislation in due course.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Given the erosion of trust among the public in politics and politicians over the past few years, will he ensure that that process proceeds as quickly as possible and tell the House precisely when the register will be in place?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman and I entirely agree with him. This is a priority issue and we need such a degree of transparency in the arrangements for lobbyists. As I said, we have a consultation exercise and it would be wrong for me to prejudge it, but it is certainly our hope and intention that we will be in a position to introduce legislation on this matter in the next Session of Parliament, as has been indicated by my hon. Friend the Minister.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

6. When he plans to implement the remaining recommendations of the House of Commons Reform Committee’s report “Rebuilding the House”.

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

This Government successfully implemented the recommendation to establish a Backbench Business Committee, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomed. The majority of the remaining recommendations of the Wright Committee are a matter for the House rather than Government. The Government will be bringing forward a Green Paper on intelligence and security later this year in which we will make initial proposals on how to reform the Intelligence and Security Committee. As set out in the coalition agreement, the Government are committed to establishing a House business committee in 2013.

[Mr Allen]

I congratulate the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House on the swift way in which they brought before the House for decision the Wright Committee proposals on the election of Select Committee Chairs by the whole House and the election of Select Committee members by their parties as well as on the speedy creation of the Backbench Business Committee. Will they sustain this great record by bringing forward the pledge to create a proper business committee for this House so that we in this Chamber control the business in future rather than the Government we are meant to be holding to account?

[Sir George Young]

I am happy to repeat the assurance I have already given. It is in the coalition agreement that we are committed to establishing a House business committee in 2013. We look forward to wide consultations with the hon. Gentleman and others about the best way of delivering on that commitment.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

7. If he will take steps to encourage Secretaries of State to participate in debates in Westminster Hall pertaining to their Department.

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

Westminster Hall debates are an important mechanism for holding the Government to account. Secretaries of State do participate in debates in Westminster Hall, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development did recently.

[Mr Hollobone]

May I make the Leader of the House aware that the Backbench Business Committee is keen to allocate as many days to Backbench business in Westminster Hall as he will give the Committee? That task would be made easier were he to encourage his fellow Secretaries of State to attend, listen to and respond to those debates.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government have no ownership of the days in Westminster Hall—that falls between the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee—but I take to heart what he has said. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who attends Cabinet, will be speaking in a debate in Westminster Hall next Thursday.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Following on from that, if Secretaries of State attended Westminster Hall, perhaps Monday afternoon could be opened up for Westminster Hall debates, and the general debates we used to have in this Chamber on defence and Europe could be held there?

[Sir George Young]

That is a helpful suggestion from my hon. Friend. He will know that the Procedure Committee is at the moment undertaking an inquiry into the calendar. Whether or not we open up Westminster Hall on a Monday afternoon is a proposition that my hon. Friend could usefully share with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), who chairs that Committee.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the process for using ministerial statements to make major Government announcements.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of the process for using ministerial statements to make major Government announcements.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

So far this Session, there have been 139 oral ministerial statements and more than 1,500 written ministerial statements made to the House. My assessment is that this Government have a much better record than the previous Government.

[Pat Glass]

The right hon. Gentleman has something of a reputation as a parliamentary reformer. Is he not concerned that that reputation is now under threat given his churlish and I have to say uncharacteristic response to the Procedure Committee regarding ministerial statements?

[Mr Heath]

I presume that the hon. Lady is referring to the response from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I can remember not a single occasion on which he has even hinted at churlishness, let alone expressed it in response to a Select Committee. Of course we look carefully at what is proposed by Select Committees, and there will be times when we do not entirely agree with them for very good reasons, but that does not mean that we do not respect what they say, while being prepared to argue our case in due course when relevant matters are debated in the Chamber.

[Mr McKenzie]

Why is the hon. Gentleman so against using Westminster Hall to ease the burden on this Chamber and allow us fully to scrutinise the misguided legislation that his Government are pushing through the House?

[Mr Heath]

I am not sure that I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman. He is a new Member of the House and I hope he will not consider it patronising when I say that he may not know why Westminster Hall sittings were first proposed, which was to allow for non-legislative and non-contentious business to be taken in a parallel Chamber while the House was sitting. It was not meant to create impossible dilemmas for Members in having to attend two important venues at the same time. Having said that, if we can make better use of Westminster Hall we are certainly open to doing so. If we can find other ways of reducing the pressures on this Chamber then it is better that we do so. The biggest difficulty that we have is the huge appetite that the House understandably has for hearing Ministers make statements and its proper appetite for scrutinising legislation fully and properly.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

9. What plans he has to assess the effectiveness of the e-petitions initiative.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The Leader of the House’s office is constantly monitoring the effectiveness of the e-petitions site. Following its launch, the site now hosts more than 6,500 petitions, which have received more than 1.5 million signatures. This unprecedented interest in the site is a useful indicator of its effectiveness. For the first time, the e-petitions website is not just graffiti, but offers the public an effective route for engaging with Parliament.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that answer—I was going to ask him about the overall visitor numbers to the site and the number of petitions already hosted on there. Will he comment on the decision of the Backbench Business Committee about the most popular two petitions not being discussed until we reconvene in October?

[Mr Heath]

I think it would be entirely improper for me to answer on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, but let me make it clear that we have provided a way for the public to engage with Parliament. What the petitioners want, presumably, is for the topic they have raised either to be dealt with effectively by the Government or to be debated in due course by the House when the opportunity arises. The idea that when a petition reached the threshold there would be an immediate debate is not the purpose of the site, but it does mean that proper consideration is given to whether the matter has been debated or will be debated in another form or whether the Government have changed their policy to meet the concerns, which may be the case in relation to at least one of the petitions that has already reached the required threshold.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

But does the Minister agree with the Daily Mail, which says that this amounts to an e-petition con? The Government said to the public, “If 100,000 of you sign one of these petitions, there’ll be a debate.” What discussion did the Government have with the Backbench Business Committee about how the time for those debates would be allocated?

[Mr Heath]

May I caution the hon. Lady, first against reading the Daily Mail, and secondly against agreeing with what it says? The Government have never said that when a petition reaches the threshold it will have an automatic right of debate. It will be considered with a view to seeing whether the matter raised has already been debated or is already going to be debated in a different context or whether the request has already been met by the Government. If there is then a need to debate something that the public have registered as an interest, the Backbench Business Committee will respond to that request. That seems to me an entirely proper way of doing things and it is a huge improvement on the old No. 10 petition site on which the petitions went precisely nowhere.

Business of the House

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

11:35

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for the week commencing 12 September will be as follows:

Monday 12 September—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.



Tuesday 13 September—Opposition Day [20th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.



Wednesday 14 September—Remaining stages of the Energy Bill [Lords].

Thursday 15 September—Motion relating to food security and famine prevention in Africa, followed by general debate on human rights in the Indian subcontinent. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The provisional business for the week commencing 10 October will include:

Monday 10 October—Remaining stages of the Protection of Freedoms Bill (day 1).

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply, and I welcome him and Members on both sides of the House back from a busy summer.

As this Sunday will mark the 10th anniversary of the 11 September attacks, I am sure that the whole House will wish to remember all those who lost their lives, including the 66 British citizens. Our thoughts are with them and their families.

The inquiry on the recent riots will produce an interim report in November. Will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will provide time for it to be debated? Can we be told how many police officers’ jobs could be saved by not spending £25 million on a delayed poll for costly police commissioners—just, it seems, to placate the Liberal Democrats?

We welcome the opportunity that e-petitions will give the public to get things debated in Parliament, but the Leader of the House will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, says that there are quite a few problems with that. Will he allocate more time for those and other Back-Bench matters to be debated?

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the autumn statement is when the Chancellor will finally announce plan B, because plan A clearly is not working? The Government’s growth forecasts will have to be downgraded yet again, consumer confidence has never been lower and the head of the International Monetary Fund has just warned countries to adapt their austerity programmes by taking steps to improve growth, but the Chancellor is not listening. Indeed, the only thing he seems keen to do is abolish the 50p tax rate. Does not that send a clear message to hard-pressed families—that this Government are more interested in millionaires than they are in middle England?

As we have seen this week, despite its famous pause, the Health and Social Care Bill has failed to win the confidence of those working in the NHS. Meanwhile, more patients are waiting longer for operations, and yesterday the Prime Minister was completely unable to explain why. Is it because attention is being diverted elsewhere?

On that subject, may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on reports that the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust has considered selling off St. Mary’s hospital in London—the place where penicillin was discovered—for property speculation? It seems that it went as far as to start a tendering process involving six architects. How much NHS cash did that cost?

Something else that is not safe in the Government’s hands is our countryside. After the forests sell-off fiasco, we now have the planning punch up. It takes a special talent to make a sworn enemy of the National Trust, but calling critics “nihilist” and “semi-hysterical” was not very clever, was it? When can we expect a statement on the further revisions to that guidance, which are now inevitable?

Yesterday, a delegation from Bombardier came to the House to plead with the Government to reconsider their decision to award the Thameslink train contract to Germany instead of Derby. The Government’s refusal once again to listen, even though they have now admitted that they can reopen the process, has angered Derby city council. Its Conservative leader, Philip Hickson, was blunt:

“I do not think they have grasped the widespread anger… the Government have simply got things wrong”.

Finally, in recent months the Prime Minister’s strategy chief, Mr Steve Hilton, has proposed scrapping maternity leave and health and safety laws, closing jobcentres and replacing Government press officers with bloggers—there could be an opening there for the Leader of the House—all ideas that have been slapped down by No. 10. This week it is reported that Mr Hilton secretly asked a QC to advise on how to challenge new employment rights for temporary workers being introduced by the Business Secretary. The Business Secretary was distinctly unimpressed. A source in his Department said:

“Vince makes decisions on this policy… not Steve Hilton”.

A Lib Dem observed:

“Hilton is just a renegade.”

I had thought that Mr Hilton was the Prime Minister’s chief special adviser, but when I pressed No. 10 on this I was told that the Prime Minister knew nothing about it. Could we be told how much this legal freelancing cost and who exactly Mr Hilton works for? He seems to come up with so many bad ideas, so may we have a statement from the Prime Minister listing his good ideas? I am sure that that would appeal to you, Mr Speaker, because it would not take very long.

[Sir George Young]

May I begin by thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome back, which is reciprocated? He clearly spent the summer recess further honing his skills of performance at the Dispatch Box, and we had another sparkling example this morning.

With regard to 9/11, he may know that there will be a commemorative service at Grosvenor square tomorrow, at which the Government will be represented, which will provide an appropriate opportunity to remember the UK citizens who died in that tragedy. On the riots, we need an appropriate opportunity to discuss the aftermath. The Government have established a number of groups to look at some of the implications, and I know that the House will want to revert to that subject in due course.

There will be an opportunity on Monday, when we debate the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, to consider the Government amendment to postpone the elections for police and crime commissioners until next November, and I am sure that he will want in principle to support the idea of the electoral accountability of the commissioners. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we are not quite clear why the Labour party is so frightened of having elections.

On e-petitions, I have regular discussions with the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, and am of course happy to have further discussions with her so that we can make e-petitions a success. I was pleased to see in the press notice that the Committee put out yesterday that it thinks that

“the e-petitions site is a very welcome initiative.”

I want to work with her to ensure that this really takes root.

On the autumn statement, I would have thought that the one thing that had become absolutely clear during the summer recess is that those Governments who did not take a firm grip of the fiscal situation ran the risk of losing market confidence and then paying a very high price to regain it. One of the things the coalition Government have done is avoid the loss of market confidence by taking firm action last year. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to go down the route of plan B, he runs the risk of losing market confidence in the same way other European countries have done.

On the question of tax, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that in the last Budget and the next one, around 25 million taxpayers will benefit from the increase in personal allowances and over 1 million people will have been taken out of tax entirely.

On waiting lists, I followed the exchange yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions. Overall there has been very little change in waiting times since the general election. In one case, that of in-patients, waiting lists have gone up, and in the case of out-patients they have gone down, but overall there has been a huge increase in the number of people being treated, thanks to the extra resources we have put into the national health service, which Labour would have denied it.

On planning, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a document out for consultation, the national policy framework consultation, which ends next month. In the meantime, discussions are being held with the National Trust and others. He will have read the article by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, which made it absolutely clear where we stand on planning.

On Bombardier, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the tender process was initiated and designed by his Government. We used the criteria they set out to assess the tender, and on those criteria it would clearly benefit passengers and taxpayers to allocate the tender to Siemens. I was pleased to see that some 2,000 jobs will be created in this country by Siemens doing part of the work here.

On Steve Hilton, I am happy to say that he is a fellow cyclist, and therefore I am normally happy to defend what he says, but at the end of the day I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is Ministers who make policy, not special advisers.

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

Can the Leader of the House tell us why in the near future we are to go through the ridiculous ritual of putting our clocks back by one hour, thereby plunging parts of the country into darkness by mid-afternoon? Can we have a statement on what the Government intend to do to make better use of daylight hours? If, as I suspect, the only opponents of change are a handful of Scots, should not they be told, “Look, you’ve got your own Parliament, if you don’t like it we’ll give you the power to set your own time zone”?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend will know that the issue is the subject of a private Member’s Bill, and I personally have form on it, in that I supported a private Member’s Bill in a previous Parliament, proposing reform in that direction. I am not sure whether he was in Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport questions, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) raised the same issue, but in response the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), spoke on behalf of the Government in advocating a slightly more cautious approach than that advocated by my right hon. Friend.

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

The Government launched the e-petitions website on the last day before the summer recess, with little consultation, debate or agreement by the House. All of us warmly welcome the e-petitions initiative, and there is clearly a public demand for it, but, although the Government have raised public expectations, they have passed responsibility for what to do with that expectation to the Backbench Business Committee.

We are delighted to be involved with the initiative, and we very much want to ensure that it is a success, but we want to make it work properly and meaningfully. The problem—and I address this point in part to the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson)—is that we cannot schedule for debate subjects raised by e-petitions unless the Government give us time to do so. Will the Leader of the House therefore meet not just me but the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), to discuss allocating extra time specifically to debate e-petitions in the short term, and to look at options such as setting up a dedicated e-petitions committee in the long term?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said at the beginning about e-petitions, and for making it clear that she wants the new e-petitions website to be a successful way for people to trigger debates in Parliament. We were in fact delivering a coalition agreement in going ahead with the website, which is an improvement on the No. 10 website, in that it links into the democratic process instead of ending simply at No. 10.

I am conscious that over recent weeks and months we have not been able to allocate to the Backbench Business Committee as much time as the hon. Lady would like, but that is due in part to the way in which the legislative programme impacts on the parliamentary Session. I very much hope that in the weeks and months ahead it will be possible to allocate more time to the Backbench Business Committee, and to give it the headroom that it needs to accommodate debates about e-petitions.

Two e-petitions have so far gone through the threshold, and in one case, as my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House said in response to an oral question, the Government have responded. On Hillsborough, we have made all the papers available from the Cabinet Office to the independent panel, and we have made it clear that we have no objection to them going into the public domain, so it may be that on Hillsborough the petitioners have achieved what they wanted.

On the e-petition concerning riots, somebody may present themselves on Tuesday to the hon. Lady’s salon, and I hope that in due course it might then be possible to debate the other one that has gone through the threshold.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

In light of the strong interest in Parliament and from the public about all matters European, will my right hon. Friend consider making Government time available for a full debate about Europe and about the repatriation of powers to Britain?

[Sir George Young]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the debate, which I think she had yesterday in Westminster Hall, on precisely that subject. We did discuss at some length the European Union Bill, when there was extensive debate about the repatriation of powers, and there are fairly regular debates, thanks to the European Scrutiny Committee, on European-related issues. I cannot at this stage promise a full debate about the matters that she has raised, but I hope that the House will have an opportunity from time to time to listen to her views on Europe.

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

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 2138, which stands in my name and the names of a number of hon. Members?

[That this House notes that those in Fallowfield applying for bar staff posts at Vodka Revolution, Wilmslow Road are required to work for a full day for no pay under the practice of trying out and are promised that they will be paid if appointed, then are not appointed; believes this practice to be unethical and possibly illegal; and further believes that both potential employees and customers of Vodka Revolution, Wilmslow Road should be made aware of its policy on non-payment of those who work a trial day and are not subsequently employed.]

The motion describes how the Vodka Revolution drinking den in my constituency has the corrupt practice of telling job applicants that they should work for a day and will be paid if they are appointed, but then does not appoint them. It thereby has a stream of free labour. Will he condemn this corrupt practice by these swindlers, and will he ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to investigate these disgraceful activities?

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry to hear about what is happening in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Of course I deplore any exploitation of labour of the type that he has described. I will draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to see whether any effective enforcement action can be taken to stop this undesirable practice.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I encourage the Leader of the House to find time for a full debate in this Chamber on cutting the higher rate of income tax. If we are all in this together, where is the fairness to the rest of society in ensuring that Wayne Rooney gets an extra half a million pounds a year?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that issues relating to taxation are matters for the Chancellor at the Budget, and are therefore usually matters for the Finance Bill. He may have heard at Treasury questions on Tuesday the exchange in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear that the 50% rate was temporary and subject to a review by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to see how much revenue it raises. That review will not be completed until early next year. I know that my right hon. Friend will take the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) into account, along with others, before he comes to his Budget judgment.

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

Today is the launch of the It’s Liverpool, I’m Liverpool campaign, which shows why the city is such a vibrant and exciting place to live, work and study. It is also the friendliest city in the country, according to a recent travellers’ survey. Will the Leader of the House join me in backing the campaign, and can we have a debate on how the Government can support great British cities such as Liverpool?

[Sir George Young]

I endorse what the hon. Lady said about Liverpool. In a former Administration, along with my right hon. Friend Lord Heseltine, I was part of an initiative to assist Liverpool in the difficult time it went through after the riots. I applaud her campaign and will see what more can be done by my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to assist the regeneration that is under way.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

As the Leader of the House is fully aware, the ongoing saga over village greens and the upgrading of footpaths to bridle paths is not only costing the country a massive amount of money, but causing legal hurdles that go a long way back. In Somerset, there is a 22-year waiting list to try to get these matters through. Can we please have time in this Chamber to discuss the ramifications, costs, complexity and legal ambiguities of the way in which people, with no user evidence, get bridle paths and village greens put into planning applications right across the United Kingdom, such as in Bristol where it has caused problems?

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry to hear of the problems in my hon. Friend’s constituency and I suspect that they may be replicated elsewhere. I will certainly raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to see whether there is a simpler way of resolving it than the way he has just outlined.

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

Can we have a full statement on what compensation is available for businesses and organisations affected by the riots and the looting? We have had a few hints, including from the Prime Minister, but a number of businesses, including some in my constituency, face a pretty insecure future because of the looting. Can we have a full statement so that we can question the relevant Minister?

[Sir George Young]

Rather than a statement, I think that what we want is practical assistance for the businesses that have been affected in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He will know that a number of funds have been set up with the specific objective of assisting firms that are in difficulties after the riots. I will draw the attention of the Home Secretary to what he has just said and see whether we can get some practical assistance to the firms that are suffering in his patch.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments about the e-petitions initiative, but can he arrange for a statement to describe how the paper-based petitions signed by more than 100,000 people that call for a debate on High Speed 2 can be qualified as an e-petition, so that the issue might be debated in this Chamber and so that the many thousands of people who perhaps do not have access to the internet do not feel disfranchised?

[Sir George Young]

That is primarily a matter for the Backbench Business Committee, but my understanding is that if somebody goes along on a Tuesday morning and says that they are speaking on behalf of a petition, it will be neutral whether the 100,000 signatures are on an e-petition or an ink-and-pen petition. I am sure that the process is neutral, but it does require somebody to be present on a Tuesday morning to place the bid.

[Natascha Engel]

indicated assent.

[Sir George Young]

I am happy to see the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee nodding in assent at the principle of the equality of treatment that I have enunciated.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The House will know that 18 October marks anti-slavery day. In light of the huge public concern about modern-day slavery and, in particular, the fact that more than 735,000 people in this country have recently called on the Government to implement a system of guardianship for child trafficking victims, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is an important and appropriate occasion for Ministers to come before the House, respond to the petition and set out their position on child trafficking?

[Sir George Young]

The Government are firmly opposed to child trafficking. I will certainly contact the Home Secretary to see whether we need to make yet further progress. We have had debates on anti-slavery days in previous years that have been well attended and well supported. The Backbench Business Committee might like to consider such a debate as an option for October.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Flight Lieutenant Jon Egging, the RAF Red Arrows pilot who sadly lost his life after the air show in Bournemouth on 20 August? Rather than eject from his stricken aircraft, he was able to manoeuvre it away from a built-up area—an action that probably cost him his life. He will be missed by his family, his friends, the RAF community and indeed the nation.

[Sir George Young]

I am sure that the whole House will associate itself with the tribute that my hon. Friend has paid to Jon Egging, who sadly lost his life a few weeks ago. In addition to his work for the Red Arrows, he saw active service in Afghanistan, which I think should also be remembered.

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

Will the Leader of the House set the Bombardier decision in context? There seems to be no apparent manufacturing plan or strategy for this country. Manufacturing is still vital to our well-being and future, but there is no sign that this Government understand that a long-term strategy for manufacturing is essential.

[Sir George Young]

I dispute what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He may have seen the evidence given by the Transport Secretary yesterday. It was the criteria set by the previous Government that led to this conclusion. The Secretary for State for Business, Innovation and Skills is now looking at the whole design of tender documents to see whether they can be in any way adjusted so that the sorts of considerations that the hon. Gentleman wants to be taken into account can be taken into account, perhaps in the way that other countries seem to be able to do.

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

The privately owned port of Liverpool received more than £20 million of public money from this country and Europe to develop a cruise liner terminal, with the explicit provision that cruises should not start or end there, but only call there. It now proposes to repay a quarter of this sum over 15 years if the provision that it cannot have a turnaround facility is lifted. That would adversely affect the port of Southampton. May we have a statement from a Transport Minister on what seems to be a calculated case of unfair competition now that it has been revealed that Liverpool city council planned from the outset to get the port built and then renege on the condition on which it was being done?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern on behalf of the port of Southampton. He will know that a consultation exercise is currently being carried out by the Department for Transport on the proposal to allow turnaround cruises, to which he has just referred. The consultation closes on 15 September. If he wants to respond, his views will be taken into account along with those of other respondents.

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

During the summer, the Department for Work and Pensions sneaked out direction 23 on the operation of crisis loans. It specifically excludes any claims by parents to help towards the purchase of school uniforms and simple school equipment such as pencils and pencil cases. Was that discussed with the Department for Education, and what is the view of the Leader of the House?

[Sir George Young]

I think that I am right in saying that crisis loans cannot be used for school uniforms, but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

On 30 September we will see the start of the 2011 Ilkley literary festival. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. May we have a debate on the positive impact of such highly successful festivals in bringing the pleasure of reading to young people?

[Sir George Young]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on drawing the House’s attention to this. I hope that he might submit an entry to the festival so that his work can be considered along with that of others. I applaud the work of his constituents, and his own work, in taking steps to promote and drive up standards of literacy in this country.

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

Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for an urgent statement from the Housing Minister on the consequences for social housing tenants of the Government’s new rules on under-occupancy? In Manchester on 1 April 2013, 14,000 families will either have to find a smaller home or pay up to £18 a week more towards the cost of their rent. As a highly regarded former Housing Minister himself, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is not only unjust but unworkable.

[Sir George Young]

I have looked at the copy of Inside Housing where the survey that the right hon. Gentleman carried out in his constituency was reported and given some prominence, and I read the article. I will convey his concerns to the Housing Minister so that he can be aware of the possible impact of the change in the rules and the introduction of the cap and see whether any additional measures are necessary on top of the ones we have already put in place.

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

In 2010, 27,500 crimes were committed by EU nationals. In response to a parliamentary question, it emerged that only 1,400 of those were sent home, with many having agreed to go. Is it not time that we had a debate not only on the free movement of labour but on how we, as a country, treat foreign nationals who come to this country and commit crimes and whom we allow to stay living in this country?

[Sir George Young]

I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has taken steps and we are now increasing the number of people repatriated after committing crimes. However, I will draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the Minister’s attention to see whether there is further action that we might take.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

After months of campaigning, only two of the big six energy companies are still maintaining the practice of cold sales on the doorstep. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate so that Parliament can put real pressure on E.ON UK and Scottish Power, which are being so recalcitrant over this important issue?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the profile of this issue. I will certainly see what action can be taken further to discourage the sort of cold-selling tactics that he has outlined, and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to write to him.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Croydon college in my constituency has formed a partnership with the university of Sussex and is looking for accreditation as a university centre so that young people from across south London can study for a good degree, while living at home, for fees much lower than most universities are charging. May we have a debate on what more we can do to ensure that young people from deprived backgrounds continue to have access to university?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is appalling that of the 80,000 pupils eligible for free school meals, only 40 went to Oxbridge. We are committed to enabling more people from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds to get to university by raising the maintenance grant, introducing a new national scholarship programme, and making the graduate repayment scheme much more progressive. On top of that, we are writing to sixth-formers to draw attention to the financial support that is made available to students. I hope that we can improve on the figures that I mentioned.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Yesterday the Prime Minister told us that the extra cost of moving the election of police commissioners to November would be £25 million, yet on Tuesday, Lord McNally, in a reply to Lord Grocott, said that the cost of the alternative vote referendum, held on the same day as other elections across wide areas of the country, was £89 million—and that is without the cost that falls on the Electoral Commission. May we have a statement to clarify the real cost of this ridiculous November election and whether it will be borne by central Government and not fall on hard-pressed local councils?

[Sir George Young]

The election for police and crime commissioners is England-only, whereas the other referendum was nationwide. The £25 million figure is the correct one. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the cost of this will not come out of the police budget.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Last month, I had the privilege of joining the Metropolitan police on active patrol, and that increased my admiration, which was already great, for the sterling work that the police force does on a day-to-basis to keep us safe. May we have a statement on the impact on the Metropolitan police of the work that has had to be done since the riots? My understanding is that they have been doing constant 12-hour shifts with no rest days and all leave cancelled. The bill for that has come to some £62 million already, and the impact on police morale is dramatic. It is essential that we ensure that that money is paid for by the Government and not by London council tax payers, and that we lessen the load on the Metropolitan police.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that a Select Committee inquiry into the riots is going on; my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave evidence to it today. We have made it clear that we will support the police regarding the additional costs they face to ensure that front-line services are not hit. I will pursue with the Home Secretary the specific issue that my hon. Friend has mentioned of the impact on London.

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

The Leader of the House will know that today the Deputy Prime Minister slipped out a written ministerial statement on the establishment of a commission on the West Lothian question; this was presumably to pre-empt the private Member’s Bill that will be debated tomorrow. Given the importance of this issue for Members across the House and in all parts of the UK, may we have an oral statement on the Government’s intentions and thoughts behind that commission rather than leaving it to some kind of backroom deal between the Government and a rebellious and recalcitrant Back Bencher with a private Member’s Bill? This is an important issue for all of us and I hope that the Leader of the House can do something about it.

[Sir George Young]

Written ministerial statements are not slipped out; they are put on the Order Paper and they are in the public domain for everyone to see. This one delivers on a commitment of the coalition Government to establish a commission to look at the West Lothian question, and it should have come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that we are taking it forward. If he looks at the WMS, he will see the timetable envisaged by my right hon. Friend in announcing its membership and terms of reference, as well as the time scale in which it will report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman might feel minded to give evidence to the commission when it is set up.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Given that local authorities are currently preparing their electoral registers for the forthcoming year, will the Government make a statement to address the problem of individuals who make multiple applications at different addresses by registering at a property they own but at which they do not reside, even when the property is occupied by others who are legitimately registered?

[Sir George Young]

It is an offence to provide false information to electoral returning officers, and if that happens I hope they would pursue it. As my hon. Friend will know, we are introducing individual electoral registration, which will reduce the opportunity for fraud because people will have to provide some evidence of identity before they are added to the register. I hope that that will reduce the sort of practices to which he refers.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Further to the answer that the Leader of the House gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), we know that the moving of the elections of police commissioners to November is going to cost an enormous sum of money. May we have a statement on how the Government reached the decision to make this amendment to the proposal in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill? We are told that that was done to appease Liberal Democrat councillors. If that is how the Government are making decisions and wasting public money, is it not a matter that should be discussed on the Floor of the House?

[Sir George Young]

Of course it is. That is why the Government have tabled an amendment to the Bill that will be debated on Monday.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that this year the Royal Mint is striking a commemorative coin to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Bible, yet, unlike many other commemorative coins, it will not be available in general circulation. Obviously there are many different and varied religious faiths, but the Bible’s publication represents a significant point in the history of the English-speaking world. Can representations be made from the Government to the Royal Mint?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I will raise this with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I suspect has overall responsibility for it, and ask him to write to my hon. Friend with a response to his representations about making the coin legal tender.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

You are aware, Mr Speaker, that sometimes in this House wheels grind extremely slowly, but I was delighted to see that action had been taken on an early-day motion that I tabled in July 1996 followed by a number of letters, including to your good self. Will the Leader of the House congratulate those involved, including Bob Hughes, who is now in the House of Lords, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), Mr Speaker and all those involved on getting a commemorative plaque for Nelson Mandela in Westminster Hall? It is absolutely right that we commemorate the visit to this place of the greatest statesman of our time.

[Sir George Young]

It sounds to me that that was a matter for the House rather than the Government, but the gestation period does seem to have been extremely long.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Given the successful roll-out of free schools, would it not be opportune for the House to discuss the free school programme shortly?

[Sir George Young]

I welcome the fact that within a relatively short time some 24 free schools are up and running, given that the legislation only hit the statute book in July last year. That compares favourably with city technology colleges and academies, and many more free schools are in the pipeline. I hope that there will be opportunities to take the debate forward, perhaps in Westminster Hall, so that we can tell more people about the success of free schools. Some of them have been established in the teeth of local resistance.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As President Obama promised that Palestine would be a new member of the United Nations by this September, may we have a debate on Palestine’s application for membership before the UK casts its vote, so that we can show our overwhelming support for a yes vote?

[Sir George Young]

I understand that there was a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday on precisely that matter, so I do not think it would necessarily be the best use of time to have yet another debate when we have already had one this week.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

May we have a statement about equal rights for parents? Two Harlow residents, Mr Colin Riches and Mr Neil Colley, have been affected by the inequality in the law which means that fathers do not have the same custody rights as mothers. They have started an e-petition to get the matter looked at. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rules can be deeply unfair for families?

[Sir George Young]

I know from my own constituency cases that many parents feel that the courts have acted against their best interest in decisions about the allocation of responsibility for children. At the end of the day it is a matter for the courts, but I will raise with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor the question of whether we need to look again at the legislation.

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

Mr Broughton, one of my constituents, worked all his life until he had a stroke. He now suffers from angina, blocked arteries, heart disease, hypertension, chronic kidney failure, arthritis, diabetes and other illnesses, yet when his assessment was done he was found to be ready for work. May we have a debate and discussion on why there is such a shambles in the Government’s medical assessments?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will know that there is an opportunity to appeal against work assessments, and that we have instituted one review and another is under way to examine all the processes and ensure that we get them right. I am sure the chairman of the review process will take on board the comments that he has just made.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Many of my constituents are very irritated with banking charges, chiefly because they are usually applied when they are in difficulties. They are also concerned about the length of time that it takes cheques to clear. Can we discuss these issues in due course, especially in the light of the Vickers report, which is imminent?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that there is a commitment in the coalition agreement to introducing stronger consumer protection, including measures to end unfair banking and financial transaction charges. That is being taken forward in a review by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury and, in July, they published the evidence that they had called for.

On cheques clearing faster, my hon. Friend will know that we now have instant banking, with money transfers taking place almost instantaneously. However, following the decision that cheques will not be withdrawn, the Payments Council is considering the options for speeding up cheque payments, which I hope will deal with the issue that he raises.

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

Is the Leader of the House aware of the problem of telephone cold-calling that offers same-day loans? It appears to have overtaken loan sharking in parts of my constituency and to be targeting those who have lost their jobs or who are not able to raise loans through the normal channels of the banking system. Will he issue a statement on the matter?

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry to hear about the practice that the hon. Lady refers to. I will draw it to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who has responsibility for consumer protection, and ask him to write to her outlining the steps that the Government believe can be taken to stop that practice.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

During the past year I have met two teachers in Pendle who have been assaulted while at work and, across the UK, 44 teachers have had to be rushed to hospital in the past year for serious injuries resulting from violence. Will the Leader of the House grant us a debate on school discipline?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that every day, some 900 pupils are excluded from school for the type of behaviour to which he refers. He may have seen the speech recently made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education setting out steps to restoring discipline in schools, including removing the requirement that teachers should keep a record of each time they use physical restraint, overhauling the rules on physical contact to make it clear that schools should not have a no-touch policy and stopping the requirement for teachers to give 24 hours’ notice before issuing a detention. I hope that that will begin to address the problem that my hon. Friend describes.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be fully aware that the Palestinian authorities are applying for membership of the UN later this month. Will the Government make a statement fully supporting the Palestinian people in their efforts to become a member of the UN?

[Sir George Young]

Again, I have to say that on Tuesday there was a debate in Westminster Hall on UN membership of a Palestinian state, in which the Minister who replied will have set out the Government’s position. I do not think another debate so soon after that one would be the best use of parliamentary time.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Everyone wants the e-petitions scheme to be a success, but according to today’s Order Paper the Backbench Business Committee has only five days to allocate in the six months between now and the end of the Session, at the end of March 2012. Does the Leader of the House realise that if the scheme is to be a success, he simply needs to allocate more days?

[Sir George Young]

I have said on an earlier occasion that whereas we are committed to 35 Backbench Business Committee days in a normal Session, because this Session is longer and will run on until next spring there will be more than 35. I also said in response to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Committee, that we hope in the next few weeks and months to be able to allocate more days than we have been able to in the past few weeks and months. As the bulk of the legislative programme passes through the House, that will free up more time for the Backbench Business Committee.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the subject of Government support for the computer games industry? As I am sure the Leader of the House is aware, calls for more Government support, not only from the industry itself but from Committees of the House, are continuing to increase. Such a debate would allow us to discuss ways of improving support, for example tax incentives and increasing the scope of the small firms research and development tax scheme, which would help companies in my constituency go from strength to strength.

[Sir George Young]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and it is an industry in which this country has a competitive advantage, with many of the market leaders. He may like to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment, so that he can make his case and then listen to the steps that the Government are already taking to assist that innovative industry.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Government are taking us back to the time of Wilberforce and should be congratulated. Then, mass petitioning was how the public influenced Parliament, and now e-petitions will be. However, may we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week on e-petitions? There is misunderstanding of how the system is working. The Backbench Business Committee did consider e-petitions this week, but not a single Member was there at our public session to promote any e-petition.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend has performed a service in reminding everybody that in addition to a petition getting 100,000 signatures, somebody needs to go along on a Tuesday morning on behalf of the 100,000 petitioners. That may not have been fully understood. I suspect that by next Tuesday it will have been, and that Members may present themselves and ask for a debate on the two subjects in question.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the alternative vote? It appears that having lost the referendum, the Government seem to be sneaking it in by the back door for the election of police and crime commissioners.

[Sir George Young]

We will have a debate on the matter on Monday when we debate the very Bill that introduces police and crime commissioners. I do not understand this idea that we are using the back door, because it is in the Bill. There is nothing underhand about it at all; it is all in the public domain.

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

The deficit reduction plan is a key priority for the Government. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the progress that has been made? Does he accept that history is extremely effective in contributing to such a debate? Will he time the debate so that it comes out after the political memoirs?

[Sir George Young]

There is a lot of advice floating around on how one reduces the deficit, but I thought that the previous Chancellor put it well in his memoirs when he said that Labour had no credible policy. Nothing has changed since he made that particular pronouncement.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Dynamic Advertising in my constituency is threatened with closure due to the loss of a £90,000 contract with the Highways Agency. That was a result of a Government moratorium on spending in those departments. How can the Government promote a jobs and growth agenda by putting such small businesses out of business? May we have an urgent debate on flatlining growth and the consequences for the small business sector?

[Sir George Young]

Of course, I am sorry to hear of any loss of jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but he should recognise that even if his party had won the last election, it would have had to make difficult decisions on public expenditure. There is no guarantee at all that, if his party had won the election, the Highways Agency would have been able to continue spending at the level that had been planned.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Despite recent media coverage, planning law has always had a presumption in favour of development. However, economic development in my constituency is being stifled by Natural England, which seems to presume against development. This matter cannot wait for the current consultation and any changes, so may we have an urgent debate on it?

[Sir George Young]

As a former planning Minister, I have some familiarity with the planning system. In 1990, the system was changed to a presumption in favour of the plan in order to introduce certainty into the system, and I believe that that remains the case.

What comes out of the recent debate in the press is the importance of local authorities having a local plan, so that there is some certainty on which areas are designated for development and which are not. The allegation is that if there is no plan, there will be a free-for-all, but that is simply not the case. Authorities must continue to abide by the national policy framework, which gives specific protection to the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest. Although I cannot find time for such a debate, I would welcome one in order to put to bed some of the myths that are flying around.

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

Following on from my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has seen early-day motion 2135, which is signed by 60 Members from both sides of the House, and which calls on the Government to support Palestine’s membership of the UN?

[That this House recalls the target set by President Obama last year of welcoming ‘a new member of the United Nations - an independent sovereign state of Palestine’ by September 2011, a target also endorsed by the EU and the Quartet; notes that the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations and EU have all reported that Palestine is ready for statehood; recalls that Palestinian negotiators entered talks with Israel and offered substantial concessions; regrets that talks broke down because of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s refusal to extend even a partial freeze on illegal settlement-building; further notes that Palestinians have recognised Israel since 1993 despite Israel's refusal to recognise a Palestinian state; further notes that 122 countries with nearly 90 per cent. of the world’s population now recognised Palestine and even among Israelis 48 per cent. support recognition and only 41 per cent. oppose; and concludes that the way forward is to recognise an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel and support its admission to the UN because this will be the most effective guarantor of a resumption of negotiations and will also be the best protector of the rights not only of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, but also of Palestinians living in Israel and of Palestinian refugees abroad.]

The Leader of the House mentioned earlier an Adjournment debate on Tuesday, in which the Government Minister said that the Government reserved their position on the question of Palestinian membership. This matter is being dealt with by the UN later this month, so it is of some urgency. May we have an urgent debate or a statement so that the Government can take the temperature of the House on the need to support Palestine’s membership?

[Sir George Young]

The Government took the temperature of the House in that debate. I suspect that if there were another debate, the answer from the Minister would be the same. There is an opportunity on 25 October at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions to raise that issue again, and I hope the hon. Gentleman takes it.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

May I probe the Leader of the House once more for a debate in Government time, or indeed a statement by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, on the massive hike in energy prices—gas and electricity—for every household in the country? I welcome this and the previous Government’s social tariffs, but they have been wiped out by the massive increases. Five of the six last increases were in double digits. May we have a statement? The Prime Minister has said that he wants to curb excessive price increases, so may we have an opportunity for the Government to make their position clear?

[Sir George Young]

I hope that there will be exactly such an opportunity next Wednesday, when we debate the Energy Bill.

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

May we have a statement or an urgent debate on access to cancer services? I understand that the Department of Health published a report on its website on 19 August that contained some specific recommendations. Such a debate would be opportune, given that out of 28 cancer networks, the North of England Cancer Network figures worst in terms of access, and has the seventh highest incidence of newly diagnosed cancers—Yorkshire is 27th. It would be useful if we could have a statement or debate on that.

[Sir George Young]

The Government’s view is that those who are recommended by their general practitioner to have a scan for cancer should have it as quickly as possible, and that any subsequent treatment should also take place as quickly as possible. I shall raise with the Secretary of State for Health the particular problem that the hon. Gentleman outlines and will ask my right hon. Friend to write to him.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Government’s latest plans to reorganise the coastguard accepts the importance of local knowledge in retaining 24-hour coastguard stations. The closures of Crosby in my constituency and of Clyde leave the whole north-west of England and west of Scotland coastlines without a single coastguard station. Will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for Transport to reconsider the closures at Crosby and elsewhere before it is too late, because of the importance of local knowledge?

[Sir George Young]

There will be an opportunity a week today for the hon. Gentleman to raise his concerns with the Secretary of State for Transport, who will be at this Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman can ask my right hon. Friend whether he is prepared to consider that proposition.

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

Is the Leader of the House aware that this week is the 20th anniversary of the ceasefire in the Western Sahara? Will he consult Ministers and seek time for a statement or debate on the UK’s position on resolving that conflict, and on how the Sahrawi can see justice sooner rather than later, rather than wait another 20 years?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern and I am grateful to her for raising it. I shall ask the Foreign Secretary to write to her to respond to her question to see whether we can make some progress on this important issue.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

In July, an answer to a written question made it very clear that officials in the Department for Education should not use Hotmail addresses to contact schools that were going for academy status. However, a press report last month said that that was happening. May we have a statement on what is actually going on?

[Sir George Young]

There will be an opportunity on Monday 17 October, but that seems a little far away, so I will ask the Secretary of State for Education to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that matter.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House responded to the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) by referring him to a speech by the Secretary of State for Education. The Leader of the House spoke of the formal recording of restraint of, and use of force against, pupils in schools. He is clearly not aware that the Secretary of State for Education made a written statement to the House on Monday in which he made it clear that he no longer requires schools formally to record the use of restraint and force against pupils in schools. Clearly, one hand of the Government does not know what is happening on the other. May we have an urgent debate, so that we can know the Government’s position on the use of restraint and force against pupils in schools?

[Sir George Young]

As I said a few moments ago, my understanding is that the Secretary of State has removed the requirement that teachers should keep a record of each time they use physical restraint on pupils as part of the initiative to rebalance discipline in the class, and to give teachers more authority. The Secretary of State will have seen this exchange, and if by any chance I have not set out the position accurately, I know that he will write to the hon. Lady.

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

Further to the earlier exchange on Backbench Business Committee time, the Leader of the House will be aware that a huge number of Select Committee reports, including a Procedure Committee report, must be debated in the Chamber. Will he ensure that if additional time is found, it will also be made available for Select Committees?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Liaison Committee has its own quota of time for debates, which sits alongside the time available to the Backbench Business Committee. His remarks should therefore be addressed to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, who allocates debates of Select Committee reports.

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

Last week, I spent two days with Hull Churches Home from Hospital Service, a wonderful organisation that provides support to patients, families and carers. May we have a debate in Government time on the role of such organisations, and on how we can secure their support during the chaos of the NHS reforms?

[Sir George Young]

I hope that the extra resources that the Government are putting into the NHS will mean that the more dramatic scenario that the hon. Lady paints will not take place. I would welcome such a debate, and perhaps she should like to apply for a debate on the Adjournment so that we can hear more about the heroic work that is being carried out.

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

May we have a Government statement on the status of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ change plan? A year after the spending review, the 500 staff in the Cumbernauld HMRC office remain in the dark about the impact of HMRC cuts on their jobs.

[Sir George Young]

There was an opportunity on Tuesday to ask Treasury Ministers about the future of the staff at Cumbernauld, but I will raise that issue with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Speaker]

I must thank the Leader of the House and point out to colleagues that in 44 minutes consumed by Back Benchers in business questions, 51 had the opportunity to question and receive an answer from the Leader of the House. I thank him and all colleagues for their extreme succinctness and self-discipline.

Baha Mousa Inquiry

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

12:30

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the report into the death of Mr Baha Mousa in Iraq in 2003. In any conflict, no matter what the reason for our country’s involvement and no matter how difficult the circumstances, what separates us from our adversaries are the values with which we prosecute it and the ethics that guide our actions. To represent Britain, in war as well as in peace, is to represent our inherent democratic values, the rule of law and respect for life. When those values are transgressed, it is vital that we get to the bottom of what has happened, are open about the issues and their causes, ensure that what reparations we can make are made and do all that we can to prevent it from happening again. Only in that way can we ensure that those values hold firm in how we think of ourselves and in how others perceive us.

I am today laying before the House the independent report published this morning by Sir William Gage as chairman of the public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Baha Mousa in Iraq in 2003. I am grateful to Sir William and his team, who have produced a report that is sober, focused and detailed. Above all, I believe it to be both fair and balanced. It is, however, a painful and difficult read. As the report sets out:

“Baha Mousa was subject to violent and cowardly abuse and assaults by British Servicemen whose job it was to guard him and treat him humanely”.

That was the primary cause of his death. The inquiry was rightly set up in 2008 by the previous Government with the intent of shining a spotlight on the events surrounding the death of Baha Mousa and to provide the most definitive account possible in the circumstances. It does that comprehensively. What happened to Baha Mousa and his fellow detainees in September 2003 was deplorable, shocking and shameful. The Ministry of Defence and the Army have previously made a full apology to the family of Baha Mousa and to his fellow detainees and have paid compensation to them.

We can take some limited comfort that incidents like this are extremely rare, but we cannot be satisfied by that. Given the seriousness of this case, there is a series of questions that I have asked myself and that other Members will ask too. Among these are: who was responsible and what happened to them as a consequence? What action has been taken to prevent a recurrence? Do we have the right protection in place today in Afghanistan? And, of course, how will the Government respond to the recommendations made in the report? On responsibility, the report makes clear the extent of the failings of individuals, the MOD and the armed forces at the time and in earlier years. In addition to the shocking displays of brutality for which individuals were responsible, it is also clear that there were serious failings in command and discipline in 1st Battalion the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment. There was a lack of clarity in the allocation of responsibility for the prisoner-handling process, and sadly, too, there was a lack of moral courage to report abuse. However, it must be acknowledged that a small number behaved with both integrity and courage in reporting what they had witnessed. They are examples of how others should have behaved.

Wider than the battalion, there were also deficiencies in policies, orders and training relating to detention at that time. The chairman noted that there was inadequate doctrine on prisoner handling and a “systemic failure” that allowed knowledge of the prohibition on abusive techniques put in place by the Heath Government to be lost over the years. The report also confirms that the Army was underprepared for the task of handling civilian detainees, having expected after the end of war-fighting to provide humanitarian aid rather than become involved in counter-insurgency activities.

Since this incident in 2003, six different Defence Secretaries have stood at this Dispatch Box. I am sure that they all regret that it has taken so long to get to the bottom of what happened and that even now the refusal of some involved to tell the whole truth means that it has not been possible to establish the full extent of the culpability of individuals. Their behaviour is a matter for their own consciences, but others must take responsibility for the wider failures and deficiencies, and this report does not mean that our investigations of mistreatment of detainees are over. The evidence from the inquiry will now be reviewed to see whether more can be done to bring those responsible to justice. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment in the House on specific individuals and their role in this appalling episode.

I have asked the Chief of the General Staff, where individuals are still serving, to consider what action is necessary to ensure that the Army’s ethical standards are upheld. That is occurring through the chain of command as we speak. The investigations of the Iraq historic allegations team, which started work last November, are now well under way and are revealing evidence of some concern. It is too early to comment on what the conclusions of the IHAT investigations might be, but cases will be referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions, if and when there is sufficient evidence to justify that.

Since 2003, action taken by the MOD and the Army to address failings as they were identified has touched every aspect of the prisoner-handling system, from policy and doctrine to ground-level directives, as well as training and oversight. The changes wrought have been fundamental. The Army Inspector’s report in 2010, validated by an independent expert adviser, is one example of the detailed scrutiny applied to the training and doctrine for handling detainees. I assure the House that there is a commitment to continuous improvement at all levels inside and outside the armed forces.

As the report acknowledges, further positive changes have been made as a result of matters that emerged from evidence heard during this inquiry’s final module—module 4—which was a thorough scrutiny of our current detention policies, practices and training. The Minister for the Armed Forces and I take a close personal interest in detention matters in Afghanistan, and I am confident that our approach to detention there has improved markedly since the period rightly criticised in this report. However, we are in no way complacent about the issues identified by Sir William, and I can inform the House that I am accepting in principle all his recommendations with one reservation. It is vital that we retain the techniques necessary to secure swiftly, in appropriate circumstances, the intelligence that can save lives. I am afraid that I cannot accept the recommendation that we institute a blanket ban, during tactical questioning, on the use of certain verbal and non-physical techniques. I share some of Sir William’s concerns, however, so I have asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to ensure that that approach is used only by defined people in defined circumstances.

Between 2003 and 2008, 179 British personnel were killed in Iraq serving their country, and many more returned injured. In autumn 2003, 1st Battalion the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment faced an immensely difficult challenge as it attempted to bring law and order to a large area that had been subject to a brutally oppressive regime for many years. As Sir William acknowledges, the issues addressed in his report

“need to be understood in the operational context in which they occurred: the tempo of operations; the poor state of the local civilian infrastructure; a daily threat to life from both civilian unrest and an increasing insurgency; the deaths of fellow service personnel and incessant oppressive heat. In combination these factors made huge demands on soldiers serving in Iraq in 2003.”

There are few of us sitting in the comfort of the House of Commons who can claim to understand what that must have been like. However, the vast majority of armed forces personnel faced these same challenges and did not behave in the way outlined in this report. They represent the fine ethical values found day in and day out in our armed forces, and we must not allow the unspeakable actions of a very few to damage the reputation of the whole.

I want to make it clear that Baha Mousa was not a casualty of war. His death occurred while he was a detainee in British custody. It was avoidable and preventable, and there can be no excuses. There is no place in our armed forces for the mistreatment of detainees, and there is no place for a perverted sense of loyalty that turns a blind eye to wrongdoing or erects a wall of silence to cover it up. If any serviceman or woman, no matter the colour of uniform that they wear, is found to have betrayed the values this country stands for and the standards that we hold dear, they will be held to account. Ultimately, whatever the circumstances, rules or regulations, people know the difference between right and wrong. We will not allow the behaviour of individuals who cross that line to taint the reputation of the armed forces, of which the British people are rightly proud. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for a strong statement. The whole House will welcome the way in which he is personally dealing with this difficult matter. I also welcome his courtesy in this morning allowing me early sight of the 1,400-page report into this horrific incident. It is a shocking episode, from which we must learn serious and lasting lessons. We all feel profound regret at the loss of Mr Baha Mousa’s life in British Army custody. His death in itself is tragic; that it appears that there was a cover-up afterwards compounds that tragedy. It is essential that our armed forces take responsibility for all actions committed during conflict. Our strength relies not only on our firepower, but on the standards and ethics that we uphold and on which we pride ourselves. This incident is a brutal violation of those standards.

Like the Secretary of State, I want to make it clear that although the report is damning about the actions of some in the Army in 2003, it is not a reflection of our armed forces in general. It is important that those in our forces hear that we remain proud of their bravery and professionalism, whether they are the 100,000 soldiers who previously served in Iraq in the recent past or those in Afghanistan or Libya operations today. All too many among their number have lost their lives or been injured to have their reputations attacked in that way. In Afghanistan, it is essential not only that our forces know that we are proud of their behaviour, but that Afghan civilians hear it loudly, too.

I would like to put on record my thanks to Sir William Gage and his inquiry team for their report, which is both forensic and frightening. It now seems clear that perhaps as many as two dozen members of the Army, including some in the chain of command, knew about the 93 injuries inflicted during those 36 hellish hours. The Secretary of State has outlined the details of the events, but it is deeply worrying that it now seems clear that there was a failure in the Army’s justice system, including in the court martial and the chain of command, and that incomplete assurances were given to Ministers.

It is right that politicians should avoid interfering in the criminal justice system in general and in military justice processes specifically, but that is sustainable only where the processes work and are demonstrated to be working. The report finds that multiple assaults took place in a confined space, including by senior NCOs, and that there was a

“loss of discipline and lack of moral courage”

to report the abuse. In accepting today’s recommendations, it is crucial that the Government take forward the proposal that those service personnel who reported abuse or who make complaints against their peers about the mistreatment of captured personnel should be afforded protection.

The report raises some serious questions; I wish to address just three, one of which the Secretary of State has already anticipated. He has stated that he accepts all but one of the 73 recommendations. He intends to retain the right to exercise the harsh approach in tactical questioning. There will be concerns in the House and elsewhere about that, so can he share further with the House the details as to why he wishes to retain the ability to enforce the harsh approach?

Secondly, the Secretary of State mentioned this in passing, but back in 1972, Ted Heath banned the use of the five techniques used in Northern Ireland during internment. Those techniques returned, despite being prohibited, albeit not banned, in the way that Prime Minister Heath had anticipated. The report suggests that legislation is not needed to ban those five techniques. However, will the Secretary of State look further at whether there will be an early opportunity to change armed forces legislation through the Armed Forces Bill, which is currently in their lordships’ House, to implement any parts of the report that would require legislative change? I am sure that he agrees that if legislative change were needed, it would be wrong to wait five years for the next armed forces Bill.

Finally, although the Secretary of State is right that we should not name individuals on the Floor of the House today, the report finds that individuals did not give full and accurate evidence about what happened and that there was a refusal to reveal identities. Previously, soldiers were given exemption from prosecution during this process. However, in addition to fresh Army disciplinary procedures that are currently being undertaken, will fresh legal processes now be initiated in the light of today’s report? Those named in the report surely cannot hide from justice behind their silence or their evasion in the court martial process, or be protected by a calculated cover-up by their peers in the Army or a failure to act in the Army’s chain of command.

In conclusion, on the eve of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, it is compulsory that UK forces should continue to behave in a way that is alien to our foes. When our forces have to detain someone, that detainee is both in our custody and in our care. There is strong support on this side of the House for the report and the recommendations, and for the Government’s reaction to it. However, the consequence of the report must be that never again should anyone be subject to such brutality and lose their life because they are in British custody.

[Dr Fox]

I am very grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his response and for the way in which he phrased it. He is quite right that the report in no way reflects on the general behaviour of our armed forces; indeed, the whole reason why we are discussing this case is that it was a shocking deviation from the normal standards of behaviour that we have seen from our armed forces. He is correct that a number of individuals are still serving. We are looking at the evidence in detail—it is obviously a very large report—and as I have said, the chain of command is looking at how those individuals still in the armed forces might be treated, although I expect a number of suspensions today.

The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues about the harsh approach to questioning and why we should adopt it. First, I should say to the House that the so-called harsh approach involves a short burst of shouting—defined as a short, sharp shock—to bring a captured person back to the realisation of their situation. It is not a violent technique, but it has produced information that has led to both civilian and military lives being saved. To deprive our armed forces of techniques that can make them safer and protect the population both here and abroad would be wrong.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we needed a change to the law in respect of the five techniques that were outlawed by the Heath Government back in 1972. My understanding is that we do not—they are absolutely banned, as is currently made clear in training—but I will look to see whether doing that would reinforce the position and whether our legal experts believe it to be necessary.

As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about exemptions from prosecution based on evidence, let me be clear that there was an exemption from prosecution based on an individual’s own evidence, not an exemption from prosecution based on the evidence of others that came out in the inquiry. Both military and civilian prosecuting authorities will be looking closely at the evidence to see whether it is possible to bring more of those involved to justice.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for the content of his statement and for the tone in which he delivered it. I agree completely with what he said, including his reticence about the banning of non-physical harsh methodology. This incident was a dreadful stain on our very fine armed forces, and I welcome his comments about the continued efforts to pursue those who still evade responsibility for their appalling behaviour.

There are two areas that I want to ask the Secretary of State about. As with the Aitken report, this incident has again exposed the problems with corporate memory, which has come up in other areas, such as the loss of the Hercules and the coroner’s inquiry into that. What ongoing work, as I know that some work has been done, is the right hon. Gentleman doing to try to improve—no organisation can be perfect—this issue of corporate memory in the Ministry of Defence? What are he and his Ministers doing to continue to show an interest in detention facilities? No matter what rules and regulations are in force, if the top of the chain of command and Ministers themselves are not constantly vigilant in overseeing from the top the methods being used, the facilities provided and how they are being run, there will be lapses. Are the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers continuing to be vigilant in respect of our facilities and how they are being used in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

[Dr Fox]

The answer to the final question is emphatically yes. The Minister for the Armed Forces and I have recently inspected detention facilities in Afghanistan. We also have a rigorous system of reporting in place where every allegation is reported, recorded and investigated, which is a huge difference from what happened back in 2003. If I may say so, the Ministry of Defence strategic detention policy that the right hon. Gentleman published when he was Secretary of State is one of the ways in which we are codifying policy to ensure that corporate memory is not lost. The procedures for improvements in training, the very clear delineation of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable and the writing down of these training materials are the means by which, I hope, these dreadful and almost unbelievable lapses in corporate memory will not be allowed to happen again.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

This is a dark day for the British Army. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the criminals who were responsible for this should be brought before the courts so that we can secure the good name of Her Majesty’s forces, which are made up of good, honourable people—men and women—who have been let down by a few thugs and the cowardliness of those who have baulked justice?

[Dr Fox]

If I may, I will disagree with my hon. Friend, as I do not believe that this is a dark day for the Army; it is a dark day for a small number of individuals who have damaged the Army’s reputation for high ethical conduct. The vast majority of the British Army behaves in a way in which the whole House could be utterly proud. My hon. Friend is right, however, that those involved need to be pursued, that justice needs to be done and that we need to see what evidence comes from the report. Where new evidence is brought to light, we need to try to break through this wall of silence—this misguided sense of loyalty—that prevents wrongdoing from being properly addressed.

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

It is fair to say that the whole House commends the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for their continued vigilance on this issue, but will he assure us that all the individuals who are either found to be guilty or refuse to co-operate will be stripped of their Army pensions?

[Dr Fox]

As I have said, we are looking at what evidence is emerging from the report. I have asked the Chief of the General Staff to look at it and, through the chain of command, to take the appropriate measures. Of course, anything that is done will have to be done within the law of the land.

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

Both Front Benchers and Back Benchers who have spoken so far have all quite rightly concentrated on the ethical dimension of this terrible case, but is the Secretary of State satisfied that the significance of abuses of this sort to counter-insurgency campaigning and the way in which they play into the hands of our enemies is sufficiently stressed by the heads of the armed services to the people on the front line?

[Dr Fox]

I am, and it is an essential part of counter-insurgency—and successful counter-insurgency—that we are seen to protect the population concerned. The improvements made to training, to facilities, to detainee handling and, indeed, to the current training of the Afghan forces on how to do the same will ensure that, although we can never remove the risk of such incidents happening, we can certainly minimise that risk.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I acknowledge the tenor of the Defence Secretary’s statement on this grave matter. Will he tell us more about what Sir William has said about the extent of the failings of the Ministry of Defence itself in relation to these matters? When he speaks about allowing the harsh approach to continue, as used by defined people in defined circumstances, who will define the people and the circumstances in future? Will the techniques involved in the short, sharp verbal treatment include any threat to detainees, their families or their communities?

[Dr Fox]

The mechanisms and approaches are set out in the appropriate training manuals and are emphasised during the training process. It is a matter of great regret that there was, as the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) has said, a loss of institutional memory in the Ministry of Defence. I personally find it difficult to understand how a statement given by a Prime Minister on the Floor of this House outlawing five interrogation techniques could be “forgotten” by the body corporate. There was a lack of codification, which has, I think, been put right in recent years. I share the disbelief that such a corporate memory failure could be allowed to occur.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

To follow up what my hon. and good Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has said, I would like to take it to a lower level: when people are frightened, scared out of their wits, very tired and have lost friends, they sometimes lose their moral compass. Is my right hon. Friend instructing battalion commanders and brigade commanders to ensure that when such situations are likely, officers brief their men on exactly how they should act? In circumstances that we have heard about, as they apply to the Baha Mousa case, will my right hon. Friend ensure that supervision by officers and non-commissioned officers is as close as it possibly can be in order to stop weak people, who might also be thugs, from acting appallingly?

[Dr Fox]

In many professions, the whole point of professional training is to get individuals to behave under stressful circumstances in the same way as they would at any other time. That applies in the medical profession, and it applies to the Army. My hon. Friend is right to point to the duty of officers both to supervise and to guide those they lead. One of the most appalling failures set out in the Baha Mousa inquiry was the failure of those in command generally to supervise and guide those for whom they were responsible. My hon. Friend makes a very important point.

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

Following the question from the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to stress that the ethical dimension cannot be separated from the UK’s national interest? Holding our armed forces to a higher standard than many other regimes is, ultimately, necessary if we are to protect UK interests and spread the values that we hold dear across the world.

[Dr Fox]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. What we do says who we are, and it is our behaviour, not our words, that defines how we are perceived and the ethical values that we represent.

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

There is clearly a balance to be struck in the use of tactical questioning. We need to protect the prisoner from abuse but we also need to protect our service personnel from allegations of abuse. Will the Secretary of State undertake to recommunicate the current guidelines and limits to all service personnel?

[Dr Fox]

I will certainly examine whether there is a need to do that, and if there is, I will certainly do so. As I have said, compared with the period in 2003 that the report examines, we now have a system in which every allegation is reported, recorded and investigated, and detainees are asked at various stages whether they have any complaints about their treatment. The way in which we now conduct these operations could not be more different from the way that is set out in the inquiry. We have learned some very important lessons, but the tragedy is that victims such as Baha Mousa were part of that learning process.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

George Orwell wrote:

“We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.”

Does the Secretary of State agree that the armed forces are unique because, along with certain elements of the police, they are armed and authorised to use lethal force on behalf of the state? Does he also agree that it is for that reason that we must never allow the principles of integrity and moral courage to be eroded, regardless of the circumstances in which our soldiers find themselves, and that we must never allow our rightful admiration for our armed forces to lead us to turn a blind eye to abuses such as this?

[Dr Fox]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is quite right. It is worth remembering that liberty is not the natural state of affairs; it has to be fought for in every place and by every generation, and that sometimes requires us to take on forces of fanaticism that require rough or violent ways of engaging with them. Our armed forces are indeed licensed to use lethal force in the protection of the state, but they also have to operate within the law, both domestic and international. They have to conform to the highest ethical standards, not only because they represent this country but because it is by operating according to those ethical standards that their use of lethal force gains the acceptance of the British public.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Although there can be no excuse for the horrors inflicted on Mr Mousa, will my right hon. Friend reiterate that the enemies of this country must not be allowed to portray the brutal actions of a few as an indictment of the 120,000 servicemen and women who gave heroic and exemplary service in Iraq, not least the two Tamworth soldiers, Private Leon Spicer and Private Phillip Hewett, who gave their lives in Iraq, and for Iraq, in 2005?

[Dr Fox]

I agree; it is indeed testimony to the quality and ethical behaviour of our armed forces that we are examining the behaviour of only a very small number of the 120,000 who served. However, as my hon. Friend says, there are no excuses, and the behaviour of a small number can taint the reputation of the many. That is why there can be no hiding place for this kind of behaviour.

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

I welcome the statement and the report, but will the Secretary of State tell us why this has taken so long to achieve, given that the incident took place more than a decade ago?

[Dr Fox]

The incident took place some eight years ago. In setting out this morning why the report took such a long time to produce—some three years—Sir William explained the complexities involved and the fact that the team had wanted to go into very great detail to ensure that as much information as possible was put into the public domain, that the full history of the detainee operations was set out, and that the context could be fully understood. He also said in his statement this morning that it would be for others to judge whether the time had been well spent. The report is very long and detailed, but it is actually very readable, and any Member who takes the time to look at it will come to the conclusion that Sir William’s time was extremely well spent.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for putting forward his case so clearly. Will he tell me what the difference is between tactical questioning and interrogation? Also, how can we ensure that this kind of thuggish activity does not become a recruiting sergeant for those who oppose the operations that we are undertaking or endanger the lives of armed forces personnel?

[Dr Fox]

I believe that such activity has been reduced to the lowest possible level by the measures that have been taken. The way in which we conduct operations in Afghanistan is very different from what occurred in Iraq, and that has been one of the major reasons for the success of the counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan. My hon. Friend asked about the difference between tactical questioning and interrogation. Tactical questioning is defined as

“the obtaining of information of a tactical nature from captured persons…the value of which could deteriorate or be lost altogether if the questioning was delayed”.

That is obviously something that takes place close to the point of capture. Interrogation is defined as

“the systematic, longer-term questioning of a selected individual by a trained and qualified interrogator”.

That would normally take place in purpose-built facilities, as it does in Afghanistan at the present time.

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

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement, and I pay tribute to the way in which he has responded to our questions. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) on tactical questioning and interrogation, may I ask the Secretary of State what he meant by the term “harsh approach” that he used in his statement?

[Dr Fox]

As I said in response to an earlier question, the harsh approach is a short, sharp shock. It is used to ensure that the shock of capture is maintained, and to give us information. As well as extracting intelligence that can be used immediately on the ground—for example, information on where enemy forces or improvised explosive devices are—it can also be used to identify those who will go on into a further interrogation process. I believe that it is a necessary part of our weaponry in dealing with the threats that our armed forces face. That is why, although I was sympathetic to some of the issues that Sir William raised on this subject, I was unable fully to accept that recommendation.

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

I hope that my right hon. Friend would agree that, no matter what shame has been brought on our armed forces as a result of this incident, it is in no way representative of the history and record of that fine regiment.

[Dr Fox]

In no way does the incident reflect upon the very proud history of the regiment, but those who were involved need to ask themselves whether their behaviour contributed to its proud history. That includes those who were involved in violent behaviour and those who showed a lack of leadership. They are the ones who need to ask themselves questions, not those in the broader regiment.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Political and Consititutional Reform Committee, Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, HC 436, and the Government response, Cm 7951.]

Consideration of Lords message

13:08

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 1, 2 and 9 but proposes the following amendment to the Bill in lieu of those amendments:—

(a) Page 3, line 23, at end insert—

‘(4) The Prime Minister must make arrangements—

(a) for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act and, if appropriate in consequence of its findings, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of this Act, and

(b) for the publication of the committee's findings and recommendations (if any).

(5) A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.

(6) Arrangements under subsection (4)(a) are to be made no earlier than 1 June 2020 and no later than 30 November 2020.’.

The Government have been prepared, both in this House and the other place, to consider and support amendments that improve the provisions of the Bill. That is the normal process for refining and agreeing legislation. However—again, quite normally—we have consistently opposed amendments that would wreck the Bill. Members of this House and those in the other place have had a chance to debate the Bill at length, and one issue remains outstanding: whether or not there should be a sunset clause. Some have called it a sunrise clause, and it was referred to in the other place as a Lazarus clause.

We have discussed Lord Pannick’s amendments—which inserted the sunset clause—before, and they were roundly defeated by 312 votes to 243, because they offended against the principle of the Bill: that parliamentary terms should be of a fixed length, and that the legislation should apply to each Parliament in the normal way unless repealed through the normal considered legislative process.

The Bill as we would have it rightly does not attempt to entrench parliamentary terms. If a future Parliament wishes to move away from fixed terms, it may of course do so by either amending or repealing the legislation. We have, however, maintained consistently that a constitutional change such as a move towards or away from fixed-term Parliaments is not a small matter, and that it should be subject to the full scrutiny of Parliament, as this Bill has indeed been. In contrast, the sunset amendments passed by their lordships would switch fixed terms on and off like a light switch, defaulting to non-fixed terms if a simple resolution failed to be tabled or, if it is passed, to “sunrise” provisions for fixed terms.

In our view, it is clearly not appropriate for constitutional legislation to be applied or disapplied simply as a result of a resolution, and such changes should be made only following the normal legislative process. That view appears to be shared by the Lords Constitution Committee, whatever its misgivings about the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny for first-Session Bills. Its recent report on the process of constitutional change emphasises the need for proper scrutiny of such constitutional changes. A particularly relevant paragraph states:

“We believe that both government and Parliament should recognise the need for constraints on the process of constitutional change so that a situation whereby the government is effectively able to change the constitution at will may be avoided.”

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Minister was not going to suggest that the Constitution Committee supported the Bill. As he knows, it clearly does not.

[Mr Harper]

I did not say that it did. I said that it had misgivings about the fact that there had been no opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny because this was a first-Session Bill. My point was that in its recent report—and not just in the paragraph that I quoted; throughout the report—it had said that constitutional change should be carried out properly. The idea that constitutional provisions such as this should be switched on and off through simple resolutions rather than through the proper legislative process, which involves consideration by both Houses of Parliament, is not appropriate. We agree with the sentiment expressed in the paragraph that I have just read out, which is why we oppose Lord Pannick’s amendments. Given that Lord Pannick is a member of the Constitution Committee and presumably supports the proper conduct of constitutional change, it is surprising that he is trying to insert in the Bill something that we do not think appropriate.

We should also bear in mind that both Houses recently engaged in a debate similar to this during the passage of what is now the European Union Act 2011, and that both Houses decided that it would not be appropriate to include a sunset provision in that Act. In the debate, Lord Lamont wisely noted that a sunset provision was not appropriate because it would provide for primary legislation to be reversed by a simple resolution. We believe that the Lords amendments would have the same effect on this Bill, turning important amendments to the statute book on and off without proper scrutiny.

The report of the European Scrutiny Committee on the European Union Bill states:

“All Parliaments legislate for the future. Laws passed by one Parliament do not contain a sunset clause at the Dissolution. The real point is whether a government can, in law, make it difficult for a future Parliament to amend or repeal the legislation it has passed; in our view it cannot. Our conclusion therefore is straightforward—that an Act of Parliament applies until it is repealed”.

That can also be said of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. Should a future Parliament wish to amend or repeal the legislation, it could of course do so, but we believe that it should do so through the normal legislative process, not simply by passing, or failing to pass, a resolution.

That, however, is not the only problem with the Lords amendments. They clearly assume that it would be possible for the Prime Minister to regain the option of asking Her Majesty the Queen to dissolve Parliament, but it is entirely possible that, by failing to provide for the prerogative power to dissolve to be reinstated, they have left matters in the position where neither the rules in the Bill nor the previous prerogative powers can have effect. Indeed, it is worth asking whether it is possible to reinstate a prerogative power that has been removed. It should also be noted that the United Kingdom Parliament did not think it appropriate to include sunset clauses when legislating for fixed terms for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is not entirely clear why it should consider it appropriate to “sunset” the fixed terms for this Parliament.

13:15

Let us be clear: the Government believe that the sunset amendments would wreck the Bill and the principle of the Bill, which is why we oppose them. Our view was shared by others in the House of Lords. Lord Dobbs noted that the sole purpose of the amendments was to “wreck” the Bill, and went on to say:

“This issue has effectively been decided in this House and in another place, whether we like it or agree with it or not. I would not say that to support a sunset clause on this occasion is unethical, but it is entirely inappropriate. We do not use it on any of the other constitutional Bills; it is not the time to start doing it now.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1096.]

Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the Members of the other place who gave us the amendments in the first place, and have given them back to us unchanged, have good intentions. I know that they are concerned about the major constitutional change to fixed-term Parliaments, and the abandoning of the current system whereby the Prime Minister has the power to call a general election whenever it suits his political purposes. I believe that the change that we propose is a good one—it works in many other countries, and in the devolved legislatures—but I understand why any significant change is apt to cause concern. That is why the system of post-legislative scrutiny exists, making it possible to consider whether measures are working and to make recommendations.

We recognise the concerns that have been expressed, and we wish to give formal reassurance of a kind that is consistent with the principle of the Bill. Our amendment in lieu, which we tabled last Friday and which we wish to substitute for Lord Pannick’s three amendments, would provide that the Prime Minister must make arrangements to set up a committee to review the Bill’s operation after the first full fixed term, in 2020. Those arrangements would require the committee, if appropriate, to make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of the Act. That provides a categorical reassurance that the Bill will be given full post-legislative scrutiny. It is a much better solution than simply allowing a significant piece of legislation to lapse.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Listening to the Minister’s opening remarks, I entirely agreed with him that there was no need for a sunset clause, but shortly afterwards he spoke of a review allowing the opportunity for such a clause. If there is no need for it—I agree with him on that—why bother to table the amendment? Moreover, I do not think that it will be possible for the Prime Minister to organise a review in 2020, because by then there will be a House business committee, and it will be for it to make the decision.

[Mr Harper]

The amendment in lieu does not concern a sunset provision. If the committee that was set up, having examined the operation of the Act and of fixed terms, concluded that the Act should be amended or, indeed, repealed, it could make such recommendations, but Parliament would then have to go through the full normal legislative process, with its checks and balances. There would not be a simple on-off provision that could be triggered in some constitutionally innovative way.

As for my hon. Friend’s point about the House business committee, it would of course deal with the business of the House. The committee set up by the Prime Minister would have to consist of a certain number of Members of Parliament—although it would not be composed entirely of Members of Parliament—to make recommendations. It would not deal with the timetabling of parliamentary business. My hon. Friend is, of course, a big supporter of both the Backbench Business Committee and the establishment of a House business committee.

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

Will the Minister clarify three points? First, why has he chosen 1 June 2020 as the start date, rather than immediately after the general election on the first Thursday of May? Secondly, does he expect the whole process to take place between 1 June and 30 November 2020? Thirdly, why have the Government not specified how many people will be on the committee? Surely that would have been a reasonable thing to do.

[Mr Harper]

We chose 2020 in order to ensure that the committee has had the experience of a full fixed term. After all, the Bill is not law yet. We argue that a fixed term is good not only because that takes that power away from the Prime Minister, but because it enables us to have a much more sensible set of arrangements. I hope it might mean that we would no longer need to have a wash-up process, because everybody would know when the parliamentary term would end. It may also help with handling pre-legislative scrutiny at the front end of the process—something for which we have been criticised. If a Government can be certain when a Parliament starts, how long it will last and how much time they will have, that will enable them to plan their legislative programme, including pre-legislative scrutiny, through that Session, which may result in some improvements. Such benefits will be properly seen only in the Parliament beginning in 2015; they will not be seen in this Parliament because the arrangements were not in place from the beginning of it. That is the reason for the 2020 date.

The reason for the other two dates that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is simply to make sure that the commitment to set up a committee is not open ended, in which case some people might lack confidence in whether the Prime Minister would set it up. The Prime Minister has to set it up between those two dates; those dates refer to the arrangements to set up the committee. [Interruption.] Well, it would depend on what the committee was looking at and how long that would take. It will not have to report by 30 November. That seemed an appropriate situation, and it is only a short period after the date of an election, so it did not seem to be an undue delay.

[Thomas Docherty]

Coalition negotiations!

[Mr Harper]

I disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position. He is reading too much into this.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. This is not a private conversation. Members’ comments need to be recorded and reported in Hansard. If the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) wants to intervene on the Minister, I am sure the Minister will give way, but comments made from a sedentary position across the Chamber are not helpful.

[Mr Harper]

This arrangement would also allow time after the general election for the new Parliament to meet. It did not seem appropriate to set an aggressive timetable and force overly hasty decision making. The timetable is set out so that people can have confidence that the committee will be set up.

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

As the Minister knows, I thought the Bill was unnecessary and said so on Second Reading, but I cannot support the Lords amendments, because they seem equally unnecessary. Given that the Bill is primarily about the mechanism for the Dissolution of Parliament, which takes place at the end of a Parliament and over a short period, why do we have to wait until 2020 to review it?

[Mr Harper]

If my hon. Friend thinks back to our earlier debates on the Bill and its effects, he will remember that this is not just a mechanical process to do with the detail of the Dissolution itself. Rather, it is about the consequences that flow from that. Much of our debate revolved around what will happen to the nature of the parliamentary process if we have fixed terms—what will be the benefits and potential negative consequences. The reason for looking at it after a full fixed term is to enable the committee to consider whether, as I would hope, the possible positive outcomes we debated have come about, and alternatively whether some of the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House have been proved accurate, and then to make some recommendations and publish a report. As a consequence, this House will be in a good position to debate the matter and discover whether further legislation is needed.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

So far, the Minister has focused on the fixed-term Parliament aspect of the Bill, but there is also the constituency aspect. Will the review that the amendment would allow also be able to look at issues such as whether the number of constituencies should be fixed at 600 or there should be more flexibility, and whether the boundary reviews should take place every five years?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman took part in many debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill before it was enacted, and he will remember that we set up a similar type of review mechanism to look at the operation of that legislation in respect of parliamentary boundaries. A similar type of post-legislative scrutiny and review was set up to consider precisely those issues in that legislation, therefore. I hope that deals with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

[Andrew Percy]

Will the Minister also look at the question of the term of the Parliament, which we have discussed before?

[Mr Harper]

That is a perfectly good question. The Bill sets up arrangements for a review of its operation in general. It is not an overly constrained review, therefore. The Committee would be able to look at the effects in the round and make appropriate recommendations that this House and the other place could then consider.

I hope the amendment in lieu will address some of the concerns expressed in the other place. Indeed, the Chair of the Constitution Committee, Baroness Jay, said during the consideration of Commons amendments that the Bill should be subject to some form of post-legislative scrutiny. I hope she and other Members will find our amendment in lieu acceptable.

It has also been suggested that the Lords amendments would alter this Chamber’s relationship with the other place, as they would provide that the Bill’s provisions for a fixed term could be “revived” only through a resolution of both Houses, which would concede an element of our primacy to the other place. I share that view. We can envisage a situation in which this House is wholly in favour of reinstating fixed terms but is stymied by what amounts to a power of veto given to the other, unelected, House. That cannot be right. If we send a clear message to those in the other place on this issue, letting them know we do not want, nor have ever wanted, a sunset clause to these provisions, then I am sure they will listen.

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

Would the Minister change his mind on that point if the other place were partially or fully elected?

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman is leaping far ahead. We are considering this Bill now. Meanwhile, our reform proposals for the House of Lords have been published and are being scrutinised by the relevant Joint Committee. If at some point in future it is decided to change the arrangements under this Bill, that can be done in the normal way. The Bill can be amended or repealed through the normal legislative process. We are not seeking to constrain that. We are simply saying that the rather novel constitutional provisions that the Lords has inserted are inappropriate to a constitutional Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

Let me raise a few protest points at the outset. First, the Bill started its lengthy process on 22 July last year. In the normal course of parliamentary business, this parliamentary Session would have come to an end by now and therefore this Bill would already have fallen, so it would not be becoming law. Indeed, there would have been a point at which the House of Lords would have been able to hold the Government’s feet to the fire so as to extract greater concessions from them. I merely note that the Government have managed to give themselves a two-year Session. When the Leader of the House announced that that was going to be the case, I complained that it would give added powers to the Government. This is yet another example of how the Government have abused the constitution over the past year.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We were both elected in 2001, so I am sure he will recall that in both the 2001 and 2005 Parliaments the first Session lasted about 18 or 19 months.

[Chris Bryant]

No, we would now be in the mop-up session, and during that time there would be many other Bills that would need to be dealt with in limited time. Indeed, there are plenty of other Bills clamouring for time in this Chamber at present. That is precisely my point. There is no pressure on the Government to come to an agreement because they have another six months in which to do so.

13:30

[Mr Bone]

The shadow Minister of course makes a fair point, but to balance it we have to give credit to the Government for introducing fixed one-year Sessions in future. There is another side to this, although he makes a fair point.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for my argument.

The other process point that I wish to make is that the lords debated their amendments in July and the Government tabled their amendment last Friday, but the amendment was not available in the Vote Office until this morning—that was despite my having asked for it on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I had no access to the amendment tabled by the Government until today. I understand it to be normal practice, just as a matter of courtesy, for ministerial offices to write to shadow spokespeople when the Government table amendments to Bills in which the spokespeople have been involved, in order to give them notification. I say gently to the Minister that it would have been nice if he had been able to notify us of amendments.

It would also have been good if the Whips Office had, instead of stating categorically all this week, until about 3 pm yesterday, that we were not going to be dealing with this Bill this afternoon, owned up to the truth, which was that the intention was always to deal with this Bill this afternoon. Indeed, the Whips Office had told the Minister so, and the fact that this Bill was going to be discussed this afternoon had been set out in his diary for several weeks.

[Mr Bone]

The shadow Minister makes a good point about the Whips Office. Will he be here tomorrow to support my Bill abolishing the Whips Office?

[Chris Bryant]

I am happy to abolish the Government Whips Office, but I am very fond of my Whips Office. It is always best to remain in as good an odour as possible with one’s Whips.

The simple point of process is that when the Leader of the House announces in the future business—as has been said, we hope that the Backbench Business Committee will do this in future—that consideration of Lords amendments may take place, he never specifies the Bill to which that relates. That is an unfortunate way of doing business, and it might make much more sense if, in future, the Government were to announce the Bills in question. If every Member of the House had known at the beginning of the week that we were going to be dealing with this Bill today, the Chamber might have been packed to the rafters—I note that it is not. That is despite the fact that we are sure to hear a wonderful speech from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), and many would have crowded in just to see her jacket this afternoon.

The amendment, in essence, confesses that the Government have not achieved consensus on a major constitutional change. Again, I say gently to the Minister that when any constitutional change is being made, especially when pre-legislative scrutiny has not been undertaken, when no draft legislation has been produced, when the change was not adumbrated in one of the governing parties’ manifestos and when it is a significant change from what was in the manifesto of either of the two governing parties, it is all the more important that Ministers and the Government in general proceed on the basis of consensus. Although I am often a fierce critic of the House of Lords, of its hereditary principle and of its appointment principle—I call it the “patronage principle”—I believe that the Lords plays an important stop-gap role in constitutional affairs. That is why I believe that this amendment owns up to the fact that, as Lord Butler of Brockwell put it, this legislation has been introduced

“without proper consultation, preparation or consideration.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1080.]

For many years, we relished listening in this Chamber to Lord Cormack, the greatest par-li-a-ment-ar-i-an of his age—he used about seven syllables when saying that word. As he said, this is an

“ill thought-out, unnecessary and bad Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1087.]

There are specific problems with this amendment, most notably because it does not add anything. If their lordships think that it is a concession, they are completely mistaken, because already the Government will have to undertake post-legislative scrutiny on this legislation in the next Parliament. All the amendment does is provide for another version of post-legislative scrutiny, but such scrutiny will already have taken place four years before the date in 2020 when the amendment suggests it should occur.

I am somewhat of a suspicious mind; I think that the reason why the Deputy Prime Minister has insisted on this date in 2020 is his ambition to put up joint Liberal Democrat-Conservative candidates at the next general election and to be able to continue the coalition for two parliamentary Sessions. I say that because it was not an immaculate conception that led to this constitutional Bill; it was conceived behind the bike sheds as a result of the coalition partners—the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—trying to fix the length of this parliamentary Session so that nobody could abscond should any difficulties arise. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is just waving to me or whether he would like to intervene. It appears that he wishes to intervene.

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Gentleman’s argument about joint candidates falls down because he needs to be able to find someone willing to stand as a Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidate.

[Chris Bryant]

I believe that earlier this week the Prime Minister described himself as a “Pragmatic liberal conservative Eurosceptic”—he used different arrangements of those words in different arenas, as is his wont.

In addition, the amendment presumes that not only this Parliament, but a second one will run for a full five years. If that was not the case, choosing to specify dates in June and November 2020 would be particularly bizarre, as they might fall two years into another Session. This is where the following statement by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster is correct, although I confess that I do not quite understand the first bit:

“It is all Lombard Street to a China orange that the time will come when a premature Dissolution would be to the manifest benefit of the country”.——[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 1088.]

I think that that is true. If we consider the recent history of the United Kingdom, we see that even on occasions when the Government had a decent majority, such as in 1964 and 1974—although the latter situation was more complicated—they decided to hold a new election because they felt that they needed a mandate to deal with a specific set of issues that had not arisen at the previous general election. I believe that that will happen again and that it will be in the interests of Parliament to have the greatest degree of flexibility to allow it to happen, if not to encourage it to happen. That is why this amendment, in trying to entrench not just one fixed term, but two—in the interests of the coalition rather than the country—is misguided. As I said, the amendment adds nothing because post-legislative scrutiny, a fixed part of the way in which we carry out our business, will apply to this legislation.

The Minister, charming as he is, tried to assert that fixed-term Parliaments are used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as in relation to local government elections and so on. However, these do not seem to have been very fixed in the past few years. Indeed, in the short time that he has been in power he has already changed the term for the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the local government elections in Northern Ireland. Now the Government have just decided that there will not be a fixed term for the police commissioners, because the first term will be slightly shorter than the second one, as the Government are not going to be able to get their legislation through in time to have elections next May and so the first elections will take place next November. So I am profoundly sceptical even about the ability of the hard-line fixed-termers, such as him, to deliver a fixed-term Parliament, because of the way in which politics works.

I wish to make a few comments about the specifics of the amendment. It states:

“A majority of the members of the committee are to be members of the House of Commons.”

I do not believe that the Government consulted anyone in the Opposition on this amendment. I am sure that had the Minister done so, he would now be leaping to his feet to defend himself—it appears, therefore, that he has not sought a consensus on this constitutional change. If consultation had taken place, we might have made some suggestions about how to constitute such a committee. It might have been better to state from the outset that it should involve Members of the House of Commons. I think that we should return to the practice of the 15th and 16th centuries—I am sure I have one hon. Member on my side here—which was that Joint Committees of both Houses should have two Members of the House of Commons for every Member of the House of Lords. I admit that that was at a time when there were perhaps 60 or 70 Members of the House of Lords and 480 or so of the House of Commons, whereas they are getting towards having double the number we have in this House. None the less, while this is a democratically elected House and that is not, it would make more sense for the majority from this House to be 2:1.

I note en passant that one Member of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform—not from the Opposition side of the House—pointed out that having such a large number of members of a Joint Committee makes it very difficult to do serious business. It is quite difficult with large Select Committees, but with 24 or 26 members of a Joint Committee of both Houses, it is phenomenally difficult to make progress.

[Mr Bone]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I will give way to the hon. and gentlemanly Gentleman.

[Mr Bone]

I was just reflecting on the numbers. Are there not about 800 peers and 600-odd Members of this House? I think the hon. Gentleman’s calculations are slightly wrong.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I was noting the acceleration. The coalition has a commitment in its agreement that it will keep appointing more Member of the House of Lords until the numbers mirror the representation in the House of Commons. That means that they have another 269 to appoint. We are pretty much getting on for having up to double the number of Members at that end as there are here. In addition, the Government want to elect some Members so that if the Government get their way, without sensible amendments from the Opposition, we will have twice as many Members of the House of Lords as of the House of Commons.

The Minister said that the danger of a sunset clause would be that it would be like switching a light bulb on and off. What he fails to understand is something that some of us have been arguing for through several Bills—that is, many of the measures contained in the Bill would be far better dealt with through the Standing Orders of this House, particularly anything to do with a no confidence motion. There is a danger that otherwise they will be justiciable in the courts. He refuses to accept that. If it had been a question of Standing Orders, then as with any other Standing Order this would be a matter for the House to change. It would not need three readings, nor would it have to go to two Houses; it would just be a matter of a simple vote.

The Minister sets his mind against sunset clauses, but I remember when he used to sit over on the Opposition Benches—what halcyon days—and used to campaign for sunset clauses galore on Government legislation. With virtually every change we introduced through legislation on security and policing, for instance, the then Opposition demanded a sunset clause. On civil liberties, control orders and all these different elements of legislation there was a campaign from Opposition Members saying that there must be a sunset clause. Quite often, we succumbed to that campaign and we put them in. In a large amount of our civil liberties legislation, there were sunset clauses and provisions had to be renewed every year.

One of the most significant sunset clauses in our constitution refers to the inability of the Crown to have a standing Army unless there is a vote in the House of Commons every five years. That is a sunset clause on the single most important part of our constitution: namely, the Crown’s ability to defend the country. The Minister is completely wrong to invent this new concept that we cannot have a sunset clause in a constitutional Bill—and only in such a Bill.

The Minister also said that there are no sunset clauses in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but the single difference between this case and those instances is that there was absolutely no consultation with the wider public on this legislation. As for setting up devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there was lengthy and protracted cross-party consensus on precisely how everything should be set up. I think he is whispering something about the Conservatives not agreeing to devolution in Scotland, but we rejoice that the sinner repenteth. They had the opportunity to take part in that lengthy process of consultation and that is surely the proper process for changing the constitution.

Let me come to my penultimate point. The Minister says that those in the Lords who have presented amendments have good intentions, but he reminds me of something that happened when I went to a theatre a few years ago. There was a couple who had had a terrible row sitting in front of me and just before the play started, the woman turned to the man and said, “And the worst of it is that you’re so blasted pate-ronising.” He kissed her on the forehead and said, “It’s pat-ronising, dear.”

To be honest, I thought the Minister’s approach to their lordships—who are senior constitutional experts and have seen many of the corridors of power far more extensively than he or I—was downright patronising. I think they have come up with a good solution. The coalition Government can have their five years and there will be a general election in 2015 unless one of the Members for Bedfordshire manages to split the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister from one another, but thereafter it should be for the House of Commons and the House of Lords to decide whether to continue with this legislation.

I am sure that the Government Whips, through their nefarious processes, will have engineered that there are plenty of people to see off their lordships’ amendment this afternoon, but I tell their lordships that the Government are attempting to get them to sell their soul for a mess of pottage. The Government amendment is not an amendment that is worth supporting—

13:45

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is a fine, tall gentleman, so I give way to him.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. While he is urging their lordships to stand firm, I wonder whether he might like to remind them that the Parliament Act does not apply so they can insist for as long as they like.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although I am surprised he is only taking us back to 1911. He normally takes us back a little further. The Parliament Act cannot be used in relation to this legislation because the Bill would allow for the extension of Parliament beyond five years—possibly to five years and two months—and that Act expressly prevents the Speaker from forcing the Bill on their lordships. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: your lordships, stand firm.

[Mr Reid]

The Lords amendment we are debating requires the Bill’s provisions to be renewed if they are to be used in each future Parliament, but the Pannick amendment defeats the purpose of the Bill by permitting fixed-term Parliaments only if agreed by both Houses in a future Parliament. It effectively annuls the provisions of the Bill unless both Houses of every future Parliament vote to put the provisions back in place.

The Lords amendment is effectively a wrecking amendment, because it does not even require a resolution to be brought forward to annul the provisions—it is the other way around. Resolutions have to be put forward in future Parliaments to re-establish the provisions. That is completely unnecessary, because if a future Parliament wanted to amend this Bill, it could do so through the normal process of legislation. The amendment simply creates an unnecessary layer of law and its real purpose is to wreck the Bill. It would have been better if the Lords had simply been honest about it and voted against the Bill rather than trying to insert this clause, which is simply a wrecking measure by another route.

The Government’s new amendment, which I support, provides to the Lords a reasonable compromise in that it allows post-legislative scrutiny after we have seen the effects of the Bill through the full cycle. I urge the House to accept the Government’s amendment and reject the Lords’ wrecking amendment.

[Thomas Docherty]

May I begin by asking the Minister to answer the third question I posed to him? In some ways, it is the most important—it is the question about the size of the proposed committee. I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister and I think he secretly enjoys coming along on a Thursday lunchtime and spending some time with right hon. and hon. Friends on his side and on ours. We have excellent debates and he engages well with them. I suspect that the reason why we have such a poorly drafted offer from the Deputy Prime Minister and why the Minister has signed it off on behalf of the Prime Minister is that he knows the Lords will have to reject it, because it is so badly written, and he will be able to come back next week or in October and have another swing at this. The proposition offered on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister opens up many questions that have not been answered about the size and remit of the committee.

One could reasonably say that the Bill will have an impact not only on the workings of both Houses but on the devolved Administrations and on the local authority elections that subsequently take place, because we would have to have five-year Parliaments permanently for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly in order to keep one year behind. That is a very unsatisfactory arrangement.

[Mr Reid]

Surely the Bill removes the uncertainty that would otherwise have applied, because without it not only would the Scottish elections have been scheduled for May 2015 but if this Parliament were to go full term, that election would also be in May 2015. That complete and utter uncertainty is removed by the Bill.

[Thomas Docherty]

I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s optimism about the coalition holding together successfully for the full five years. I think that he is accepting that, in effect, we now have, permanently, a five-year Scottish Parliament and a five-year Welsh Assembly, but I am not sure whether legislation will be brought forward to make that clear in the next Parliament. That is a huge change in constitutional convention and I think he was involved in that. Certainly, his party played a significant role and there was cross-party consensus on it.

One of the key issues was having a four-year Scottish Parliament. I would very much hope that if the committee were set up, it would have a remit that covered not just the impact on the workings of both Houses, but the impact on devolved Administrations and on local authority elections in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is disappointing that we have seen no such indication from the Deputy Prime Minister about what the committee’s remit would be.

It is also disappointing to note that there is no length of time attached to when the committee is expected to report by. If I were cynical and thought that the Deputy Prime Minister could not be trusted and might make a pledge that he would then break, I might think this issue would then be kicked into the proverbial long grass for, perhaps, the full five-year period. I was very surprised that although the Minister gave a reasonably satisfactory assurance about the starting date of the committee, a closing date for its work has not been provided. I look forward to hearing his response in a few minutes, when I very much hope he will deal with that point.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) that this is a wrecking measure. I have been in the House for only 15 months but it strikes me that every time the Deputy Prime Minister puts forward something that his coalition partners are not keen on, some measures are described as wrecking measures. I seem to recall that exactly the same argument was used about changing the date of the referendum on the alternative vote. It was said that moving the date back six months would wreck the whole premise, but I note that that argument was not put forward this week by the Liberal Democrats about shifting the date of the police elections—somehow that is not a wrecking measure, but I cannot think why.

It is very disappointing that the debate was not better advertised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned, possibly because the Patronage Secretary was hoping that many of his more principled colleagues would make other arrangements for this afternoon and would not be around to give the measures the due diligence they could do with. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline why we were not notified until 3 o’clock yesterday afternoon that this important debate was going to take place.

The last issue that I want to address is the Minister’s argument that it would take nine years to start this process. I do not see why he requires, effectively, two complete Sessions of five-year fixed terms to do this. His argument about the upper House is quite revealing and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members in his party will take great comfort from the fact that he is now saying that there will not be an elected upper House and that we will rightly have a fully appointed House of Lords, as we have at the moment. I am sure that is part of the deal that was cooked up over dinner last night. I understand that the Minister was the subject of some roasting last night at the dinner and it is good to see his hands fully today. I understand that there was some concern among parliamentary colleagues that he would have to keep his hands in sight at all times. Without further ado, I will sit down so that he can respond.

[Mr Harper]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me deal with the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a point about the amendment’s availability. It was tabled on Friday and—obviously, processes of the House are a matter for the House—it was certainly on the parliamentary website for the world to see by Monday. So there were three, clear parliamentary days for Members on both sides of the House to look at the amendment and consider their views. The hon. Gentleman’s comments about the usual channels will obviously have been heard by them, and I hesitate to trespass on those matters. I shall leave that point there.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill has not had proper consideration, but it absolutely has. It is true that it did not have pre-legislative scrutiny—and we have explained on a number of occasions that it was a first-Session Bill and that we wanted to make progress on it—but it has had extensive legislative consideration in this House and in the other place. He pointed out that it was introduced to the other place more than a year ago, so the idea that this important Bill has not had proper scrutiny simply is not correct.

The hon. Gentleman said that post-legislative scrutiny already takes place and he is quite right to say that that is done not by the Government but by Parliament. The Government produce a memorandum on Bills that they submit to Parliament, but they do not, of course, scrutinise themselves. This simply adds to the existing scrutiny that will already take place—because of the concerns that people had, we wanted to make it explicit that the Prime Minister would set up a Committee that would look at the operation of the Act and would then have to report and would give the House the opportunity for a full debate.

Picking up the points that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) raised about the detail—the number of members on the committee and the end point—this goes back to the point that the hon. Member for Rhondda made about operating by consensus. The Prime Minister would set up the committee, but details about the number of members and the out-date would be addressed later. The terms of reference would clearly be very wide—the amendment mentions

“a committee to carry out a review of the operation of this Act”

but does not narrow the terms. Those issues would clearly be agreed through the usual channels so there would be some sort of consensus for parties to appoint their Members to the committee. It seems to me sensible to allow that process to take place rather than to set down every detail in the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister says that we should clearly take it as read that the Prime Minister would engage in consultation with the Opposition, but I note that the Minister tabled a written ministerial statement this morning on the West Lothian question and the setting up of a commission, but he does not indicate at any point that he is going to consult the Opposition on its terms of reference or its membership.

14:00

[Mr Harper]

I have just said that that would take place—the consensus on the committee’s terms of reference, as is usual. That is very sensible; we do not want to put all the detail in the motion. The hon. Gentleman should read this morning’s written statement—I will not dwell on it, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you would call me to order if I did—and I am sure that we will have the opportunity to discuss some of the details tomorrow, when we debate a private Member’s Bill. The written statement sets out our overall position on the commission on the West Lothian question. We will consult Mr Speaker on some of the details involving the House, and we have also said that we will have a full opportunity for all the parties to consider the matter. That was in this morning’s statement.

[Mark Durkan]

May I take the Minister back to the points about consultation that may be involved when the committee is formed? Will he assure us that that consultation will not just be through the usual channels with the Opposition, but will involve all parties? As a matter of principle, my party has never accepted nomination to the House of Lords, and we were singularly excluded from any consideration in relation to the committee that has been formed on that matter.

[Mr Harper]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on that and thank him for making it. Given the nature of the matter, it would be helpful if the committee were wide ranging. That is also a good reason not to be too specific about, for example, the size of the committee. Clearly, we need to ensure that Members from all parts of the House are able to be represented properly. On setting down how big the committee should be, there is, of course, a tension if committees are too large, but if they are too small they can be too narrow. It would be helpful to be able to have that debate when we know something about how the measures have worked in practice.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister be straight and guarantee that he will ensure that there is consultation with the opposition parties on the terms of reference of the West Lothian commission?

[Mr Harper]

With respect, we are debating the motion. The hon. Gentleman and I can have a conversation about the West Lothian commission elsewhere.

[Chris Bryant]

So you won’t?

[Mr Harper]

I have only a few minutes and I am trying to deal with the points that hon. Members have raised.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the Minister give a guarantee that he will consult the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland about this committee and about the West Lothian commission?

[Mr Harper]

On this committee, the Prime Minister will of course be able to consult others. The operation of this Parliament, though, is a matter for this Parliament, so I would not necessarily expect that to take place. I should also correct one thing that was said earlier: we have changed the terms of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but we have not made any changes to the terms of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those matters were left for consultation between the parties. It is worth putting that on the record.

I think I have dealt with the issues I noted down that were raised by Members on both sides of the House. I urge the House to support the motion.

Question put.

14:03

Division 343

Ayes: 253

---

Conservative: 209
Liberal Democrat: 37
Plaid Cymru: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 190

---

Labour: 179
Conservative: 10
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1

Point of Order

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

14:17

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This relates to what we have just been discussing, so I am sorry that the Minister has already fled the Chamber. A written ministerial statement relating to the commission on the West Lothian question was tabled this morning. It states that the Government will

“consult with Mr Speaker and other Parliamentary authorities”

on how the commission can be created and how it will consider matters relating to how Parliament should address the West Lothian question. We note that that puts any onus to consult other political parties on the Speaker. I hope that you will take back to Mr Speaker the Opposition’s hope that all political parties in the House will be consulted before terms of reference are brought forward and the membership of the commission is agreed. I raise this as a point of order only because the Government have decided to put the matter of consultation in the hands of Mr Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, strictly speaking that is not a point of order for business today, but he has made his point on the written ministerial statement, and I am absolutely confident that Mr Speaker will have considered all the necessary matters that will involve him. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that Mr Speaker will discharge his duties accordingly.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will read what the hon. Gentleman has said in Hansard—I did not hear all of it, because he did not do me the courtesy of notifying me of his intention to raise a point of order. Had I heard all of it, I would have been able to respond now. I will respond at a later date.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Minister, we are grateful for your offer of help. I am sure that the House will now be able to proceed with the business before us.

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Before I call the Minister, I wish to inform the House of an issue that will need to be dealt with. I understand that amendments to the Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on Tuesday evening did not appear on the amendment paper. The reasons for this, which are currently unknown, are being urgently investigated. As this oversight has been discovered at such a late stage, I do not consider it appropriate to select the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. However, he can be confident that he will be able to raise his substantive concerns about the Bill during this afternoon’s proceedings.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Further to that statement, human error has obviously intervened in the matter, and it is the first time in 28 years—since I was first elected—that amendments which I have tabled have not been translated on to the amendment paper. It is a pity that I was on parliamentary business abroad yesterday and did not realise that there was a problem until first thing this morning, but I am happy that we will be able to discuss at least the substance of my amendments under the debate on new clause 2. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for making that indication.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his co-operation, but as he has said, although this is a very rare occurrence, it is none the less of a nature that needs to be taken seriously and urgently investigated, and I am sure that the Table Office will inform him of exactly why it occurred.

New Clause 1

Goods vehicle operator licences

After section 16D of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, insert—

“16E Goods vehicle operator licences: waiver of procedural requirements

(1) This section applies in a case where, on an application to vary an operator’s licence under section 17 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”), a traffic commissioner is satisfied that—

(a) the variation applied for has a connection with the London Olympics,

(b) there would not, but for this section, be sufficient time to dispose of the application before the beginning of the London Olympics period, and

(c) the circumstances in which the application is being made are such that, but for this section, it could not have been made in sufficient time to be disposed of before the beginning of that period.

(2) The traffic commissioner may direct—

(a) that subsection (3) is to apply in relation to the application, and

(b) if the traffic commissioner proposes to hold an inquiry under section 35 of the 1995 Act in relation to the application, that subsection (4) is to apply in relation to the inquiry.

(3) If the traffic commissioner gives the direction under subsection (2)(a), the following provisions of the 1995 Act do not apply in relation to the application—

(a) section 17(3) (publication of notice by traffic commissioner);

(b) section 18 (publication of notice by operator).

(4) If the traffic commissioner gives the direction under subsection (2)(b), Schedule 4 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/2869), in its application to the inquiry, has effect as if for sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 1 there were substituted—

(3) The traffic commissioner may abridge the periods referred to in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2).”

(5) Section 23 of the 1995 Act (conditions as to use of operating centres) applies in relation to the licence as if the application were an application of which notice has been published under section 17(3) of that Act.

(6) Such variations as are made to the licence on the application, including by the attachment of conditions under section 21 or 23 of the 1995 Act (road safety and operating centres), have effect only during the London Olympics period.

(7) Subsection (3)(a) does not affect the liability incurred in respect of the application under regulation 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Fees) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/3000) (which requires payment of a fee on an application for variation for which publication is required by section 17(3) of the 1995 Act).

(8) The power to give a direction under subsection (2) includes power to vary or revoke the direction.

(9) In exercising functions under this section, the traffic commissioner must act under the general directions of, and have regard to guidance given by, the senior traffic commissioner.

(10) In this section, “operator’s licence” has the same meaning as in the 1995 Act (see section 2(1) of that Act).”’.—(Hugh Robertson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

14:21

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 3 and 4.

[Hugh Robertson]

Hon. Members may recall that back in May, when the Bill was being scrutinised in Committee, Transport for London submitted evidence that called for further amendments. TfL argued that in order to ensure that businesses in London continued to receive goods deliveries and operators were able to arrange delivery times that were compliant with time restrictions for the games, amendments to goods vehicle legislation were required. I am very grateful to the Committee for its encouragement to bring forward changes, if necessary. The Government have considered the matter, and as a result I am introducing a small number of technical amendments to address the concerns that TfL raised.

Operator licences are granted by traffic commissioners, TCs, who are independent office holders and statutorily appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport. One matter that a TC is required to consider when granting a licence is the suitability of the operating centre where vehicles are usually parked and maintained. About 1,700 of the 92,000 goods vehicle operator licences in place contain conditions relating to operating centres, such as conditions concerning hours of use. There is an existing process by which operators may apply to vary the conditions of their licence. In most cases, the Government would expect operators to plan for the need for any variation and to seek it via normal procedures.

Traffic commissioners plan to write to all those operators who have environmental conditions on their licence, reminding them of the need to consider whether the Olympics are likely to have an impact that demands a variation, and to get their applications in now. Typically, for a straightforward case that involves environmental issues, it normally takes between 15 and 20 weeks for an operator’s application for a variation to be considered under current statutory processes, and traffic commissioners cannot short-circuit those procedures.

Despite such preparatory steps, however, the Government believe that, owing to entirely unforeseen circumstances such as the award of a short-term haulage contract or a short-notice change to an existing contract, some operators will need to seek a relaxation of their environmental licence conditions shortly before the start of the Olympic period.

Government intervention is therefore necessary to ensure that in such exceptional circumstances—I repeat that it is only in those exceptional circumstances—operators can apply at short notice for a variation to their environmental conditions, particularly in the hours of operation. As a result, new clause 1 would provide for an expedited process that removed the statutory requirement whereby a games-related application needs to be advertised by the operator who has submitted the application. It would remove the requirement for a traffic commissioner to publish the application; it would retain the statutory power of a traffic commissioner to hold public inquiries to seek further information to inform their decision; and it would remove the statutory requirement whereby the notice period for a public inquiry can be abridged only if the consent of all persons entitled to attend a public inquiry is given.

We have considered carefully whether it is proportionate and justified to remove those safeguards, and we consider that it is. Without short-circuiting existing procedures, there will be no way in which an urgent application, arising from unforeseen circumstances around the Olympic games, can be dealt with quickly enough.

Importantly, however, traffic commissioners’ powers to determine individual applications would be retained, including their powers to impose additional conditions to counter any environmental nuisance that might result. For example, they may want to stipulate that quieter vehicle operations be followed, such as restricting the use of lorry-reversing beepers. Retaining the discretion of traffic commissioners and their knowledge of operators and localities when considering individual applications would help to avoid any abuse of the temporary flexibility.

Amendments 3 and 4 are consequential to the changes that the new clause would bring in. Taken together, the measures—this is really the crucial thing—should help to ensure that, during games time, goods can be delivered and services provided, so contributing to the successful delivery of the London games.

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

In new clause 1, proposed new section 16E(1)(a) refers to the “connection” that a variation of an application has with the Olympic games. Will my hon. Friend expand on the guidance that will be given to traffic commissioners as to what a connection with the London Olympic games is deemed to be, in order to ensure that their decisions are based on the right criteria?

[Hugh Robertson]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, but to a certain extent I should hope that any connection will be reasonably self-evident. It will refer to things that happen over the Olympic games period, a clearly defined period from 27 July to just before the middle of August, and it will clearly refer only to games-time activities, so I hope that in those circumstances it will be reasonably obvious to the traffic commissioner what they are dealing with.

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

We are pleased to support new clause 1 and the consequential amendments 3 and 4, because, as the Minister has clearly set out and, indeed, our constructive discussions in Committee reflected, new clause 1 and the consequential amendments would allow traffic commissioners to apply a shortened application procedure for haulage operators who want to apply for a change to any environmental conditions imposed on the location where their lorries are kept, particularly the hours that they may operate in and out of that location.

That flexibility is of enormous importance during the period of the games, as many haulage operators may need to adjust their operations in response to increased delivery restrictions in London, as well as in other areas of Britain where Olympic events are being held.

I will come on to this point when we discuss new clause 2, but it is my firm belief that although some of the operational necessities of the games may cause inconvenience for individuals and businesses, we should do all that we can to keep that inconvenience to a minimum. Again, there was a strong consensus on that in Committee.

New clause 1 is therefore a sensible measure that will make it easier for haulage operators to adjust to difficulties that they may experience as a result of the games. It forms part of a critical wider programme led by Transport for London to encourage individuals and businesses to change their travel behaviour and arrangements during what will be, by any measure, a challenging time for London’s transport system. I think that Members on both sides of the House are confident that London will rise to that challenge, and we are happy to offer our support.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

May I begin by saying that I was mildly disappointed with the business managers—this is absolutely no criticism of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or Mr Speaker—for selecting today of all days to debate this important Bill, given that many of us who are here would far rather be celebrating with our Paralympians as today is Paralympics day? Perhaps there will be an opportunity later today to do that.

14:30

The new clause and the consequent amendments are very important. During one of the excellent sittings in which the Committee took oral evidence from expert witnesses, I asked Mr Garrett Emmerson of London Streets, which is a Transport for London body,

“are you confident that we have sufficient powers, or that sufficient powers will be given to the right people, to deal with freight vehicles on our roads that are delivering to keep our city running smoothly?”

I stress the words about keeping the “city running smoothly”, because this is not just about ensuring that what needs to be done for the 2012 games happens. He replied:

“We have identified a major concern about the ability of freight operators to service the business community at key times during the games.”

He went on to say:

“A single-day event, such as the royal wedding, is a very different proposition from three weeks of a continuous event. For a single day, it is not a particularly huge challenge to say, “Well, actually, we can’t make a delivery on Friday; it will have to come on Thursday or Saturday.” But the sustained duration of this event creates a very different proposition for businesses.”––[Official Report, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Public Bill Committee, 17 May 2011; c. 41, Q87.]

Because of those concerns, TfL and other bodies have been working hard to warn the business community of changes that will take place during the Olympic and Paralympic games, and to provide it with as much help and support as possible to alter its arrangements. That will of course impact on things such as deliveries to businesses. The examples are pretty obvious: pubs need beer, sandwich shops need bread and businesses need photocopier paper—the list is endless. Businesses that have planned will organise their deliveries to come at the right time. It is fabulous that TfL and others are giving plenty of notice to such organisations. Even today, TfL has had a session with more than 70 major freight operators to advise them that they should be working with the people they supply, so that those people, in turn, can plan accordingly.

The issue is what happens if a business has not been far-sighted and efficient enough to plan with its supplier the deliveries that it needs in order to keep going. My question to the Minister is whether those circumstances are envisaged in the language that is used in the new clause, which states that the variation applied for

“has a connection with the London Olympics”.

That is somewhat different from being influenced by the London Olympics. I assume from the Minister’s response to an earlier intervention that that interpretation is the one that he is using. However, that would not necessarily fall within his other comments that something should be “urgent” and “unforeseen”. In some cases, it might just be down to the incompetence of the person who needs the supplies.

The Minister says that he hopes the new clause is reasonably self-evident. I am not convinced that it is. If he gives a very clear explanation that it will apply to circumstances that occur because of the London Olympics, with all the caveats that he set out—of course the traffic commissioners will consider whether it really is necessary—that will solve the problem. I look forward to him giving that assurance when he responds.

[Hugh Robertson]

I think I can be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. On that basis, I hope that we can agree to the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Operation of Olympic Route Network

‘(1) Section 11 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4) in paragraph (a) leave out from “unless” to end of paragraph and insert— “the following have been consulted—

(i) the highway authority, traffic authority or street authority with responsibility for each road designated in the order, and

(ii) members of the public living in the Greater London Authority area and in the local authority areas through which roads designated in the order run,”.

(3) In subsection (4) after paragraph (a) insert—

“(aa) may not be made unless the consultation under paragraph (a) considered—

(i) proposals for the minimisation of disruption to the general public due to the operation of the Olympic Route Network,

(ii) proposals for informing members of the public in relation to the proposed Olympic Route Network and its likely impact on local and regional traffic,

(iii) proposals for maintaining road safety and preventing accidents which might result from operation of the Olympic Route Network,

(iv) proposals for allowing taxis licensed under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 or under any similar enactment to use the Olympic Route Network in appropriate circumstances, and

(v) proposals for ensuring that the Olympic Route Network and related restrictions should be in operation for the shortest time possible in order to achieve the purposes set out in subsections (1) and (2).”’.—(Tessa Jowell.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Tessa Jowell]

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

I want to begin by expressing our support for the changes to the management of traffic, on which we gave undertakings in the bid book. Olympic lanes were a condition of bidding for the games, and they are vital in ensuring that we have a smooth flow of key people to and from events. In the bid book, as the Minister will be aware, we made a commitment to

“a designated ORN”—

Olympic route network—with Olympic lanes

“to speed the journeys of the Olympic family.”

My purpose today is to raise some of the operational issues concerning the upheaval—the welcome upheaval—in prospect for our city which, for those of use who are London MPs, will have been raised by our constituents. It is important that we work constantly until and throughout the games to ensure that any difficulties faced by Londoners and residents of other parts of the country that are hosting Olympic events are kept to an absolute minimum.

First, we need to make sure that even better information is provided about the ORN plans, remembering that an announcement made 18 months before the games must be repeated at very regular intervals right up until the games. Otherwise, people do not feel that they have been properly informed and will not understand how they have to reorganise their journeys and so forth, and that is not good enough. One of the lessons from the test events was the importance of not just telling people but telling them again and again in a spirit of support for minimising the disruption that they face. We must therefore review the effectiveness of the information strategy.

The Olympic Delivery Authority and Transport for London have done a really excellent job in consultation on the route, but that process, as the Minister will remember, has gone on for a very long time. There is a difference between mere consultation and information that enables people to manage their lives. Londoners and those from other parts of the country living on or near the ORN will at times undoubtedly face quite serious levels of disruption. Through distributing clear information widely and early, the Government and the Greater London authority can help all those affected to prepare, and not to get too angry but to feel that they were duly warned.

Businesses will not be able to receive deliveries in normal hours. Postal and refuse collection services for residents will be disrupted. Taxi and private hire drivers may face long delays and loss of custom. Local residents and businesses need clear and detailed information in as many different forms and languages as possible so that they can plan for the period when the Olympic lanes will be in operation. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will take all necessary steps to review the quality of information and perhaps do a bit of testing of how widely the impact of the ORN is understood?

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

One of the issues that has been raised with me by residents is how long this Olympic lane is going to be in place—100 days, which far exceeds the duration of the Olympic games and the Paralympic games.

[Hugh Robertson]

indicated dissent.

[Lyn Brown]

I am pleased to see the Minister shaking his head. However, the fact that I think, and my residents think, that the lane will be in place for that long is a worry. I agree with my right hon. Friend that information is vital to keeping local residents on board with what is going on, because I get a very small but significant postbag from those who are already complaining about the disruption they are facing and are likely to face.

[Tessa Jowell]

I thank my hon. Friend, whose constituents have perhaps had to bear more of the dust and upheaval of the Olympic park construction than anybody else.

[Hugh Robertson]

But get the new football stadium.

[Tessa Jowell]

Yes, and we say hooray for the new multi-purpose football stadium in the Olympic park. Hopefully at least some of my hon. Friend’s constituents will think it is worth it. I know that the Minister will want to reply to her point.

The second matter of concern that people are beginning to raise is the impact of changes to traffic signals, and the fear that they will significantly increase congestion throughout London. I wish briefly to share a reminiscence with the House. When the evaluation committee came, we were all on our very best behaviour, wanting to persuade the International Olympic Committee that London was the place to host the games. I know that the Minister was very much part of that evaluation visit. We were coming down Gower street, which is normally an area of considerable congestion leading down to Cambridge circus and Trafalgar square. It normally takes about 20 minutes to get from the top to the bottom. As the bus turned into the top of Gower street, all that I could see, right down to the bottom, were green lights. I feared that that might seem implausible, so I suggested that perhaps we might see one red light on our journey down. The point is that the conditions that the evaluation committee enjoyed will not prevail during the games themselves. I hope that there will be close scrutiny of the impact of changes to traffic signals.

Will the Minister also undertake to work with the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Mayor of London to ensure that information about traffic signals is made public without further delay? That is necessary for precisely the same reason as my previous request: we need to prepare people for the degree of extra congestion that they may have to navigate around.

The substantive question on the new clause is whether we can minimise the number of people who will use the Olympic lanes. We know that 97% of those arriving at the Olympic park are expected to arrive by public transport. That is a very good thing, and it will certainly be a lot quicker than getting there by car, except for members of the IOC and athletes. We have to remember that Olympic lanes were specifically designed in the wake of Atlanta to make it easier for athletes to get to the Olympic park or their Olympic venue on time and to prepare properly for their event. We should constantly draw attention to who is eligible to use the Olympic lane, and to the fact that the rest of London will get to the Olympic park on the fantastic new transport in which so much has been invested. I am quite sure that the Minister and Members of all parties will set an example in the form of transport that they choose.

If there is a sense of two classes of travellers to the Olympic park—those whose journeys are hell and those who glide down the Olympic lanes—we have to anticipate that that will quickly become a source of tension, because London is that type of city. I know that the Minister, who has shown great sensitivity about such issues, will be aware of that, and I hope we will do everything we practically can, consistent with the undertakings that we gave, to mitigate the tension.

The third point raised by new clause 2 is on pedestrian crossings. The Opposition are asking the Minister to work with the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Mayor of London to look again at this issue. The latest projection—the Minister may want to correct this—is that more than 60 pedestrian crossings will be closed for months on some of the busiest roads. Although we understand the need for rapid transport between venues, it is important that we do not compromise road safety. In addition, we cannot have a situation in which significant parts of London are effectively divided in half, with residents unable to cross roads.

14:45

The fourth point in the new clause is on taxis and private hire drivers. Will the Minister agree to work with his colleagues, the ODA and the Mayor to examine whether it is feasible for taxis to use the Olympic road network in certain specified areas or at certain specific times? This is an important industry in London and the views of taxi drivers are important in shaping the reaction of visitors.

[Mr Foster]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that getting taxi drivers in London on our side is crucial in the campaign for wider public support, but before she moves on to her fifth point, will she explain a little the language she has chosen to use? She is basically proposing that appropriate taxis should be able use the Olympic route network in appropriate circumstances, but what does she have in mind?

[Tessa Jowell]

The language is flexible, because how greater flexibility is delivered is an operational matter for the ODA and Transport for London. A number of possibilities are covered. It might include access to the Olympic lanes for taxis early in the morning or late at night, when their use for Olympic transport is not at its maximum, or use could be restricted to black cabs—we would want to avoid suddenly having a whole lot of operators claiming to be taxis and therefore eligibility to use the Olympic lanes. Those are two examples of greater flexibility, and we would be grateful if the Minister, with the ODA and TfL, could examine them.

[Lyn Brown]

In respect of local businesses within Newham, I would be remiss if I did not say that if taxi cabs were allowed to use the Olympic route, registered minicab firms in the borough, which will need to find a way to profit from the games, may also wish to be considered. Should the Minister choose to look at the matter in the round, he could give greater consideration to the use of the Olympic lanes by private hire cars.

[Tessa Jowell]

I am sure that the Minister heard my hon. Friend’s representation. However, the three or four points that I have made underline the complexity of the matter. That is why the new clause is drafted in general terms. I do not feel that the Opposition are in a position to be prescriptive, but we are inviting the Minister to engage in discussion. He is as aware as I am of the tension arising from this matter. One of the great joys of being a regular broadcaster on London’s Biggest Conversation, which has an enormous listening audience of taxi drivers, is that I get the red meat from them—feelings are very strong. We would not be doing our proper duty if we did not respond to that, demonstrate that we have done so, and used our best endeavours.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

One of the matters that the right hon. Lady has not mentioned, but which is mentioned in the new clause, is consultation. The whole of the Greater London area is mentioned in connection with the potential consultation. I suspect, however, that as we get closer to the games, lots and lots of people in the area will have something to say and that we could end up with death by consultation. We could be overwhelmed. Will she clarify, therefore, exactly what she means by consultation, what form it would take and when it would happen? If she intends to press the new clause to a vote, some of us on the Government Benches might be sympathetic, but we would need further details.

[Tessa Jowell]

Perhaps uncharacteristically in this place, we do not intend to press the new clause to a vote, subject obviously to the Minister providing satisfactory assurances on the points raised. The most important thing is that he raises them with the relevant authorities and that we find a solution to the growing concerns of Londoners about the prospect of Olympic lanes. This is but one example of very many that we will face in the weeks—47 now, I think—before the games. We have to be vigilant and focused on helping the relationship between the huge festival that is the Olympics and the daily lives and convenience of Londoners and London businesses.

In conclusion, I hope that I have—fairly briefly—made clear our concerns, which are reflected by Members who represent London constituencies on both sides of the House. I have had some helpful discussions with the Minister, and I am sure that we will listen eagerly to this reply.

[Mr Chope]

It gives me great pleasure to support the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell). She said that she was not going to push the matter to a vote, but she might change her mind when she hears what has happened in my constituency over the so-called consultation—or lack of—on part of the Olympic network.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as was indicated by Madam Deputy Speaker earlier, I tabled a series of amendments and new clauses that, owing to a glitch, did not appear on the Order Paper, but which reflected the spirit of the right hon. Lady’s new clause. One of my amendments would have required that no road closure or restriction be operated outside the London Olympics period as defined in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006. I tabled that amendment because we, in my constituency, are concerned about the disruption that will be caused to local residents and businesses well before the games start by the execution of improvement works at the Canford Bottom roundabout.

The right hon. Lady and others will recall that we discussed this matter on Second Reading on 28 April. I make no apology for returning to the subject today, however, because on that occasion I said that clause 4 would be helpful because it would enable the authorities to impose restrictions on side roads and local authority roads, thereby avoiding the need for the Canford Bottom improvements to be pushed through in defiance of local public opinion before the Olympics. That is how it was left on Second Reading.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and I then went to see the Minister with responsibility for roads, who was extremely helpful and accommodating, and said that there must be a proper public meeting and public exhibitions of the proposals, which was not what the Highways Agency originally proposed. Unfortunately, the exhibitions and the public meeting did not take place until the last week or two of July. What concerned my hon. Friend and me at the public meeting was that even at that late stage the Highways Agency had not produced the data about the impact of the closures and the works on local people and local businesses. That meeting took place after the House had gone into recess, but to give due credit to the Minister, he intervened and said that he would not allow the contract for the works to be let straight away, because it was important that the data, which had been promised for months if not years, should be made available to my hon. Friend and me and to the local highways authority.

Two weeks later we got a letter saying that the data were now available—they had been put up on some website. Unfortunately, that same day, before the data had been examined by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole or me, or by the other people to whom it had been sent, we were told that the Minister was going to authorise the letting of the contract because he needed to be able to deliver the Olympic route. Under the terms of the Bill, it would not be necessary for him to have those works carried out at the Canford Bottom roundabout in advance of the Olympics, because he would have the power to restrict the local roads at the time and thereby compensate for any other traffic jams that might arise. We therefore faced a situation where the Minister, by his own admission, was contradicting what he had told my hon. Friend and me when we went to see him, namely that the issue of the improvements to the Canford Bottom roundabout was totally separate and apart from the London Olympics route network. It has now become apparent that the Olympic authorities are dictating the terms of the process and riding roughshod over local public opinion. They are also ignoring the representations made by the local highways authority, in so far as it has received sufficient information to enable it to make such representations.

This is a very serious issue. Many Members might not be familiar with the Canford Bottom junction, but it is on the main A31 trunk road where the road changes from being a dual carriageway going west, and it is subject to significant congestion and delay, particularly at peak times. It seems that it is the purpose of the Highways Agency and the Olympic Delivery Authority to ensure that the A31 runs fine, but in so doing to ignore the needs of the other users of that roundabout. When I say that more than 60,000 vehicles a day use that roundabout, I hope that that puts the situation into context for hon. Members. We are not talking about some local roundabout; a roundabout taking more than 60,000 vehicles a day is an extremely busy roundabout. Indeed, it may surprise Members to know that at peak times, two thirds of the vehicles using the roundabout are not using the A31 in both directions, but are using the minor roads going off the roundabout. That means that at peak hours in the morning, when 4,500 vehicles an hour use the roundabout, some 3,000 of them are using the local roads—that is, they are either coming in from one of the four local roads or egressing along one.

What is going to happen to those vehicles? The Highways Agency and the Olympic Delivery Authority are now saying that in order to construct the hamburger junction, which will involve more than 70 traffic lights—[Interruption.] I knew that my reference to the hamburgers would get the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) excited again, as it did on a previous occasion.

15:00

[Mr Foster]

For the avoidance of doubt, the hon. Gentleman will well recall that I asked him to give a definition of a hamburger junction on the last time he raised it. I fully understand, as will all Members, what a hamburger junction is, so we do not need it repeated today.

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely. I cannot remember whether you, Mr Deputy Speaker, were in the Chair last time, but in the course of the discussion the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of making some rather poor-quality jokes about whether or not hamburgers were going to be sponsored in the Olympics and so forth.

This hamburger junction construction is a really significant issue. I am delighted to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) is now in the Chamber. He will, I hope, come down and visit this part of the network. If he does so, he will realise the implications of the prospect of total closure of all the side roads off that junction, day after day during five weeks when all four sections will be closed off. That will mean that in the peak hours, 3,000 vehicles an hour that use that junction now will not be able to use it. The consequences in terms of disruption to local businesses and local residents are absolutely beyond comprehension.

Last week, there was an incident on the road between West Parley and Longham—one of the side roads that leads ultimately into the Canford Bottom roundabout—as a result of which that road was closed. The traffic chaos, which extended well into the Bournemouth conurbation and had repercussions as far away as Poole, was enormous. There was a great deal of local anger, yet that was a closure that lasted only a few hours. What we are talking about now is a closure for 12 continuous weeks.

If this were happening in your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have done exactly the same as me—raise the matter with the local highways authority. I put the point that if we can keep the main parts of the roundabout for the A31 running during working hours, why cannot we allow the side roads to operate—at least during peak periods or during the working day. The highways authority, Dorset county council, told me that it had been presented by the Highways Agency with some 10 different options for the construction of this hamburger junction. Those options ranged from closing off all the roads completely for 24 or 48 hours and doing the construction quickly, thereby minimising the expense and duration of the works but maximising the disruption to all traffic to, at the other extreme, closing none of the roads at peak times, with the works taking longer and perhaps costing a bit more.

As a result of the pressure of the ODA and the imperative to get this junction improved before the Olympic games—as I say, it is unnecessary, but it has now apparently been imposed on the roads Minister by his counterpart, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics—local businesses and local residents will suffer an enormous amount of disruption. In my submission, that is not consistent with the avowed intent of the Government, as expressed in paragraph 84 of the Bill’s explanatory notes, according to which:

“The Government’s aims in providing for, and enforcing, traffic restrictions required for the 2012 Games”

are

“to minimise the impact of the 2012 Games on local businesses and residents going about their everyday business.”

I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister, and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for roads, that those words ring extremely hollow in the Christchurch constituency, and in the neighbouring constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole. I am sure that, in due course, when the residents of the Poole constituency, as well as the constituencies of Bournemouth East, Bournemouth West and North Dorset, realise the disruption that will be caused, the clamour for something to be done will become even greater.

In my view, prevention is better than cure, and it is not too late for the Government to intervene. They could say either that the construction works should not be carried out until after the London Olympics, or that they should be carried out using a different method that would enable the local traffic to flow, especially during peak periods. The consequences of the total closures to which I have referred will be completely disproportionate.

I have no doubt that if local people had known in advance about the data, which were supplied by the Highways Agency at the insistence of my hon. Friend the Minister only in the middle of August, there would have been uproar. They would have said that the plans were intolerable. Indeed, local businesses were not told about the proposed closures until the middle of August. They have now been told by EnterpriseMouchel, which works for the Highways Agency, that there will be road closures for 12 weeks from the middle of February 2012 until the beginning of May. That obviously includes the Easter period. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is looking at me with incredulity at the prospect of major roads being closed for that length of time.

It is impossible to over-emphasise the gravity of the situation. I do not think that the Highways Agency or the Olympic Delivery Authority have any notion of the anger that is going to be generated when people see what is happening on the ground and realise that there was, and still is, an alternative. This is not like when a motorway has to be closed following a fatal accident, which is an act of God—or perhaps not. We know that this is going to happen, and we ought to be able to plan for it and bring in the necessary traffic management measures to ensure minimum disruption to the local traffic. However, because of the imperative of getting the work done before the Olympics, local businesses and residents are going to be put through an enormous amount of inconvenience.

I cannot even get an answer on whether it will be possible for pedestrians to cross from one side of the junction to the other during the course of the works. A detour of perhaps four or five miles will be required for motorists, through congested urban conditions. That will add hours to people’s journeys and do immense economic damage to the locality. When we discussed this on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister said that that was the first he had heard of the problem. I hope that he will now look into the matter again. His Bill enables him to say that the works should be half-completed or curtailed before the Olympics. They do not have to be finished until after the games, and if that is the price of enabling local people to go about their normal lives without disruption, so be it.

Another point relates to the substance of whether the junction improvements are valid. Only when we obtained the data did the position become clear. Although the Highways Agency and others had asserted that everyone would be better off when the improvements had been completed, it was clear from the small print that, even during peak hours, vehicles coming off the eastern part of Wimborne Road West would experience greater delays than they do at present, and that the same would apply to Wimborne Road West in the evening and Ham lane in the morning.

As for off-peak periods—and, of course, much of the day is off-peak, given that the peaks are defined as two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening—it is clear that, contrary to all the assertions, delays on the local roads will increase. That too was not made clear during the consultation, and the Highways Agency—perhaps in the knowledge that the consequences of declaring openly what was going to happen would be adverse to it—did not communicate the effects to local people. This is a serious example of the need for consultation with the local highways authority, but either there was no such consultation or, if it did take place, the highways authority has not been listened to.

When I raised the matter with the traffic manager at Dorset county council’s environmental directorate, he told me that the proposals considered with the Highways Agency included 10 different options for dealing with the traffic. The issues that they took into account were disruption to the network, buildability, and value for money. I asked what the county council thought, and at that stage it became rather difficult to engage with it. I asked a specific question: did the council believe that the proposals to block access and egress from all four local roads for such a long period was reasonable, or did it place a disproportionate burden on local residents and businesses? I also asked it to look at the 10 possible scenarios, but I am sorry to say that I did not receive a very clear answer from the highways authority. I am not sure whether its members had really got their heads around the gravity of what is proposed. The area contains many major businesses, including aerospace manufacturing, and those businesses—not to mention people going about their own ordinary daily business—will be greatly inconvenienced.

If my amendments had been printed and selected, it would have been possible for the Bill to include the commitment made by the Minister earlier and repeated by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead—who is responsible for road traffic—that the disruption to local businesses and residents would be minimised. It is clear from what has happened so far in relation to the A31 and the Canford Bottom improvements that that commitment is not being fulfilled.

I hope that the Minister will relent between now and the beginning of the disruption that is due to start in February. As was established on the last occasion when we discussed the matter, any competitors or officials wanting to go to the Weymouth site will need to be there in good time. They will not want to risk a delay to their journey at the Canford Bottom roundabout, which, in any case, is probably a good hour and a half’s drive from the Olympics venue. Officials and media people may want to bear that in mind.

15:15

I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is now in her place, and I hope she will join in the debate, in order to emphasise that this is not a party political matter, but rather a constituency matter of the highest order. We do not have the luxury of having any motorways in Dorset, and we do not have many trunk roads either, but we expect those that we do have to be managed and dealt with in a way that is much more friendly towards the needs of the local people than seems to be the case at present.

I said I would not speak at length and I have resisted quoting from much of the extensive correspondence I have had with the Minister and officials. I hope this debate—and, perhaps, the protests that will follow if the Government do not relent on the proposed 12-week closures—will bring home to them the fact that local people take this issue very seriously.

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

I endorse the points that are being made. The Olympic games are a wonderful opportunity for this country, but the impact on our area is beginning to be very considerable, and some of it is causing a great deal of resentment and fear among local businesses. In respect of these road works, due consideration must be given to our local economy and the way of life of local people.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and her support for our line; we have been operating on this issue together. We have been in the dark for quite a lot of the time, but we have worked hard to try to cast some light on the issue.

There is much talk about the Olympic legacy, and perhaps the Minister will refer to that in his summing up. I fear, however, that the Olympic legacy in my constituency will be people saying, “The Canford Bottom roundabout should have had a proper improvement, but instead a half-baked hamburger junction has been incorporated that will not on any view solve the long-term traffic problems. That was the price that had to be paid for the Olympics.”

I think it is too high a price, and it is also an unnecessary price, because there could have been a little more consultation and rational thought about this matter. We could have delayed the improvements until after the Olympics and thus ensured that they would deliver real benefits to local road users, as well as to national road users using the important A31 network.

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

I rise to make a few brief remarks on new clause 2. I urge the Minister to ignore the siren voices calling for yet more consultation as we near the Olympic period. While the Opposition will not press their amendments to a vote, I fear that the Minister might choose to acknowledge their sentiments and take on board what they propose.

I am not generally a great fan of Transport for London, but I have to say that its consultation on the Olympic network has been exemplary. Phase 1 addresses the A12 Leytonstone to Redbridge roundabout. Although it is not in my constituency, it is an important London junction, and TfL has written to every resident and business within a certain distance, informing them of all the changes and proposals. It has also held three drop-in sessions, and that procedure has been repeated for every phase.

[Lyn Brown]

I represent the constituency in which the Olympic park is based, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have a small but very significant postbag from residents who are not aware of things that are happening on their doorsteps and that affect their everyday lives, such as whether or not they can go down certain roads, which roads are closed and how much noise, inconvenience and dust will be created. Although I hear him saying on behalf of his constituents that the good people of Finchley are not in need of further information and consultation, the good people of Newham would be very grateful to be kept properly informed of everything that will happen over the next year and more that will affect their quality of life.

[Mike Freer]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I cannot comment on the ability of her constituents to absorb information, nor on the ability of mine to do so. What I am saying is that this new clause is unnecessary. It is not for primary legislation to dictate to Transport for London or the ODA exactly how and when they should consult. They are consulting on the major phases extensively and, unusually, TfL is doing that quite well. Members of the public and Members of this House may feel strongly about the consultation, but the consultation for phase 1 in central London is still open, and it will remain open for another week. All I am saying about this new clause is that the Minister needs to be careful not to burden the ODA with a raft of consultation and information requests that are ill-defined and will, at some point, allow people to say—

[Lyn Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Freer]

No, I am just making a general point about the quality of consultation on the priority route networks.

Under Mayor Johnson, TfL has been exemplary on this occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made a powerful case about consultation, and perhaps we should extend the purview of Mayor Johnson to Christchurch, as that might improve the level of consultation on my hon. Friend’s local council.

[Mr Chope]

My point is not about the lack of consultation by the local council; it is about the lack of involvement of the Highways Agency.

[Mike Freer]

I stand corrected. My general point is that the new clause, whether or not it is pressed to a vote, asks the Minister to take on board a raft of additional consultations. It asks us to consult and inform ad nauseam, yet it is ill-defined.

[Lyn Brown]

rose—

[Mike Freer]

I have already said that I am not going to give way further on this, as I am making a general point. The Minister needs to be careful not to burden the ODA and the relevant authorities with ill-defined requests, ad nauseam, for information. Thus far, TfL has been exemplary and the Mayor of London has done an excellent job, and I urge the Minister to ignore the siren voices.

[Hugh Robertson]

With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, and with the permission of the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), I shall deal with Canford Bottom roundabout first and then return to her new clause.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Bottom up then, is it?

[Hugh Robertson]

It is actually the military principle of securing one’s rear before one advances. There will be an unfortunate double entendre, if we are not careful.

It is a well-defined principle of the Olympics, or it certainly has been in the 15 or 16 months of our work on the Olympics, that issues lie where they fall. Thus, despite the fact that my Department—the one that the right hon. Lady presided over before the election—has primary responsibility for the delivery of the Olympics, where detailed issues arise they lie with the Department that is primarily responsible for them. So anything to do with the management of overseas dignitaries lies with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, anything to do with Olympic security lies primarily with the Home Office and anything to do with transport lies primarily with the Department for Transport. So I feel a little bit like a duck caught in the shooting gallery this afternoon.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) raised a great number of his concerns on Second Reading, and I undertook then to ensure that they were correctly raised with the Department for Transport. The note that I have been given assures me that that has been the case and, indeed, I believe that in his submission my hon. Friend acknowledged that the roads Minister has been closely involved. I suspect that the problem is that we have simply hit a brick wall, in that my hon. Friend does not want this particular scheme to happen but the roads Minister has given authorisation for it to proceed. There has been agreement that the work can proceed, and I believe that it is due to start imminently. The note that I have received states that the highways authority simply does not believe that there is a viable alternative.

I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that I went to Weymouth to have a look at the test event at the beginning of August, when representatives of Dorset county council and the local authority were present. I did not get the opportunity to get held up at the Canford Bottom roundabout. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood will be delighted to learn that I set a good example and travelled by train, and so I did not have a chance to see this important roundabout. I must tell my hon. Friend that nobody in and around Weymouth, including Dorset county council, raised this with me as an issue in any way.

Indeed, if one problem came out of that visit—the regatta itself was brilliantly organised and the local authorities are doing everything that they possibly can to deliver a successful regatta at Olympic time—it was the worry that on the super Sunday in the middle of the games, when Ben Ainslie stands a chance of breaking the record for sailing medals at the Olympics, most of the south-west will decamp to Weymouth, thereby gumming up roads for miles around. It was for precisely that reason that they needed to make improvements to the road network. As my hon. Friend knows, one of the reasons why Weymouth will be a great venue is that it is a fantastic amphitheatre, but the town, which is small and has small roads, has a capacity of about 8,000, I was led to believe. Their concerns are rather the reverse and that we should do everything possible to increase access.

I simply do not know what more I can do at this point. It is not within my power as the Olympics Minister to halt these works and it never has been.

[Mr Chope]

The roads Minister told me that it was not necessary to go ahead with these works prior to the Olympics, but he has effectively told me in a letter that he has now been ordered to go ahead with them because they form part of the Olympic route network. If my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and the Olympics can do nothing else today, will he confirm that as far as the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Olympic route network are concerned, it is not necessary to proceed with the Canford Bottom construction and improvements before the Olympic games? The route could be secured using the powers in clause 4.

[Hugh Robertson]

I shall certainly check that for my hon. Friend and, if he wishes, write to him, but the information that I have in front of me is clear—inasmuch as I can read it—that these improvements are required to deliver the Olympics. It is as simple as that.

[Mr Chope]

Why are the improvements required? How will they make a difference? At the moment, my hon. Friend’s powers under clause 4 would enable all the other sides of the roundabout to be closed off, for example. Indeed, local people have said that they would prefer that. They would prefer to have all the roundabout closed off to local traffic during the Olympic games than to have to put up with this disruption and the construction of what seems to be a white elephant project.

[Hugh Robertson]

My hon. Friend will know, as he was a Transport Minister in the previous Conservative Government, that what local people want is not always the best traffic solution to achieve what people are trying to do on a national scale. We are committed to an Olympic route network—we will come on to that in a minute—and that was a commitment given at the time of the bid. As the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has said, many of us are nervous about this, but it was a commitment we made when we signed the host nation contract back in 2005, and it is one that we are contractually obliged to deliver. We have taken advice from the experts—in this case, the Highways Agency—and I have a briefing from it among my notes. I have just received a copy of the letter that was written to the right hon. Lady by the Transport Minister. Both the briefing and that letter confirm that these works are necessary and that they will go ahead. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is so unhappy about it, but I do not see that there is a great deal that I can do.

[Mr Chope]

Of course, my hon. Friend has to answer for the roads Minister, too, because that is the way this debate is going. My hon. Friend the Minister says that these works are necessary, but does he not agree that if we apply common sense we can see that it is possible to construct such a major new junction without closing the local roads for 11 weeks continuously?

[Hugh Robertson]

The short answer is that I simply do not know, because I have not seen this roundabout. I am an amateur, not a traffic professional, and I think that even if I went there and had a look, I would not necessarily be sure that I would get it right. That is why we have agencies such as the Highways Agency to give us advice. That advice has been examined and tested by my hon. Friend the roads Minister, and he has written accordingly. I am afraid that I have no option—and would not take any other up—than to accept his judgment and advice. I am afraid that that is where we are. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch does not like it, but I am afraid that that is the way it is going to happen.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has overruled the roads Minister in insisting that this project go ahead?

[Hugh Robertson]

No; absolutely not. I have not overruled the roads Minister in any way. I do not have that power, which does not exist.

[Annette Brooke]

Does the Olympic Delivery Authority have the power to instruct the Minister to give the go-ahead to the road?

[Hugh Robertson]

I would have to check the requirements of the Act. The ability to set out an Olympic route network was laid out in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) and I were involved in passing five years ago. As the right hon. Lady has said, the power was introduced because there was complete traffic chaos at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, in which competitors missed their events and officials failed to turn up at the right time because the city became gridlocked. That has been a feature of every Olympics since.

15:30

It is a requirement of the host nation contract to have an Olympic route network between all the key venues. That was given statutory effect in the 2006 Act, so the measure will almost certainly have its origin in that Act. There is a process of consultation between the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Highways Agency about how these things are to be enacted. According to the evidence before me today—the briefing that I have been given—that consultation has been done and a conclusion has been reached. I am very sorry that the two local Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke)—do not like it, but it is one of those simple situations where there is a difference of opinion between local Members of Parliament and those trying to design the scheme. Given that the roads Minister has considered all this, having had countless meetings, and come to a conclusion, I do not see much point in prolonging this further because the decision has been made. The only advice that I can give to those Members if they wish to pursue this further is to do so with the roads Minister via an Adjournment debate.

On the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, let me say at the outset that I entirely appreciate that the thought process lying behind it involves trying to minimise the impact of the Olympic route network on people living and working in the areas concerned. I am very grateful for her confirmation that she supports the general principle. All of us who have been involved in this process, either at the time of the bid or subsequently, recognise why this has to happen, but none of us is enormously enthusiastic about it, because we know exactly what the impact will be. However, it is a necessary safety measure to ensure that the London games are not afflicted by the sort of scenes we saw in Atlanta, with competitors missing the start of their competitions and officials not being able to get there to oversee them.

The importance of this issue was brought home to me at the weekend, when I visited the rowing squad out in Slovenia during the world rowing championships. It is very easy for us to minimise how important these events are to the athletes—the young men and women who are competing for us—but in many cases they have given up other careers and put themselves through an almost monastic existence for the four years running up to events. We owe it to them to make sure that this moment in their lives is as well organised as possible.

Before I address the four points that the right hon. Lady made, let me pick up the point that the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made about the operation of the Olympic route network. I categorically assure her, on the record, that the network will not operate for 100 days—it absolutely will not. It is expected to operate for a couple of days in the lead-up to the games and for a short period after they finish to allow for the arrival and departure of athletes. It then will not operate between the Olympics and the Paralympics, and then the same thing will happen again. The horror stories about 100 days of chaos are very wide of the mark.

[Lyn Brown]

I welcome the Minister’s answer very much, but the figure of 100 days is in the ether, so to speak. A constituent wrote to me about this matter, quoting the ODA website. That is at the back of my mind, although as I stand here I do not have access to the letter, and certainly do not have access to the ODA website. I would be grateful if the Minister’s aides considered looking at the website to see how my constituents might have misread the information that they saw in front of them.

[Hugh Robertson]

I expect, without knowing, that the hon. Lady’s constituents misread the information, because in some quarters it is being presented very badly. That is not a criticism of the ODA, although we will certainly look at what she says, but there is a certain amount of mischief making in all this. Many people who write and commentate on the games know that the measure will be extremely unpopular and unwelcome in some quarters, and are making the most of it. A lot of the 100-day scare stories come from that, which is partly why I am happy to put the record straight today.

[Bob Blackman]

Londoners in general are concerned that we might witness the horrible spectacle of queues of traffic sitting in proper lanes while International Olympic Committee officials are whisked past them in rapid-fire lanes at times when people are not going to the Olympics but are going about their normal, law-abiding business. We can all agree that in the area around the Olympic park there will be a lot of publicity and, therefore, understanding, but in the wider area of London there will be less understanding and less appreciation. Will the Minister assure us that he is doing everything possible to minimise not only the number of days, but the times when the Olympic lanes will operate, so that the inconvenience to Londoners is minimised?

[Hugh Robertson]

Indeed, my hon. Friend can have that guarantee from me. There can be no better guarantee than the fact that, whatever we signed in the host nation contract, we all know that these measures have the capacity to cause considerable annoyance and irritation at a time when we would like the whole country to come together to celebrate a London Olympics, with the possible exception of the residents in and around the Canford Bottom roundabout.

We are determined to ensure that we operate the network with the minimum possible disruption to London residents. It will operate for only a couple of days before the games and a couple of days after to facilitate entry and exit to the city. It will operate during the games themselves only when the competition schedule is in place.

The final thing that is worth saying is that the Olympic route network occupies only a tiny proportion of the London network. I can give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that we will do everything possible to ensure that the effect is as small as possible, commensurate with keeping to the obligations to the IOC that we undertook in signing the host nation contract back in 2005.

Let me run through the four points made by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. I agree that communication is vital and that this is not a question of one, straightforward leaflet drop. As we know, there are all sorts of reasons why such a thing could go adrift. The process has to be constant and ongoing—probably rather like a point in politics: only when one is heartily sick of hearing it is there any chance of its getting through. I agree that it is vital that we not only go through the consultation process, which we are doing at the moment, but back it up, back it up and back it up.

If it would reassure the right hon. Lady, and in keeping with the agreements we have over the scope of the project, I am happy to arrange for her to have a briefing from Transport for London, which I presume she sees as part of her shadow ministerial responsibilities, and from the Department.

[Mr Foster]

To offer further reassurance, will the Minister tell the House whether I am correct in my belief that many aspects of the Olympic route network will require traffic regulation orders to be passed, and that passing a traffic regulation order requires consultation with the local public—an additional level of consultation?

[Hugh Robertson]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, had I read the speech that was prepared for me, I would have covered that point—I decided instead to try to be clever and go al fresco across the right hon. Lady’s contribution.

The right hon. Lady’s second point was about encouraging everyone to travel by public transport. It was made clear in a powerful part of the bid we put in to the IOC that these were to be a public transport games. As she will know, as a Minister I always travel by public transport and certainly will in the run-up to the games. Indeed, even now public transport is by far the quickest way to get to Stratford. I managed to travel from the west end to Stratford international station in 18 minutes the other night. Slowly but surely that point is getting through in Lausanne. I had some discussions on that when I attended the world rowing championships. The IOC members probably form a spectrum in that regard; many will use public transport, but some will probably take some more persuading. We will do everything we can to encourage them to use public transport.

A consultation on pedestrian crossings is going on at the moment. The detailed plans on changes to pedestrian crossings are being adjusted wherever possible in the light of representations that have been received. It is our intention to ensure that there is minimum disruption, not that a “safety first” approach is carried out. I can absolutely assure the right hon. Lady that that will be done.

The right hon. Lady’s final point was on taxis, and the Mayor said yesterday that he was looking at that very carefully. We are seeing what can be done at one end of the spectrum, by creating pick-up and drop-off points along the Olympic route network that will allow taxis to operate more efficiently. Information packs are already being prepared that will cover the ORN venues and other details about the games. They will be distributed to drivers to help them to operate as efficiently as possible and make the most of the commercial opportunities that will be available to them through the games.

[Lyn Brown]

I am once again grateful to the Minister for his point about black cabs, but I emphasise the point about private hire cars from local businesses around the Olympic site—certainly those that operate with a licence and are of good repute.

[Hugh Robertson]

The hon. Lady makes the point well. The best thing I can do is offer her a guarantee that I will bring her remarks to the attention of the Mayor. It might be sensible for her to write to him as well, but I can certainly give her that assurance.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I have often resisted intervening on issues relating to the London taxi industry, but on this occasion I cannot. It is the only fleet of transport vehicles in London that is fully accessible to disabled people. It is an essential part of making it easy for people with disabilities to get to the Olympic site. When the Minister is discussing that with the Mayor, would he please emphasise that point and perhaps allow those vehicles carrying people with a blue badge or some form of identification that shows they are registered disabled to enter the Olympic priority network?

[Hugh Robertson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is a point well made. As he knows, it is international Paralympic day today—there is not always a direct correlation with the term and I know that people do not always like it. One of the commitments made at the time of the bid was to make this the most disabled-enabled games ever. This country, of course, is the home of the Paralympic movement. It is absolutely our intention to do everything possible to make the experience for disabled people attending both the Olympic and Paralympic games as easy and pleasurable as possible. The hon. Gentleman’s point about the London taxi fleet was well made. I agree with him entirely and will certainly raise it with the Mayor.

I will finish by thanking the right hon. Lady not only for her new clause, but for the spirit with which she tabled it. I absolutely agree with the thinking behind it. Indeed, had we been having this debate 19 months ago I would probably have done exactly what she has done today.

I hope that in my remarks I have been able to reassure the right hon. Lady that we will do everything possible. As I have said, certainly in the House, not least because all Members receive constituency postbags, we are all aware of the potential for the situation to cause very considerable unease, anger and disappointment at games time. We gave a commitment at the time of the bid, and we must carry it out, but it is absolutely vital that it is carried out in a common-sense and, dare I say it, minimalistic way, so that the impact on an already very busy and congested city is kept as small as possible. I hope that with that reassurance she will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw her new clause.

[Tessa Jowell]

I thank the Minister for his constructive response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Police resources

‘(1) Section 6 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2) insert—

“(3) Any consultation under subsection (2) shall include a request from the Authority that the Commissioner or relevant chief constable provide an estimate of the number of police officers required to be deployed in order that the Olympic Delivery Authority may effectively exercise its duties under subsection (1).”’.—(Tessa Jowell.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

15:45

[Tessa Jowell]

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

The security operation for the games will be the largest peacetime security operation ever mounted in the UK, and it will place tremendous demands not only on the Metropolitan police, but on all police forces, as officers will be drawn from forces throughout the country. Of the 330,000 police shifts that are likely to take place during the games, about 70,000 are likely to be covered by officers from outside London.

In the wake of the disturbances that swept across London—when, similarly, we had officers from outside London supporting the Met—and other parts of the country, we have learned not just how important the number of police can be, but how vulnerable parts of the country and, indeed, of our city can be when there are simply not enough police on the street.

By the time the games come to London, London and national police forces will be significantly diminished. The Government’s gamble with police cuts means that there will be fewer police on the streets, putting the security operation and other police functions at risk.

By March 2012, the Metropolitan police will have 940 fewer officers than it had two years before, and throughout the country two thirds of the budget reductions will have taken place by the run-up to the games, meaning that there will be as many as 10,000 fewer officers available.

The Police Federation has raised concerns that forces outside London are struggling to find the finance and the man and woman-power to send officers to the capital, and that could heap further pressure on an already stretched Met.

In the light of last month’s events, what reassurances can the Minister give the House that the Met police force will be able to cope not just with the Olympic security operation, but with any public order disturbances that may come its way? Can he assure the House that police forces outside London will also have sufficient numbers to offer support to the Met police operation and to respond to disturbances that might occur at the same time in their own area?

If the Minister cannot with confidence give those assurances, will he undertake to meet ministerial colleagues to review policing capacity and capability in order to ensure that there is a sufficient number of police officers to fulfil the extensive commitments of summer 2012, remembering that the Olympics are preceded by the celebration of the Queen’s diamond jubilee?

The most important task of any Government is to ensure the safety of the people whom they serve, and next year presents an unprecedented security challenge, one that will have been made significantly harder by having fewer police on the streets of London. I ask the Minister to reassure not just the House but London that the security strategy, which enjoys cross-party support, can be delivered even with that reduced capability.

[Stephen Pound]

I do not want to tempt the Minister too far away from the core subject, the wording, the irrefragable basis of this marvellous, exquisitely crafted new clause. However, he is well known for being a man of great charm, decency and keenness to accommodate all views in the House—a characteristic that will almost certainly guarantee that he does not become Prime Minister for a few years, but that he will have a great many friends.

The point that concerns me very much on the issue of policing was raised in reference to the Olympics on the Floor of the House on Monday in connection with the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. I understand that we are not talking about TPIMs, but the Olympics. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) has raised the issue of police numbers and the potential shortfall.

As every right hon. and hon. Member in the House will know, the abandonment of the relocation principle was voted through the House on Monday night, although I have to say that all Opposition Members voted to maintain public safety and relocation. One consequence is that some of the most dangerous and potentially lethal terrorists in this country will be allowed to return to their home areas, which will often be in the heartlands of the Olympics. As we heard on Monday night, that will require enhanced police activity and oversight. Whereas under the relocation principle such people could be relocated away from their homes, they will now return to areas where they know people, in many cases where they were brought up, and where they have friends and family.

Understandably, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) did not go into a great deal of detail on Monday, but he did point out that there would have to be deeply enhanced police oversight. Whether that will be provided in any force other than the Met, we do not know. Logic suggests that it will have to be done by the Met. The Met is the only force that can draw down this sort of specialist oversight operation. If that happens, the demand from that draw-down on police officers from January and February next year, right the way through the diamond jubilee and the Olympics, will become intensely significant.

It is not the purpose of this debate to rehash all the TPIMs arguments. However, it is a shame that the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is not in his place—he was here earlier—because on Monday, he pointed out that, having come to the issue completely open-mindedly, he could not understand why any Government would not wish to have this vital tool in their armoury. However, on the occasion the vote was lost. I ask the Minister whether he will speak to his colleagues in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice specifically about the additional police numbers that will be required to oversee the operation of TPIMs in east London in particular and in the whole of the M25 area.

The Minister has military experience. He is the sort of young officer whom many of us would follow into the jaws of death itself. I imagine him on the bridge of some storm-tossed corvette, heading straight into the roaring sound of gunfire, while we plucky matelots gather astern to support him. On this occasion, I would like to see him lead the good ship of state into the safe haven of public security and away from the threat and danger that may be attendant upon east London, the Olympic area, the Olympic dream and the Olympic ideal.

[Hugh Robertson]

Follow that! I should probably confess that the only time I ever went into the heat of battle on the back of a vehicle was in a tank with the lid firmly screwed down, so there is rather less chance of that than the hon. Gentleman suggested.

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s points in a minute, but may I start by saying that I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) for tabling the new clause? As she is absolutely aware, having had this responsibility herself, the safety and security of games venues, the supporting infrastructure and the wider public environment next summer is a paramount priority for the Government and for everybody involved in the Olympic games movement. I should certainly, at the outset, place on the record my gratitude for the work that she did during her time in office to ensure that the security plan is in the position that it is today. I am happy to say to this House, as I have said outside, that I am as confident as one can be at this stage that we can deliver a safe and secure games.

In response to the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), I point out that we had the opportunity in Committee to question the assistant commissioner who is responsible for policing and security around London 2012. As I think we all agreed, he was probably the standout witness we saw. He was extremely persuasive and, as one would expect, well informed. There is no doubt that the fact that the security plan, operationally, is in such a good place is largely due to the work that he and others have done. I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no question, either formally or informally, of the Metropolitan police raising the sort of concerns that he has just raised with me. In as much as it counts, I hope that he will accept that reassurance.

[Mr Foster]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I should like to place on the record—perhaps this will reassure the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound)—the fact that I too have the utmost confidence in Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison, who was not only an expert witness but gave every one of us who questioned him real confidence that he takes these concerns deeply seriously and also has the ability, the competence and the skills to ensure that the solutions are delivered.

[Hugh Robertson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that.

[Stephen Pound]

I apologise for intervening again; this is not ping-pong. That is not even an Olympic sport; if it were, it would be called whiff-whaff, I am sure. I take second place to no man in my admiration for AC Allison, but the point is that he was talking about the situation then. Since Monday night, the rules have changed and everything is different. We now have the potential for the body to be infected by a virulent bacillus. Even Lord Carlile, who is not of my party, has said that these are potentially lethally dangerous people. The weather has changed, and we have to take that into consideration, despite the admiration that everyone in this House has for AC Allison.

[Hugh Robertson]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, the events of Monday night did not suddenly come out of a puff of smoke. The police have had the opportunity to prepare for this, and they also have the ability, through their intelligence services, to look forward. On that basis, I can reassure him that neither formally nor informally, at any stage, has anybody in the Metropolitan police service raised this with me as a potential problem.

[Lyn Brown]

I thank the Minister for his good words, which go some way towards helping us to feel more secure. However, will he take back and ask directly the question about whether the relocation issues are now of concern to the Metropolitan police with the forthcoming Olympic games ahead of us?

[Hugh Robertson]

I will certainly go back and ask the question. I am not sure that this will necessarily reassure the hon. Lady, but I would be absolutely amazed if I were the first person who had asked it. It is absolutely inconceivable that it was not asked by the Home Office during the preparation of the Bill. This has been a long time in the cooking, and there would have been ample opportunity for the Metropolitan police to say, at any stage during the process, that this was a problem.

[Stephen Pound]

This will be the last time that I seek to intervene on the Minister. I entirely take his point. However, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osborne, a person of similar standing who is the co-ordinator for counter-terrorism, said in evidence to this House that relocation is by far the most effective mechanism. The Met is therefore considering it, and for the one person the Minister prays in aid, we can pray in aid a DAC who says quite the opposite.

[Hugh Robertson]

At the risk of splitting hairs, I am not sure that there is a contradiction here. Whatever the DAC may or may not have said about what place he sees for relocation in the tools available to him, the fact is that it has gone now, post Monday night. The police have known that it was going for some time before this—and crucially, knowing that it was going, nobody has said that that will present us with an insuperable problem, or in my case, any form of problem, around London 2012.

[Bob Blackman]

One of the concerns expressed to me by individuals in the Metropolitan police is that since the London riots, in many London boroughs the police have been continuously working 12-hour shifts, with no rest days and no allowance for annual leave. That is at the current operational policing level. Given that the Olympics are coming up, will the Minister verify the position with the Met? My understanding is that it is cancelling all annual leave for the duration of the Olympics and gearing up for a similar operation during that time, and that will put great strain on the resources available to it not only in the Olympic areas but across London. That must give rise to a potential security problem.

16:00

[Hugh Robertson]

I say to my hon. Friend that we should be careful, because I would be very nervous about saying anything that suggested that there was in any way, shape or form a security problem around London 2012. The messages that we give out here are followed in places beyond here, so one could get into quite dangerous territory. I am not without experience in this area—I spent just over 10 years in the armed services and know how to read a security briefing—and I say again that given the nature of the subject that we are dealing with, I am as confident as I possibly can be at this stage, 10 months out from the Olympics, that we can deliver a safe and secure games. Inherent in that is the necessity of striking a balance between keeping this city and those games secure and recognising that they will be a fantastic public spectacle that we want people to be able to move in and out of and enjoy to the maximum extent.

I will come to the precise police numbers required to police London 2012 in a moment, but the Metropolitan police have been involved at every stage of the planning and are confident, as I am, that the plan is deliverable and that the result will be a safe and secure games.

[Bob Blackman]

I think we can be confident about the security level of the games. Having inspected the park and the security arrangements, I think we will deliver a superb games. One of the concerns of Londoners, however, is the potential for criminals and others to promote their activities in the time leading up to and during the games, which could affect the police’s operational capability in London in that period. Has that been taken into account?

[Hugh Robertson]

The short answer to my hon. Friend is that it has absolutely been taken into account. As I said, I will come on to the police numbers in a moment, which I hope will give him some reassurance, but I can give him further reassurance. He took part in the debate on Second Reading and has been closely involved throughout the Bill’s passage, so he will be aware that one clause in the Bill is the specific result of police intelligence and a request from the police. The maximum fine for ticket touting has been increased on the basis of intelligence received from Operation Podium. There is a constant process of updating legislation as required.

New clause 3 would require relevant police authorities, in such consultations with them as the Olympic Delivery Authority considered appropriate, to provide an estimate of the police deployments required to enable the ODA to fulfil its responsibilities under section 6(1) of the 2006 Act. I would say two things about the new clause. First, there have been and continue to be extensive discussions between all concerned parties—the police, the Home Office, the ODA, the Department, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and a great many others—on planned police deployments at London 2012 venues.

The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood will also be aware, most practically because she has done this job, that as under the previous Administration the Government have pursued a policy of maximum transparency in communicating the look and feel of the safety and security of the London 2012 games. That includes public statements from the police on the expected requirement for policing the games, which at current estimates is up to 9,000 officers in London and 12,000 nationally on the peak days during the Olympic games. Naturally, those numbers will be flexed up or down as necessary in response to changes in intelligence and the threat environment.

The second point is much more technical—I am slightly more nervous about making it, and I hope the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood will take it in the way that it is meant. The proposed purpose of new clause 3 is out of step with the transfer of a wide range of games-time responsibilities, including security, from the ODA to LOCOG. At the Olympic park, that handover will be complete in January, so there is a technical problem with new clause 3, because by the time the measure has ground through the other place, it is likely that in any event, the security responsibility will largely have been handed over. In practical terms, if the new clause becomes part of the Bill, it would have either a very short shelf life or possibly no shelf life.

Accordingly and in conclusion, I once again thank the right hon. Lady for all the work that she did in government in drawing up the original security plan. I absolutely reassure her and other hon. Members that keeping the games safe and secure remains the Government’s overriding priority. A lot of things are important in and around the games, but security is the No. 1 priority.

I offer the right hon. Lady the opportunity to raise those and other concerns with Home Office officials as part of her routine briefings on the subject, as I did in respect of her previous proposal. As we discussed at Question Time this morning, I am aware that she has a meeting next week. If anything comes out of that that she feels has not been addressed satisfactorily, I hope she knows that she can come back to me, and I will do everything possible to ensure that she gets the right answer. On that basis, I hope that I can persuade her to withdraw the clause.

[Tessa Jowell]

With those very helpful assurances, and on the basis that the House will want to keep these matters under review between now and the end of the games, which will be a year tomorrow, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

Removal of infringing articles

[Hugh Robertson]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 2, in clause 1, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 21 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 (offence of contravening advertising regulations), omit subsection (4).’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 2.

[Hugh Robertson]

I think everybody will be relieved to know that these are two minor and very technical amendments—I see nods all around the Chamber at that.

Amendment 1 repeals a redundant provision in the 2006 Act. Section 21(4) provides that a person convicted of contravening the advertising regulations may be ordered to pay the ODA’s or the police’s reasonable enforcement expenses. The provision is redundant, because other sections of the Act—sections 22(9) and 28(7)—already allow the ODA and the police to recover their enforcement costs from people who contravene the advertising and trading regulations.

Amendment 2 amends the advertising and trading provisions as they apply in Scotland, so that they remain largely as operated by the 2006 Act but more closely follow the model of the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Act 2008. The amendment has been requested by the Scottish Government, who consulted the police and prosecuting authorities in Scotland.

Although the amendments will result in a small and technical variation in the operation of the advertising and trading provisions in Scotland as opposed to England and Wales, they are not likely to cause significant differences in practice. Indeed, I hope that all hon. Members recognise that Scotland’s legal system is different from the one in England and Wales.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment made: 2, page 6, line 15, leave out subsections (9) and (10) and insert—

‘(9) In section 37 of that Act (Scotland), omit—

(a) subsection (6), and

(b) subsection (11).

(10) At the end of that section insert—

“(12) In section 22, subsection (6) has effect as if there were substituted for it—

(6) An article that is held by a constable (having been removed by or delivered to the constable) shall be returned when retention is no longer justified by a matter specified in subsection (5)(a) to (c), unless—

(a) in the case of a perishable article, the article has ceased to be usable for trade, or

(b) the court orders the article to be forfeited under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995.

(6A) Subject to subsection (6), the article shall be treated as if acquired by the constable in the course of the investigation of an offence.

(6B) An article that is held by an enforcement officer (having been removed by or delivered to the officer) shall be dealt with in accordance with sections 31A to 31E.”

(13) In section 28, subsection (4) has effect as if there were substituted for it—

“(4) An article that is held by a constable (having been removed by or delivered to the constable) shall be returned when retention is no longer justified by a matter specified in subsection (2)(a) to (c), unless—

(a) in the case of a perishable article, the article has ceased to be usable for trade, or

(b) the court orders the article to be forfeited under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995.

(4A) Subject to subsection (4), the article shall be treated as if acquired by the constable in the course of the investigation of an offence.

(4B) An article that is held by an enforcement officer (having been removed by or delivered to the officer) shall be dealt with in accordance with sections 31A to 31E.”

(14) In sections 31A, 31B and 31D, the references to a magistrates’ court are to be read as if they were references to the sheriff.

(15) Section 31A has effect as if—

(a) in subsection (4), “before the end of the relevant period” and “at the end of that period” were omitted,

(b) in subsections (5) and (6), “before the end of the relevant period” were omitted,

(c) in subsection (6), in paragraph (b), for “section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000” there were substituted “Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995”,

(d) in that subsection, paragraph (c) were omitted,

(e) in subsection (8), “or (6)(c)” were omitted, and

(f) subsection (10) were omitted.

(16) Section 31E has effect as if subsections (5) to (10) were omitted.”’.—(Hugh Robertson.)

Clause 9

Commencement and duration, extent and application, and short title

Amendments made: 3, page 14, line 34, in clause 9, leave out ‘8’ and insert ‘[Goods vehicle operator licences]’.

Amendment 4, page 15, line 1, leave out ‘and 2’ and insert—

‘, 2 and [Goods vehicle operator licences]’.—(Hugh Robertson.)

Third Reading

16:09

[Hugh Robertson]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I wish to start—I mean this genuinely—by thanking all those involved in the passage of the Bill. I thank Members on both sides of the House who served in the Bill Committee. It has been a reasonably pain-free Bill, and the discussions that we had in Committee were constructive and genuinely improved the Bill. I would therefore like to put on the record my thanks to all Members who played a part in that.

I say a particular thank you to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), who has played a unique role, as I have said on a number of occasions, in the winning of the London games and their subsequent delivery. She continues to be a great servant of the process—if she does not mind my using that term—through her work on the Olympic Board and across London promoting the games. It would have been easy for lesser people following the general election to have felt that they were not involved in the way in which they wished and to have left the process. It is greatly to her credit, as a person and a politician, that not only has she not done that, but she has put her shoulder to the wheel so enthusiastically. She has made a great many friends by doing that—she had a great many already—and earned the gratitude of many people on both sides of the House and across the Olympic movement.

I also thank, as always, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster)—the third of the holy trinity involved in the process from the beginning—for his help and support. Finally, I thank the officials of the House, the parliamentary counsel and the officials in all three Departments concerned. Although there is cross-party support for the principle of the Olympics, a lot of difficult, technical issues are involved in laying on the world’s greatest sporting event, and it is not always easy for officials to bring it all together. Throughout this process—I am sure that the right hon. Lady would say the same about the 2006 Act—we have been extraordinarily well served by our officials. I am grateful to them for their work.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his kind words of thanks to the Bill Committee members. It was the first Bill Committee of which I have been a member, and I enjoyed it very much. He has alluded to the technical difficulties that officials must confront, and I want to bring to his attention a set of technical difficulties relating to the sharing out of media accreditations to the British media. It is a cause of great concern to me that local media, particularly in London—the city on whose good will the success of these games depends—are being shut out. Will he join me in calling on the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to look closely at the decision by the British Olympic Association to deny media accreditation to such fine local London papers as the News Shopper?

[Hugh Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He speaks from a powerful position, not only as a London Member of Parliament, but as a former journalist. As he is aware, responsibility for the accreditation of local media outlets lies with the BOA. In the short time between now and his raising this with me in the Lobby during the previous vote, I have checked the current position. I suspected that accreditation is massively over-subscribed, which is what he indicated to me. That said, I understand the logic of giving as many passes as possible to the international media and national news outlets, but he is right that it has to be balanced with local media outlets, many of which have been extraordinarily supportive of the games and on whose doorstep they are taking place. There is a possible second channel for non-accredited media, and considerable provision is being made for those who cannot get formally accredited. The Mayor of London has done an enormous amount to help that take place. The best thing that I can do now is to give my hon. Friend a promise to write to the BOA about the matter. I will particularly investigate the position regarding London media, because this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I will come back to him with an answer.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I want to second the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson). The BOA seems to assume that local journalists granted accreditation will attend every event. Obviously, there is a limit on overall capacity, but clearly our local papers just want to cover the events in which athletes from our boroughs are competing. It ought to be possible to arrive at a flexible arrangement that enables our local London papers to do that. I would be grateful if the Minister were to take that point on board.

[Hugh Robertson]

Suffice to say that the point has been well made. I can only say to my hon. Friend that I will give him the same undertaking that I have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson)—that I will write to the BOA to take that precise point up and see what I can do. The only minor caveat is that because this is a London games, the demand for media accreditation spots is vast. There will be a level of public interest that I do not think we have remotely started to get our minds around. Spots will be tight, but I will absolutely do all that I can.

[Lyn Brown]

Let me assure the Minister that there is cross-party support for the points made by the hon. Members for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) and for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). I know that the Newham Recorder will be watching Christine Ohuruogu with interest as she races towards the tape in the final for her gold. It would be a great pity if the local press were not allowed to be there to cover such an event. As local newspapers, they frankly do not have the capacity to attend every event and would have to be clear and specific about the events that they could give time to.

[Hugh Robertson]

As always with this process and, indeed, protest in this case, the cross-party support is evident, and I shall reflect that in the letter that I write to the BOA.

As I set out on Second Reading back in April, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 gives us the overarching legislative framework needed to deliver the games successfully. This Bill simply provides a number of technical refinements to the 2006 Act, ensuring that we can address the few minor and technical issues that have arisen as games-time planning and preparation have become increasingly sophisticated. The general principle behind the Bill remains the same as in the original 2006 Act, which is to deliver a great games.

The Bill amends the 2006 Act by giving the ODA the power to store articles that have been seized for contravention of the advertising and trading regulations, subject to a number of carefully framed rules set out in the Bill, and we are freeing up police resources so that they can be focused where best needed. As we have heard today, we have also sought to ensure that the process works equally well across the different policing regimes in England and Wales, and in Scotland. The provisions that we are passing today will also allow us in exceptional circumstances—and only in exceptional circumstances—to alter advertising and trading regulations more quickly.

We have also increased the maximum penalty for the touting of games tickets from £5,000, as set out in the 2006 Act, to £20,000 on the specific advice of the police. We believe that that strikes the right balance. The traffic management provisions in the Bill will ensure that the transport plans covering the Olympic route network and the areas around games venues can be delivered and effectively enforced. I also confirm that I have clarified the role of the Mayor of London when it comes to agreeing penalty charge levels for Olympic-purpose road traffic contraventions. Last week, I formally directed the ODA to consult relevant traffic authorities—in as far as it has not already done so—on the penalty charge levels for Olympic contraventions, and in doing so have sought to address the points made by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood in Committee.

The final group of provisions that we are enacting addresses the concerns expressed by Transport for London about the relaxation of licence conditions for operating centres. That said, the key point that has come through in every stage of the Bill’s progress is the way in which these measures will be applied. I confirm to the House today that it is absolutely the Government’s intention to take a proportional and reasonable response to the enforcement of all the powers contained in the Bill.

In conclusion, it is fitting that today’s debate coincides with international Paralympics day, which takes place in Trafalgar square—we may just be able to catch it. This is the first time that the event has ever been hosted outside Germany, although we have a great tradition of pioneering Paralympic sport in this country, dating back to the original Stoke Mandeville games in 1948. Today’s event in Trafalgar square will give the public a great introduction to the 20 Paralympic sports, with demonstrations from elite athletes. As I said earlier, I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will show their support for this fantastic event.

Every time the United Kingdom has hosted the Olympics, we have left the Olympic movement stronger than we found it. That is not just something that it is easy for Ministers to say; if one looks back at the history, one will see that it is genuinely the case. The original bid that we put before the International Olympic Committee promised to deliver a deep legacy for the games. This will be the first Olympics where we plan the event and the legacy as one.

Right across the country, in many different schools and communities, much is happening. The east end of London is being transformed and social change is being delivered through volunteer programmes and Olympic-themed community projects—a promise that we made to the country and the world back in 2005. Being in the middle of delivering a show like this, it is sometimes easy to concentrate on things that do not go as well as they could, but there is a huge amount for this House and this country to be proud of as we begin the final run-up to these games.

I firmly believe that this Bill gives us the powers to proceed on a strong legislative footing—one that I do not think has been equalled in any previous games—and I would particularly like to thank this House for the role it has played in what I believe will be a truly great and, I hope, outstanding Olympic games.

16:20

[Tessa Jowell]

I begin by expressing our strong support for the Bill and, very particularly, our gratitude to the Minister for his handling of it with characteristic open-mindedness, receptiveness and a sense of the shared passion that comes from involvement in this incredible project. This is a technical Bill that builds on the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, but it has done much more than that. I believe that it is has been enriched and shaped by our consideration in Committee and on the Floor of the House. It has been enriched by something important—the fact that we are all representatives of the communities that we serve. We might come from different political standpoints, but we share a belief in the power of communities to act for good, and we have a shared ambition for the people whom we represent. I believe that the proposals on advertising and trading standards in the 2006 Act will be implemented, because we know and understand, as representatives, the importance of proportionality.

We have seen an increase in the maximum penalty for ticket touting, which is very much an expression of the fairness that is a prerequisite for people across London and across the country to feel that they are part of this great Olympic event. I think that all Labour Members—we seem to be rather diminished, but we count the quality for the purposes of a debate like this one—are grateful to the Minister for his response to the points we raised today about the Olympic route network. He reflected his understanding, as did other hon. Members, because we are all representatives of the people whom we serve.

This is a staging post on a journey that will see many major hurdles needing to be negotiated before we get to the closing ceremony of the Paralympic games in a year’s time. What the Olympics reflects, in a rather unique way, is a choice that the Government made. It is a choice between remaining in the comfort zone by staying away from controversy, difficulty, bad headlines and all the risks that the Olympic games can bring or rising to a once-in-a-lifetime challenge—even though that is a rather over-worked phrase.

I feel extraordinarily proud to have been involved in different ways throughout the whole process, and the Minister, too, has been involved for most of that process. I am grateful for the way in which the Government have taken over the responsibility for this greatly cherished project and have continued the tradition of openness and collaboration.

We have all been privileged to work with some of the best people in the world, who have delivered under the leadership of John Armitt, David Higgins, Dennis Hone and Godric Smith. All those outstanding people have seen the Olympic park transformed from a contaminated wasteland with corrugated iron huts into the largest urban park to be created in Europe for 150 years. The fact that this has been delivered a bit below budget and a bit ahead of time is a really wonderful advertisement for UK plc. Everyone who has taken part in that can be proud of their achievement to date, including the people who cleared the ground, the people who carried out the demolition and the people who ensured that 99% of the resulting materials were recycled rather than going to landfill. Every one of the 40,000 people involved, including the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and other Members here today, can be proud of those achievements.

It has always been our ambition that the Olympic games should be about more than 60 days of Olympic and, in particular, Paralympic sport. The focus has been on the legacy, and we can now see it out there in Stratford. Many of us will go to the opening of the Westfield shopping centre, which will bring desperately needed jobs and inward investment to that area. It will begin to change the economy and the prospects of the constituents of my hon. Friends who represent the six Olympic boroughs.

We can also see the legacy in the wonderful venues that will provide state-of-the-art competition venues and facilities for the local community for decades to come. Less visible is what we hope will be the other part of the legacy: communities that are more optimistic and ambitious about their future and that have a greater belief in the possibility of their own achievement. In the long run, the Olympic Park Legacy Company will have an important job in safeguarding the structural legacy and ensuring the commercial investment, both of which will deliver opportunities for local people in those boroughs, whose experience must be measured as part of all this.

In our own ways, we are all inspired by the 2,000 young athletes who are now training hard for 2012. There are 2,000 of them, because not all the teams have yet been selected, and a large pool is being drawn from. Their dedication, their ambition and their willingness to get up at all hours, make the journey and focus their lives on the possibility that they might just make it into the 2012 team should be an inspiration to us all.

This project has been beyond party politics. All of us who have been involved in it have been privileged to hold that responsibility as guardians for the nation. I am enormously grateful for the generosity of the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Mayor in including me and my party in the planning for the games. We can be confident that that cross-party tradition has been very well continued. It is now only a matter of months before the games kick off and, although that might not provide such unalloyed pleasure as the conclusion of today’s debate, we are all up for it.

As the Minister has said, today is international Paralympic day, and until 8 pm there will be a series of demonstrations in Trafalgar square involving Paralympians and young would-be Paralympic athletes. One of the Paralympians said to me this morning, “Just remember, when people talk about the Olympics, we mean that it is the test event for the Paralympics.” Let us make sure that we go and give the Paralympics all the support that they deserve.

16:30

[Mr Foster]

I am conscious that many Members are anxious to get to Trafalgar square, so I shall be very brief.

This is in danger of becoming a cross-party love-in. I entirely agreed with the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) when she praised the Minister and the Secretary of State, and I also agreed with the Minister when he praised the right hon. Lady. We have done the same on a number of occasions, and it has been justified.

Above all, the right hon. Lady can be proud of having genuinely ensured that the debate was beyond party politics from the outset. As a result, there has been detailed consultation across the parties in both Houses, and many of the tensions that could have arisen have not done so. That has enabled the bodies which we have given the task of building the stage and putting on the show—the ODA and LOCOG—to get on with the job, and, as the right hon. Lady said, to do it phenomenally well, delivering below budget and ahead of time.

I am absolutely convinced that, in less than a year’s time, this country will put on the most fantastic sporting and cultural extravaganza that there has ever been, and what is so good about the Bill is that it has provided yet another opportunity for parliamentarians in both Houses to engage with that exciting prospect. I hope that, in a few final remarks, the Minister will remind all parliamentarians that there is still a great deal that they can do to help to ensure that we deliver something else that is critically important: not just a fantastic extravaganza, but a legacy for businesses, tourism, education and culture as well as a legacy for sport.

When the Minister discusses press accreditation with his colleagues, he may wish to talk to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I know has concerns about accreditation for Scottish newspapers. He could also remind people that newspapers seeking accreditation can do themselves a lot of favours by promoting activities relating to the Olympics and Paralympics in their local areas. I know that the British Olympic Association is looking at the amount of coverage of local activities in particular newspapers, and I think that more could be done in that regard.

I believe that we will deliver not only a great extravaganza and the legacy of which we have spoken in this country, but something that is never, or at least hardly ever, mentioned in our debates: a legacy for other countries. One of the important elements of our bid was the overseas work that we proposed to do. It is amazing to read the statistics showing how many people have been able to train as coaches in other countries, and how many young people throughout the world have been able to engage in sport, because of the Olympics that will take place here.

I am delighted that we have had an opportunity to debate the Olympics and Paralympics yet again. I am also delighted that this country’s Paralympic team is training in my constituency, where two weeks ago I saw some fantastic young people doing amazing things. My only regret is that goalball—which has become my favourite Paralympic sport—will not be demonstrated in Trafalgar square tonight, but I encourage any Member who has never seen it or heard of it to have a look at it. It will be the top best-seller when the tickets go on sale, as indeed they have just done.

16:34

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

As the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) pointed out, there is a danger of this debate—and, indeed, other similar debates—becoming a bit of a love-in. In the 10 years that I have been in this House, I have always been a great believer that Members must work together with other Members. My constituency neighbours have tended not to be from my political party, but I have worked closely with the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) on a range of issues. However, I always have some concerns when there is a little too much consensus in this House on particular issues, not least because the very essence of politics should be choice. In the current debate, it is important that certain aspects of the scepticism felt by many millions of Britons outside this House are also put on the record.

As the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) will remember, I shadowed her when she was Minister for London in 2004, before we got the Olympics on 6 July 2005, and I was somewhat sceptical about the benefits that the Olympics were expected to bring to our city. Since then, there has been a tumultuous change in the global economic outlook, which has only served to reinforce some of my concerns, especially in respect of the escalating costs of this project. In advance of our getting the Olympics, we were told it would cost about £2.5 billion. That sum has now risen to some £9 billion. In light of those particular statistics, some of the boasts that have been made about working within budget are, in my view, somewhat hollow.

[Tessa Jowell]

The hon. Gentleman might like to refer to the Hansard of May 2005, where I made it absolutely clear that, were we to win the games, the budget to build the venues in the park that had been submitted as part of the bid book would have to be revisited. We did increase the budget, because our ambition for regeneration was much greater after we won the games. Some 75p in every £1 spent on building the park was spent on regeneration. The site would have been contaminated waste land in perpetuity had we not won the games. We have accelerated regeneration. In six years, we have done what would otherwise have taken 60 years. That has brought benefit to London. It has brought jobs to London and has been good for the economy of London, way beyond just having 60 days of Olympic and Paralympic sport.

[Mr Field]

As a courtesy to the right hon. Lady, I will obviously look at the Hansard for that time, but there is no doubt that this was sold on a very different financial basis, and it will cost not only the general taxpayer, but the London council tax payer, a significant sum of money for some decades to come.

I share the widespread view that the Olympics are a great opportunity to showcase the city that I love—I am very proud to represent the heart of the city—and that they will be a spectacular success. Both the Olympics and the Paralympics shortly afterwards will be a wonderful show. I do have concerns about the issue of the legacy, however, and I suspect that similar debates to that which we are currently having were held in the Greek Parliament in advance of the Athens games in 2004, the Australian Parliament in advance of the 2000 games, and other Parliaments and Federal buildings before other Olympiads took place.

We all know that it is very easy to have great ideas about the legacy going forward. I am well aware of that; I walked through the site where the Olympics will take place before we even won the bid, and I recognised that there were tremendous opportunities for regeneration. I am concerned, however, about whether we will be able to sell that legacy and whether it will be achieved in the way that we have in mind. We will not know that when we look back in the third week of September next year; we will not know the answer until 2020 and beyond. I therefore hope we in this House continue to address the possible prospect of our having a white elephant of a site out in east London. That would be a crying shame not just because of the amount of money being spent on it, but because of the opportunities that might be missed.

I hope that we will ensure that this debate does not end today and that we will not draw a line under things after the Olympics have finished. It will be incumbent on all London Members of Parliament to hold future Administrations very much to account to ensure that that proper legacy, which is the raison d’être for holding the Olympics in London, is put in place.

[Hugh Robertson]

May I give my hon. Friend some reassurance on this point, because it is very dangerous if the idea he alludes to is allowed to take root? There is absolutely no chance of our being left with white elephants on the park after the Olympic games. The single biggest frustration in my life at the moment is that two London premier league football clubs and one in a lower league are competing to take over the stadiums after the games. That represents an entirely different situation from those in Beijing, Athens and Sydney. The aquatics centre, wonderfully designed by Zaha Hadid, will provide an Olympic-sized swimming pool in a part of London that has simply never had one before. We have just concluded an amazing deal, at more than half a billion pounds, to sell off the private sector part of the athletes village. The public sector part has already been sold to Triathlon Homes. The velodrome, probably the most iconic building on the park—we did not spot that at the beginning—will become a new home for British cycling, which is one of our most successful sports.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I understand that the Minister wants to get his points on the record, but we have to be careful here. He is making an intervention, not a speech.

[Hugh Robertson]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I offended you, and I absolutely take the point you make. I shall simply say that the broadcast media centre is out for contract at the moment and there is fantastic interest. We have the largest new urban park in Europe and a half-a-billion-pound shopping centre. This is a pretty convincing package.

[Mr Field]

I accept that it is a convincing package. The Minister will be aware of what happened in my constituency with the somewhat missed opportunity of the redevelopment at Paddington basin. A huge amount of work has not resulted in a great success; it has not been the iconic place to live and work that it might have been. I therefore hope that all hon. Members will recognise that the end of the Paralympics is the beginning of the story. Making a great success of the legacy will be in everyone’s interests, not least of those in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), given where it is located, and of people who live in the constituencies directly affected.

[Clive Efford]

I was a Greenwich councillor when we first had the idea to redevelop the local peninsula, which eventually led to the building of the Greenwich dome. Without these iconic projects and without public money—people often forget that we got a lot of investment from Europe to decontaminate the site at north Greenwich—it is sometimes impossible to regenerate very expensive contaminated sites. However, once we take the brave decision, as we did in east London and in Greenwich, the regeneration takes place, and we now have one of the most iconic entertainment centres in Europe.

[Mr Field]

I accept that, although in many ways the hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. There was a sense in the immediate aftermath of 1 January 2000 that that area was going to be a white elephant and it was the private sector, in the form of the group belonging to Philip Anschutz, which had the vision to drive that area forward that made a difference. But it took some years for that to fall into place, which is why we need to keep an eagle eye on exactly what happens on the Olympic site from next September to ensure that 2013, 2014 and 2015 are not wasted years. They need to be years when we ensure the continued improvement of that site to make it an attractive place to live and work, and, potentially, an entertainment destination site well beyond that for West Ham United fans. One hopes that it will also be used for other athletics events and perhaps as a large-scale entertainment site, given the transport links in place.

I wish briefly to discuss the elements of the Bill that have been debated, about which I have expressed some of my reservations. We have had a useful debate about policing. This is a matter for not only the Metropolitan police, but the intelligences services, which are playing a huge role in this field and will continue to do so. One should not underestimate that in the context of the security implications of these Olympics. Equally, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, we could learn from elements of previous London Olympiads, particularly the 1948 games—the austerity Olympics. We are living in a time of greater austerity and one hopes that some of those lessons for a cost-effective games can also be learned.

I have publicly expressed my concerns about some of the issues to do with the large number of people who will be transported from the hotels in Park lane in my constituency to the Olympic village and the fundamental impact that that will have on traffic during late July and August next year. One accepts that for Heads of State and leading individuals there are, of course, security implications and they will need to be ferried in such a way, but it seems that many thousands of people will be getting this sort of treatment—a whole lot of hangers-on in the IOC and the sponsors. I would like to see the Minister playing a role in trying to pare down that number to the basic minimum that takes account of security implications.

[Stephen Pound]

May I assure the hon. Gentleman that the 1948 games may have been the austerity games, but people were able to find their own amusement in those days? The fact that my parents clearly did so—I was born in the middle of them—shows that life may have been austere, but there was a little bit of fun to be had in Fulham.

[Mr Field]

If the hon. Gentleman was born in the middle of those games, it says something about the gestation period in that part of SW6 during 1948.

I did not want to be overly negative, but as Members of this House we have a platform and, according to anecdotal evidence, at least, a lot of Londoners are increasingly rather lukewarm about this Olympiad in spite of the relentless publicity and propaganda being put out by the BBC, as the preferred broadcaster, and by the ODA, and it is important that those issues are put on the record. None of us wishes not to have a highly successful games. We signed up for them and it is right that we should make them a great success, but given the austerity period in which we are living, I do not think that every last i and t of the contract we signed with the IOC needs necessarily to be adhered to exactly. We potentially need discussions slightly to renegotiate elements of it, particularly the rather lavish hospitality package for quite a few individuals coming to the city, especially if they are going to disrupt the day-to-day life of those living here.

I, like everyone else, wish the games to be a great success. It is good when we can work together on such a basis, but it should not crowd out the idea that concerns about the games are being expressed by many Londoners and many people outside London. Let us make sure that we make them a spectacular success and focus on the legacy for the decades to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Sentencing (Cameron Ross)

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

16:48

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to Mr Speaker for going out of his way to grant me this important debate, and I would be grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you could convey my thanks to him.

This case has had significant repercussions for the family of the victim, Mr Daryl Stevens, and particularly his mother, Mrs Jacqueline Stevens, who has worked tirelessly on Daryl’s behalf to secure justice for her son.

On a wider point, in the aftermath of the riots last month, the issues of sentencing policy, the consistency of sentencing and confidence among the general public in sentencing decisions have attracted considerable debate. I fully appreciate the notion that politicians make the law, police enforce the law and judges interpret the law. I also understand the inherent risks in politicians passing opinion on whether a sentence is too harsh or too lenient. However, it is entirely reasonable for this House to express its views on sentencing and as a Member of the House I am determined to represent the concerns of my constituent.

Before I mention the specifics of the case, I want to outline the theory and principle behind the concept of undue leniency. I appreciate that the Solicitor-General is a man of considerable legal distinction and he is far more aware than I am of the concept of an unduly lenient sentence, which is a sentence that is not strong enough for the seriousness and circumstances of the crime that has been committed. When someone has been found guilty of a crime in a court of law, the judge decides what sentence they should serve. In some cases, if interested parties, whether that is the Crown Prosecution Service or, in the case of my constituent Mr Stevens, his mother, think that the sentence is not severe enough, they can contact the Attorney-General to ask him to consider referring the case to the Court of Appeal within 28 days of the day after sentencing. If he decides to refer the case, it is then for the Court of Appeal to decide whether the sentence is unduly lenient.

Let me refer to the specifics of the case. My constituent, Mr Daryl Stevens, was 17 years old at the time of the attack. He was attacked by Cameron Ross with a broken bottle on 22 April 2011. Ross had been drinking prior to the attack, which appeared to be unprovoked, and at his trial he could provide little explanation for why he had attacked Mr Stevens. Ross had been released on licence but had breached this licence by being arrested for a serious violent assault, allegedly involving a baseball bat, for which he had been charged. He had then been released on bail despite the obvious breach of the licence. Mrs Stevens is rightly concerned that had Ross’s breach of his licence terms led to an automatic return to prison, he would not have been free on the streets to commit the assault on her son.

During the attack, a bottle was smashed into Mr Stevens’ head, the back of his neck and his face. He underwent a four-hour operation in which surgeons removed glass from his body, finding shards and splinters close to his spinal cord. His family were told that he had been millimetres from permanent paralysis or even death. Frankly, Daryl Stevens is lucky to be alive today. He was helped by the skills of NHS surgeons, but he is permanently scarred and will have to face the physical and psychological repercussions of the attack for the rest of his life.

At the trial, Ross pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. That is a very serious offence, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Ross was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment—the lowest conceivable sentence for somebody found guilty of this offence. Sentence was passed on 1 June. Mrs Stevens e-mailed me on 6 June to express her concerns about the sentence and the following day I wrote to the Attorney-General outlining the case and asking him to consider referring the case to the Court of Appeal. On 28 June—the last-but-one day on which this could be done—the Solicitor-General replied to me stating that in his opinion the sentence was not unduly lenient. He said that he had looked closely at the range of sentences that the judge could have passed and did not consider that the sentence was outside that range.

The Solicitor-General also replied to Mrs Stevens on the same day, conveying the same message. His letter to her consisted of five short paragraphs and gave no real explanation as to the reasoning behind the decision not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. Mrs Stevens was particularly upset by a line in the opening paragraph of the letter which said:

“The hours you spent in the hospital waiting for news must have been dreadful but I am sure the trauma of that terrible experience will fade in time”.

Let me stress that I think the Solicitor-General, who is on the Treasury Front Bench, is a decent and civilised man, and I know that he did not wish to cause Mrs Stevens additional distress. In his subsequent correspondence to me, it is very clear that he was horrified that his comments might have caused offence to my constituent. I raise the comments in the House tonight not to cause embarrassment to the Solicitor-General but to point out to him that the short letter to Mrs Stevens—to the point of callousness and abruptness in her view—and that particular comment, which she felt to be insensitive and patronising, reinforced her view that nobody was listening to her concerns.

One of Mrs Stevens’ concerns was her belief that crucial medical evidence was not provided to the court during the original trial, or at least was not seen by the judge. In his letter to Mrs Stevens, the Solicitor-General stated:

“As I am sure you will appreciate the Crown Prosecution Service is in a better position than I am to deal with this issue.”

In subsequent correspondence to me, the Solicitor-General concluded that CPS staff had met Mrs Stevens to discuss the issue and that she had found the meeting satisfactory, but that is far from being the case. Mrs Stevens told me that the CPS has stated that it is not able to provide answers to many of her questions regarding the medical reports. This has left her feeling that agencies are not talking to one another and that communication with important parties such as the victim’s family in order to answer questions and resolve difficulties are not being given sufficient priority. She also feels that there is little transparency and communication as to how medical records and other evidence are used to come to particular decisions.

I received a very considered, thoughtful and detailed letter from the Solicitor-General dated 16 August 2011. In that letter, he set out, with commendable thoroughness, details of the case, information that was provided to the judge and consideration in the case of the relevant sentencing guidelines. I found it very helpful that the Solicitor-General outlined in his letter the four sentencing ranges for offences of grievous bodily harm with intent, with the judge and both prosecution and defence counsel all in agreement at the trial that, on the evidence provided, the appropriate range to use was that of four to six years’ custody, with a starting point of five years.

The letter gave a very clear view of information provided in the court and elements of the Solicitor-General’s thinking as he considered referring the case to the Court of Appeal, but my point is this: why did we not get something similar to that first time round? Why did it take a complaint from Mrs Stevens, channelled through me, and the prospect of this debate in Parliament, to ensure that better communication and some greater transparency in the decision making process occurred?

Mrs Stevens has felt let down at every stage of the judicial process and I suspect that, given what is in her view a light sentence, nothing would comfort her regarding her wish to see justice being done—that is thoroughly understandable—but I suggest that if she had been involved and if an open dialogue on what was decided had been promoted, the case might not have escalated to this stage.

Successive Governments have stated that victims should be at the heart of the criminal justice system. With this case in mind, will the Solicitor-General therefore resolve to improve communication with relevant parties, particularly victims and their families, and ensure that, at the earliest possible stage, as much information as possible is provided? I think that that would help to reassure parties such as my constituent and make victims feel that not only should they have their day in court to see justice done, but that they can feel sufficiently important and valued within the system, and can be comfortable as to the decisions that are made.

I mentioned that it was considered appropriate in this case to use the range of four to six years’ custody, with a starting point of five years. I suspect that, at the very least, a five-year custodial sentence would have allowed Mrs Stevens and her family to believe that justice had been better served. Mrs Stevens has expressed concern to me that the sentence was excessively reduced due to such mitigating circumstances as Ross’s young age—he was 18 at the time of the attack—his status as a notional first-time offender and his early guilty plea. However, there is a case for stating that Ross was an adult, and was able to stand trial as an adult, so therefore age had no real bearing.

I also understand from Mrs Stevens that Ross did not plead guilty at the earliest possible opportunity, which could conceivably have been a mitigating factor, but denied the offence when he was arrested, taken to the police station and charged, and changed his plea only at court, during the trial.

My main concern, however, is the failure to recognise the breach of the licence. I would say to the Solicitor-General in general terms that the public will have no confidence in the judicial system if offenders who have breached the terms of their licence do not have that taken into account during sentencing. It should be a major factor that increases the severity of the sentence.

Ross had breached the terms of his licence, and had been released on bail after being charged with violent offences. That allowed him to attack Mr Daryl Stevens in such a brutal and life-threatening fashion. Why did the Solicitor-General not take that into account when considering whether to refer the case? Why did he not pay particular attention to the sentencing guideline in relation to this offence, which states that other aggravating factors, which could increase the length of a custodial sentence, would include commission of an offence while under the influence of alcohol, which happened in this case, and—particularly relevant to the case—the fact that the offence was committed while on licence? Why was that not given sufficient regard?

I reiterate in the strongest possible terms to the Solicitor-General that the public will not have confidence in sentencing if such factors, set out clearly in the guidance, are not seen to be used when passing sentence.

In the time remaining, I want to raise a general point in relation to the process for considering sentences unduly lenient. I have mentioned that the Attorney-General can take 28 days to consider whether a case should be referred to the Court of Appeal. I suspect that most cases would take up all that period, as files need to be obtained and reviewed, and matters need to be considered properly.

It does mean, however, that there is little scope for representation. I was hoping to have a meeting with the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to discuss the case and, in particular, the fact that the decision was made and communicated with only one day to spare. I appreciate that there is a tension and trade-off between thoroughness and swiftness, but does the Solicitor-General think that there is any merit in extending this strict 28-day period to ensure that the fullest representation possible can be made from hon. Members as well as interested parties?

As I stated earlier, Mrs Stevens does not feel that authority has been on her side following her son’s assault. I hope that the Solicitor-General will use the opportunity available to address the points I have raised and help ensure that the horrific experience that Mrs Stevens and Daryl, as well as their family, friends and neighbours, have unfortunately faced will lead to a better and more responsive criminal justice system for victims and their families.

17:00

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) on initiating the debate so that we can discuss these important and highly sensitive issues. He has, very properly, brought his constituents’ concerns to the Floor of the House. In responding, I will say something about my role as Solicitor-General with regard to both unduly lenient sentences in general and this case in particular. He should not be in the least concerned about causing me embarrassment. If embarrassment is warranted, it is his right and duty to embarrass me. I am accountable to Parliament and willingly appear to answer for my role as Solicitor-General. He should have no inhibitions in that regard. Indeed, he should be praised for vigorously pursuing the interests of his constituents—mother and son—with such attention.

Before I respond to the points the hon. Gentleman has outlined, let me focus on the horrific crime with which we are concerned. As he said, it was an offence contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which deals with one of the most serious non-fatal offences of violence on the criminal statute book. There is no doubt that the offence committed against Daryl Stevens last April caused great physical and emotional suffering. The victim and his family live with the consequences of the crime day in, day out, and as the hon. Gentleman has said, the impact on their daily lives has been considerable. Nothing I said or wrote earlier in the summer, either to the hon. Gentleman or to his constituent, was intended to underestimate the impact upon Daryl Stevens or his mother. I do not think it did.

On the day of the attack, Daryl Stevens, then aged 17, was doing what many young people do: spending time with friends and having a good time. He was in Chicago’s Pizzeria in Hartlepool about to order some food when he was viciously attacked in public by a drunk who glassed him—he struck him several times in the head and neck with a broken glass bottle. The attack caused a 3-cm laceration to the back of his scalp, a 3-cm laceration to his left cheek and a 2-cm penetrating wound to the back of his neck. A fragment of glass, among many others, was found very close to his spinal cord. The culprit, Cameron Ross, was later caught and, after pleading guilty, sentenced to three years’ detention in a young offenders institution. The sentence took into account the timing of his plea and the mitigation advanced on his behalf, to which I shall return.

Nothing I say today, and nothing I have written to the hon. Gentleman or his constituent, can eradicate the hurt caused by this dreadful offence, but I hope that what I say today will go some way towards clarifying my role in relation to the case and the way the Attorney-General and I exercise our powers on unduly lenient sentences generally. I understand that the senior prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service with responsibility for the case met Mrs Stevens in late July to explain the prosecution process and discuss matters further. My impression was that she left that meeting satisfied, but the hon. Gentleman clearly has a different assessment. Unfortunately, neither of us was at that meeting, but none the less there is an issue that we unfortunately cannot resolve. But, the meeting was held, and at least it indicates a willingness on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service to make sure that victims and families are treated properly following hideous crimes such as this.

Of course, many people may consider the sentence of three years’ detention to be too low, and other judges might have given a longer sentence while others might not, but sentencing is an independent judicial function, carried out by judges and magistrates within a framework set by this House, for which the Justice Secretary has responsibility within the Government. That framework provides for statutory sentencing guidelines to be issued and followed by the courts, and for sentences for certain offences that the Law Officers consider to be “unduly lenient” to be referred to the Court of Appeal to consider whether they should be increased.

The offences within the unduly lenient sentence scheme are limited by statute and, unsurprisingly, are the most serious ones, including grievous bodily harm—commonly called GBH—under section 18 of the 1861 Act. We must also refer cases within 28 days of the sentence. That is the statutory time limit, and if it is to be extended, it will need the Justice Secretary to amend legislation, but, in my experience and that of my officials, Treasury counsel and the Crown Prosecution Service, that period provides plenty of time for the case to be fully thought about, as it was in this particular instance.

The Attorney-General and I referred about 100 cases to the Court of Appeal last year. We appear in court ourselves to argue them on occasion, and indeed we have done so on more occasions than our recent predecessors, such is our interest in the matter that the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House.

It is, however, the Court of Appeal—not we as Law Officers—that decides what constitutes “unduly lenient”, and it has stressed on many occasions that increasing a sentence already passed on an offender is an exceptional remedy. Sentences will not be increased unless they are significantly below what the judge should have passed. In the Attorney-General’s reference No. 4 of 1989, the Court of Appeal said:

“A sentence is unduly lenient, we would hold, where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate”.

As Law Officers, the Attorney-General and I exercise our own discretion in accordance with the way in which the law has been applied by the Court of Appeal. The unduly lenient sentence regime is not simply a general right of appeal against a low sentence or an opportunity for the prosecution to have another bite at the cherry; it is an exceptional remedy for exceptional cases, and when we refer cases to the Court of Appeal, we do so not as political Ministers or politicians, but in our capacity as independent guardians of the public interest.

There is a further aspect to the unduly lenient sentence regime that I should mention. The Court of Appeal will review the sentence imposed only on the basis of the information available to the sentencing judge in the Crown court at the time. It will not take into account material that might be thought now to provide grounds for a sentence to be increased if it was not available to the sentencing judge at the time of the sentence. In accordance with those principles, I considered whether the sentence imposed on Cameron Ross was unduly lenient, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I concluded that it was not.

The relevant sentencing guideline—the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s definitive guideline on assault and offences against the person—provides four sentences ranges for this particular offence, reflecting different categories of seriousness. The sentencing judge, along with prosecution and defence counsel, considered that the appropriate sentencing range specified by the guidelines was four to six years’ custody, with a starting point after a contested trial of five years, and I agree that that sentencing range was the appropriate one.

The guidelines state that the types of assault offences that fall within the four to six-year range are as follows:

“Victim suffered a very serious injury or permanent disfigurement; or Pre-meditated wounding or GBH; or Other wounding or GBH involving the use of a weapon that came to hand at the scene.”

The offender in this case, Cameron Ross, had previous convictions and committed the offence while on licence. Those were aggravating factors. That said, he was young, being 18 years old at the time of the offence, and that was a factor that took the sentence towards the lower end of the sentencing range. In addition to detailing his antecedence, the pre-sentence report prepared by the probation service set out the offender’s personal mitigating factors, which the judge took into account. He will also have taken into account defence counsel’s submissions on Ross’s behalf.

As I wrote in my letter to the hon. Gentleman on 16 August, to which he referred,

“I understand from the transcript of the sentencing remarks that the judge did have Daryl’s statement and saw photographs of his injuries. In his statement Daryl reports exactly what he was told by doctors at the James Cook hospital. The judge will have been aware that doctors told him that he was lucky to be alive as glass was only one millimetre away from his spine, that the wound in his cheek was through to the bone and had just missed a nerve which may have left him paralysed on one side of his face, and that he would require a further operation to remove glass from his head.”

I went on to say that I noted from the hon. Gentleman’s letter that Mrs Stevens’ concerns related also to the fact that Cameron Ross had apparently breached his licence before committing the offence against her son, and that she believed that he

“should have been detained as a result of this earlier breach.”

The problem is that that issue is about how offenders suspected of a crime should be dealt with by the bailing court and is not a matter for the Court of Appeal, nor for me, through an unduly lenient reference. As I informed the hon. Gentleman, I also understand that Ross had not been convicted of these matters at the time when the sentence that we are concerned with was handed down, so they could not be taken into account.

Sentencing is an art, not a science. I know that from observing the process as a barrister over the past 35 or 40 years and as a Crown court recorder who, since 1998, has passed a good many sentences. It is the role of the judge to look at the aggravating and mitigating features of the offence and the offender, and to reach a conclusion that reflects the interests of justice in the case as regards the victims, the offender and society generally.

In this case, the sentencing judge considered that the appropriate sentence after a trial would have been four and a half years. The defendant had pleaded guilty at what the judge considered—not what I considered—to be the earliest available opportunity and so was awarded full credit for doing so via a discount of a third off his sentence, bringing the final figure to three years’ imprisonment. There is another debate to be had about what is the proper public policy behind discounts for early pleas, but that is not one that I can enter into today.

It is not my role as Solicitor-General simply to conclude that a higher sentence could have been imposed or that the sentence was lenient and could have been more severe, and that therefore it must be referred to the Court of Appeal. I have to be persuaded that the sentence was unduly lenient—I underline the word “unduly”. In this case, the sentence fell squarely within a proper application of the guidelines and for that reason I did not refer it to the Court of Appeal.

It is not always appropriate for this House to engage in a detailed discussion of the merits of an individual case, although our criminal justice system is of course as open to public criticism as any other area of public interest. As I said, the hon. Gentleman has quite properly advanced his concerns and those of his constituents about this case. I hope that I have explained the approach that I took and that I take, and that that is of some help to him. I appreciate that his constituent, the victim’s mother, was naturally distressed by what happened to her son and wanted quite properly to be assured that justice was done. However, in my view it would not have been fair to take the case to the Court of Appeal and thereby give her and her son false hope, only for them to be disappointed.

On the provision of information to Mrs Stevens, I am sorry that she did not get what the hon. Gentleman feels she should have got as quickly as she wanted. It was certainly not my intention to withhold information that ought to have been, and I hoped had been, candidly given to her. If she is still upset, I repeat my apology.

Towards the end of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the point about the breach of licence, and I hope that I have provided an explanation in relation to that.

I conclude by saying that the hon. Gentleman has done his duty to his constituents and to this House, and I thank him for doing it. I hope that he will recognise that I, if perhaps with less enthusiasm than he might be prepared to accept, have done mine.

Question put and agreed to.

17:14

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Thursday 8th September 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 8 September 2011

Civil Service (Voluntary Severance)

Thursday 8th September 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

6. What estimate he has made of the number of civil servants who will leave the civil service on voluntary severance terms in 2010-11.

[Official Report, 7 September 2011, Vol. 532, c. 343.]

Letter of correction from Mr Francis Maude:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) during Cabinet Office Question Time on 7 September 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

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

We aim to minimise compulsory redundancy. We reformed the civil service compensation scheme so that, for the first time, voluntary redundancy was more attractive than compulsory redundancy, which was impossibly expensive under the scheme left in place by the previous Government. We estimate that in early 2010-11 11,200 civil servants left the civil service on the new terms.

The correct answer should have been:

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

We aim to minimise compulsory redundancy. We reformed the civil service compensation scheme so that, for the first time, voluntary redundancy was more attractive than compulsory redundancy, which was impossibly expensive under the scheme left in place by the previous Government. We estimate that 11,200 civil servants left the civil service early, in 2010-11.

Petition

Thursday 8th September 2011 Petitions

Thursday 8 September 2011

Future of the British Train Building Industry

Thursday 8th September 2011 Petitions

The Petition of citizens of the United Kingdom,

Declares that they are concerned about the future of the British train building industry. Their concern is a consequence of the decision to appoint Siemens as the preferred bidder for the new fleet of trains for the Thameslink Programme.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to reverse this decision.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Chris Williamson, Official Report,18 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 761.]

[P000941]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:

On 16 June 2011 the Department for Transport appointed Siemens plc with Cross London Trains (XLT) (a special purpose company comprising Siemens Project Ventures GmbH, Innisfree Ltd and 3i Infrastructure plc) as the preferred bidder for the provision of the new trains required for the Thameslink Programme.

I am fully aware of the disappointment caused by the decision to award only reserve bidder status to the consortium led by Bombardier but I am afraid it was clear that the Siemens bid offered better value for money for the taxpayer.

The competition to supply trains and maintenance services for the Thameslink programme was designed and launched in 2008 by the previous Government, in accordance with EU procurement procedures. In October 2009, my predecessor announced that the two remaining short-listed bidders were Siemens plc with XLT and Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd with Velocity.

The Department is required by law to treat all potential suppliers equally and in a non-discriminatory manner. Specifically, the Department is not able to specify the location of manufacturing facilities, nor UK job creation, as one of its evaluation criteria. To do so would be contrary to EU procurement requirements. The detailed evaluation criteria for the Thameslink rolling stock contract were set by the previous Government at the Invitation to Tender stage. They are available in their archives at www.bit.ly/inm30t.

The Department is required to comply with the processes and evaluation criteria set out in the bid documentation (and specified by the previous Administration). The result of the competition, when the bids were evaluated in accordance with the pre-announced criteria, was conclusive and the Department could not have lawfully appointed Bombardier as preferred bidder. Had it sought to do so, it would almost certainly have been subject to a legal challenge not merely for damages, but for aninjunction (under the EU Remedies Directive) preventing the award of the contract to Bombardier.

The only alternative action that I could have taken in relation to this procurement was to suspend the competition and reconsider the entire Thameslink project. At the very least, such a move would introduce significant delay to the project which, in the extreme case of a decision to re-specify the requirement and restart the bidding process, would be likely to extend to two or more years. This was never a credible option for three reasons:

1. Large amounts of public money have already been spent on infrastructure improvements for Thameslink (including the complete rebuilding of Blackfriars Station);

2. The additional capacity that Thameslink will provide is urgently needed by London commuters, and the 400+ rail vehicles that will be released for redeployment elsewhere are also urgently needed to address overcrowding. Without them, the planned electrification programme for the Great Western Mainline and for the Liverpool/Manchester area could not proceed.

3. Most importantly, there was no possible outcome, even following a project review and a decision to re-specify and re-tender, that could possibly have resulted in an early award of a contract to Bombardier and thus the prevention of some of the job losses incurred.

Of course any job losses at Bombardier are highly regrettable. Prior to the decision on preferred bidder status. Bombardier had advised the Department for Transport that it expected to make over 1,000 redundancies, regardless of the outcome of the Thameslink procurement, because several of its orders are about to reach completion. But whatever the reason for the redundancies, I want to try to help the company and its supply chain at this difficult time.

As a result of the review by Bombardier Transportation of its UK rail operations, the Business Secretary has set up an economic response task force. This is being headed by Margaret Gildea and its remit is to mitigate the economic impact of job losses at Bombardier, in its supply chain and in local communities. It is drawing on representatives from Derby City Council, Derby City College and the Skills Funding Agency. Jobcentre Plus will also deploy its Rapid Response Service to support workers that will be affected.

While I recognise that the Thameslink decision has come as a blow to Bombardier and its employees, the company has had a strong track record in winning orders in the past and there is every reason to expect that to continue in the future. In the comprehensive spending review we secured funding for the tube upgrades and one of the most extensive programmes of rail capacity improvements in modern history. Those two programmes will continue to offer significant opportunities for Bombardier and other supply chain and train manufacturing related businesses in the UK.

The Secretary of State for Business and I have also jointly written to the Prime Minister to recommend that we examine wider issues around the approach taken in the UK to the public procurement process, to compare our approach to that of other EU member states and to consider whether any changes in our procurement practices and the evaluation criteria specified in procurement tenders should be made.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 8th September 2011 Westminster Hall

Thursday 8 September 2011

[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]

Flood and Water Management

Thursday 8th September 2011 Westminster Hall

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

14:30

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

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Walker; it is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I also welcome the Minister, whom we look forward to hearing from later.

I am delighted that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has secured this debate. I thank my fellow members of the Committee for their hard work on the report and its conclusions. We had some powerful evidence, reflecting the importance of this important policy area and the human consequences when flooding occurs. I should also like to record our thanks to our expert advisers for their help in preparing the report and subsequent work, particularly our current work on the natural environment White Paper.

The Committee published its report in December 2010. We had many written memorandums of evidence and a number of evidence sessions. The fact that it is our first report of the new Parliament demonstrates the importance that we and the Committee attach to water and flooding issues. To help hon. Members, particularly the Minister for his summing up, I will focus on the points of concern that have emerged from the Government’s response and on matters outstanding from both our Committee report and, indeed, legislation pending since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was passed.

Water and flooding are key issues raised by constituents with MPs. I am sadly all too familiar with flooding, both in my former constituency, Vale of York, and my current constituency, Thirsk, Malton and Filey. The report reflects the fact that UK weather presents us with twin challenges of flooding and drought, as well as challenges to the water industry and consumers that include affordability and the rising cost of water bills and many other bills. As consumers of water, our constituents need assurances that they will continue to receive consistent, clean, affordable supplies. As householders and businesses, they need to be confident that their properties can be protected as far as is reasonably practicable from risks of flooding.

The increasing likelihood of severe weather events such as floods and drought is also a challenge for the farming community. Many farmers and landowners are involved in managing flood risks, which comes at some cost. I will share with the Minister concerns that have been raised in the run-up to today’s debate. In preparing our report, the Committee received evidence from the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association. In particular, the NFU is concerned that land should not be seen as a free resource, particularly if used as temporary storage for water in times of flood, causing loss of crops as well as other losses.

Water has been a key issue to the EFRA Committee. The previous Committee, on which I also had the privilege to serve, looked into the response to the 2007 floods and the Flood and Water Management Bill, which was enacted in 2010 and was considered to be the essential first step in putting in place a comprehensive and consistent framework for managing flooding and early work on key aspects of water management. I should perhaps declare an interest, because I sat as a shadow Minister on the Bill Committee and followed its passage extremely closely.

I will sum up the challenges that remain. Partnership funding for flood defences has come on stream for the first time this year.

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

We spend a lot of time talking about flood defences. Does the hon. Lady agree that general maintenance, dredging and all that goes with it are just as vital as the flood defences?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I know Workington and Maryport extremely well, and our hearts go out to those colleagues, particularly in Cumbria, who suffered in the floods. If he will permit me, I will mention the role that farmers, landowners and, in particular, internal drainage boards play in dredging and maintenance. In the visits that I have made over time to areas that have been badly affected by flooding in my constituency, other parts of Yorkshire, Cumbria and elsewhere, I have heard anecdotal evidence of an absence of maintenance and dredging. I was shocked to hear recently that Cod beck, which caused the flooding in Thirsk and where flood defences have still not been built—the Minister might put that on the wish list that he will take away with him today; we are still anxious to get the flood defences built in Thirsk—has not had any maintenance for the past two or three years.

I might go further than my Committee colleagues and our conclusions in the report. I would like the internal drainage board to be allowed to agree a programme of maintenance and dredging with the Environment Agency. On the recommendations, it was the wish of Sir Michael Pitt that there would be an annual maintenance and dredging programme on the Environment Agency website, which the public would be able to see. We have established, however, that the moneys given by internal drainage boards to the Environment Agency, not least in my own region, are not being used for dredging, for a number of reasons. I want that money to stay with the IDBs for a programme agreed with the Environment Agency, but for the IDBs to use their resources and their engineers to maintain main watercourses.

I am a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, which has contacted me to express its disappointment that no new internal drainage boards have been created yet. I know that the subject is close to the Minister’s heart, so when he sums up, will he tell us the position on the creation of new internal drainage boards? All those bodies have a role to play, but it should not be the Public Bodies Bill that sets out the legislative provisions; they should all form part of the water Bill, which we anticipate keenly.

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

I support that request and wish to reinforce the recommendation in the Committee’s original report. On IDBs, the Government response says that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is

“considering what changes should be made to funding arrangements”.

I hope that that review will happen sooner rather than later. IDBs do a fantastic job from the ground up, with a real understanding of the topography of areas such as Holderness, which I represent. I want local people to be able to hold the money and commission effective flood protection, whether from the Environment Agency or another body. I am convinced, as is my hon. Friend, that putting it in the hands of local people rather than the agency will be more cost-effective.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point and for his invitation, which I was able to accept, to visit some of the areas that had been affected in Beverley.

Partnership funding for flood defences, which was introduced only this year, will of course be limited to the amounts that can be raised. The level of funding is the key to the success of our report and the message that we gave, as well as the success of the 2010 Act itself. I have a direct question for the Minister on the business of funding, particularly the levy-raising powers. I and many other hon. Members represent deeply rural constituencies. A concern has been expressed that, where there is not an established local levy, there may be constraints on the amount that can be raised. The Minister must realise that there is a limit to how much any individual local authority can afford because, as we note in the report, budgets have been reduced as a result of the comprehensive spending review.

We welcome the fact that regulations on the transfer of private sewers and lateral drains have proceeded, but the Minister must respond to the concerns expressed in our report, which are reflected across the country, about how we can recover the costs, which are either non-funded or underfunded. It will be helpful if the Minister responds to the water companies’ direct concern about that.

Colleagues would be disappointed if I did not mention sustainable drainage systems. We need to know the commencement date for the relevant provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Are we really looking at a delay until 2012, and if so, do we as parliamentarians accept that? I put it to the Minister that we do not. I do not think it would be appropriate to have a phased introduction of sustainable drainage systems. The country is crying out for sustainable drainage systems to be introduced with a specific target date—I hope, by the end of this year. When will the regulations be laid and what consultation period is required? The time needed for preparation makes those provisions coming into effect this year a very tight timetable, and there is concern that they will be postponed until next year.

I want to place on the record my views on misconnections and the ending of the automatic right to connect. Sir Michael Pitt was extremely clear and categorical on that. I am not sure that we have reached an end to the automatic right to connect. I would like to make water companies statutory consultees on the same basis as the Environment Agency is. Many water companies have loose arrangements with the planning authorities, but it is important that we enshrine that in law. Water companies should be made statutory consultees on any future planning applications to limit potential misconnections as far as possible. I touched on the maintenance of watercourses in response to the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), but I repeat that we need as many engineers as possible and that we should use the internal drainage boards where they exist.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling case on many fronts. Planning and misconnections are a considerable problem around the country, and a number of misconnections have been made in my area, but would creating an obligation for water companies to be statutory consultees in relation to planning applications make a difference to the builders putting in the equipment? The rules are very clear: they should connect to the appropriate foul water or surface water sewer. The key surely is to have better monitoring afterwards through building regulations and to ensure that the plans and specifications have been followed.

[Miss McIntosh]

I think we need both approaches. The system is failing because of the lack of consultation with water companies. Because they are not statutory consultees, they are being asked to link up to new developments where they do not think it is appropriate. One example is a proposal to build 300 houses in Filey on an area that is prone to flooding; the water company has said that there will be great difficulty in connecting, but I do not see where the planning inspector can overrule the local authority. The Committee’s key message was that more than 5 million properties in England are at risk of flooding—that is a Government and insurance industry figure—and, at the same time, the UK faces increasing economic and environmental challenges to securing clean, reliable and affordable water supplies.

The natural environment White Paper, “The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature,” has been well received and, as I say, the Committee is doing a substantial piece of work on it, but we are severely disappointed that the water White Paper has been delayed. Despite its importance, it has not been published within two months of the natural environment White Paper. I had the opportunity to express our concerns to the Prime Minister and to say that the Committee does not want any slippage in the introduction of the water Bill, which will be as important to the water industry as the Water Act 1989. I know it is not within the Minister’s gift, but I hope that the Government business managers listening will make time available early next year for that substantial piece of legislation. I also hope that the Minister will be able to assure hon. Members today that we will receive the White Paper—no doubt, with great interest—well before the turn of the year. We want an holistic approach to flood and water management, and the natural environment White Paper and the water White Paper both have a substantial contribution to make.

The extended parliamentary Session—the first to run for 18 months—must not be used as an excuse to delay the introduction of legislation if the regulatory changes are to be made without disrupting the water price-setting process. The Minister has an opportunity to set out this afternoon the Government’s timetable for finalising the provisions of the 2010 Act that have not yet been commenced.

It is an understatement to say that the White Paper is eagerly anticipated, and we look forward to receiving it without further delay. Many strands of work are involved: we expect it to look at the Cave review of competition, the Walker review of household charging, the Gray review of Ofwat and the implementation of EU directives such as the water framework directive. Time will not permit me to go into many of the concerns that have been raised about the directive, but suffice it to say that many of the water companies and, indeed, many farmers and landowners are extremely concerned about how it will take effect.

There is good news. Since our report was published, we have had the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation on water affordability, which followed up from the Budget statement on 23 March. That demonstrated that the Government are committed to supporting households with water affordability pressures and households in areas with particularly high water bills, such as the south-west. I am sure my hon. Friends from that area will have plenty to say on that.

We also welcome the reforms to the WaterSure scheme, the approach to social tariffs and the options for additional Government spending to provide further support. Water companies would find it incredibly helpful if the Government—obviously, not DEFRA but another Department—could, on a confidential basis, give the details of people on benefits to the water companies, so that they can earmark and target those most at risk and those who would most benefit from a social tariff. The consultation closed on 17 June, and we now expect the Government to introduce their proposals.

The natural environment White Paper will make a clear contribution to valuing water more effectively. We heard from a number of witnesses in June and we will look further at the matter in the autumn. The national ecosystem assessment that was published in June shows that there is a great body of work to build on.

I know that the Minister would be disappointed if I did not express my disappointment at the failure of the Pickering pilot scheme for flood defences to go ahead. The Woodland Trust and others are enthusiastic about more natural means of flood defence, such as the planting of trees to slow the water down. I hope that the Minister will not feel constrained and will tell us today where we are on reservoir provision. I make a plea on behalf of many constituents, and I am sure many in the House as well: time after time, the Environment Agency seems to get carried away with over-engineered, over-expensive and over-fancy flood defence projects that fall flat on their face at the first hurdle. That is why we do not have the flood defences we need in Thirsk or in Pickering. The Pickering pilot project was innovative and looked at more natural means of flood defence, but it will not now go ahead. The money, particularly from the local authority, is ring-fenced only until next year. I am sure that the Minister would think that it was tragic if we were to lose that project for ever because of delay owing to the Environment Agency not knowing that the flood storage system it had in mind constituted a reservoir.

I again express the Committee’s support for sustainable drainage systems. Local authorities have expressed concern that they be properly resourced, and the Minister has the opportunity today to set their mind at ease. They have to be given the financial resources they need. I have mentioned water companies being statutory consultees.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I wonder whether the Committee looked at bringing in national flood protection standards. As soon as flooding moves out of the public eye, and in the face of financial difficulties, funding tends to be cut, with a long-term deleterious impact. Holland has statutory national flood standards, which trigger investment and ensure that standards are maintained. Do we not need some fundamental reworking of protections in law to force Governments and funding bodies to ensure that we have a sustainable system? I fear that if we go for a period without severe floods, we will create the conditions for worse floods in the future.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend pre-empts my next point. Why has there been a delay in the consultation on and implementation of national standards for SUDS? Many have expressed to me their real concern about that. When will the provisions on SUDS be implemented?

[Tony Cunningham]

If the work is not done, large numbers of people and properties will either have huge excessive insurance to pay or will not be able to get insurance. The worry of not having one’s own house insured is a terrible burden on people. That must be noted.

[Miss McIntosh]

I will take that opportunity to bring forward my comments on floods insurance. There is an urgent need for the Government to agree with the insurance industry that when the statement of principles expires in 2013, there will be an insurance regime in place. Flood protection and resilience measures taken by householders and businesses should be reflected in a lower premium. The Government and the insurance industry both have a role to play in reducing premiums where that work has been done.

A number of challenges remain. Central to the White Paper is taking forward the three reviews that I referred to earlier: to ensure regulatory stability; to keep down the cost of capital while ensuring maximum efficiencies in the industry; to introduce changes to charging and embed the wider value of water prices in a way that is acceptable to consumers; and to meet a raft of environment challenges, including EU requirements. Of all the directives—on water framework, on urban waste water and on river basin management requirements—it is the water framework directive that is causing most concern. In the Committee’s view, there is strong evidence that it does not offer an effective means of delivering environmental outcomes within such tight resource—that is, funding—constraints. As ever, we need to work with our European partners to find agreement on how to improve the framework directive regime.

The Minister needs to respond to conclusions 45 and 46 and recognise the role of farming and agriculture in flood defences. There was a clause permitting arrangements for financial support for flood protection measures, and the Minister himself has acknowledged that proper compensation is owed to landowners. How will the role played by farmers be recognised? We are concerned about the transitional arrangements for the phasing out of regional development agencies. What are the arrangements for future payments under the rural development programme for England for those types of protection measures? There is concern about who to apply to. The RDA teams are still in place, but do farmers apply to DEFRA or to a regionally located unit? We need clarification.

These are challenging times for all those involved in flood and water management. We welcome the Government’s taking an holistic view and their attempts to link the strands together, but we have expressed concern about resources, reservoir safety regimes and the need for their reform, SUDS and flood insurance. I welcome the opportunity afforded by today’s debate and look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say and the Minister’s conclusions. What is most important, however, is the cross-party support and recognition of how significant floods are to local constituencies, and how much work we still need to do to prevent future floods from happening.

14:56

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and a great pleasure to follow the hon. Lady, who used to be the hon. Member for the Vale of York and is now the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). In 2010, we spent many hours together in Committee scrutinising the Flood and Water Management Bill.

For those of us from Wales, the situation is complex, particularly in the context of devolution. Many hon. Members will remember that there were various sections in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 that would be introduced when the then Welsh Assembly Government had had the chance to make the necessary measures in the process of what were then known as legislative competence orders. Since then, Wales has had a referendum and the Welsh Assembly Government have enhanced powers.

I am pleased to say that one of the first measures under those new powers has been the enactment of the adoption of private sewers, which was announced by the Welsh Government Minister John Griffiths and will come into effect on 1 October. We all know how important that is for many householders who, in the past, have often found themselves facing totally unexpected bills because they were unaware that they were on private systems. The adoption of their sewers will be a tremendous bonus for them. Residents in areas such as Cleviston Park in Llangennech, Dolau Fan in Burry Port and Derlin Park in Tycroes will join with many others across the country in being very pleased that they will be brought into the system of adopted sewers and will not have to face bills that people just two streets away do not have to face.

The issue is particularly complex, because the boundaries of the Dwr Cymru Welsh Water area and the Severn Trent area are not coterminous with the border between England and Wales. That presents us with another issue, as there is clearly a need for careful and close working between the Welsh and the UK Governments. Coupled with that, obvious geographical features, such as the Severn estuary, will necessitate continued close working.

On water charges, we are all familiar with the fact that south-west England is in the most difficult position and has the highest charges, but people are not necessarily aware that Wales comes second in all the comparison tables—Welsh Water is the second highest charger. The reasons are complex, are historical and geographical in nature, and go back a long way. Basically, Wales faces problems similar to those in south-west England: it has long coastlines with beautiful beaches, which people from all parts of the UK come to enjoy, and yet there are areas with a relatively sparse population, so it is difficult to make the challenge of meeting environmental standards for those beaches match up with the income that can be generated from the local residents.

I welcome the fact that the Committee has gone into detail in the report on ways forward, but there are no easy options. As the Minister said to the Committee, we cannot end up with a situation in which someone on a very low income in one part of the country subsidises a millionaire in the south-west, and nor is it a straightforward matter of seeing the solution as one for single area or one stretching across several areas. I urge the Government, however, to give the problem of water poverty urgent attention and to take into account the fact that the high prices in Wales are an historical feature and that some discussion is needed about a mechanism that might help consumers in Wales who find themselves in difficulties. For example, some type of national structure, falling under the remit of UK taxation or the responsibilities of the Department for Work and Pensions, would work for a clear-cut case. If it is not so clear-cut, we still need to give the issue special consideration and to think what we can do. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2009 reported that DEFRA should

“examine how changes might be made to the way water industry investment is paid for when it is directly and expressly for the purpose of improving environmental standards for national benefit.”

My constituency is on the northern side of the Burry inlet—the southern side will be more familiar to many people as the Gower peninsula, an area of outstanding natural beauty. Our difficulties in the inlet have resulted in infraction procedures on EU water directives on waste waters, shellfish waters and habitats. The fact that the UK is not in compliance with EU directives is clearly of national significance.

In areas where we have a national responsibility and where we must protect our heritage, we must provide investment to maintain the standards that everyone wants to enjoy on cleaner beaches, with better water quality in our inlets, particularly where we have a precious shellfish industry, as we do in the Burry inlet. We need to ask at what point something should be dealt with on a national scale, rather than on a local water company-area scale. I make an urgent plea for the White Paper to provide a clear indication of how the Government will manage the challenge of providing enough income for the necessary investment in infrastructure at the same time as ensuring that families who find it difficult to pay their water bills do not face even greater bills. The Government must find a way of balancing that extremely difficult sum and, in doing so, take Wales into consideration and work closely with the Welsh Government.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

In posing that conundrum, does the hon. Lady have any sympathy with the idea of solving it by transferring responsibility for flood protection to water companies? After all, they specialise in raising large sums of money from the markets for long-term infrastructure investment to deliver a guaranteed service level, regulated by a regulator, at the lowest possible cost. Could that be a solution—a way of getting all water-bill payers to contribute to a standard of flood protection that would then be guaranteed and could be regulated to ensure that everyone was given protection in the long term and, hopefully, at the lowest cost?

[Nia Griffith]

That suggestion would probably exacerbate some of the difficulties. The historical reasons for the current situation would have to be taken into consideration. Are we suggesting, for example, that flooding in certain areas would be the responsibility of particular water companies, although there is inequality in places where the flooding happens and in the amount of investment that has already been put into flood management systems? I am not sure that the suggestion would work well.

The other difficulty, which I was going to mention, is the whole issue of planning. If water companies are to take responsibility, they must first be given some power. The inclusion of their opinion as statutory consultees is crucial to future planning and development, because they know where overload is and where problems are likely to occur. Sadly, we have seen developments on which the companies have not been consulted, and things have gone wrong. However, the problem with the water companies taking complete responsibility at this point is that they are not responsible for what has happened historically, as there has been an enormous amount of development in many areas that are quite unsuited to it. There could be considerable difficulty with the model proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I am trying to understand the objection, which I do not quite get. We recognise that we have haphazard standards at the moment and have had haphazard historic investment bearing no relation to need or risk, and that we want a decent standard for everyone. We need to find a mechanism for delivering that, sharing cost on the most equitable basis that we can, delivering it as quickly as we can while we have a Government who have no money. I do not see that the hon. Lady’s objection is an objection to the proposal. If we could bring it in, if it was politically acceptable, everyone would be brought up to a decent level in a way that spread the burden across bill payers. Is that not desirable?

[Nia Griffith]

The idea would merit further examination, but we need to look at the quite considerable sums that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has put into some flood management schemes in the past few years, and ask ourselves whether, if they were to fall on one particular water company, they would work. We would need to look at that in more detail. At present, I do not have the necessary expertise to go into it, so I shall leave it to the hon. Gentleman to prove his case and produce the statistics to show what he wants to suggest.

Moving on, insurance is immensely important, for everyone in Wales as well as in England. For people who have been affected, who face difficulties and who have suffered repeated occurrences of flooding, we need to ensure that appropriate discussions are held with insurance companies, who should do everything that they can. I urge the Minister, when he introduces the White Paper, to go into that issue in considerable detail. I would be pleased to hear whether he has had any recent discussions on insurance with the insurance companies for people who live in areas that have been repeatedly flooded.

I have mentioned planning. Not only is it imperative that water companies should have a say in planning, because of the types of connections that can sometimes be made and because of their understanding and knowledge of flooding patterns, but it is imperative that local authorities should have due regard for the flood maps produced by the Environment Agency. I am afraid that far too often local authorities such as my own, Carmarthenshire county council, grant planning permission for areas that are in C2 floodplains, when plenty of other land is available. Carmarthenshire is a large rural county, with some small towns and one large industrial town, my town of Llanelli. There is no excuse in that sort of area, even with a large coastline, for going ahead and building where there will clearly be difficulties for the newly moved-in residents.

Nor is there any excuse for building on slopes, which immediately increases the pressure on people living immediately below them. The increased water flow into the sewerage system creates an additional flood risk for those living a bit further down the slope. When making planning decisions, every local authority has a clear responsibility to avoid increasing flood risk. In 200 or 300 years’ time, people will wonder how on earth we could have been so mad as to build in such places when we already had the maps and the knowledge and had found the infrastructure wanting. It is therefore important that local authorities behave responsibly.

On that note, I look forward to hearing from the Minister how far his thinking has got, when we will see a White Paper and what thoughts he has on charging, insurance, flood prevention and flood defences.

15:11

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Walker, for inviting me to speak in this timely and important debate. It is important because my constituents are dealing with the issues created by the Severn estuary and because of the work that the Select Committee has accomplished, which we are considering.

I want to look at the situation in my constituency from two directions: the Severn estuary and the Slad valley. The Severn estuary is the most important, because it has raised a number of key issues, which my constituents are concerned about. The first is the solutions being imposed from afar when localism and more community involvement would be much preferred. In that respect, we are talking about a long-running process, which has been under way ever since local people around the Severn estuary in my constituency first discussed a strategy after the Environment Agency produced its proposals. The second issue is the use of farmland adjacent to the estuary. The concerns are therefore largely about land use and the lack of consultation, and I will touch on both.

We have had an interesting discussion about insurance, and I will touch on that before I go on to the meat of my remarks, because that issue, too, has been raised by constituents. The flooding map would suggest that the whole village of Frampton On Severn is vulnerable to flooding, which it is not, and large parts have not been flooded for long periods or, indeed, ever. Why should the map be so misleading? It is largely because the map shows what would happen if there were no flood defences. However, there are flood defences, and that needs to be made clear. Insurance firms and the insurance industry in general need to be aware of the fact that flood maps show what the situation would be without defences. However, there are defences, which operate perfectly well in Frampton, so the village has no worries about being flooded. It would be a great step towards allaying residents’ fears if we could give more meaning to these maps and bring insurers’ attention to the reality of the situation.

To return to the Severn estuary, it is obvious that there are flood risks, because flood defences are already in place; some are in need of repair, some need adjustment and some need to be completely reshaped. There is no dispute that flooding is a risk. What we are disputing is how the strategy will unfold over the next 10 to 50 years. Essentially, three sequential tests will be applied to the strategy, and they all raise key issues, which we should consider.

The first test is economic and is all about the value of the territory being defended—whether it is farmland or land for housing and development. There are concerns about planning, but we are talking about the situation that exists now. Some areas of land along the Severn estuary in my constituency have an agricultural value but no developed value. That needs to be carefully considered, because it is necessary to ensure that public money is spent wisely. Huge sums would not necessarily be invested in defending just agricultural land.

That raises the issue of production. No planning system considers what would happen to land or to a factory if it were flooded or not flooded, but a lot of people in my constituency are rightly concerned about quality farming land being removed from production. That needs to be carefully considered by all concerned.

If the economic test is failed, there is the “make do and mend” approach, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) referred to indirectly, if not directly, when she noted that some farmers protect their own land. The existence of that option needs to be set out more explicitly as one of the range of options that are available.

The second test is the legal test and has something to do with habitat. At the end of the day, we have a commitment to ensure that new habitats exist after flooding. Where areas that are flooded hosted wildlife and so forth, we have to retrench and find new habitats. That raises two critical questions: what kind of territory are we really thinking about and how far do we consider the entire basket of options? That raises the question of where the habitat should be and how much should be provided.

[Barry Gardiner]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the biodiversity offsetting provisions in the White Paper that the Government released earlier this year go a long way towards addressing this question? They propose a very commercial way of proceeding, but they can bring real biodiversity benefits by looking at an offset bank and ensuring that appropriate provision is made elsewhere. I thought that was one of the great features of the White Paper.

[Neil Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is an important feature, but the question remains who will provide the habitat on what is, effectively, a peninsula. The Environment Agency has made it clear that that will be decided through agreement and consultation, but we still have to answer the question of where we should allow or encourage the conversion of farm land into habitat areas. That is still the issue. There is still a legal test. In that context, the question for the Minister is how much land he wants and how much DEFRA will agree to. That has implications in terms of the European Union’s attitudes and regulations. The legal test is therefore important, and it must be framed in a way that everybody understands.

The third test is the community test, which I have mentioned. It is critical because local people must feel part of the process; they must feel engaged and that their expertise and local knowledge are applied appropriately. That is where we have run into trouble to some extent in the processes that I have already described, relating to the Severn estuary. The Environment Agency has rightly recognised the concern and alarm and has, as it puts it, taken time out. Everyone will consider where we are, and the options that are on the table. Of course the time out will end at some point, and there will be some options and choices.

To make sure that the community test is given a fair chance to work, I am pleased that the Environment Agency has decided to appoint an engagement officer, with the specific task of ensuring that our communities—our farmers and the local people—will be properly consulted when the time out period comes to an end and options and choices are agreed. Of course, DEFRA has a key responsibility because, in the end, when it agrees a strategy the moneys will be released, so the question is a political one, as much as it is a function of the Environment Agency.

In concluding the part of my remarks that focuses on the Severn estuary, I want to emphasise the importance of the economic test in relation to respecting the value of land and acknowledging the issue of agricultural production. As to the legal test, I want it to be clearly understood that we must be sensitive and sensible about identifying suitable areas for habitat and making sure we consider a sufficiently wide area, so that any landowners who want to move in that direction can do so without threatening those who do not. That is a critical issue.

I want to touch on some other points, one of which is localism and the question of local knowledge and aspirations. There is a long valley in my constituency, called the Slad valley. It is famous as it is where the Woolpack is—the famous haunt of Laurie Lee. It is a great pub, and I invite all hon. Members to go there.

At the top end of the valley there is the beginning of the mills, water storage systems and so forth, and at the bottom is Stroud, which gets flooded. Of course there are ways to protect houses, and many have opted for protection, although not all, and certainly not enough. Our community, and people in the Slad valley, are keen for the problem to be solved further up the valley. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has alluded to the same points, because I know that such things are being carefully considered in parts of Yorkshire. That emerged in the all-party group on flood prevention some months ago. I want to underline the importance of properly consulting organisations, to enable their ideas to be incorporated. I am also delighted, therefore, that the Environment Agency is willing to meet all the various partners and actors.

A point that needs some amplification is the role of internal drainage boards, which are important and do a huge amount of work. It is interesting that the one that covers most of my territory also covers a huge industrial area in the Avonmouth sector. Of course the work that it does there effectively finances the work it does on the agricultural side. We must be mindful of the cross-fertilisation approach that is used in all sorts of public protection measures. The internal drainage boards are a good example. First I put in a plea for recognition of the value that they bring to such management issues; and secondly I urge the boards, wherever they exist, to co-operate whenever they can with the other organisations.

I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet a contingent of my constituents to discuss the situation in the Severn estuary. They were going to come here today, but they are still more excited to have a direct meeting. I have had many meetings, with a huge number of people representing many different interests, but the key point that they want to get across is that they want to be consulted. They want their local expertise to be recognised, their local knowledge to be understood, and their homes and farms to be properly considered in the context of the three tests, which should be properly respected and understood.

15:25

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak in the debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on initiating it. She chairs the Select Committee with great aplomb, and I know that the matter is exceptionally dear to her heart. I was surprised only that she curtailed her remarks as she did. I expected at least an hour from her.

I look forward most of all in the debate to hearing from the Minister about the progress that has been made since the Government responded to the Committee earlier in the year. The Committee’s report was published last year following a series of welcome and ambitious commitments from the Government: safeguarding clean, reliable and affordable water supplies; protecting households and property from the risk of flooding; and reforming the water industry and making it more resilient, efficient, sustainable, innovative and affordable. The report provided the Government with a comprehensive and holistic approach to delivering on those commitments. Of course we should, in this debate, be assessing the progress that has been made. Instead, I am afraid we must reflect on a number of broken promises and missed opportunities.

A water White Paper was promised for June. In April the Minister revised that commitment and promised that it would be published in the autumn. Unfortunately, the latest business plan of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs now promises publication in December, nine months after the Committee’s report, and we are still no clearer on how the Government plans will encourage the retrofitting of sustainable drainage systems, how they will ensure that customers’ views will be taken into account during the price review process, and how investment in the water industry will be better managed to avoid the boom and bust cycle that so badly harms the supply chain. There is also uncertainty about the future of metering and water efficiency in households, social tariffs to reduce the impact of rising bills on low-income customers and the future of competition in the water industry. Publication in December would leave only four months for the Government to meet their commitment to introduce any new legislation required as a result of the White Paper by next April. I hope that the Government’s ambition will not be scaled back in the fight against a tight time scale.

Since our report, the Government have also severely cut capital funding for flood defences. When we consider that we need to increase investment simply to maintain the current level of protection, that is cause for considerable concern. As the Committee pointed out:

“To cut back significantly on flood defence infrastructure spending could be a classic example of short-term savings leading to much greater long-term costs.”

The Government have also failed to provide any assurance on the provision of flood insurance beyond 2013. The natural environment White Paper, which was excellent in many ways—we adverted to some of it earlier in the debate—also missed a valuable opportunity to set out how, for example, agriculture and land management could play a stronger role in reducing flood risk and improving water quality. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to update us on each of those issues, so that we may leave this afternoon’s debate with a much clearer idea of Government policy on the future of flood and water management. I shall try to deal with each of those issues.

I also want to discuss some of the priorities for the forthcoming White Paper. Ever since privatisation, capital expenditure in the water industry has been concentrated towards the middle of the five-year funding cycle. That has led to financial and managerial inefficiencies in addition to instability in the supply chain, ultimately resulting in higher costs for consumers. It also leads to the migration of skilled resources out of the sector to more stable industries. That has created a severe and worsening skills shortage in the water industry.

The White Paper must help to bring to an end the effect of that five-year asset management planning cycle. It should also explore the link between the price review and innovation. In the current investment period, companies are looking for tried and tested technologies with payback within three years. Some water companies have disbanded their research and development departments as they are not currently funded by the price review. R and D is now conducted on an ad hoc basis rather than in a co-ordinated way.

The water sector faces a period of huge challenge in coping with the implications of climate change, and in reducing its own carbon emissions. It can ill afford to be locked into a short-term investment cycle that stifles and inhibits innovation. The White Paper must set out how the Government will restructure the water industry properly to incentivise and encourage companies to invest in innovation, particularly in treatment processing, energy efficiency, leakage prevention, and water efficiency.

Competition can help to stimulate that innovation. Competition in the water industry is not an end in itself, but it is a means of improving services for customers, particularly the most vulnerable, and improving environmental outcomes.

In the White Paper, the Government gave a commitment to respond to the Cave review, and I would welcome an update from the Minister on how the White Paper will ensure that greater competition will meet those challenges. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified whether the Government’s one-in, one-out rule, which prevents a regulation from being introduced unless another is scrapped, will apply to any legislation proposed in the White Paper. If so, perhaps he will share the Department’s thinking on which regulations might be scrapped in the event of any legislation coming forward in April 2012.

We talked much about sustainable drainage systems in another area on which the Government gave a commitment in the White Paper. When sustainable drainage systems are successfully implemented, they can make a significant contribution to reducing the risk of flooding by increasing the capacity of land to absorb water. They can also reduce the risk of water contamination, and increase the sustainability of water use. The provision of SUDS for new developments and, where possible, for existing developments is widely supported throughout the House. However, evidence to the inquiry revealed widespread concern among local authorities about their ability to fund the adoption and maintenance of SUDS. The Government’s response to the Committee stated that DEFRA would fund local authorities for the costs of maintaining adopted SUDS and SUDS maintenance in the “short term.” Will the Minister say how long he expects that “short term” to be? That is important for local authorities.

In November, the Prime Minister said that flood defence spending would be protected, and would be “roughly the same” as under Labour. In fact, capital funding for flood defences to protect homes has fallen from a baseline figure last year of £354 million to £259 million. We now know the meaning of the phrase, “roughly the same”. It means give or take 30% according to my mathematics. In fact, it is a 27% cash cut to the budget, and a 32% real-terms cut when inflation is taken into account.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

After the floods in 2000, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had people from Norfolk and other areas to No. 10 Downing street and made expansive commitments on flood protection. However, the pressures of political life being what they are, flooding moved out of the spotlight and those promises disappeared along with the floodwater. It is an historic happening for Governments slowly to cut long-term infrastructure investment when it is not in the spotlight. Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts on how to create a long-term sustainable structure which, regardless of the political cycle, ensures that our constituents are properly protected from flooding?

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman points out that at various periods during the previous Labour Administration the flood budget was raided, but he must acknowledge that overall there was both a real-terms and a cash increase in that budget. He is absolutely right that from time to time that budget was raided and cut as necessary in the political cycle, but overall it was increased. The Minister knows that I have the greatest respect for him and the work that he is trying to do in this area, and I know that he understands the importance of the matter. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) talked about small cuts, but this is not a small cut. It is a 27% cash, or a 32% real-terms cut in this period. That is a huge amount.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. I was not trying to suggest that he is not being proper in challenging the Government. My point is that historically Governments tend to raid the flood budget when under the pressure that they inevitably suffer. The last Government was much better at spending money than the present one, but it turned out that so much of that money could not be sustained, and we could not afford it. He should not boast about that too much. What we should focus on is how to create a long-term situation so that whoever is in government and whatever the state of public finances our constituents will have a guarantee that that political cycle will not get in the way of sensible, stable support for flood defence in their homes.

[Barry Gardiner]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have talked about introducing minimum standards, and we must move towards consensus, because that is in everyone’s interest.

The Government have given a commitment to deliver 15% efficiency savings in Environment Agency flood defence budgets, but that leaves an overall reduction in those budgets of 17%. I would be grateful if the Minister provided us with an update of his assessment of the impact of that reduced funding settlement in relation to the Government’s flood programme, and the flood defence work that the Environment Agency has programmed for the next three years. Will he also provide an indication of how the 15% of efficiency savings in the Environment Agency has impacted on that work?

Despite those funding reductions, the Committee noted the Government’s commitment fully to fund local authorities in their new roles under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and that they would provide direct grants of up to £36 million a year to lead local flood authorities. That is welcome. Each lead local flood authority would receive at least £110,000 a year, with the authorities tackling the highest levels of local risk receiving up to £750,000 a year. However, the communities and local government special grants settlement for 2011-12 highlights that the most that any lead local flood authority received this year was not £750,000, but £260,000—that was in Kent. Of the 152 lead local flood authorities, 144 received less than £200,000. To allow for local flexibility, those grants are not ring-fenced. On average, central Government funding to councils will fall by 26% over the next four years. I understand the constraint under which the Government are operating.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman’s party created them.

[Barry Gardiner]

Indeed, I take on board the party political knockabout that we can have. Local authorities have been put in an extremely difficult position. By not ring-fencing the funds, the Government cannot be sure that they will go into flood defences. It is therefore important to find out from the Minister how the Government plan to review local authority spend on flood management, and how they propose to hold local authorities to account for the money they have been given to spend in that area.

I acknowledge that that is not just a matter for central and local government. The Committee concluded that it was right for beneficiaries such as developers to help fund new flood defence schemes. In light of that, will the Minister confirm how funding through the new flood and coastal resilience partnership funding arrangement will be focused on those communities at greatest risk? How will the Government identify those communities and ensure that their protection is achieved in practice? As discussed earlier, the Government’s draft national planning policy framework should also be amended to address how planning should apportion the costs of providing flood defences for new developments between public agencies and private beneficiaries.

The Labour Government’s statement of principles guaranteed universal flood insurance coverage for homes in affected areas. That guarantee runs out in 2013, and was based on the understanding, following the Pitt review, that Government should have

“above inflation settlements for future spending rounds.”.

We know that that will no longer be the case.

The Government’s response to the Committee’s report committed to updating the Committee on progress with implementing

“a roadmap to take us beyond 2013.”

I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to update hon. Members on precisely what the roadmap beyond 2013 might look like.

Water saving through greater efficiency will become increasingly important, especially in parts of the country where climate change and population growth will lead to significant constraints in supply. The Building Regulations 2010 introduced a new minimum water efficiency standard for new homes. The potential consumption of potable water by persons occupying a dwelling should not exceed 125 litres per person per day. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to increase the minimum water efficiency standard in future revisions of the Building Regulations 2010?

As the Committee noted, metering plays a key role in helping to reduce water demand. More widespread introduction of metering will mean that there are winners and losers and some, including groups of vulnerable customers, could see significant rises in their water bills. Social tariffs can help to ameliorate the impact of rising bills on low-income customers. The Government’s response to the Committee stated that they were preparing

“guidance on company social tariffs under Section 44 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.”

Will the Minister confirm when that will be published as it is of great interest and importance to many poorer constituencies? The regulatory framework under which water prices are set must also be reformed to include stronger water efficiency targets for water supply companies. The water White Paper should be clear on how that will be taken forward.

In giving evidence to the Committee, the Environment Agency estimated that costs associated with implementing the water framework directive up to 2027 could be between £30 billion and £100 billion, depending on the approach taken. Despite that level of investment, the UK was likely to see only 26% of rivers achieving “Good Ecological Status” by the water framework directive target date of 2015. The Government’s response to the Committee highlighted that it was possible, within the terms of the directive, to set lower standards of compliance. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to make use of that option? If so, it would be extremely deleterious. Do the Government have any plans to implement the “polluter pays” principle more accurately, so that customers do not have to foot the bill for cleaning up pollution for which they are not responsible? Domestic water customers currently pay some 82% of the costs of implementing measures to meet WFD requirements.

Together with other members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I welcome the focus placed by the Government on flood and water management. They seem, however, to have lost their way over the nine months since the report was published. An ambitious water White Paper and the commencement of provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act that have not yet been effected, must be a priority. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government plan to move the issue forward.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. We have one hour and 10 minutes for speeches, and seven colleagues who wish to speak. That is about 10 minutes each.

15:45

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

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow speeches that are as excellent and thoughtful as those we have heard so far across the Chamber. I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and her Committee for the excellent report that has been produced.

On 25 June 2007, this country suffered some of the worst flooding in modern history, and my constituents in Beverley and Holderness were some of the worst affected. All four towns in my constituency, Beverley, Hedon, Withernsea and Hornsea were affected, and at one stage Hornsea was cut off by the floods. Almost every hamlet and village was affected; thousands of my constituents had their homes flooded and were forced out. Although Hull attracted press attention as it too was devastated, the East Riding of Yorkshire was equally appallingly hit.

Although we are discussing the technicalities of the floods, the human cost must never be forgotten. Let us consider from a historical point of view how we, the country and the media would view a catastrophe that saw thousands of people removed from their homes, for months if they were lucky, and years if they were not, and how seriously we would regard such an event if it were caused by something other than floods. In a way, the country and the media failed to recognise just how devastating were the floods in east Yorkshire in 2007 and elsewhere.

The memory of people living with their marriages on the edge as they sat in a tiny caravan—I shall not name the place as that may identify the people involved, but I saw people who were absolutely haunted for months afterwards, with their lives wrecked by the flooding as they sat in a tiny caravan and stepped out into mud. They were involved in permanent disputes over their house with changing underwriters and people from the insurance companies. Notwithstanding the fact that insurance companies in general did a good job, that human picture stays in my mind and makes it important that we get things right.

That is why I am keen to try to find a way of providing long-term solutions. The nature of politics, not least the pressures faced by the coalition Government, given the financial catastrophe that they inherited, mean that funding for long-term issues such as flooding tends to get reduced. It gets reduced even in good times. When the previous Government were spending like there was no tomorrow, after there had been no flood events for a few years, the spending got cut. In a tougher time, we can expect that pressure to be even greater. How do we create a situation with the guarantee of stable, solid and sensible investment to protect people? That is my central question. I have tried to think about the issue, bearing in mind the many people whom I met in my constituency in 2007. The answer I came up with is that what we have now is not suitable. It is not simply about getting new documents, unless that involves legislation and setting down a definitive standard that can be enforced in court. Unless we have something like that, we will see the same cycle again—the money will not be put in place, and when a one-in-50, one-in-75 or one-in-150-year event comes to an area, people will suffer in the same way they did in the area I represent.

As the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee makes clear, when all costs are considered, it makes no sense from an economic point of view not to make such an investment. However, because of the silos of departmental budgets and the pressures in the political cycle, that money is not invested and we pay a higher price as a result. We therefore owe it to our constituents, not just from the human point of view, but from a basic, sensible economic management point of view, to create a structure that does not allow the money to be pulled away as soon as the spotlight moves on. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister may be able to discuss that today.

I have not done detailed work on what the implications would be of a transfer to water companies. It just seems to me that water companies such as Yorkshire Water, which has plant, people and responsibilities all over my constituency and all over Yorkshire, are capable of raising money from the markets for long-term investment in order to deliver a standard that a regulator ensures is met and to do that in a way that does not impinge on public finances. They are in a better position to deliver that certainty for the lowest possible cost than other models that immediately present themselves. I urge the Minister to think about that, because notwithstanding the good work that went on under the previous Government, albeit that it was a little slow, and the good work that is going on under the present Government which, funnily enough, also seems to be rather slow, I am not convinced that my constituents will not be affected badly again in future.

On the positive front, I would like to praise the Environment Agency. Craig McGarvey, whom I have dealt with a great deal in my local area, has been open. I certainly expressed a lot of criticism of the Environment Agency and the way in which it behaved, the way in which it treated people and the way in which it talked to them, as well as what it did from a practical point of view. However, people from the agency have worked hard to listen to people, to come out and be available. They have given up their evenings to talk and engage with people; and from Pasture terrace and Willow grove in Beverley to Burstwick, Hedon and a number of other places, serious improvements have been made to reduce flood risk.

I pay tribute to East Riding of Yorkshire council, which did not rush to judgment but set up a flood review panel. It spent months doing the work; it thought about it deeply; and it has encouraged parishes to come up with their own emergency plans and to think deeply about how they can minimise risk. Much good work has happened in Beverley and Holderness, and I am delighted that that is the case.

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair]

I also pay tribute to the fire service. Again, I had been extremely critical. The floods happened on 25 June. Fire officers were doing 12 or 14 hours in floodwater, rescuing people. That happened to be in June. It happened to be the case, when they went in with fire kit on, which was completely unsuitable for flood work, that they did not freeze. If it had happened in February, they would not have been able to stay in the water as they did so heroically, doing 12-hour stints, looking after people. They would have had to come out, possibly after 40 or 45 minutes. People would have died simply because they did not have the kit to go in the water. I was ferocious in my criticism of how we got ourselves in that situation then, and the service listened and has invested and trained up its staff and they have the kit. We can be assured that if such an event happens again, we will have trained firefighters, with the right equipment, who can go in, effect rescues and protect people’s lives. If the floods had happened in February instead of June, people would have died as a result. That will not be the case in future.

Many positive things have occurred. If we do not look at a transfer to the water companies, I would like the Minister to reflect on the situation in the Netherlands, which has larger regional boards as opposed to our internal drainage boards. I visited the country once with the all-party coastal and marine group. People there have tax-raising powers, as I recall, but they have to deliver statutory protection standards. When we visited, we found that their rural areas had a higher guaranteed standard than central London. They looked for one-in-1,250-year flood protection for their rural areas and one-in-10,000-year protection for their urban areas. Of course, they have a completely different history and culture around flooding, given that the whole country is pretty much at risk of flooding and they carved it out of the sea in the first place. However, if we want people to be given proper protection, we perhaps need to implement such flood protection standards. They might need to be different in different places, but people should know that if they build behind a certain line or they have a house there, they will have protection that is maintained over time, whoever provides it. I hope that that will happen.

I know that, as Opposition Members have said, the Minister has spent a lot of time considering and understanding this issue. Across the Chamber, we have enormous confidence in him. We not only hope but expect that he will introduce a long-term settlement that means that the people who suffered so much in 2007 and in years before and after that will not suffer in that way again. That will be because of the Benyon settlement. Whatever the cynicism of people about the motives of those of us who come into public life, we do so in the hope that we can make a significant positive difference that affects the lives of thousands of people for the better. What better monument to the career of my hon. Friend than that he should provide the long-term Benyon settlement on flood protection and prevent the misery that blighted the lives of my constituents in 2007 from happening again in the future where it can be avoided?

15:56

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I commend the EFRA Committee on its excellent report and on bringing it to the attention of the House in this debate. I particularly commend the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh).

Water is a scarce resource. We may not feel that that is the case, given the recent downpours that we have had. However, as the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) said, the debate should not just be about defences, but about the use of water and about water management. Water is a scarce resource in this country, despite its being surrounded by water. If I may, Mrs Main, I will take this opportunity to advertise the fact that this very Saturday I will be doing a walk for WaterAid along the Suffolk coast, raising money for people who really do have very little water.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) gave a very thoughtful speech on the national flood standards, referring to the Benyon settlement or the Benyon formula. Perhaps there will be many arguments about that in future as there are about the Barnett formula.

I want to refer to a few paragraphs and recommendations in the Select Committee report. I will begin with recommendation 22 about the abstraction licensing regime. I made—well, it was not an error, but I drew the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the potential drought in Suffolk earlier this year and I wish that I had shut my mouth because we had so much rain in the summer it was untrue. However, I do not regret doing that because it did make things happen. [Interruption.] It did not make it rain, but it ensured that the Environment Agency worked with local farmers to ensure that Suffolk was one of the few areas suffering such arid conditions that was not declared an official drought area. They worked together in a co-operative way, and I was delighted with that.

The particular issue in Suffolk was abstraction from rivers. That was where we had the biggest problems—the biggest threat. The flexibility of licensing that is recommended is important, and I hope that the Minister will consider carefully widening the times of the year when water can be abstracted or stored and how it is used and captured. It seems ridiculous that when we are having downpours, we are not allowed to capture some of that water in our reservoirs.

The report also discusses tradeable rights. I think that such trading does happen now, but perhaps not in a formal way. Certainly in my constituency, farmers can use one another’s licences, but they have to secure agreement from the Environment Agency and Natural England. We all know the joy of trying to ensure that people work together, but that has worked and the people to whom I have referred pay one another. It may not be a formal scheme, but an informal scheme does operate.

We must be careful lest we end up with what happens under the fishing regime. People begin to buy and trade quotas, and they end up having rights to quotas and perhaps licensing arrangements that they never use themselves—they just use them as a financial asset. That would be a great mistake.

The grandfathering regime is referred to in the report. Of course, that exists now. It may not sound very conservative, but I am not talking about nationalisation of licensing or water rights. However, if people are to be rewarded, we should ensure they have actually been using their water rights and that they have not been sitting idle. It is possible that people are becoming a bit wealthier and may not have used their rights for some time.

On water storage, I understand exactly what the Committee says about the transfer from the regional development agency and the use of funds from the rural development programme for England. However, I still do not have full details from the East of England Development Agency about what is being done. I know that something has been done, but it is important that we are able to invest in water storage. Whether it is reservoirs or local schemes, I want to support it.

I return to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. I am not going to talk about funding for flood defences, as that has been eloquently discussed. Councillor Andy Smith from Suffolk Coastal district council and I have met the Minister, so he already knows of my concern that we seem to be relying on his common sense in setting up the regional flood risk committees. Authorities that have responsibility for coastal defences are not automatically included. I fully appreciate the assurances that the Minister has given me, and I realise that he will continue with that, but we will not always have the benefit of the Benyon effect. I hope that the Minister will be at the Department for some time; however, I do not want to limit his ministerial ambition.

I turn next to the practicalities of the necessary coastal defences. The Minister has visited Suffolk Coastal on a few occasions, and he is well aware of the schemes that have been proposed. I would like to thank him publicly for what seems to be a significant change in the approach of the relevant agencies. My feedback from councillors and landowners is that the Environment Agency and Natural England have—dare I say it?—a can-do approach. I am not sure of the reasons for the change, but I put it down to the Minister and his ministerial team. There is certainly a fresh enthusiasm. We have less money, and we cannot always gold-plate everything, so we have to be pragmatic, and some of that is coming through.

Recommendation 12 is on internal drainage boards. Much has been said about them already, and I support many of those comments. I agree that they could be used more, and I would welcome a localist approach if they wanted to take on more tasks. I believe that most of them have a local authority presence. I know that there is talk about oversight, and whether the boards are reporting to the Environment Agency. I like to think that county or district councillor members of IDBs are playing a full part. I realise that not all boards have filled those vacancies with councillors; I would encourage them to do so. I genuinely believe that IDBs can often do a lot of the work much more cheaply. It never fails to amaze me how a project’s costing is scoped out. Although some of that has changed, we should recognise that not all defences need to last 100 years, and that we could be looking at generational life of 25 to 30 years. We should use the IDBs whenever we can, as they do such a good job on other matters.

There is another problem that keeps coming up in my constituency. I have to be careful how I phrase this, but the Environment Agency says that it will not stop landowners defending their parts of the coastline. The same goes for Natural England. To some extent, however, they do stop hard defences being erected, although they will manage soft defences for a few years. The Benacre estate at the top of my constituency is losing land every year to erosion—I have forgotten the exact amount but I think that it is about 15 acres—but it is not allowed to use hard defences.

I realise that we are not debating shoreline management plans today, but they have to connect up. There is no particular compensation for that loss of land. We would not take land away from people living in the centre of the country and say, “You are not allowed to put a fence around that and someone else can come and camp on it and you won’t have access to it”—that kind of thing; I do not want to be controversial—so we should expect compensation for people who are not even allowed to use hard defences on their own land. I do not want to say too much about human rights, but there is a feeling that people are not being allowed to protect their own property.

I understand what paragraph 9 has to say about agriculture. Suffolk is famous for its pigs and potatoes, but if we did not have agricultural land the potatoes could be grown elsewhere or even imported. I am not sure that that is the right policy direction, however; I believe that we should think more about our resilience and the value of food security. I would like a little bit more value to be given to agricultural production in the funding formula.

Insurance is important, as several Members have said. I am slightly concerned that we will not have any more information on the subject until March 2012, just a year before the current agreement comes to an end. However, I have every confidence that the Minister and his officials will secure a successful outcome, so that people can continue to live safely and securely in their own homes.

I wish to make one final suggestion. It is not about legislation or directly to do with floods. The Department has worked well with the new planning policy framework to ensure sustainable development and to deal with water stress, but I return to a point that I have made in the main Chamber about building design. We should encourage people to reconsider the way in which electrics are installed, especially if we have to build in difficult places such as floodplains. I understand that one of the major problems when waiting for a house to dry out, which affects the cost of repair, is the fact that the sockets are at floor level rather than at waist height. Some simple planning guidance or design ideas would save the insurance industry a lot of money and result in lower premiums. I thank the House for its patience.

16:06

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

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that I am secretary to the Fire Brigades Union.

I will focus on the statutory responsibility for flood preparation and flood response, although I almost feel that I should apologise for raising the matter so consistently in recent years. After the 2007 floods, the Pitt review was undertaken; its early recommendations were fairly straightforward, despite what the Committee calls some vagueness. The report recommended:

“The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty.”

That recommendation was fairly clear, but, referring to what the report had to say about preparation and rescue, Pitt added that

“the Review strongly believes that a statutory duty is the best means to achieve these outcomes.”

He continued:

“Whilst it is conceivable that non-statutory approaches, such as those proposed by the CFRA”—

chief fire and rescue adviser, Ken Knight—

“might work, such approaches do not provide the certainty the public expect and the Review believes is needed.”

All the evidence demonstrates that the original Pitt recommendations were correct. Despite some additional moneys being invested in equipment and in some elements of training, the evidence that the Committee received from the FBU was that things had gone backwards rather than forwards. Not enough was being invested in training exercises or in the necessary equipment. It should be blindingly obvious to those who have served in local government that if a statutory duty is not placed upon a particular local government role or function, it is no longer a priority at budget time. Statutory duties always gain priority when it comes to the allocation of resources.

I am pleased that the Committee heard more evidence on the subject, and recommendation 3 reinforces what Pitt had said. The Committee said at paragraph 26:

“We are concerned that the lack of a statutory duty for Fire and Rescue Authorities could jeopardise their flood preparation and response work, given pressures on them to direct their limited funding towards fulfilling nondiscretionary duties.”

We had hoped that the Labour Government would legislate on the matter, but what legislation we had did not deal with the question of statutory responsibility.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his declaration of interest. Is the problem in his view a matter of funding, the responsibility for which no longer lies with DEFRA but with the Department for Communities and Local Government? We stand by our recommendation, but does he think that we should go further? We say that the matter should be included in the funding formula applied to the emergency services. Does he share our disappointment that that has not been done immediately?

[John McDonnell]

The Pitt review identified two areas: clarity of leadership in a particular response and resources, because a statutory duty gives security of access to those resources. I take the view that the statutory duty needs to be introduced as quickly as possible to tackle both matters. There should be more clarity about local government’s responsibilities; flowing from that will be both the resources and the clarity of the approach on the allocation of those resources for both Government and local fire authorities.

Unfortunately, the previous Government failed to legislate, but they set up various exercises and consultations that will eventually come to fruition. After the general election, the coalition agreement made reference to the Pitt review. It committed the coalition to taking forward

“the findings of the Pitt Review to improve our flood defences, and prevent unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk”—

in other words, implementing the recommendation of the Pitt review with regard to the statutory duty. The previous Government undertook Exercise Watermark. Although they did not specifically undertake to provide the analysis for a case study for a statutory duty, we were advised by Ministers responding to parliamentary questions that the exercise would inform the Government’s decision about whether statutory responsibility would be required. The interim report from Exercise Watermark told us that there would be a final report at the end of September. Encouragingly, it also said:

“Feedback from the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) suggested the statutory duty for flood rescue should be co-ordinated by the Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) with appropriate funding.”

The interim report indicated that we were moving towards a statutory duty being introduced by the Government.

We then also had the recommendations from the fire futures forum, which advises Government on general safety issues, including fire and flooding. It discussed the options for future reform of the fire service and called for the implementation of a statutory duty, but with some caveats on where the funding for such work should come from.

A consensus seems to have been built up in recent years, stemming from the 2007 floods and culminating in the lessons learned from the 2009 floods, that there should be a statutory responsibility. We simply await the outcome of the final report on Exercise Watermark. Will the Minister confirm whether that report will reach us by the end of September? If not, will he intervene—perhaps in this memorial way that seems to be being pushed to establish his reputation—to ensure that the report is finalised as speedily as possible?

If the report fails to recommend a statutory duty for fire and rescue authorities, there will be many who will be extremely anxious that this is a missed opportunity to clarify duties and responsibilities and to secure funding. If it does recommend a statutory responsibility, I urge the Minister—I am sure that Members in this Chamber will assist him all they can—to lobby others to ensure that there is parliamentary time to enable such legislative activity to take place.

16:14

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate. I also congratulate her and her Committee on producing such a comprehensive report. As Chairman of a Select Committee myself, I know how much work goes into reports.

My hon. Friend spoke about the devastation that the floods caused in 2007. In June that year, my Tewkesbury constituency was badly flooded, but that was nothing compared with what came a month later, in July, when the area was absolutely devastated—although, paradoxically, many thousands of people lost their water supplies. Tragically, three people lost their lives and many people lived for well over a year in caravans as a result of the flooding. Some have struggled to get any insurance at all, even when flooding was excluded from the policy. That is how bad things have got. This is an extremely important issue.

As time is limited, I will touch on just one issue, which links in with the DCLG. The Department obviously has a big role to play in the new planning proposals, particularly in areas affected by flooding. The report mentions this in paragraphs 47, 48 and 49, under the heading, “Planning to Mitigate Flood Risk.” We cannot completely remove flood risk. If it rains as heavily as it did on 20 July 2007, we will have flooding. My constituents who live where two main rivers meet and several other rivers run understand that. The point is that where possible, we should not make matters worse—indeed, as the report says, we should do whatever we can to mitigate flooding.

Looking at the proposals that are emerging—I accept that they are from another Department, but I am sure that DEFRA has had its say in them—we see welcome recognition of the problems caused by water displacement. In other words, it is recognised that not only could new houses flood, but their being built could cause other houses to flood. That seems to be a new development. I have struggled to get that message across to Parliament, the Government, the Environment Agency and anybody else: the problem is not only new buildings, but the trouble that they may cause for other people.

The big word in the new planning proposals is “sustainable”. As far as I can read, that means that this generation should not make matters worse for the next. We could take that further and say that, within this generation, somebody who lives in village X should not make life worse for somebody who lives in village Y. Basically, it is about thinking about other people, which I am very pleased about. If we adhere to that then surely we should not have too much development in flood-risk areas.

In the new planning proposals, I am pleased to see recognition of the problem of building in flood-risk areas. Paragraph 149 says that we should

“avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding by directing development away from areas at highest risk… or where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere”.

That prompts the question: what is necessary? Although that comes down to business assessments, housing projection assessments and site-specific assessments, it worries me that we have a sequential test and an exceptional test. That is nothing new—it was in planning policy statement 25, and it has probably been strengthened in the new planning proposals. None the less, I am still worried about who is making the assessments. It certainly is not the people who have to live in the houses who might be flooded or those who might be flooded as a consequence of new houses being built.

The Environment Agency will play a big role in that, which is a cause of concern. I have been a critic of the agency for many years, and with good reason, although I will not go into that now. Over the years, the Environment Agency has improved—I do not doubt that at all—but more work needs to be done to define its role more closely and more accurately, to enable us to assess whether it actually has the powers that it needs, to assess the work that it does and to see how effective that work is. I know of a planning application in my area where the land flooded but the Environment Agency said that that land was okay to build on. It has also said that where water rests perhaps just below the surface, that land is okay to build on. I do not accept that—I do not accept that analysis at all.

We have a bit of work to do in relation to the Environment Agency and I urge the Minister to speak to his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to ascertain what we are talking about when we say that building in flood-risk areas is “necessary”; I am sure that he does so already regularly. We must examine what is “necessary” much more carefully. I recognise that the draft national planning framework is, to an extent, strengthening flood defences, but we need to go a lot further than that. I want to stress that—it is the central point that I wanted to make.

When I say how important it is to build in the right places, I remind Members of the iconic picture of Tewkesbury abbey surrounded by water. I have even spoken to people in Australia who saw that picture; everybody who has seen it remembers it. The words “surrounded by water” are very important because Tewkesbury abbey, which was built at the end of the 11th century, did not actually flood. Deerhurst priory, which is just down the road from Tewkesbury abbey, was built in about the 7th century. Although it is located in a village that flooded, Deerhurst priory itself did not flood. The point that I am making is that in those days people knew how to build and where to build. That is an extremely important point. Everybody recognises that we need growth in the economy, new jobs, new businesses and new houses, but the question is, “Where do they go?” That is the central point that I am making today.

I want to mention a couple of other issues. As has been mentioned already, we need to ensure that all the ditches, drains, culverts and sewers are properly maintained and repaired. We had an incident in my area where two culverts were never joined up and further down the road there was also a broken culvert. Houses flooded on that road for the first time ever, to my knowledge, in June 2007, but then flooded again in July 2007. That is an example of what happens when maintenance is not carried out. Another estate was built up a hill—the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) referred to building at the top of a hill and how it is obvious that the water will run down the hill. The same thing happened in the village in my area where the estate was built, yet we now face the possibility in that very village of more houses being built, which could cause even more problems. The village that I am referring to is Prestbury, which I am working very hard to try to protect.

We must ensure that all the waterways are cleared and maintained. That work will not prevent flooding if we get the kind of rainfall that we had on that day in July 2007, but it will help. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) mentioned, we also need to ensure that any flood prevention schemes that are implemented—we are getting some in my area and they are very welcome—are well designed and actually work.

If we do all those things, if we are sensible about those things and if we apply common sense, we will not prevent all the flooding—I have already said that—but we will certainly convince our constituents that we are taking sensible decisions and that we are doing everything we can to mitigate the worst effects of flooding.

16:23

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I add my voice to the voices of others who have commended the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and her Select Committee. The Committee’s report is an excellent piece of work and it is thoroughly welcome.

As a Member who represents a constituency in the south-west, it will come as no surprise to people that I wish to speak today about water charging. The water charges in the south-west are the highest in the country, with an average bill of £517. I am afraid that that figure is rather higher than the one given in the Select Committee’s report, which puts the figure for the south-west at £490. At £517, the average bill in the south-west is 43% above the national average for water charges. Although I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) on the challenges that she faces in Wales—I absolutely empathise with her—the south-west has 30% of the country’s coastline and 3% of the population, so the burden that we bear is exceptionally great.

Unfortunately, in addition we also have a large amount of sewage pipework inherited at privatisation without the adequate funding to get it into the state that is required. The problem was inevitably exacerbated by the bathing water directives, which were not foreseen and which have created all sorts of challenges for us in the south-west. The problem in the south-west is very significant.

Possible solutions have been considered by a number of different bodies. I commend the Walker report, which came out with a number of very good options. Equally, Ofwat came up with some good options. I will not go into the details of those, because they are well rehearsed in the Select Committee report. I am pleased to say that DEFRA has consulted on a solution. Of the four areas that were looked at, information on three of them was included in the DEFRA consultation. With the interests of the people of the south-west at heart, I will comment only on those options, which I hope will inform the Minister in his thinking when he comes to draft the water Bill, which I, like others, am keen to see sooner rather than later.

The first suggestion related to social tariffs. Whatever else we do, we certainly need to get a social tariff in place that works properly. The current tariff, WaterSure, is a good start, but unfortunately it does not protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Come what may, it needs to be reviewed. The suggestion that the social tariff be transferred to a central pot rather than continue to come out of the individual water companies’ pots is a good one. If that happened, I would want the water companies to take a sensible approach locally, to do what is right to meet the particular and peculiar needs in their own part of the world.

The second option considered was rebalancing who pays for what within the south-west itself. Given the overall unfairness of the settlement at privatisation—I am sure that that unfairness was not intended and that it was just one of those unfortunate consequences—rebalancing within the south-west itself is not something that any south-west MP would view with any comfort. Paying south-west Peter by robbing south-west Paul is not the solution, I think. Other suggestions include rebalancing sewerage charges and the business community paying a higher share, but tourism is crucial for us, so any rebalancing of that nature would certainly be most unwelcome—I am sure that the Minister recognises how unwelcome it would be.

I was interested that the third option put forward by Anna Walker in her report was not in the DEFRA consultation; in fact, I was very pleased that it was not in the DEFRA consultation. That option was to cross-subsidise the south-west from water-charge payers in other water company areas. The Minister, in ruling out that option, said that it would be quite inappropriate to take money from an individual in Newcastle who was on benefits to provide a subsidy for a water-charge payer in the south-west who may well be a millionaire. I say gently to him that perhaps he does not fully understand that the average income in Devon is actually £2,964 lower than the national average. Contrary to what too many people believe, the south-west is not a countryside of cream teas and beautiful cows, in which we all sit eating our strawberries and cream. The area is very rural, but we have a number of very deprived areas and the highest number of retirees and pensioners in the country. There is not a large number of millionaires sitting in the south-west, waiting to be bailed out by those in the north who are less well off.

The final option in the DEFRA consultation was one that I very warmly welcome. If I have one message for the Minister today, it is, “Yes, please, that is exactly what we want.” It is the suggestion that the Government put a £40 million subsidy behind South West Water bill-payers, which would effectively knock £50 off each bill-payer’s bill in the region. That would not only be welcome but, in the current circumstances and given the history, it would be the right and fair thing to do, because even though, if that subsidy were given, people paying water rates in the south-west would still have the highest water rates in the country, they would at least be less badly done by than they are now.

We need to look carefully therefore at what we do. It would be nice to see a “Benyon report” suggesting that the Bill include the adoption of the £40 million subsidy but, as the hon. Member for Llanelli pointed out, there is an ongoing challenge for those of us whose constituencies have long coastlines, and that is a challenge for the Government. If I might be so bold, given that two more directives on water quality will come from Brussels sooner rather than later, we should consider the matter urgently, rather than wait for the water Bill after the forthcoming one.

The Government have bravely already looked at the relationship between the taxpayer and the private sector in other areas. They have considered renegotiating some of the private finance initiative contracts that were biased against the taxpayer because the risk had not been properly assessed at the time they were entered into. Likewise, they have looked at the relationship between the taxpayer and the banks. Now might be an opportune moment to look at the relationship between the taxpayer and the water companies. I am sure that there would be all sorts of legal challenges and hurdles to overcome, but that does not mean that it should not be done. For water authorities that face particular challenges as a result of the water quality directive—for example, where the percentage increase would be very difficult for the local community to bear, a cap on above-inflation rises allowed by those companies might be considered in the annual review. That is something for the Minister to think about.

I shall turn very briefly to flooding. The Minister knows very well that it is a subject that is also close to my heart. I have to thank him for what he has done to ensure that I have flood defences in Shaldon and hopefully—subject to planning consent—in Teignmouth. Flood prevention is critical, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for the careful and thorough analysis she set out at the beginning of the debate. She hit the nail absolutely on the head. If, as evidence seems to bear out, for every £1 we spend now we effectively save £8 in the future, flood prevention must be a key priority, and I am glad that it was presented as such in the national infrastructure plan.

I share some of the views that other hon. Members have expressed about the best solution. In planning policy, although the report makes it clear that it would be inappropriate to ban building on floodplains, developers have done very well from building on such land without having to contribute to the windfall, so there is an argument for reviewing the planning rules and regulations with a view to possible limits on building on flood plain. In insurance, which is the second key issue in the flooding debate, the renegotiation of the statement of principle that will lapse in 2013 needs to involve all parties, and not be seen as a matter for just the Government and the insurance industry. Developers and other beneficiaries of changes ought to play their part.

Those are the key points that I wanted to make today, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this crucial matter.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I remind everyone that the winding up speeches start at five minutes to 5. I call Priti Patel.

14:05

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and I pay tribute to the Select Committee and its Chair for offering this comprehensive analysis of flood management issues. I would like to use this debate to bring the Minister’s attention to a couple of problems with existing flood management arrangements in my constituency.

I also put on record my thanks to the Committee’s Chair for her recent visit to my constituency, and for the time she spent meeting my constituents to discuss many of the flood management issues that I will raise. She learned of the serious flood and shoreline management problems in my constituency, and listened to the many concerns raised directly by Andrew St Joseph, the chairman of the independent farming-led Managing Coastal Change group, and other local farmers and landowners. They very much welcomed her interest in these matters, and are very grateful to her for her time and her visit.

The Minister will be familiar with some of the matters because of my correspondence with him at the beginning of this year about questions I had asked him in the House. In those exchanges, I highlighted the fact that landowners, farmers and people contributing significant sums of money to the Environment Agency for shoreline management felt completely excluded from the decision-making process. I urge the Minister to address that serious problem. Each year, through the general drainage charge, farmers in Essex give the Environment Agency something in the region of £800,000, which is a significant sum that could instead be spent on other investments or by farmers themselves in acting against flood risks. The farmers continue to feel that they are being subjected to a regime under the auspices of the Environment Agency that generates taxation almost without effective representation. For instance, there is no system in place and no channel of communication to enable people who have contributed to the cost of flood management locally to see how their money is being spent, or to make representations to influence that spending. It is therefore understandable that my constituents and those landowners feel totally ignored, while their contribution seems to be going in one particular direction. Could the Minister find the time to come to my constituency—we would welcome him with open arms—to see at first hand the problems and challenges regarding the flood and shoreline management plan? Alternatively, he could perhaps meet my constituents here in Westminster.

My constituents also raised concerns about matters that have already been mentioned, such as the modelling of sea-level rises always being based on worst-case scenario planning across the area rather than on examining the potential impacts at a local level, and about how the plans for managed re-alignment will work. If my constituents had genuine engagement with the Environment Agency, I am sure that those problems could be addressed and that we would have different scenarios and completely different outcomes.

There are also concerns about the dialogue and engagement with Natural England. I was impressed by the positive experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), which seem to have come off the back of direct action by the Minister as well. I welcome, endorse and praise that, and hope that we can bring something similar to Essex. However, the problem is the discrepancy in the experiences of engagement with such bodies, and I make a plea to that effect to the Minister.

In the Select Committee report, the link between the agricultural sector and flood defences has been clearly highlighted. In my constituency, there are farmers and landowners who want to engage with the authorities on flood management but already feel disfranchised by their experience with the shoreline management plan. They have many anxieties.

In light of the shortness of time, I want to use the few minutes that I have left to say that there is a plea here to get rid of the bureaucracy and red tape—about which we have already consistently heard—between the various bodies and organisations. It has been reported to me that it can take up to two months and reams of paperwork for the Environment Agency to grant permission when it comes to dealing with shoreline management and flood risk, while Natural England can issue 13-month permits for the same applications. There is, therefore, a bureaucracy and streamlining issue here, and I would welcome the Minister’s intervention and some positive views from him about how some of these areas can be simplified so that landowners can work on sea defences. It is all bureaucratic, but I look to the Minister to bring us positive news on that front in the time that we have left. He is welcome to come to my constituency and meet my constituents. I hope that he will take that on board.

16:39

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for initiating this important debate. It is great to see the Minister here. I echo the words said about what a great job he is doing. His practical background helps in such matters.

I will make some general points. First, I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), and I reiterate that the west country has 3% of the population and 30% of the beaches. We also have an elderly population whose incomes are often fixed. High water charges are an issue for them, whereas in many parts of the country, water bills do not represent such a major percentage of income as in the south-west.

South West Water does a good job, but will the Minister consider more competition among water companies? My constituency borders Wessex, and Wessex Water customers pay a good deal less for their water than customers of South West Water. Is he considering it? I know that the Scottish model means that there is only one water company, but there are five retailers who buy wholesale from Scottish Water, resulting in competition, not among householders but among businesses. That could affect even bed and breakfast establishments. Would some competition not ensure that water companies deliver at competitive rates? Ultimately, we must secure value for money for our consumers. Also, I know that he has ruled out a national levy, but 3% of the population pay for 30% of the beaches. It should be shared around. I welcome the Government money offered by the Chancellor, and I look forward to what the Minister can do to alleviate the problems with water charges.

Lots of villages in my constituency have flooded, particularly Feniton. I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and others. The village includes lots of bungalows, and elderly people were stranded in them and had to be rescued from their lofts. That is an absolutely terrifying experience, and there is a social side to it as well as a cost.

Turning to costs, Labour Members made great play of how much this Government have had to cut flood defence money, but it is no good for them to say that when they spent all the money and left us with a huge deficit. We must make the money go further. I make a plea to the Minister—I know that he is already doing this—to ensure that the Environment Agency works with landowners and others to come up with schemes that are not expensive or elaborate but do the job. There are a lot of practical things that we could do to make the money go further. Insurance companies that insure properties in flood risk areas charge the owners huge premiums. Is there any way—I do not know whether it is possible—to tap into some of those resources? We must think outside the box. Other hon. Members have asked how much water companies can contribute in future. Only taxpayers’ money is involved, but we are borrowing so much money just to pay the interest on our deficit that we know that huge sums will not be available.

Perhaps I ought to declare an interest on the matter of managed retreat. I am not a great admirer of it. The Netherlands has been mentioned. If the Dutch practised managed retreat from the sea, they would retreat from their country. The world’s population is growing, and we are going to have to feed that population. Is it right to retreat from land and let the sea come in? People often do not realise the difference between freshwater and seawater flooding. Freshwater flooding does some damage to the land, but it recovers quickly and grass and crops can still be grown on it. Seawater flooding destroys the land so future generations cannot produce food on it.

Working with the Environment Agency and with farmers, we could find ways to save a lot of money. Protection is in place, but with the sea rising, we might need to raise sea walls. We could do so using systems involving earth banks, perhaps, rather than elaborate banks. I urge the Minister to consider it. We live in an age when people are concerned about flooding and their homes, but I repeat that we must also get the best value for money. I know that the Minister is considering ways to do so. I welcome the chance to speak in this debate to present the worries that people have.

On a final point—my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury mentioned this—although the Environment Agency has got better, we use our rivers for too many things. We are inclined to say that they are great for conservation. They are, and we want to keep water levels high, but in doing so, we let rivers and tributaries silt up. Somerset, for instance, has the Rivers Tone and Parrett. At Burrowbridge, the river is virtually completely silted up. One of these days it will rain and rain, and Taunton and Bridgwater will flood, because that water will not be able to get out to sea in time. It is good to keep water penned at conservation levels during the summer, but let us dredge those rivers properly so that the water can get out to sea. It is not hugely expensive, but it is a matter of foresight.

Culverts, ditches and other water channels have been mentioned. Again, I declare an interest, as I farm in an area that has such features. Internal drainage boards are good at managing things, and I know that the Minister is considering how they can do more. If we rethink how we drain our water, we will not have so much flooding. I agree again with my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury: if it rains and rains, we will have floods, but not if we prepare the proper drainage channels. That is what they were designed for, but at the moment, many towns, such as Taunton, have narrow pinch points where the water comes through the town. It all looks beautiful; the only thing is that if a lot of water must go through the town, it will not go through a smaller channel.

All those things should be considered, but I know that with a Minister of the calibre and experience that we have here, we will have no problem. I welcome the chance to raise these issues.

16:47

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Main. I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee, who has been typically forthright and diligent in producing an important and thorough report. This is a crucial discussion, and one of fundamental importance to many aspects of communities throughout the country and to our country’s social, environmental and economic future. I pay tribute to the Chair and other Committee members for their work in producing the report.

The report provides the basis for a great deal of further work by both Parliament and Government. I suspect that important as the report is, this is not the last time that the Committee will return to the issue in such detail. I also suspect that we will have to wait for the long-delayed water White Paper, which is due to be published in December, before we can see comprehensively what the Government intend to do in response to the issues raised by the Committee. I appreciate that the Minister has plenty of questions to answer, so I will be as brief as possible. My first question is this: can he give us a categorical assurance that the White Paper will be published in December this year, and that it has not slipped any further?

The report raises a series of vital issues requiring rapid policy responses beginning with flood management, particularly flood insurance, which many Members have mentioned. Changes to flood insurance for homes and businesses will take effect in July 2013, bringing to an end the statement of principles agreed between the last Government and the Association of British Insurers, acting on behalf of the insurance industry, in 2008. The statement of principles placed clear obligations on Government and industry alike, the most important being the maintenance of investment by Government in flood defences. Following the change of Government, as has been discussed, that has not happened—flood defence spending has been cut by 27%. Although I do not believe that the report under discussion lends itself to some of the more partisan comments that we have heard, I urge those Government Members who have made the point about spending cuts not to pretend that they are not responsible for those cuts. Neither should they pretend to their constituents that they are not their responsibility. The Government acknowledge the 27% cut.

[Neil Parish]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Reed]

I am not yet a Minister, but I am happy to give way.

[Neil Parish]

I apologise—I meant to say the shadow Minister. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that we are responsible for the cuts, but will he also make the point that he and his party were responsible for the huge deficit that we inherited?

[Mr Reed]

I would love to debate this issue with the hon. Gentleman morning, noon and night.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not, because it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

[Mr Reed]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mrs Main. I fear that I would have strayed for some considerable length.

The report highlights a series of concerns surrounding the reduction in funding available for flood defences. It states that

“to maintain the current level of protection in the face of increasing flood risks requires increased investment and the significant CSR cuts will increase concerns that funding on flood defences remains inadequate.”

It goes on to say that

“it is by no means certain that any shortfall in public funding can yet be made up by private contributions. Ministers must spell out how the Government’s aim of focussing public funding on those communities at greatest risk who are least able to protect themselves will be achieved in practice.”

I agree wholeheartedly with the Committee. It now behoves the Government to end this ambiguity, because it is damaging and has dragged on for far too long.

I also urge the Government to understand the detailed effects of their policy as matters stand. The NFU has made a compelling argument in that regard. It notes, with typical tenacity:

“The reality is that regions containing a significant conurbation of housing and business development i.e. a city will create a distortion in the allocation of national flood risk funding. This means that many rural areas...will be likely to suffer a steep decline in flood risk investment as a result of this distorting effect of policy. We believe rural areas within regions will therefore have difficulty in obtaining national funding for new flood risk management schemes.”

The NFU is entirely right and I thank it for the attention it has given the issues and for representing the interests of its members and, more broadly, the more rural elements of our country in a typically forthright and effective manner.

Do the Government accept the analysis that their funding criteria for flood management distort funding away from flood defence schemes in rural areas? If the Minister does not accept that analysis, what is the basis for his contrary view?

The Government maintain that reduced flood defence spending can still safeguard 145,000 properties over the duration of this Parliament. Inevitably, that will mean a greater concentration of available moneys in more densely populated areas in order to achieve greater, and arguably quicker, economies of scale. For less densely populated areas, this represents a gathering storm—less flood defence investment, with potentially more expensive or difficult to obtain insurance cover and greatly inflated excess payments—which could lead to entire communities becoming blighted. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of that problem.

What specific discussions have the Government held with the insurance industry regarding the effects on the costs and availability of flood insurance in rural areas as a result of this policy change? Have the Government undertaken any assessment of how these policy changes will affect land and property values in rural areas? If so, has the logical modelling been done with regard to how such a policy change will affect not only businesses in these areas, but the cost to their public services?

With regard to the farming industry, surely modelling work has been undertaken on the impacts of different flood management models in rural areas and the consequences of that for agricultural land and food security. Surely the necessary work with regard to these issues has been done. If not, will the Minister explain why? If the work has been done and the answer is yes, will he undertake to make this work available to the public and to colleagues? If the work has not been undertaken, I fear that the Government’s approach to these issues cannot be described as holistic and will inevitably invite failure.

We need, as has been said, a broad and lasting consensus on the policy measures necessary to achieve a fair insurance system whereby flood insurance is available to everybody at affordable rates. If as a country we fail to meet the serious challenges presented by the changing flood insurance landscape, that will result in profound social effects. Governments, of whichever colour, cannot outsource their accountability in this area. It is not fair and it does not bode well for effective, lasting policy if it is left purely to the insurance industry. With one in six homes and businesses in England and Wales at significant risk of flooding, this is without doubt one of the biggest social and economic policy challenges facing the country.

Effective policy implementation will require the substantial buy-in of major stakeholders in this policy field—not just the insurance industry, but the water industry—whose co-operation is pivotal in identifying and implementing effective policy solutions. The companies involved in our water industry could also be pivotal in helping us to address significant parts of the flood policy challenge. I have spoken with the industry and it is clear that there is huge and, in many ways, unrealised potential locked within it that is both prepared and able to help us improve flood management policy. What work has the Minister’s Department done in that regard, and has any work been done on incentivising soft or natural water and flood management schemes to be undertaken by water companies, as opposed to hard, engineered schemes?

Does the Minister believe that that approach would be aided or hindered by further disaggregation of the water industry and by increased competition? We are all aware of the benefits of competition, but we must also be alive to the potential disbenefits of increased competition. Clearly, asset maintenance and investment in new assets in the water industry are a critical part of the economic base of that industry. It is also vital in relation to the practicalities of flood and water management. Does the Minister share my concern that the disruption of the market in the UK could disincentivise investments such as these and thus hinder more effective flood and water management schemes?

The Government cannot and must not believe that they can extricate themselves from this policy area. Paradoxically, the cut in flood defence spending may yet necessitate more involvement, more investment and more legislation from Government, in the shape of the Bellwin scheme and other schemes, and more rather than less involvement and expenditure in the future.

I am sure that we are all aware—perhaps members of the EFRA Committee are more aware of this than others—that the water industry is undergoing a period of marked uncertainty as it continues to deal with a badly structured privatisation, regulatory uncertainty, an increased call for its involvement in social policy, global economic uncertainty, and what I think we can broadly agree is increased customer dissatisfaction. The industry is one of the most strategically sensitive in the UK and any significant policy changes, irrespective of the benefits, are likely to incur some cost to the taxpayer either directly or indirectly through contributions to the Exchequer, or directly through utility bills.

Let us be under no illusion that water management legislation is difficult. We all accept that and understand that effective water management legislation requires a thriving water industry. The water industry now faces three areas of challenge, which are perhaps best understood in three separate chunks: the consumer, the environment and impending regulatory change.

First, on the consumer, customers increasingly demand lower bills or more stable charges and, in addition, expect increased investments from utility companies in flood prevention and water management. The existence of water poverty is real and must be addressed through social tariffs or other means. Secondly, on the environment, effective water management cannot just be about consumers and shareholders. It must be about environmental protection, which, as we are all aware, is not cost-free. I urge the Government to respond in detail to the concerns raised by WWF, particularly those in relation to water abstraction. Thirdly, on regulation of the water industry, Ofwat, as colleagues have touched upon, faces major changes. The industry is a major tax contributor, a wealth creator and a significant employer, yet the consequences of the privatisation as it has been structured—which increase environmental responsibilities and the role of the industry in other social policy areas, such as flood defence, water poverty alleviation and other potential environmental remediation—are potentially massive.

The Committee Chairman is absolutely right to suggest that the industry is facing its biggest challenge for decades—there is no doubt about that. Let us make it clear that these drivers offer scope for major policy contradictions as, although they are discrete, each specific area impacts upon the other. So a credible policy must have the buy-in and involvement of the water industry at a very high level. There is a willingness from the industry to do that. Like all major industries, the water industry seeks as far as is practicable, a core political consensus from us in this room and from us in this Parliament, so that it can plan long-term investments with certainty. Additionally, the industry recognises and seemingly accepts the inescapable social and environmental obligations that are upon it.

Our task is to identify those areas of synergy that will bring together consumer benefit, social and environmental improvement, and economic stability. That should inform our policy approach and I hope it is writ large throughout the White Paper when it appears. There are many more matters raised by the report in need of discussion, but they cannot all be mentioned today. The issues have had a significant airing and have largely been brought to the Minister’s attention in a detailed way. I trust that he will answer the questions that have been raised not only by me but by colleagues. If not, I trust that he will give us some detailed written answers as soon as possible.

17:01

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

It is good of you to chair our proceedings, Mrs Main, albeit for only part of our debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and her Committee on the priority that they have given the issue, particularly the matter of flooding. I also congratulate them on their report and on raising it so eloquently here today. There is no doubt that these issues are of importance to hon. Members from all parties.

The Government’s response to the report has been published and I hope that my hon. Friend and her Committee will accept that the Government are taking full account of all its recommendations. As she has acknowledged, the Government are in the process of implementing the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in a proportionate way, having due regard to the need to ensure that the regulatory burden on businesses and citizens is justified. We have already provided much-needed clarity on the roles and responsibilities of regulatory authorities, local authorities and others in flood and water management. We are in the process of developing secondary legislation to address the remaining key elements of the Act: sustainable drainage systems, private sewers and reservoir safety. We will consult widely on our proposals once they have been fully developed.

The Flood and Water Management Act covered all of Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations that required primary legislation, except for producing consolidated floods legislation, which it would not be sensible for us to do in advance of the red tape challenge, where we will seek to repeal any unnecessary legislation. We are aware that other parts of the draft Flood and Water Management Bill were included in the subsequent Act. We are looking again at the need for primary legislation and will only legislate where necessary. Any legislative proposals will be set out in the water White Paper. I say very clearly to hon. Members that we are committed to publishing that White Paper by December—not in December, but by December. If there is any change to that, I will personally notify the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton—the Committee Chair—and anyone else concerned. However, that is our commitment today.

The White Paper will focus on increasing the resilience of our water supplies to the pressures of demographic and climate change; on reforming the water industry in the light of those challenges so that it is innovative, efficient and customer-focused; and on ensuring that bills remain affordable. I will come on to address some of the points eloquently raised by a number of hon. Members, not just those in the south-west. We would expect any water Bill to be tightly drafted and to focus on water legislation rather than flood management. The Government are committed to increasing the number of Bills that are published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny, and we will consider the feasibility of doing so in the time available. I hope that my hon. Friend and her Committee will be able to follow that process.

The Government’s new approach to funding flood and coastal defence projects announced back in May, which has been raised by a number of hon. Members, has already scored a number of successes. Instead of meeting the full costs of just a limited number of schemes, a partnership approach will make Government money available to pay for a share of any potential scheme. Cost savings and local contributions will mean that more communities can enjoy the benefits that flood and coastal defences bring. We expect that, in 2012-13, there will be around £20 million-worth of contributions coming in from local and private sources. The new approach is enabling schemes to go ahead across the country that otherwise would not be able to do so, as the outcomes delivered by those schemes were not sufficient to be fully funded by central Government. Through partnership funding, we have opened the door to enable local priorities to be funded, while ensuring that every pound of Government investment is focused on supporting those who need it most, especially those most at risk and living in the most deprived parts of the country. That answers one of the points clearly made by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner).

Notable successes include the highly controversial and long-awaited scheme in York and Water End. I hope that that scheme will come to fruition this year. A contribution of £1 million towards the cost from the City of York is, of course, hugely welcome. There is also very good news for Sandwich town, which is an example of how partnership working can bring results. The scheme ran into difficulties as a result of the announced closure of the Pfizer research centre. A significant contribution by Pfizer towards the cost of the flood defence scheme in Sandwich town, along with contributions from Kent county council, has ensured that construction should begin next year.

My hon. Friend and other hon. Members raised the vexed issue of sustainable drainage and sewerage. We recognise the need to encourage and support sustainable drainage. An expanding population, changing climate and urbanisation mean that the drainage infrastructure can come under pressure. That leads to increased flood risk, as there is a fast-flowing conveyance of surface water downstream, with little or none of the slow-moving, filtering characteristics of natural drainage. We intend to consult soon on a package of measures to encourage the use of sustainable drainage systems and to remove the automatic right for developers to connect to the public sewer system. In addition to increased flood risk, the pressure on the sewer system to drain an increasing amount of surface water has a significant negative impact on water quality downstream, for example, through pollution caused by overflowing surface water and combined sewers. We are working to encourage improvements in sewer infrastructure and capability through the transfer of responsibility for private sewers from home owners to water and sewerage companies. I appreciate the point that has been made on that work, which has been 10 years in the waiting. Such an approach will be a massive comfort to many households who face enormous bills.

Before I come on to the more detailed issues that have been raised, I will mention the important matter discussed by my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) regarding the impact of floods on agricultural land and concerns about food security. Those concerns, which have been raised in relation to coastal erosion issues and coastal erosion flood risk management, are absolutely at the top of DEFRA’s priorities. I reassure hon. Members that the impact of flood management and coastal erosion on farmland will remain an important consideration. However, food security is principally about availability, affordability and access to nutritious and sustainably produced food, rather than having an absolute foot-by-foot, acre-by-acre, hectare-by-hectare analysis of what could be produced here and there. Although the matter is an absolute priority for DEFRA, domestic production and a healthy rural economy are also important. Concerns will need to be reconciled with the need to protect people and property.

The hon. Member for Copeland asked whether we have a level playing field between urban and rural communities and mentioned the impact on agricultural land. Flood funding is allocated on a case-by-case basis and each case has to stand on its own merits. In the floods of 2007, there were damages worth more than £3.7 billion. Approximately 4% of that was in agriculture. I am not diminishing the impact on agriculture—I am a farmer and I represent a rural constituency, and we want to protect farmland for all the reasons that I have just stated—but we also want to protect people and property. That is a balance that Governments down the ages have had to make and we will not shy away from doing so. However, it is important that we get it right and that we are fair by people and by the properties in which they live. We also recognise the important contribution that farmers make to our rural life, to our economy and to the very important points I made about food security.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

At the moment, the benefit-cost ratio gives a weighting to deprivation. That tends to favour urban over rural, as does the application of population density. Is there really a role for deprivation in the allocation of flood defence funding?

[Richard Benyon]

I think there is, and I will tell my hon. Friend why. I can only speak about this in generalities. My hon. Friend must forgive me if, in doing so, I make it harder for him to apply this, in his mind, across certain communities. We all know that in certain communities, there is a terrific local capacity to take these problems head on. I have communities in which hydrologists live. I have communities that have been flooded where there are water engineers. I have communities flooded where there are people with enormous resources, both financial and intellectual. We have seen communities all around the country with the capacity to put together a partnership funding stream that can work overnight, almost, in terms of flooding schemes. There are other communities where there is not that capacity. That is not to diminish the people who live there at all; they just do not have that capacity. We have to have a system that is mindful that some communities need more help than others.

[Mr Reed]

On that point, may I put on the record the fact that all of us acknowledge that there is still—I know that the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) would not want to give the opposite impression, far from it—real deprivation in rural England and Wales as well?

[Richard Benyon]

Of course I acknowledge that; I was coming on to talk about it. Possibly through the unguarded way in which I was talking about affordability in the south-west, I may have—heaven forbid—given the impression that I thought that people in the south-west were all millionaires. Of course I do not think that. I am fully aware of the profile of rural life across the south-west and across other parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—there is deprivation in rural areas as well.

[Barry Gardiner]

Just to add to the Minister’s caution around the question of deprivation, so much of social housing in the past 25 years has been built in areas that are subject to flood risk. The people who live in that housing had few housing options open to them. Through being on housing lists, they were forced into that accommodation. They are particularly exposed to those risks, in ways which people who have the financial ability to choose where they live are not. For that specific reason, it is important that deprivation is taken into account.

[Richard Benyon]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and that relates to the issue of insurance as well. I have been taking forward one measure. Housing associations or council-owned housing stock offer an opt-in scheme on contents insurance. I believe strongly that we should encourage people to do an opt-out scheme. Fifty pence a week can give you £5,000 worth of contents insurance. People would be more likely to have that if it were an opt-out scheme. There is so much that we can do to protect.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Benyon]

I am conscious of the time. I will if it is a very quick intervention, and then I must make some progress.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful. The Minister talked about capacity in areas. Through him, may I congratulate Ron Smith and Burstwick United, who worked through early difficulties to forge a big society partnership with the Environment Agency to protect the village? The Minister has been invited to come and open the scheme. There are farmers storing the pumps. We have others manning the pumps. Will he confirm today that he will come to Burstwick and celebrate that community’s response to the floods in 2007?

[Richard Benyon]

I have developed a habit of agreeing, if any colleague asks me, to go to any part of the country at any time and it causes the people who work in my office palpitations. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that I would very much like to see precisely such schemes where there is flood watch—rather like neighbourhood watch—and where people work together to protect the vulnerable. There are fantastic examples of that around the country. I would be delighted to see that scheme at some stage.

May I quickly address the points that hon. Members have made? The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, made the point, eloquently made by the NFU, that we should not treat farmers as the providers of free storage of floodwater. We take the contribution that landowners and farmers make towards flood schemes very seriously.

My hon. Friend talked about internal drainage boards. Of course, many members of those boards are members of the farming community. They are also members of the local authorities and members of the community and we value bottom-up community engagement. I am a huge admirer of internal drainage boards. They do fantastic work. I had a meeting this week with IDBs from Lincolnshire to understand how they are coping with the extraordinary challenges they have in that area; so much of it is under sea level. The work that they do is enormous. I want to ensure that the Environment Agency works with IDBs to ensure that watercourses are open and flowing, and that everything is at the standard it should be.

I want to see more of what I saw in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). When I went there a few weeks after I started this job, I did something quite by accident—it was organised by my officials. However, it seemed like a good way of doing government. I got into a car with the local MP, representatives of the local authority, the Country Land and Business Association, the NFU, the Environment Agency and Natural England and locked the door. We drove down, looked at certain features and discussed the problems. When I went back there, I discovered that a different attitude prevailed. The Environment Agency had adopted a “yes, if” approach. Now, one telephone call results in action being taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) must work as much as she can with me, and with her neighbours in Suffolk, to try to create a Total Environment scheme, and pool activity—and sometimes pool money—to ensure that we can make a similar attitude prevail in her part of the world. It is really exciting to see it working; it means that we have a responsive system.

I have discussed the issue of SUDS. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton talked about the impact of the natural environment White Paper, the water White Paper and the timing. I can assure her that we have made a very serious pitch to ensure that there is adequate time in the next Session. I very much hope that we will get that, because important measures will come out in the water White Paper that will need a legislative approach.

My hon. Friend, not surprisingly, raised the issue of Pickering and is right to do so. That is an important issue for her and her constituents. I can assure her that we understand the urgency of her constituents’ concerns. We are working extremely closely to make sure that we meet local concerns about the shelving of the scheme, understand the impact of the Reservoirs Act 1975, and discover whether we can find alternatives that are cost-effective and which can be brought forward as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend talked about the problem of over-engineered projects. The Environment Agency’s schemes meet the highest industry standards. They are designed to ensure optimum levels of protection and give an average return on investment of seven to one. There are occasions when we can sit and work out whether we need a Rolls-Royce solution, or whether we can actually make do with a reasonably priced family car solution. I can assure her that we are open to all suggestions and that her concerns are being taken forward.

My hon. Friend made a point about local authorities’ finance for flood and coastal erosion risk management. I can reassure her that the money we have put in has ensured good flood and coastal erosion risk management strategies from the local authorities. All have submitted strategies except one—I will not say which one, but it is not represented by anyone present in the Chamber. We provided the funding, and it is important for the work to be carried forward.

I shall come on to insurance in a minute, but in the five minutes I have left I must also deal with the points made by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) raised the issue of planning and building on floodplains. The Environment Agency—in England, obviously—takes the matter absolutely seriously and gives strict advice on planning applications as they are made, and I will ensure that that continues. The Pitt review is unequivocal on that and we must follow its important recommendations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised the issue of the Severn estuary shoreline management plan. I recognise that that is an area where things were not got right, and we want to ensure that we do get them right. I am working closely with him, other colleagues from that area and the Environment Agency. I had a meeting with them this week and I want to make sure that we share information with local farmers on a consultative basis. We are talking about something not for tomorrow but for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years’ time. We must have a plan in place that is understood and that people are consulted on—I assure him that I will ensure that we do that. He eloquently set out the challenges that face us as we tackle the problems, and we will carry that forward.

The hon. Member for Brent North talked about funding, as did the hon. Member for Copeland. I do not want to enter a sterile debate. They know that, if we compare the previous period of the Labour Administration with the current four years, the reduction is 8%. They also know that massive cuts were announced by the then Chancellor just before the election. We could get into that debate about where we are and where we are going. However, I can assure them and the House that we have fought and protected our budget in a way that was out of all proportion to the spending restraint that we have achieved throughout the Department and the Government. The priority goes right to the top of this Government, and we will ensure that it works. With the efficiencies that we are getting out of the Environment Agency, we will be able to achieve our aims of protecting 145,000 homes, and I remain optimistic that we can do better.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Benyon]

I apologise, but I really cannot, because I do not have much time left.

The statement of principles was mentioned by a great many hon. Members. We are working hard with the insurance industry and all relevant parties. A number of hon. Members, including the Chair of the Select Committee, came to our flood summit, out of which came three working parties, which will look at the financial risks from flooding, data provision, transparency and sharing, and the customer experience of resilience to flooding. We had a meeting with the Secretary of State to follow up that work, which we are progressing, and we will come forward with the solutions in the early part of next year—that is a real priority for the Department.

It is important to recognise that some houses that have insurance in name barely do so if we take the excess charges into account. We face a great many difficulties, but our understanding of flooding—in particular we have a greater understanding of surface water flooding—is starting to pay dividends. We can now get a picture, almost house by house, of where risk starts and finishes, and of what we can do. Sometimes the risk can be alleviated merely by putting a row of bricks on top of a wall or by blocking an entrance or configuring it differently, but we must make certain that all our plans are joined up. Our desire to protect the natural environment, which is strong, does not mean that we are flooding homes because we are not thinking of things in an holistic and joined-up way. All agencies are seized of that, and I will continue to drive it.

I am rather concerned by the eponymous nature of some of the proposals and the optimistic view that people might have of my abilities. I hesitate to take credit for so much that has been thrown at me, because it has been a team effort. I pay tribute to how the Environment Agency is approaching this important issue, although I can assure hon. Members that I work closely with it.

DEFRA has spent a lot of money on equipping emergency services and other organisations with training and equipment to deal with flood. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the issue of a statutory duty, but that is one of the few areas of the Pitt review that we have not taken forward. We have an open mind about it but, having said that, I cannot see why it makes a difference for a fire and rescue service to have a statutory duty. Every fire and rescue service that I have spoken to, and I have spoken to a lot, has done wonderful work when dealing with flood. We are equipping them and we are training. I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman with an open mind about whether a statutory duty would make a difference—the wording in the Pitt review is “as necessary”. Sir Ken Knight, the chief fire officer, has come forward with some proposals, and I would not mind discussing them with the hon. Gentleman in a less formal way, to see whether we can find a solution that satisfies everyone.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and other hon. Members made important comments and gave moving descriptions of flooding in their areas—descriptions I recognise from flooding in my own constituency. I hope that hon. Members from the south-west were pleased with the Chancellor’s words in the Budget, which showed a real commitment to deal with the unfairness that they so accurately feel on behalf of their constituents. I assure them that we are following through on that.

The hon. Member for Copeland made many important points. He talked about whether we were taking an holistic enough view and dealing with the problems upstream. He was absolutely right to say that. It is important that water companies, farmers, landowners, local authorities and the Environment Agency ensure that we use the natural environment where we can to prevent flooding further down.

We will not spook the investor when we come to reform of the water industry. We recognise that around £100 billion has been spent by investors in the water industry in the past 20 years, and we want to see much more of that.

With those remarks, I would like to leave some time for the Chair of the Select Committee.

17:27

[Miss McIntosh]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Main.

The report was very much a team effort on the part of the Committee, and it was a very good choice to allow us to debate it. The debate has shown the breadth of support geographically and among the many hon. Members present. The conclusion is that much has been done but there is still much to do.

I hope that the Minister will extend the “yes, if” to the gross inconsistency at the heart of Government policy on reservoirs and reservoir safety. That absolute inconsistency must be addressed, in particular if farmers want to use reservoirs for storage, instead of abstraction, which a number of hon. Members might wish to explore. I hope that that will be reviewed.

I welcome the positive comments from the Minister on the role of internal drainage boards in maintenance. If we want an example of the big society, we need look no further.

I am minded to support the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the lack of a statutory duty. I have tracked the issue for some time, and we must remember that a young man was killed in Hull because all the emergency services that came, in succession, simply did not have the equipment. In sorrow more than anger, everyone turned to the fire crew to cut that young man to safety, but he died of hypothermia. The reason why the statutory duty is so important is that the money will follow the duty. If we cannot provide that, there will be further deaths, which would be most regrettable.

The insurance issues are time-framed. On planning, we need clear guidance as to how building on floodplains lies with the new national policy framework, but there are many challenges ahead. The Minister singularly failed to give us a date for the water Bill, but we look forward to the water White Paper. On a positive note, I add that we have had a good discussion this afternoon. The Minister is aware of the work that needs to be done, and we are there to support him in any way possible.

Question put and agreed to.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 8th September 2011 Written Statements

Thursday 8 September 2011

Commission on the “West Lothian” Question

Thursday 8th September 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

The coalition programme for government set out our commitment to

“establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’”.

I can now give the House more details on how that commission is to proceed.

The Government are clear that the commission’s primary task should be to examine how this House and Parliament as a whole can deal most effectively with business that affects England wholly or primarily, when at the same time similar matters in some or all of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are lawfully and democratically the responsibility of the separate Parliament or Assemblies. The commission will not examine financing, which is being dealt with separately through various processes led by Treasury Ministers, nor does it need to look at the balance of parliamentary representation, given that Parliament addressed historic imbalances in representation between the constituent nations of the United Kingdom in legislation earlier this year.

Given the commission’s focus on parliamentary business and procedure, the Government believe that the commission should be comprised of a small group of independent, non-partisan experts with constitutional, legal and parliamentary expertise. We will also wish to consult with Mr Speaker and other parliamentary authorities on how the commission can best address this. We will also ensure that there is a full opportunity for the parties to have their say following the completion of the commission’s work.

We will bring forward formal proposals, including the terms of reference for the commission, after the conclusion of this short process of consultation and further deliberation. I expect that this will be in the weeks after the House returns in October.

UK Bill of Rights

Thursday 8th September 2011 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

The Government established an independent commission to investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights in March 2011, fulfilling a commitment made in our programme for government. The commission has been asked to explore a range of issues surrounding human rights law in the UK and also to provide interim advice on reform of the European Court of Human Rights ahead of our chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which begins in November 2011 and runs for six months.

I am today placing in the Library of the House copies of two letters received from Sir Leigh Lewis, the chair of the commission on a Bill of Rights, which have been sent jointly to the Deputy Prime Minister and myself. The first letter contains the interim advice which the commission was asked to provide to the Government on reform of the European Court of Human Rights, in advance of the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe. The second letter sets out a number of issues on which the commission has not yet reached conclusions, and which it intends to continue to consider as part of its work programme.

The Government welcome the commission’s interim advice on the reform of the European Court of Human Rights. Our top priority when we take over the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe will be to deliver and build upon the ongoing reform process. It must focus on the most important cases and have proper regard to the judgment of national Parliaments and courts. It must operate more effectively and efficiently as a proper safeguard against human rights abuses. Our plans will be informed by the commission’s advice. The commission will continue to explore the case for a UK Bill of Rights, and we look forward to receiving its final report by the end of next year.

Grand Committee

Thursday 8th September 2011 Grand Committee

Thursday, 8 September 2011.

Armed Forces Bill

Thursday 8th September 2011 Grand Committee

Committee (2nd Day)

14:00

Amendment 25

Moved by

[Lord Touhig]

25: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“Committee on the Grant of Medals to Service Members
After section 359 of AFA 2006 insert—
“359B Committee on the Grant of Medals to Service Members
(1) There shall be a Committee, to be known as the Committee on the Grant of Medals to Service Members, to make recommendations to Her Majesty on the grant of medals to service members.
(2) The Committee shall consist of nine members—
(a) three of whom shall be drawn from the members of the House of Commons;(b) three of whom shall be drawn from the members of the House of Lords;(c) three of whom shall be persons the Secretary of State considers to represent service members; and(d) none of whom shall be a Minister of the Crown.(3) The members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, and one shall be so appointed as chair of the Committee.
(4) Before appointing members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, the Secretary of State shall consult the Leader of the Opposition (within the meaning of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975).
(5) The Committee shall make an annual report on the discharge of its functions to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each annual report.
(6) The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals shall cease to have a role in advising on or making recommendations about the grant of medals to service people.
(7) In this section “service people” means—
(a) members of the regular forces or reserve forces;(b) members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law; and(c) former members of any of Her Majesty’s forces.””

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 25 in my name and also supporting Amendments 26 and 27, I know that many in your Lordships’ House, and others in the other place too, have great concerns about the way in which the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, which advises the sovereign on the award of honours, has gone about its task. It has been argued over the years that the committee, known as the HD committee, is the right model to consider what advice to give to the sovereign. We are told that it is the right model because it is made up of senior civil servants from across Whitehall and that, due to the way it is made up and operates, it is protected against that terrible scourge, political influence—something which over the years officials have told me must be resisted. But, for the life of me, I do not see why it is thought that a body of top officials who meet in secret and are not accountable to anyone is considered better equipped to be part of this process than, say, Members of Parliament, who are elected by the people and obviously enjoy the people’s confidence, or indeed Members of your Lordships’ House, a number of whom are noble and gallant Lords who have served our country in the Armed Forces with great distinction.

The point I am making is this. The lack of transparency and accountability which is at the heart of the way in which the HD committee operates is no longer defensible. Most of the time, the HD committee does not even meet; its members communicate with one another by telephone and e-mail. Even more worrying, at the very helpful briefing on this Bill arranged by the Minister on Tuesday, we learnt that there is not even a statutory basis for the way in which the HD operates—its decisions are based on conventions.

The system by which advice on honours is given to the sovereign has existed for some decades and needs to be overhauled. I have come to this conclusion having for some years now tried to understand how the HD committee reached a decision to advise Her Majesty the Queen that 35,000 veterans of the Malaysian campaign can accept the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal from the King of Malaysia but must not wear it—accept it but must not wear it. To deny our servicemen the right to wear the PJM was an unfair and cruel act by the committee, and I have attempted by way of Parliamentary Questions and freedom of information requests to lift the blanket of secrecy surrounding this decision. All my efforts have been thwarted, and a veil of secrecy descends on Whitehall.

I have been told that there are two enduring rules governing the work of the HD committee in these matters—the five-year rule and the double-medalling rule. The five-year rule prevents the award of honours more than five years after a conflict has taken place, and the double-medalling rule forbids the award of a medal for which an earlier medal has been presented. However, the HD committee set aside both rules and advised Her Majesty the Queen that the men should accept the medal from the King of Malaysia, but then it reimposed both rules to prevent them wearing the medal. I would add that not all British servicemen who took part in the Malaysian campaign even got the campaign medal from this country—so clearly there will be no double medalling in their case.

Some 114 Commonwealth servicemen lost their lives in that campaign; 180 were wounded. Is this the way in which a grateful country should honour their sacrifice? The veterans are told that they can accept the medal but must not wear it. That is an affront, and it is an insult. I should add that the Governments of Australia and New Zealand advised Her Majesty the Queen that their servicemen should accept and wear the PJM.

To add further dishonour to this whole affair, the HD committee lifted the ban on wearing the PJM for one week during the 50th anniversary of Malaysian independence. I have in my possession Foreign Office documents which make it clear that the decision was lifted only because the Malaysians had invited British and Commonwealth ex-servicemen to attend the celebrations and it was feared that British veterans would cause some embarrassing scenes when they saw the Anzac ex-servicemen wearing their PJM, which the British were not allowed to do.

I will not detain the Committee much longer, save to say that the discredit that this has brought on our country over the PJM is the prime reason for my amendment, which would remove the HD committee from having any responsibility in future to advise the sovereign on the acceptance of honours awarded to service people. I am suggesting that this would be better done by a committee representing both Houses of Parliament and others appointed by the Secretary of State for Defence, who would represent the services. The committee, to be named the Committee on the Grant of Medals to Service Members, would be required to make an annual report on the discharge of its functions to the Secretary of State and that report should be laid before Parliament. I believe that there is no more appropriate time than now, with this Armed Forces Bill—a Bill that comes only once every five years. This Bill enshrines at its heart the military covenant. If we were to honour the courage and valour of all our ex-servicemen, particularly the veterans of the Malaysian campaign, we should right the wrong on them. If we do this, we can be proud that this country will do a lot better in future to honour and value those who have given their lives and continue to put their lives on the line in defence of the freedom of our country. I beg to move.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 26, which is in the same group. The Minister and other noble Lords will be aware that I tabled a Written Question on 14 July about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal, about which the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, has just spoken. As he mentioned, this medal was awarded by the King and Government of Malaysia to all members of Commonwealth Armed Forces who were involved in the Malayan emergency and the confrontation with Indonesia between 1957 and 1966.

A similar Question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, in January 2005. The response that he was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, then the Minister of State in the Foreign Office, explained that government policy,

“on the acceptance and wearing of foreign awards preclude[s] the acceptance of medals for events in the distant past or more than five years previously. In addition, the rules do not allow for a foreign award to be accepted if a British award has been given for the same service”.—[Official Report, 11/1/05; col. WA34.]

The position upheld then was that all British citizens required the permission of Her Majesty's Government to accept and wear foreign state awards and that the Government would adhere to the rules that I have outlined. Subsequently, in 2006, the Government agreed that the PJM medal could be accepted by veterans who had been in Malaysia at the relevant time, but that the wearing of the medal was not approved. The stance was in stark contrast to that taken by other Commonwealth countries, which approved not only the acceptance but the wearing of the medal. The Answer that I had seven weeks after I posed the Question, dated 2 September 2011, from the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, who I believe is himself a recipient of the PJM, was far from explicit. I had anticipated that the response would be from a Minister in the Foreign Office, as the FCO has traditionally had the lead on foreign awards and medals. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said that the FCO had the lead. But he stated:

“Permission was not however recommended for the PJM to be worn by veterans as the majority had previously been awarded the British General Service Medal (GSM), for their service in the region. There was a period of time, between 1960 and 1962 and, in the case of the Army, from mid-1965 onwards when the risk and rigour was not deemed sufficient to award a medal to British troops stationed in the area”.—[Official Report, 5/9/11; col. WA16.]

Having prayed in aid the “no double-medalling convention”, the Minister goes on to assert that the lack of a GSM or a clasp to it does not in itself mean automatic qualification to wear the PJM. Tossing a coin, if it is heads you do not qualify and if it is tails you cannot wear it.

As has been pointed out to me, over the years the Government of the day have agreed to the award and wearing of more than one medal for a specific operation—a number during the Second World War and in subsequent operations too numerous to record now, but ranging from the mid-1970s in Oman to the Malta GC 50th Anniversary of the end of the War Medal. In order to qualify for that medal, the recipient had to have the British Africa Star—in other words, imposing a double-medalling requirement. This Malta medal of course broke by some years the five-year rule, having received unrestricted approval for wear some 50 years after the event.

The Accumulated Campaign Service Medal is a further example of double-medalling. It was introduced in 1994 specifically to award more than one medal to those serving repeat tours in Northern Ireland who would otherwise receive just one GSM for their service. The medal has since been extended to include medals awarded for more recent operations, such as in the south Atlantic and the Gulf.

The acceptance of medals issued by foreign Governments and by United Nations and NATO authorities to British citizens on a considerable number of occasions has also been approved. Each has been deemed, no doubt, as an exceptional case. Given the large number of exceptions that I have mentioned, surely it is no longer tenable to attempt to uphold the policy that I outlined in my opening remarks on the grounds of precedence.

Modern operational conflicts are taking place all over the globe, often with allies—particularly Commonwealth allies—involved. Should a Commonwealth country that British Armed Forces personnel have assisted in a matter of national importance to that country wish to recognise that help with the award of a medal, it would be that much more appreciated by both donor and recipient if there were a presumption of acceptance and wear before such an award were proposed. I suggest in my amendment that this might be confined—at least for the present—to Commonwealth country awards. I hope that the Minister will not accept any advice that it would be invidious to make a distinction between medals awarded by a Commonwealth as opposed to a non-Commonwealth country. The purpose of my amendment is indeed to give precedence to the Commonwealth, not to diminish it. Indeed, this could be a timely moment for the Prime Minister attending the next CHOGM in Australia to demonstrate a special interest in this matter. The current stance seems far too insular and unreceptive of the appreciation being conveyed by the donor nation.

I personally cannot lay claim to a chestful of medals. I am the most senior member of my service not to have an operational service award, let alone a GSM—and that in spite of more than 40 years’ service in the Royal Air Force. However, those with more medals that I have are, and should be, rightly proud of their contributions to national duty which their awards reflect. I do not believe that accepting and wearing a medal awarded by a Commonwealth country in any way belittles the national medal that may also have been awarded. Surely the acceptance and wearing of a Commonwealth medal alongside a national one adds to, rather than detracts from, the importance or significance of the latter. It serves to emphasise the contribution made by that individual and the recognition of the efforts that he or she has made. Is this not the time to review and change the long-standing but frequently overruled policy rules that were drawn up in a very different age?

The rules prayed in aid by the committee on honours, decorations and awards seem to be designed to produce a default position of refusal for any foreign medal and are blindly and often stubbornly asserted by the honours committee. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, I urge the Minister and the Government to take this matter away for review and renewal. Will they also clarify whether the advice being forwarded to the sovereign is from the honours committee direct or from the appropriate Minister in the Government? If the latter, it seems to me that the royal prerogative is being invoked.

14:15

[Viscount Slim]

My Lords, I declare that I am a trustee of the Royal Commonwealth Ex-Services League. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, was also in that position and did outstanding work for the league.

I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, has raised this subject. I must tell him that I find the essence of his argument good but the proposed composition of the future committee less good. The moment we bring politicians—I include Members of your Lordships’ House—into a matter such as this, we are on fairly dangerous ground. Therefore, although I take the thrust of the points made by the noble Lord, I am not happy with the composition of the future committee that he has put forward.

When the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, talked of medals, I was not sure whether that included decorations. I feel that the whole of this subject should be within the Ministry of Defence; it is its problem and its right to award gallantry awards, campaign medals and anything else that it feels entitled to award. I am arguing that the present committee, for all the good reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, gave, occasionally gives Her Majesty the wrong advice. I have said so within the MoD at a couple of meetings.

The argument that you do not get two medals for one campaign is fallacious. The Korean medal is cited in that, and I should declare that I have two medals for fighting in Korea. The war in Korea was a United Nations war, fought by 21 nations. It was not just a British war. Therefore, those from the 21 nations that took part got a United Nations medal. If Britain or one of the other 20 nations wants to give a national medal as well, that is up to them. Her Majesty’s Government saw fit to give such a medal to the Armed Forces of Britain who fought in Korea. I was in South Korea a few months ago and talked to the President, who sees the war in Korea as a United Nations war. That is what is taught to children in school: 21 nations saved them from communist domination. Therefore, the argument that you do not get two medals for one campaign is not on.

The Malaysian medal was given by the Agong—the King—and the Government of Malaysia with a great deal of charitable love and respect for what Great Britain did over 11 years in Malaya. I declare that I was also given that medal. Some of the Armed Forces of our Crown served, on and off, on more than one tour. The Gurkha brigade that spent 15 years there on constant operations got one bar on a General Service Medal. Specialised forces spent 10 or 11 years there. Others kept coming and going. The way in which medals are given today, marvellous as it is, means that these people who had given great dedicated service got only one medal. It is a great shame that the advice given to Her Majesty was such that this medal cannot be worn. There were of course many doing their national service serving in Malaya at that time, and they too are entitled to this medal.

I take the noble and gallant Lord’s amendment as being the answer to this. I say to the Minister that the MoD ought to go back and have a very good think. Maybe its own committee should meet a bit more often and get on and modernise itself. It ought to stand by the Commonwealth. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will not say that it is unnecessary and we should not be allowed this Malaysian medal. I hope that the Ministry will think again and that it will take the noble and gallant Lord’s amendment as fully voted on by most of us.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I too rise to support the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in what he has said and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for suggesting that it is high time that the committee, whose rules I gather go back to 1886—some of them indeed to 1854—considers revising them.

Like the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, I declare that I have the Pingat Jasa Malaysia. As I am not allowed to wear it, I have actually brought it with me because it is important that those who have not seen it read the declaration that is on the lid. I wonder whether that was made available to either Her Majesty the Queen or those who had to make this decision. It reads:

“This medal is awarded to the peacekeeping groups amongst the communion countries for distinguished chivalry, gallantry, sacrifice or loyalty”—

that is a word that I would like people to pay attention to—

“in upholding Peninsular of Malaysia or Malaysia sovereignty during the period of emergency and confrontation”.

The word “loyalty” rings loudly through this, which is why I particularly welcome the word “Commonwealth” in the noble and gallant Lord’s amendment. I say to the Minister that recently I have heard both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth say that one of the aims of this Government is to put the C back in the FCO. Where better to show loyalty to the Commonwealth, when it has responded in this way, than by allowing the wearing of this medal? It would be ridiculous if I went in uniform with Her Majesty the Queen to the Commonwealth conference in Perth and was allowed to wear the PJM, but had to take it off when I came back here. That is silly.

Of all the arguments that I have heard, the idea of five years is stupid, because this is a decision that Malaysia took. In the same spirit as the United Nations rewarded all the people in Korea, this was awarded to all those who helped Malaysia. To say that we do not accept it because it was five years after we had stopped being there is both discourteous and unchivalrous.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 27 in my name I thank the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble and gallant Lord Craig, for their remarks, and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, for the reminiscences that put all this into context—that is, in this country we do not treat veterans with the same respect and regard as our friends across the Atlantic in the United States do. There, the veterans are a strong body and fight for their corner. Here, I often feel that veterans need to have their corner fought by people such as us in the Moses Room. It worries me that over the past 60 years, many thousands of veterans believe that the service that they have given has not been appreciated. The purpose of my amendment is to institute a national defence medal. The cost of such a medal has been calculated as £2.50 per medal. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that that includes its box. There is an estimate of 4 million people who could apply, but that of those only two-thirds would apply.

What is the medal for? So many of our service people have given their lives or served time in situations such as the Berlin airlift, Northern Ireland, Korea and all the places that the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, mentioned—I shall not try to repeat them all. There have been 58 petitions on the Ministry of Defence website, of which the request for the institution of a national defence medal came top, which shows that there is a demand for it. I was not old enough to serve in the forces—I just missed national service—but my late father had medals from the Second World War, which I treasure. His elder brother died in the First World War.

The idea of medals not only for the veterans but for their dependants is very important, which is why I support all the comments made in the debate. A question was raised earlier about who should be on the committee at the Ministry of Defence. A committee at the MoD has been considering these matters, but veterans tell me that they feel that the process has not been transparent. There has been a feeling that it has been put into a box somewhere without anyone wanting to deal with it. That is despite the fact that leaders of two or three political parties have said that they are in favour of a national defence medal.

Should we not take the matter out of the box of the Ministry of Defence, bring it into the open and let the veterans contribute their views—there are many veterans’ organisations—and make a decision on the national defence medal which is understood and accepted by everyone? At the moment, the feeling is that it is being ignored. That is not fair to our veterans.

Why are the Government not prepared to recognise the service to the nation by the award of a medal to all those who have served? I find that strange. We spoke on previous amendments about housing and the covenant. There is a feeling that a national defence medal would recognise all those people who have been ignored. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said that some people have one medal; but some people have a number of medals. So some people will have one extra medal, but many people have no medals at all, and they include officers in the RAF involved in the Berlin airlift, who did not receive medals because they were not given to officers at the time.

I hope that the Minister will listen to what not only I but other noble Lords have said and have a rethink on medals with a positive outcome.

14:30

[Lord Dannatt]

I support the general tone of the three amendments, which promote the mood in the country that we have not got our medal policy right. For three years, I took part in discussion as Chief of the General Staff within the Chief of Staff's committee when we discuss medal issues as they arose in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan. After extensive discussion, we often arrived at conclusions. On a number of occasions, those conclusions were turned down because they offended the existing HD committee rules.

We have talked about double-medalling. There are many examples of the sanctioning of double-medalling. I give an example from my own experience. I was the commander of British forces in Bosnia in 1995-96 and, over that six-month period, the UN operation ended and the NATO operation began. The soldiers under my command for that six-month period had three months under the UN and three months under NATO. It was decided that, because they had served in one campaign loyally over that six-month period, they should have the UN medal and, for the very difficult start of the NATO operation, they should have the NATO medal. Therefore, for that six-month period they got two medals.

There are other examples of how the double-medalling rule has been broken. We have heard examples concerning the PJM. I visited Malaysia as Chief of the General Staff just ahead of the 50th anniversary of independence. It was embarrassing to be quizzed on Malaysian television about the fact that our servicemen could not wear this medal. The awful compromise arrived at in the end, compounding the original compromise that you could accept the medal but not wear it, was that it could be worn for a short period in certain circumstances. I believe that that makes a mockery of the existing rules and regulations of the HD committee.

It is said that these things are decided simply by a committee of civil servants. However, when it comes to evaluating an act of gallantry of the highest order, with a candidate for the Victoria Cross or George Cross, the head of the service of that candidate is brought into the discussions with the committee. Therefore, again, there are more anomalies within the system.

In supporting the general tone of these three amendments, my request is for the Government to recognise that there is a degree of dissatisfaction among the serving community, and particularly among the veteran community, about the inequity in the treatment of medals in recent years. I ask that in the immediate future the composition, rules and regulations of the HD committee be looked at again and reviewed in a transparent and open way so that everyone—serving or veteran—feels that they have been dealt with fairly.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I have to confess that I come to this Committee briefed by my own party to take a neutral position. Equally, I have to recognise that, if this matter were to go to a vote on Report and we took a neutral position, the Government would not be realistically challenged. In light of the breadth and depth of the speeches that I have heard today and in light of what the Government have to say, I shall be reconsidering our position.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, first, I ought to apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Astor, who of course would have been here to respond to these amendments. However, as your Lordships will know, he is on standby to deal with a Statement in the Chamber and is therefore unable to be here.

I have to declare a couple of interests: first, as president of the Council of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association and, secondly, as the Colonel Commandant of the Yeomanry.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, was very modest about his collection of medals. I can be even more modest about mine.

I have listened carefully to the very powerful speeches that have been made in this debate. They have all explained the lack of satisfaction with the position, which of course I shall report back to the department. I shall do my best to respond to noble Lords’ points, although I do so with some trepidation, as I have little doubt that I will not satisfy every noble Lord.

Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, involves the proposal to insert a new clause, which would see the creation of a new committee to make recommendations to Her Majesty on the grant of medals to members of the Armed Forces. My understanding of the amendment is that it would affect two aspects of the grant of medals in particular. The first is the institution by Her Majesty of new medals for the Armed Forces and the second is the rules concerning the acceptance and wearing of foreign medals.

I should say that recommendations on individual operational gallantry awards are dealt with differently from these matters, but I do not think that we are particularly focusing on those today. They are made by the military chain of command up to the Ministry of Defence, where they are approved by the Secretary of State before being submitted to Her Majesty.

As to the first of the two areas that would be affected—the institution of new medals—I hope that it will be helpful to recall that in 1939, on the outbreak of war, the King was anxious to ensure that there be co-ordination regarding honours and decorations, both military and civil. He directed that the head of the Civil Service should set up and chair a permanent committee to take this in hand and to advise him. This is what we now know as the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals—as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, said, the HD committee.

The need for that committee reflects the fact that there is not a simple division between the institution of civil and military awards. For example, major wars impose exceptional demands on all parts of society. The HD committee is chaired by the Cabinet Secretary and its members include Permanent Secretaries from a number of departments, together with the private secretaries to the sovereign and the Prime Minister. It was essential to this approach that the work of the committee should be dispassionate so that the King could be properly advised as to his constitutional role as the fount of honour.

While it must be recognised that there is a political element in decisions on honours, the intention was that decisions on new awards should, so far as possible, avoid politics and the pressure that could be exerted by interest groups. This is perhaps particularly important in relation to decisions about awards to members of the Armed Forces. What is important is that when considering proposals for military decorations the committee and the sovereign have a full appreciation of the case for the proposals and advice based on an understanding of the Armed Forces and their role. This is provided in two ways. First, any such proposals are considered by the Chiefs of Staff, and their written case for the proposal goes to the committee. Secondly, the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces are well represented on the committee, with both the Permanent Secretary and the Defence Services Secretary—a serving military officer of two-star rank—being members.

Under the proposed amendment, the members of the new committee would be appointed by the Secretary of State. They would include Members of Parliament and persons who the Secretary of State decides represent members of the Armed Forces. While I can entirely understand the motives of the noble Lord in proposing the amendment, I, like the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, remain firmly of the view that we should neither introduce a directly political aspect to the advice given to Her Majesty, nor try to reflect a supposed view of members of the Armed Forces by persons considered by the Secretary of State to be their representatives.

Moreover, the HD committee would cease to have a role in advising on or making recommendations about the grant of medals to servicepeople. This would mean that we would lose this very important interrelationship with other departments provided by the HD committee and the ability to consider civilian and military awards in the round. It would also mean that the advice on civilian awards would be given on a completely different basis from the advice given on military awards. An example of the need for such discussion was the HD committee’s recent consideration of the creation of a Diamond Jubilee medal. Traditionally, such commemorative medals are issued not just to members of the Armed Forces but to members of the emergency services and those from some other areas of public service. It would have been impractical for such a medal for the Armed Forces to be considered in isolation.

The division of responsibility created by the establishment of a new committee would introduce major difficulties in the other area affected by the amendment—the rules on the award and wearing of foreign awards. It would raise wider issues on the need for consistency in relation to civilian and military awards, and on the important general principle that UK citizens, especially Crown servants—whether military or civilian—should be awarded honours by the sovereign for their services to the sovereign and their country. I shall come back to that point when I turn to the amendment proposed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. I suggest that we already have a politically independent body, free from any suggestion of partisanship, that is charged by the sovereign with advising on matters relating to honours, decorations and medals and has stood us in good stead for more than 70 years. I see no justification for the fundamental change proposed.

The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, suggested an inconsistency of allowing the PJM to be awarded but not worn, other than for one week. Despite the words of some noble Lords today, the five-year and double-medalling rules are the convention by which decisions are considered on medals. However, each situation is considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions to the normal conventions are very unusual but are sometimes made after consideration of all the relevant and significant factors. These might be political, diplomatic or other special reasons.

I turn to Amendment 26 from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. It proposes the insertion of a new clause, which would permit serving or former members of the Armed Forces to wear, without restriction, medals awarded by Commonwealth Governments. Our rules are strict and long-standing. As I have mentioned, they reflect the wish in 1939 of King George VI to ensure, so far as possible, consistency across government in our response to proposed awards by foreign states. The UK rules provide that no UK citizen, civilian or military, should accept and wear a foreign award or that of an international organisation such as the UN or NATO unless given permission to do so.

There are several reasons why these rules were put in place and why they have, I suggest, stood the test of time. First, they reflect the need to avoid the difficulties that can arise from of any suggestion of patronage or influence if other states honour UK citizens, and especially where they honour UK citizens for the performance of duties owed to their sovereign and their country. Secondly, the rules are aimed at maintaining the status and integrity of our honours system by generally excluding those of other countries for services for which honours have already been awarded by Her Majesty.

In support of these principles, Her Majesty is advised on the award and wearing of foreign and Commonwealth honours and medals by the HD committee. The committee, as I have outlined in response to the previous amendment, is a deliberately non-political committee of very senior Crown servants, representing the departments most involved in issues of medals and honours and the Armed Forces. The committee advises Her Majesty on the rules, acceptance and wearing of foreign and Commonwealth medals and honours. Its work is administered by the Cabinet Office and, in respect of foreign awards, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which liaises with the Governments of other countries on issues relating to proposed awards.

Her Majesty and her Government equally respect the rules of other countries about what honours may be given to their citizens. The principles I have already mentioned, especially the one that honours for service to the United Kingdom should be awarded by Her Majesty, are applied most strictly to those whose service, whether civilian or military, is to the Crown. Even for Crown servants, exceptions are recognised. An important example is where a Crown servant is seconded to a foreign or Commonwealth country or their Armed Forces in a theatre of operations and works directly for them. In such cases, an award by that country may well be appropriate. Such proposals are considered through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the HD committee on a case-by-case basis.

However, the effect of the proposed amendment would be to apply a different approach to the award of medals to the members of the Armed Forces, as opposed to other UK citizens, if the proposed award is from a Commonwealth country. The especially close links between all countries of the Commonwealth, especially the close constitutional connection between those countries where Her Majesty is Head of State, is deeply respected and enormously valued. None the less, it would not be advisable to apply a totally different rule for the special category of awards proposed by the amendment.

14:45

Military operations are, if anything, increasingly international. UK forces frequently work with other Armed Forces in joint operations. Our rules ensure that while special cases will be considered, our response to all our allies, whether Commonwealth or not, is the same. It would not be easy to justify to our allies or to members of our Armed Forces that an award from an ally that is not a member of the Commonwealth must be refused, but one from a Commonwealth country may be accepted. It would also be invidious and impractical to say that a diplomat, civil servant or police officer must refuse an award but members of the Armed Forces may accept it. I say “impractical” because proposed awards by foreign countries do not always fall neatly into separate civilian and military categories, and proposals are sometimes made for the same award to be made to civilians and members of the Armed Forces.

I recognise the need for a dispassionate consideration of whether an exception should be made in particular cases, although such decisions are not easy to make and apply. However, I remain of the view that our present approach should be retained in the interests of international comity, the fairness that comes from consistency and maintaining the principle that the sovereign awards honours to those who serve her and her country.

Amendment 27, the final amendment in this group on medals, has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Palmer. It proposes a change that would see the introduction of a new national defence medal, to be awarded to all serving and former members of the Armed Forces. I understand that those who support the creation of such a medal would see it presented to all who have served since the Second World War—a number estimated to be in the region of 4 million men and women. I pay tribute to those service men and women. I assure my noble friend that the Government and our nation as a whole holds the professionalism, courage and contribution of all those who serve and have served in the Armed Forces in the highest regard. Our service personnel, serving and retired, do and have done a remarkable job, and continue to provide vital support in many areas. We, as a country, owe a great deal to those who have served and those who continue to serve in the Armed Forces for all that they do in keeping our country safe.

The selective award of medals is an important way in which the nation tangibly demonstrates this appreciation for service of particular note. As my noble friend may be aware, the Government set out in their programme for government the intention to review the rules governing the award of medals as part of its commitment to rebuild the military covenant. The Ministry of Defence has recently completed a draft review, which included the case that has been made for a national defence medal. Extracts from this review were sent to representatives of several groups who have campaigned for new medals. Their comments are now being considered by my ministerial colleagues. I suggest that it would be appropriate to await publication of this review before drawing any conclusions as to whether there is a good case for the creation of a national defence medal. In light of the—rather extended, I am afraid—comments that I have made, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I thank all noble and noble and gallant Lords who have taken part in this short but very good and useful debate. It shows the depth of your Lordships’ House that we have people on this Committee who have first-hand experience of our Armed Forces and can speak with that knowledge.

My amendment was born out of frustration—more from despair—over the way that the HD committee has handled the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal issue. As came across in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, we are treating our veterans unfairly in this respect. It is also time to overhaul the way in which advice is given to Her Majesty the Queen. Indeed, the view expressed by the Prime Minister in June last year was:

“Greater transparency across Government is at the heart of our shared commitment to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account”.

It behoves the Government to make sure that this work is done in a more transparent way. I take the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. There is an always an issue about whether we should involve politicians in these matters. However, I am sure noble Lords and others who are here will not misunderstand when I say that civil servants are not better qualified than politicians. Certainly, from my time as a Minister I know that civil servants have political agendas. I do not mean that it is party political but there is a small political agenda within the Civil Service.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which was wide-ranging. I hope that the Government will reflect further because, as my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, said, if we were to vote on this matter today I think that the Government would be on the losing side. There is much merit in taking this back and giving it further reflection.

I end by saying simply that we should look around at ourselves today. We are here because a politician advised Her Majesty the Queen that we should be here—so should we be too worried about politicians giving advice to Her Majesty on these matters? I pass that off as a reflection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 25 withdrawn.

Amendment 26

Moved by

[Lord Craig of Radley]

26: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“Commonwealth medals
After section 339 of AFA 2006 insert—
“339A Commonwealth medals
Medals awarded by Commonwealth governments to present or former members of Her Majesty’s armed forces may be worn without restriction.””

[Lord Craig of Radley]

I thank noble Lords who have spoken on behalf of my amendment. I listened with great interest to the details of the speech that the Minister made. I made a point at the end of my comments about whether this advice to the sovereign was or was not prerogatively engaged. The Minister made it very clear that the sovereign was being advised by the HD committee, whereas I have in front of me two statements. The first, a Written Answer by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, says:

“HMG's rules on the acceptance and wearing of foreign awards preclude the acceptance”,

and so on, and that,

“All British citizens require permission from HMG to accept and wear foreign state awards”.—[Official Report, 11/1/05; col. WA34.]

A year later, in January 2006, there was a Written Ministerial Statement that said:

“It is longstanding government policy that non-British medals will not be approved for events or service”—[Official Report, 31/1/06; col. WS14]—

that is, events or service governed by the five-year rule or the double-medalling rule. So I am not absolutely clear, and perhaps the Minister either now or at a later date can clarify for us the position, as he sees it being adopted.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)]

My Lords, I believe that if the noble and gallant Lord would like the Minister to reply to his remarks, it would be advisable for him to move his amendment.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

I beg to move.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I understand the noble and gallant Lord’s question. This is a complicated area. May I write to him in response?

[Lord Craig of Radley]

Yes, of course I accept that. Thank you very much. I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

Amendment 27

Moved by

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

27: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“National defence medal
After section 339 of AFA 2006 insert—
“339A National defence medal
All serving and former members of Her Majesty’s armed forces must be awarded the national defence medal in recognition of their role in defending the United Kingdom and its interests nationally and internationally.””

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

May I just say thank you to the Minister, who did progress things on the national defence medal? I just ask that I and other noble Lords who are interested be kept in the loop of what is proposed with regard to the review, particularly the consultation done with veterans’ organisations. I thank the Minister for the slight progress on the matter.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I hate to trouble the Committee with rules on this matter, but I believe that if the noble Lord wishes those remarks to be recorded he really should move the amendment.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

I beg to move.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have said so far.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

Amendment 28

Moved by

[Lord Patel]

28: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“NHS numbers for discharged service people
(1) Section 331 of AFA 2006 (discharge etc from the regular forces and transfer to the reserve forces) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) insert—
“(5) The Defence Council must also make regulations about the creation of a database of NHS numbers given to those who are discharged from the armed services to facilitate future research.””

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, regrets that he is in the other Chamber for a debate. I have also put my name to the amendment and shall speak to it. In a way, it is a probing amendment. On another amendment we have already discussed the need for service personnel who are injured or suffer harm during their service to have appropriate access to healthcare and to have the ability to follow up on their injuries on a long-term basis, and the Minister replied positively. The amendment merely proposes a way in which a defence counsel may facilitate that happening and give out a number that is linked to the NHS number. I know that all UK citizens have an NHS number, and having a number given to service personnel that was linked to the NHS number would enable the long-term tracking of service personnel, particularly those who needed to access healthcare or had been injured or suffered harm during their time in the service. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, there has been a long-standing difficulty in being able to identify veterans within the general population. We have traditionally relied on organisations such as the Royal British Legion to help to understand their longer-term health needs. I agree with the noble Lord that there are clear benefits in being able to identify former service personnel to facilitate research and long-term studies into the health effects of service. In order to do so, it seems eminently sensible to use NHS numbers in England and Wales and equivalent patient tracking numbers in the other devolved Administrations.

Because we understand the importance of such identification, much activity has already taken place in this area. The Surgeon-General already has work in hand with colleagues at the Department of Health to determine the best means of identifying former service personnel through their GPs and NHS numbers. This is part of the wider work to inform GPs about the healthcare needs of veterans and their entitlement to priority treatment.

By coincidence, the Royal College of General Practitioners, in collaboration with the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence, is launching an e-learning package next week that will also highlight to GPs what additional services are available for veterans. This will further encourage GPs to flag any individual’s veteran status on his or her medical record.

We are also putting in measures for the benefit of current members of the Armed Forces. The task of tracking those who are currently serving for the purpose of research is made easier by measures already in hand in the Ministry of Defence. Following agreement between the MoD and the DoH, any service person now referred to the NHS in England and Wales is provided with an NHS number. There is also an ongoing programme of work with the devolved Administrations that will provide an NHS number, or its equivalent in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to all serving personnel. The primary purpose of this is to provide service personnel with seamless access to secondary healthcare and other NHS services. However, it will also allow us to have a robust evidence base through which to understand the healthcare needs of service personnel once they leave the Armed Forces.

I must, however, disagree with the noble Lord on a couple of points. First, I do not agree that we would want to create a bespoke database to capture such information. There are likely to be more cost-effective methods of gaining such information through existing systems. There are also issues of confidentiality and the personal security of individuals that would need to be taken into consideration if such a database were created. I imagine that the noble Lord will understand better than I do the complexity and additional costs of establishing such a bespoke database.

Secondly, I understand that there is simply no need to legislate for such a requirement, and I am sure that none of us would wish to legislate where there was no need.

I trust that I have reassured the noble Lord and the Committee that work is already in train to achieve the effect that the noble Lord desires. I therefore hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment after these assurances.

15:00

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed, informative and reassuring comments. I am content that the procedures that we are putting in place will suffice to track the service personnel who access healthcare. As I said, this amendment was just a means of probing to see how that would work. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

Debate on whether Clause 24 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I put my name down as opposing this clause purely as a formality. When I first looked through the Bill, it seemed to me that the clause effectively took away all consultation on the matter of the application of by-laws. This was discussed at a private meeting and I have received a very constructive response from the Minister. However, the procedure that the Minister describes is an administrative one, and I advised him—I hope he has advised his representative today—that I would be entirely satisfied if he were to read the appropriate assurances in the letter into the record. A letter is an ephemeral thing, whereas Hansard is permanent and more effective. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am happy to do that. Indeed, my speaking note covers one of these points. I respond by explaining that the Military Lands Acts 1892 and 1900 allow the Secretary of State for Defence to make by-laws to regulate the public use of military land and certain areas of the sea used for military purposes. Under the 1900 Act, by-laws affecting public rights of use of the sea and shore also require the consent of the Board of Trade. Therefore, one of these Acts referred to defence, the other to the Board of Trade.

Change is needed because over the years the wide-ranging responsibilities of the Board of Trade have been reduced and redistributed. Following transfers of functions, these responsibilities are currently held by the Department for Transport. The clause therefore amends the Military Lands Act 1900 in order to remove the requirement that the Secretary of State for Defence must seek the consent of the Board of Trade when he proposes to make by-laws in respect of certain sea, tidal water and shore areas that might affect certain public rights. The rights in question relate to navigation, anchoring, the grounding of vessels, fishing, bathing, walking and recreation.

As well as removing the requirement for the Board of Trade’s consent, the clause requires that, before making such by-laws in the future, the Secretary of State for Defence should take all reasonable steps to ascertain whether the by-law would injuriously affect existing public rights. If it would, he must satisfy himself that the restriction is required for the safety of the public or for the military purpose for which the land is used, and that the restriction imposed is only to such extent as is reasonable.

The procedure for giving public notice and allowing and considering public objection to any by-law currently runs under two different provisions: one for the Board of Trade—and so, now, for the Secretary of State for Transport—in the 1900 Act, and one for the Secretary of State for Defence through the 1892 Act. However, the provisions are almost identical in effect and the clause therefore provides for the repeal of the provision referring to consultation by the Board of Trade and leaves in place the provision exercised by the Secretary of State for Defence.

The clause will therefore not affect the consultation that is carried out before making military by-laws. As now, the legislation will require the Secretary of State to publicise his proposals, to give an opportunity for the making of objections and to consider those objections before deciding. The clause also amends the Military Lands Act 1892 in relation to the procedure for publishing by-laws once they have been made. The clause removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish the by-laws in such a manner as appears to him necessary to make them known to all persons in the locality, and replaces it with a requirement that he publish the by-laws in such manner as appears to him appropriate. This is because interest in the effect of by-laws is no longer limited to the immediate locality.

As part of this process of consultation, the relevant Defence Minister writes to the MP in whose constituency the site is located to tell them about the forthcoming public consultation. Advertisements are then placed on the Ministry of Defence website, in national and local newspapers, post offices and libraries, and on notices around the site. In addition, depending on the location of the affected site and the interests that are engaged, Ministry of Defence officials may contact the relevant devolved Administration; the county, district or unitary authority; the parish council, community council or parish meeting that covers the site; the police authority for the area, or its successor as agreed under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill; all people who have expressed an interest; and a range of government and other organisations, such as the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Crown Estate and, if church property is likely to be affected, the appropriate diocese.

Consultation normally runs for five weeks, although we would consider objections that were received after the end of the period as long as the by-laws had not yet been made. All comments are considered and, if possible, changes are agreed with the MoD site operator. All representations are summarised together with the department’s response and presented to the Minister before he is invited to sign to bring the by-laws into force. As a general rule, the Ministry of Defence consults more widely than we are required to do so by statute. We have no plans to reduce the amount of consultation that we usually undertake, and the provisions in the Bill will not alter our approach in this area.

In view of this full explanation, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, will agree with me that Clause 24 should after all stand part of the Bill.

Before I complete the contribution from the Government to today’s Committee stage, I should like to say a few words on a separate but related issue—the report on the Armed Forces Bill published by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on 14 July. My noble friend the Minister has written to the committee chairman, my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, with the Government’s response to the report. In doing so, he undertook to speak to one of the powers to which the committee drew attention. This was in relation to Clause 32, which deals with the commencement of the legislation, and in particular the transitional measures with reference to courts martial proposed in subsection (5). In his absence, I hope that the Committee will allow me to do so. The report noted that the House may wish to seek a further explanation and satisfy itself that the provisions of subsection (5) should require no parliamentary scrutiny. As the report notes, it is usual for the standard form of transitional power conferred in Clause 32(4) to be exercisable without parliamentary scrutiny.

Subsection (5) is not intended as an extension of the power in subsection (4) but is considered useful to make it clear that the power in subsection (4) will be needed to deal with particular situations that may arise under new Schedule 3A to the Armed Forces Act 2006. The situation that we have in mind is that, if an accused person elects trial by court martial instead of by his commanding officer, the court’s powers are limited to those of the commanding officer.

The Bill affects, but does not diminish, commanding officers’ powers of punishment, so it will be necessary to provide for the powers that the court martial will have in a trial after commencement of the Armed Forces Act in the case of an accused who had made his election before commencement. This is therefore very much a transitional measure. I reassure the Committee that our intention is to ensure that the court martial will not be able to impose a more severe sentence than that which a commanding officer could have imposed when the accused made his election. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will accept that it is appropriate that provision under subsections (4) and (5) should be made by statutory instrument with no parliamentary procedure.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full and accurate response on the matter of consultation and for reading it into the record. I am satisfied that the clause should stand part of the Bill. I shall read in Hansard with great care what he said on the Constitution Committee’s response and we will return to it if there is a problem. However, at first pass it seems that the matter is properly covered.

Clause 24 agreed.

Clauses 25 and 26 agreed.

Schedule 2 agreed.

Clauses 27 to 29 agreed.

Schedule 3 agreed.

Clause 30 agreed.

Schedules 4 and 5 agreed.

Clauses 31 to 34 agreed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Committee adjourned at 3.12 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 8 September 2011

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Sudan

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked by

[Baroness Cox]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the conflict in Southern Kordofan and of the continuing problems in the other marginalised areas of the Abyei and Blue Nile regions of the Republic of Sudan.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the conflict in Southern Kordofan continues. Despite the announcement of a two-week ceasefire in Southern Kordofan by President al-Bashir, we have continued to receive reports of fighting and human rights abuses, and humanitarian access remains extremely limited. The outbreak of violence in Blue Nile state on 2 September marks a further deterioration in the ongoing pattern of conflict. We continue to work closely with our international partners to push for an immediate cessation of hostilities. In Abyei, deployment of the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei continues, under UN Resolution 1990. We are concerned that the Sudanese armed forces and Sudan People’s Liberation Movement troops are not withdrawing as agreed, and call for both sides to start the withdrawal process immediately.

[Baroness Cox]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but I fear it seems to imply symmetry in the culpability for aggression between President al-Bashir’s government of Sudan forces and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement. Is he aware that in the recent conflict in Blue Nile, civilians have suffered aerial bombardment from government of Sudan forces? At least 50,000 civilians have had to flee, 20,000 into Ethiopia. Al-Bashir has denied access to UN and other aid organisations to civilians in need and dismissed the democratically elected governor, Malik Agar. What specific actions are Her Majesty’s Government taking in response to the sustained aggression that has been initiated and maintained by al-Bashir against the civilians, not only in Blue Nile but in Southern Kordofan and Abyei?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think that symmetry is the wrong word, because we are under no illusions about the ferocity of the attacks by the Sudan armed forces, ordered apparently by President al-Bashir, and by the Sudan armed air force as well. Nevertheless, the truth is that these are disputed areas outside South Sudan. Many of them wanted to be in that but they have been left out. There is bitterness and both sides blame each other. That is a fact.

What are we doing? We are pushing for a strong line at the United Nations, where the matter is being discussed this very day at the Security Council. Our defence attaché is working hard in Addis Ababa, supporting the African Union implementation panel. We are, of course, putting strong DfID funds into South Sudan. The resources are already in the disputed areas, although it is very hard to get access to them, and we are backing the EU special representative, Rosalind Marsden, who is also very active in pressing Khartoum to halt the violence. Pressure is going on but it is not easy. The access is difficult and not all the parties concerned seem to recognise the awfulness of what is happening, but we are doing our very best.

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s earlier Statement condemning the bombardments of civilians in the area. However, is he aware that the reports of Amnesty International and human rights groups on the ground confirm the UN’s concerns over the possibilities of war crimes through the bombing of civilians and villagers in that area? We are the lead member of the troika in the north of Sudan. Will we also take the lead in pursuing the investigations into these alleged war crimes of the bombing of civilians?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The short answer is: yes, we are aware of this. We support the recommendation of the report by Navi Pillay that there should be an independent inquiry into these atrocity allegations. This will be pushed ahead as fast as possible.

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, I was grateful to read the Ministerial Statement earlier in the week. I have just read a Ministerial Statement issued today by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this very serious area. Does the Minister have a prognosis of the African Union discussions under Thabo Mbeki, and what hopes does he have for that agency to influence for good a very difficult situation?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right. We have issued a Written Statement today trying to bring colleagues up to date with the very ugly, and, I am afraid, deteriorating, situation. The official leading the African Union implementation panel has, of course, been Mr Mbeki. However, there is increasing activity as well from President Meles of Ethiopia, who is taking a lead in trying to get the aims of the panel and all the untied-up ends of the comprehensive peace agreement carried forward. There is more involvement locally. The whole process is very much alive.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, does the Minister recall the letter that I sent him on 22 June about the events in Kadugli, where 7,000 refugees were escorted away by members of the northern Sudan military? They included women and children and they disappeared. There have been reports in the area since then of mass graves. Is this not like an unfolding Jacobean tragedy, as we hear day by day of aerial bombardment, arson attacks on villages, rape and looting and the events that were described by my noble friend? In the discussions at the Security Council today will we be pressing for these crimes against humanity to be referred to the International Criminal Court?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We shall certainly be discussing them. I hope the noble Lord will believe me when I say that I do recall the letter that he sent me. As he knows, he sends me quite a few letters, which are very informative. However, as I say, I recall that particular letter. The atrocities that have apparently happened, which he described, are appalling, as is the general refugee problem of homeless people milling around in all three areas that we are discussing. That is causing enormous suffering, hatred and bitterness, which, I am afraid, will take a long time to eradicate. However, as to the role of the International Criminal Court, it is, of course, independent and will decide, probably on the recommendation or the nature of the debate in the UN, what charges to press further. As the noble Lord knows, it has already pressed some charges. These matters are very much on the table.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, will the Minister clarify exactly what the United Kingdom is doing to help secure unimpeded access for humanitarian workers? Is not the silence of the UN co-ordinator in Khartoum somewhat baffling? What pressure is the UK putting on the UN to be more vocal and more effective on this issue of humanitarian access? Secondly, what are the Government doing to help facilitate credible mediation efforts between the NCP and the SPLM in the north?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The answer in a very confused and difficult situation is that we are doing our best. As I said earlier, access for humanitarian activity is extremely difficult, particularly in Blue Nile state. The Government, through DfID, have put in resources and supplies almost in grim anticipation of things getting more difficult so that resources and supplies are accessible within Blue Nile state and in Southern Kordofan, but access to find out what is happening is difficult. The Government in Khartoum have been extremely unconstructive, as the noble Baroness knows, and she knows this area very well. They have constantly resisted the renewal of the UNMIS mandate in the north, although just recently I understand that a high Khartoum official did not rule out the idea of an international presence in Blue Nile state. If it is proved to be true, that could be a change from the previous totally unconstructive attitude. However, access is really difficult, so it is very hard to give the precise answers that the noble Baroness rightly seeks.

Agriculture: Animal Feed

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:15

Asked by

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the scientific basis for continuing the ban on feeding animal by-products and catering waste to pigs and chickens.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, the basis for banning the feeding of animal by-products and catering waste to pigs and chickens is to prevent the spread of serious animal diseases for which these materials may be a vector. The European Commission is proposing to lift the ban on feeding certain processed animal proteins to pigs and chickens in the light of scientific advice that the ban is no longer justified. The Government are considering their position.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington]

I thank my noble friend for his reply. Can he confirm that if the EC relaxes the ban on non-ruminant ABP being fed to pigs and chickens; and if, following the consultations he refers to, the Government are satisfied by the scientific evidence that there are no public health risks, they will then lift the ban in the UK?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, obviously we want to take the scientific evidence into account and consider it very carefully. We also want to take into account likely consumer reaction because we want to take consumers along with us. If that were the case, yes, we would be prepared to lift the ban.

[Lord May of Oxford]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that although there is remaining uncertainty as to exactly the origins of the rogue prion that caused BSE and how it hopped into cattle, the balance of opinion and evidence is that it came from the unnatural practice of feeding animal by-products to cattle? In the light of that, would it not be wise to continue the current precautionary legislation?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as a very eminent scientist, the noble Lord is right to draw the attention of the House to the scientific evidence. At this stage there is no question of lifting the ban on feeding to cattle. We are talking purely about non-ruminants, such as pigs and chickens, at this stage. Obviously we will look at the evidence and at what the Food Standards Agency has to say, and then make a decision.

[Lord Grantchester]

We must proceed only on a risk-based approach and, as the Minister said, the other element to be considered is the acceptance by consumers of food so produced. The supermarkets are the gateway to the consumer. Can the Minister tell the House the attitude of supermarkets to reducing food waste by this change of policy? What discussion has his department had with supermarkets and the Food and Drink Federation?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we will continue to discuss these matters with the supermarkets and others. Obviously, where it is appropriate, food waste can go to feed animals—already some food waste can do so, when it has been appropriately separated from meat and other such products. However, as I made clear earlier, any loosening of what is happening will depend on scientific evidence and consideration of these matters. I also think that it is important, as the noble Lord makes clear, that we take opinion along with us on this matter.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, would the Minister accept that traditionally fed pigs are very popular with the public in terms of the flavour of pork, and so on? They certainly were until the change in their food. Feeding pigs largely on soya has an unintended consequence, in that all the imports of soya are leading to the further destruction of the rainforests. We really must make clear that using our food waste as best we can to feed to pigs has important consequences much further away in the world.

[Lord Henley]

My noble friend is right to point to further consequences of feeding animals in this way, in terms of producing the amount of soya used. Again, I stress to her, we should not make any changes unless the scientific evidence assures us that that is right and proper.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, would the Minister accept that the Government and the European authorities are right to proceed with caution on this front? I speak both as the Minister who was allegedly in charge during the last stages of food and mouth and as a former consumer champion. The noble Lord, Lord May, has spoken about BSE and we still do not know how the foot and mouth virus entered the chain. While some relaxation may be possible, I advise extreme caution.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord was totally in charge, and not just allegedly. As he puts it, we will proceed only if the scientific evidence is right and proper.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

My Lords, it is very important we realise that the public perception is that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in February 2001, which had such horrific consequences for the economy and everything else, was the result of feeding animals to animals. Although there is a suggestion—or at least the Minister has stated—that that will not happen with cattle, in the minds of the Great British public it does not matter whether it is cattle, pigs or poultry; they would still have this feeling. We must be awfully careful before relaxing the ban.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the ban in 2001 that my noble friend refers to was a ban on swill. We had already banned the use of processed animal protein as a result of the BSE problems. I reiterate what I have said in answer to every question: we will proceed with extreme caution and we will base any decisions, as will the European Commission, on the scientific evidence available to us.

Smoking

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:21

Asked by

[Lord Ribeiro]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will introduce legislation to stop adults smoking in cars when children are present.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, exposure to second-hand smoke is hazardous, especially to children’s health. Since smoke-free legislation was introduced in England in 2007, evidence shows that the number of children being exposed to second-hand smoke has continued to fall. However, some children are still exposed in the home and in family cars. We want to encourage people to create family environments free from second-hand smoke. The Government are proposing a range of voluntary measures that we believe can achieve more, more quickly, than legislation.

[Lord Ribeiro]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered response. The evidence of damage to children from passive smoking is well documented. Thirty jurisdictions in Canada, Australia and the United States have banned smoking in cars when children are present. In Canada, exposure to smoking in cars fell by one-third to one-half in some provinces over a six-year period. Is my noble friend aware that the concentration of smoke in the back of a car is considerably greater than that in the front, even if the driver’s window is open? Is he prepared to follow the example of the Welsh Assembly and introduce legislation if efforts to change behaviour fail?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend speaks with great authority on this subject, and I find little to disagree with in anything that he has said. He is absolutely right that children are particularly vulnerable to the harms of second-hand smoke: more than 300,000 children in the UK present passive smoking-related illnesses to their GP every year. We have to take this matter seriously, and we are. However, despite the evidence my noble friend cites from Canada, it is still early days to judge how effective that legislation has been, over and above voluntary measures. The second issue that poses problems is enforcement. However, we continue to look at these questions very closely.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, as a former heavy smoker, I still have a guilty conscience over what I must have done to my own children. I fully support every effort to attack passive smoking. But did the Minister see in a report in today’s press that a council somewhere in England has refused to allow an adoption because the male of the family had once smoked a cigar at a wedding and had once smoked a cigar at a party? Is this not taking things to a totally ridiculous level?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I did not see that report, but what the noble Lord says disturbs me. I think we all want to see an increase in adoption rates and we do not want to see potentially good adopters turned aside for what may appear to be trivial reasons.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I moved Private Member’s legislation in the other place in the early 1980s and got nowhere on it. Only when legislation was moved was there a real reduction—a complete ban—on smoking in public places and only through legislation can effective action be achieved. Is it not also the case that smokers lighting up cigarettes in cars are dangerous in terms of road safety? That is an extra reason for doing it. Will the Minister therefore stop pussy-footing around and saying that this can be achieved voluntarily, when we all know that it can only really, successfully and effectively, be achieved through legislation?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord’s analysis. It is true that, on current evidence, the legislation is having a beneficial effect; I would not dissent from that. However, we know that voluntary behaviour change is eminently possible. It would explain why, between 1996 and 2007 when the legislation came in, secondhand smoking exposure in children in England declined by 70 per cent. That was driven by not only the evidence but also awareness campaigns and increased awareness in the lead-up to the legislation. Therefore, voluntary action can have a beneficial and marked effect.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, since the Minister mentioned enforcement, I wonder whether he would like to comment on the issue more generally. I take the point of my noble friend Lord Foulkes about road safety issues that arise from smoking in cars, as well as health issues. Is the Minister content that enough is being done to enforce restrictions that are already in place, for example on the use of mobile phones in cars? Is it not the case that the burden of enforcement always will fall mostly on the police, and that they are unlikely to be able to carry out those duties very effectively when they are under such pressure to cut their numbers?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Currently, enforcement in the hands of the police centres mainly on dangerous driving. That may take the form of people illegally using mobile phones while driving or perhaps smoking in a dangerous way. However, I take her point that there is a limit on the extent to which the police can be expected to extend their remit. There is also a sensitivity in this area. The idea of police stopping a car in which somebody in the front seat is smoking on suspicion that there might be a child inside may stray over the boundary of what society would consider an acceptable use of police time.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I know that the Minister is very concerned about the effects on children. Could he remind me of the timetable to remove displays from tobacconists’ stores so that children do not see them and are not encouraged to smoke, because that legislation can already be put in place and carried through?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness is right. We believe that the Government’s commitment around the introduction of tobacco display legislation strikes the right balance. We have amended the implementation dates. Displays will come to an end in large shops on 6 April next year, and in small shops on 6 April 2015.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, my Government and this Government should be proud that today there are more than 2.5 million fewer smokers in England than there were in 1998. The noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, points to the challenge of how to make certain behaviours unacceptable. Does the Minister believe that the Government’s nudge policy will work here? Will the Government invest in a public information campaign aimed at substantially and permanently changing public behaviour in this respect?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we are going to publish a tobacco marketing plan later this year which will lay out precisely what we propose to do at a local level. It is our intention to support local efforts to raise awareness and use the insights that we know about from behavioural science to influence positive changes in behaviour, including around the social norms of not smoking when children are present. Voluntary local initiatives are already working. There is a very good example of that in Lincolnshire at the moment. We want to roll out more programmes like that.

[Viscount Simon]

My Lords, legislation already exists to ban smoking in commercial vehicles and in company cars because of the road safety aspects and also, presumably, because of health. Would it not be easy to ban smoking in all vehicles?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as I indicated earlier, we certainly have not ruled out the possibility of legislation, but we need to be sure about the evidence that legislation will have a greater beneficial effect than voluntary action on its own. It is a case of balancing the pros and cons. We have touched upon the enforcement issue and I do not think that that will go away, but on the other hand, the benefits of legislation in other jurisdictions may turn out to be compelling.

NHS: Hospitals

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:30

Asked by

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what meetings they have held with private companies concerning the management of NHS hospitals; and what was the outcome of any such meetings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, as part of standard policy development, officials in the Department of Health met UK-based companies and one international health expert to hear their experiences of intervening to improve underperforming organisations. These were background sessions to inform policy development. Any decisions to involve organisations such as the independent sector or foundation trusts in running NHS hospitals would be locally led. In all cases, staff will remain within the NHS and assets owned by the NHS.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Is there any suggestion by the Government of cutting staff or wage levels, thus putting greater emphasis on raising revenue rather than patient care, which we regard as highly important? This policy represents, does it not, the decline of the NHS rather than its reform?

[Earl Howe]

I am not sure what policy the noble Lord is referring to. There is certainly no concerted policy to decrease the pay levels of NHS staff. That is something we take very seriously. The proper remuneration of NHS staff, and their motivation, is of central importance to the well-being of patients. No, we are not diluting the NHS; the whole point of the Government’s programme is to bolster and boost the sustainability of the NHS for the long term.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Does my noble friend accept that productivity in the NHS has been absolutely abysmal over recent years and that the private sector, if it comes in to run hospitals better, may be able to raise it?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend is right. The statistics for the productivity of the NHS over the past 10 or 12 years show that it has actually gone down by about 3 per cent in total. We certainly think that the private sector has a role to play in places where it can introduce the higher quality of service that patients actually want. There is no question, however, of the Government forcing private enterprise into health services where it is not wanted and not in the interest of patients.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, within England there are already several NHS-badged private hospitals. Can my noble friend tell the House how many of these establishments were set up by the previous Government and how many of their employees are non-UK nationals?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. I am sorry to say that I do not have those figures in front of me, but she is absolutely right to make the point that the independent sector treatment centres introduced by the previous Government were a perfectly proper move to increase choice for patients, and in many cases we have seen the quality of care in those hospitals encourage the NHS to raise its own game. Competition on that basis is highly beneficial.

[Lord Patel]

Will the Minister say what assessment has been made of the causes of low productivity in the NHS?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, it is clear that one of the causes was that the previous Government—for all the right reasons, I have to say—injected very large sums of additional money into the health service, but alongside that there was no commensurate increase in activity. A lot of the additional money went into settling pay claims. That is not to decry the many benefits that arose from the additional money, but the net effect was a decline in productivity.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

Does the Minister agree that there are dangers in sweeping statements on how NHS hospitals perform and that they perform badly, because that is not the case? In many instances, not just in my own hospital—Barnet and Chase Farm—the improvement in hospital services over the past years has been incredible. Does he also agree that there are already strong and widespread relationships with the private sector in NHS hospitals and that the challenge is for NHS hospitals to be better than private hospitals so that people will choose to go to their local hospital?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness is right to pull me up. If I implied that the NHS was across the board providing a lower standard of care than the private sector, I apologise because that is certainly not the case. There are some shining examples of care delivered by the NHS. However, as she will know, not all hospital trusts are as good as hers. Some give us cause for concern in a clinical sense, and they need to be challenged sometimes on the way they look at quality. That is going on at the moment with the quality, innovation, productivity and prevention programme that she will know very well.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, let us get this Question back to transparency. Over a year ago, David Cameron, the Prime Minister, said:

“Greater transparency across Government is at the heart of our shared commitment to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account”.

That is the point of my noble friend’s Question. I would like an assurance from the Minister that minutes and discussions are available at local and national level on the public record of meetings with private and independent healthcare providers.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the origin of this Question was, I believe, a freedom of information request that was replied to by my department. The background is that we have a small handful of hospitals that will struggle to achieve foundation trust status in their own right. I suggest that civil servants have to be allowed to have potentially helpful conversations with those who have experience of turning around financially challenged organisations. That is the background. We are perfectly transparent about that situation, as were the Government of which the noble Baroness was a member.

Health and Social Care Bill

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:37

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Timing of Debates

Moved by

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Hooper set down for today shall be limited to four hours and that in the name of Viscount Bridgeman to one hour.

Motion agreed.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, for the next debate, I remind noble Lords that the limit for Back-Bench speakers is six minutes.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Debate

11:38

Moved By

[Baroness Hooper]

To call attention to the “Century of Excellence” of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and to the continuing role of the Commonwealth; and to move for papers.

[Baroness Hooper]

My Lords, the modern Commonwealth is a unique and powerful force in the world today. Its 54 member nations are linked by shared values, democratic aspirations, a common colonial history and, not least, language. The countries of the Commonwealth cover six continents, comprise one-third of the world’s population, represent all of the world’s major faiths and religions and collectively represent 20 per cent of world trade. The Commonwealth is also dynamic and growing. The two most recent members—Mozambique and Rwanda—do not even have historical links to our colonial past, and there are two more countries in the queue. We should never forget that Commonwealth soldiers stood shoulder to shoulder with our forces in two world wars. Small wonder then that the Commonwealth holds such a special place in our affection as well as in our history. This undoubtedly accounts for the distinguished list of speakers before us today. I am immensely grateful to all noble Lords who are participating. I look forward to hearing and learning from contributions based on specialised knowledge and experience over a wide variety of issues. I am also looking forward to the wind-up speech by my noble friend the Minister, who has always been a great champion of the Commonwealth, even when it was unfashionable, and who has, more than anyone else, ensured that the “C” is firmly back in the FCO.

Turning to the Motion before us today, first, I wish to focus on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or CPA. Although only a recently elected member of the executive council of the UK branch, I have over the years participated in bilateral visits, incoming as well as outgoing. I might have been able to visit Canada and Australia under my own steam, but without the CPA I very much doubt that I would have gone to Pakistan or the islands of the South Pacific and been able to enjoy such insights into the way those countries operate.

The CPA is the parliamentary arm of the Commonwealth. It was founded as the Empire Parliamentary Association in London on 18 July 1911. Its then-stated aim was,

“the establishment of a permanent machinery to provide more ready exchange of information and to facilitate closer understanding and more frequent intercourse between those engaged in the parliamentary government of the component parts of the Empire … having a branch in the United Kingdom and in each of the self-governing Dominions of the Empire”.

Those were very far-sighted people who set up the association.

The current mission of the CPA is,

“to promote the advancement of parliamentary democracy by enhancing knowledge and understanding of democratic governance and by building an informed parliamentary community able to deepen the Commonwealth's democratic commitment and to further co-operation among its Parliaments and Legislatures”.

These are very worthy aims. The international secretariat of the CPA is based in London under the direction of Dr William Shija. The UK branch, as most people here well know, can be found in Westminster Hall. The team there, under the leadership of Andrew Tuggey, carries out and organises an impressive number of bilateral visits, parliamentary strengthening programmes and international outreach. It is a terrific team.

Each year the CPA organises an international Commonwealth parliamentary conference in a different member country: last year in Kenya, next year in Sri Lanka. This being the centenary year, it seemed fitting that the 2011 conference be hosted by the United Kingdom branch at Westminster. It was a splendid sight at the opening ceremony to see the flags of all the Commonwealth countries being marched through Westminster Hall to the podium from which Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, the then Lord Speaker and Mr Speaker all addressed an audience of 600 delegates from across the Commonwealth.

The CPA is the only international organisation that gives a voice to all legislatures, large and small, developed and developing, and at national and state level, and voices were certainly heard during the three days of the conference. Thoughtful and articulate arguments pursued the overall theme of reinforcing democracy. Issues explored in workshops and open debate included: governance and accountability; climate change; education; the global economy; migration; and the future of the Commonwealth. Plenty of networking went on in between. Apart from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, our very own the noble Lord, Lord Howell contributed importantly to these sessions.

A high point came with the election, in spite of stiff competition, of Sir Alan Haselhurst, the former Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, as chairman of the international executive committee for the next five years. This is no sinecure. His first task will be to deal with the implementation of a working party report on a reassessment of priorities at a time when there are strong differences of opinion within the CPA; for example, the question of the charitable status of the CPA has been raised, with some countries deeming it inappropriate, in spite of the tax advantages it provides. It is therefore important at this time that the chairman and chief executive of the CPA should be able to work closely together. Sir Alan has pledged to bring determination and drive to finding an enhanced role for the CPA.

The conference was an undoubted success. The purpose of this debate is to spread the word and put on the official parliamentary record recognition of the valuable work of the CPA and perhaps of the UK branch in particular.

As to the continuing role of the Commonwealth itself, it may change; it may be modernised and streamlined. But its commitment to democracy, good governance, human rights and the rule of law will always be relevant. Let us not forget that countries that do not comply with this commitment have been, and continue to be, suspended. They have to fulfil strict conditions before returning to membership.

There are a few things that give me hope for the future. One is the will to reform and develop Commonwealth institutions, as evidenced by the strengthening of the work of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group and the creation of the Eminent Persons Group to examine options for reform. I hope that my noble friend will be able to update us on progress in this area.

Another cause for hope is an initiative such as the Commonwealth Youth Parliament. As it happens, it is meeting in London this week—the third of such meetings. I had the pleasure of attending and talking to many of the young people yesterday at Marlborough House. Indeed, our new Lord Speaker was there in her capacity as joint president of the UK branch of the CPA. Those I spoke to came from Nigeria, Tanzania, Australia, Barbados, the Falkland Islands and, indeed, from all over the Commonwealth. They have already elected their Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Ministers with portfolios, and are clearly looking forward to their debate on climate change, which will take place here in your Lordships' House tomorrow. I hope that as many of your Lordships as possible will be able to attend that debate. It is clear that the next generation of Commonwealth politicians is already working together enthusiastically and learning the skills and values that the Commonwealth of the future will need.

The Commonwealth Youth Orchestra, whose president, the noble Lord, Lord Luce, is participating in this debate, played at that event. The Commonwealth Youth Games start today in the Isle of Man. All these initiatives represent other ways of bringing young people together and strengthening relationships and friendships. That gives me considerable hope for the future, and I trust that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure us that the Government’s commitment to and support for educational exchanges and the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan are ongoing and, if possible, increasing. Education is vital.

On the theme of education, which was raised frequently at the CPA conference, I should like to reminisce a little if I may. As a Minister in the Department of Education and Science, as it then was, in 1988, I attended the Commonwealth Education Ministers conference which was held in Kenya that year. We discussed there the possibility of a Commonwealth university. It was agreed that a university was perhaps exclusive and that the institution that should be formed on Commonwealth lines should go wider. As a result of that, the Commonwealth of Learning was set up in Canada, which has provided an important resource for the future. We must all be grateful to Canada as the main contributor to that institution.

Another idea that has been mooted is to have a Commonwealth-based research programme. This could be especially valuable in the areas of agriculture and perhaps energy, where alternative energy resources—for example, solar power—could have an enormous impact and benefit, particularly on the less developed countries. I hope again that the United Kingdom Government will support such an initiative and development.

Touching on the role of the Commonwealth and trade in the global economy, as I have already stated, collectively the Commonwealth countries represent 20 per cent of world trade. Another way of looking at it is that the Commonwealth market is nine times greater than that of the European Union. It represents developed countries like ourselves, huge developing economies like India and small, dynamic countries like Singapore. Commonwealth countries form half of the ASEAN bloc and include three members of the European Union, seven members of APEC and five members of the G20; so there is a certain amount of overlapping. The Commonwealth’s values and standards can be a force for good in all of those fora. It can even be said that some of the less developed countries will be the markets of tomorrow. It will be their consumer demands that are needed to ignite the global economy.

In an increasingly global world, a multilateral approach can be an advantage; in the case of small countries, it can even be essential. Most of such organisations are regionally based, like the European Union. Part of what makes the Commonwealth unique is its diversity and its geographical spread, and this diversity must be cherished. It is interesting to note that not only are the Francophone countries considering strengthening their institutions and working together along the lines of our Commonwealth, but now the Portuguese-speaking nations of the world have realised that they, too, have an untapped source of co-operation and much to gain from working more closely together.

Therefore we can be proud of the Commonwealth record, but we should not fail to recognise the changes and challenges that inevitably lie ahead. There is much to celebrate in the achievements of the Commonwealth, not least the mere fact of its continuing existence. I look forward to hearing other points of view in the course of today’s debate. I am glad to have had the opportunity to introduce this important subject. It has been both a pleasure and a privilege. I beg to move.

11:52

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her timely initiative. Both she and the Minister are long-serving Commonwealth people. As for myself, I chaired the UK branch of the CPA for four years and currently I am vice-chairman. I have benefited enormously from the Commonwealth experience.

I make two comments—reflections—on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and one on the Commonwealth. Having been a member of the CPA for more than 46 years, I have seen many changes in our Parliament and in the association, mostly for the good. Our Parliament has become, I regret, rather more parochial. Fewer people have direct overseas experience, and the CPA is one means of providing that valuable experience. It is important not only in allowing smaller countries to walk tall but because it concentrates on the practical problems of parliamentarians, such as financial control of the Executive, the role of opposition, and so on. The linkage between governance and development is increasingly recognised, as is parliamentary diplomacy.

So far as the Commonwealth itself is concerned, the leitmotiv of the new Government has been their new commitment to the Commonwealth. To the CPA centenary conference in July, the Foreign Secretary said that,

“this Government has rediscovered the Commonwealth”,

and that,

“this government has put the Commonwealth back at the very heart of British foreign policy”,

and “back into the FCO”. Those are fine words but perhaps I may allow myself a little scepticism on those claims.

In the 1980s, I spoke on Africa for the then Opposition. I recall the period during which the then Government almost destroyed the Commonwealth in relation to sanctions on South Africa. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, and I were regularly briefed by Bob Hawke at the famous 1986 Marlborough House conference. I also notice that today, for example, the Foreign Secretary will give a speech on the diminution of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I began as a young diplomat in 1960. I remember two periods when the FCO was being diminished. One was in the 1980s in respect of South Africa and the other was before 1997 in respect of the European Union. I suspect that that will not figure in the Foreign Secretary’s speech today.

My other suspicion is that for some—but not, I am confident, for the Minister—the Commonwealth is viewed virtually as an alternative to the European Union when most Commonwealth countries value our membership of the EU as an advocate for the Commonwealth. I recall that in 1975, prior to the referendum on the European Union, the then Foreign Secretary, James Callaghan, visited African countries and learnt that they welcomed wholeheartedly our continued membership of the European Union, as it is now.

My final scepticism is that this is not year zero and not a new commitment. The Labour Government had a number of fine initiatives, in particular at Gleneagles, particularly in relation to the informal Commonwealth.

I welcome the Government’s stated initiative but it needs clear and realisable objectives. The claims of the possibilities should not be exaggerated, nor the likely results. Clearly, there is important work in the field of soft power, which is no less important. The Commonwealth has a role in the new political agenda—climate change, terrorism and energy security. They should recognise the limitations as shown by CMAG, as well as the fact that the Commonwealth could not play a role in key areas such as Kashmir and the conflict in Sri Lanka, and that in terms of election monitoring, it has not been a great success because of its reluctance to criticise failings in elections in member states.

The Secretary-General recently wrote that he had no role to speak publicly on human rights. Do the Government agree that he should have that role? If they are so committed to an increased role for the Commonwealth, where is the money in terms of new possibilities for the secretariat and for new issues such as human rights development, which really needs a new commissioner perhaps on a model of the European Commissioner for human rights? Nevertheless, we hope that the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group reporting to the Perth CHOGM will lead to a number of initiatives. I hope that the Minister will indicate their proposals in respect of the EPG and the CHOGM in Perth in October.

My final reflection is that one test of the relevance of an organisation is that new members wish to join—in respect of the European Union, Croatia and the western Balkans. In respect of the Commonwealth, we have not only South Sudan with its application on the table but also Somaliland. I shall end on this point: is it perhaps too fanciful to suggest that after the highly acclaimed visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Ireland, even Ireland in the new circumstances might over time consider some new relationship with the Commonwealth?

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in congratulating the noble Baroness on securing this timely and important debate. If I may reflect briefly on his last comment, about the Republic of Ireland, is it beyond the wit of man to think that Afghanistan might rejoin us at some stage, this time in a civil rather than a military fashion? I leave that thought on the table.

My contribution today is on the continuing role of the Commonwealth in my position as chair of the International Advisory Board of the Commonwealth Advisory Bureau, formerly known as the Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit. In this regard, I am pleased to acknowledge the support provided to me by the bureau’s director, Daisy Cooper.

Reform is high on the agenda of the Commonwealth. The two groups previously mentioned, the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group and the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, are set to report on their proposals for reform at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth in Australia in November. Meanwhile, DfID will be reviewing progress on the reform of the Commonwealth Secretariat after CHOGM and again, one year later.

Dealing with these initiatives in reverse order, in its multilateral aid review earlier this year, DfID concluded that the Commonwealth Secretariat was one of the multinational organisations offering poor value for money for the UK. As such, DfID placed it under what it called special measures. The Commonwealth Secretariat could play a key role in strengthening democracy and supporting development across the Commonwealth, and in making the Commonwealth’s voice heard on global issues. DfID’s review found, however, that the secretariat’s programmes were thinly spread over many interest areas and its potential was not being realised. As a result, DfID planned to increase its engagement with the secretariat and to work closely with other member states to drive reform forward. Its top priorities were to secure greater focus on areas of comparative advantage, to support and represent the interests of small states, global networking, advocacy and specialist advisory services to its members and to strengthen management and oversight systems within the Commonwealth Secretariat.

A goodly part of DfID’s year has passed and the Perth CHOGM is fast approaching. Can the Minister say what monitoring has taken place by his colleagues in DfID so far? What have been the outcomes? Based on progress to date, how confident are the Government that DfID’s funding levels for development, only to be triggered if progress is made, will in fact be released?

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, CMAG, will be reporting at Perth on how it intends to strengthen its role in ensuring that members abide by the Commonwealth’s principles and values of democracy, the rule of law and of human rights. Past calls for reform have criticised CMAG’s terms of reference for being too restrictive and not allowing for situations where otherwise democratically elected governments might be involved in widespread and sustained abuses. The main suggestion for reform called for the development of objective triggers which, if activated, would result in the immediate referral to CMAG. They would be based on unconditional and arbitrary actions such as postponing national elections without the agreement of all political parties, violating opposition rights and compromising the judiciary’s independence.

After some years spent garnering support for these reforms, they were defeated, apparently by the veto of a single vote at a Heads of Government Retreat in 1999. We understand that CMAG is now looking at these proposals again and that there is a call for it to adopt a more considered and proactive approach and not be just a censorious or punitive body. In this regard, do the Government plan to support and encourage CMAG in measures that would enable it to expand its mandate, to set objective triggers and to adopt a proactive approach to constructive engagement?

Finally, there is a report to CHOGM of the Eminent Persons Group. We understand the EPG is to make over 100 different recommendations to CHOGM. The most notable include a charter for the Commonwealth, a commissioner for democracy and the rule of law, an expert group on climate change, rationalisation of the secretariat’s work plan to discard low-priority and lower-impact programmes by 2012 and measures to ensure that the Secretary-General and all the Commonwealth heads of government play their part in enhancing the profile of the association.

The EPG report to CHOGM is full of exciting and challenging ideas. Can the Minister say what the approach of the Government will be in responding to that report? Will it be to select those initiatives they most favour or to welcome the report as a whole? Or will it be to be guided by the following principles: reform should provide something for everyone in 54 countries, big or small, rich or poor; reform that advances democracy and development; reform that recognises the comparative advantage of the Commonwealth’s convening power and ability to influence; and, as a member state, will the UK honour its commitments? If we wish to see new initiatives, we should pledge the financial resources to help fund them, or suggest areas of work that could be discontinued to release funds that could then be redirected.

DfID has highlighted this issue by making further funding dependent on reform of the Commonwealth Secretariat. If, however, we are serious about taking up the recommendations from CMAG and the EPG, members must be ready to fund the secretariat adequately. Many of its current shortcomings are the result of serious underinvestment over many years. It is unrealistic to call for additional funds without a clear demonstration by the secretariat that a programme for reform of the organisation and its working schedule has been developed and can demonstrably be seen to be in place. So I would urge the Minister and his colleagues to press vigorously for a binding commitment to such a reform programme from the secretariat as soon as possible as a condition of further funding.

12:06

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to congratulate the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on its centenary and its recent successful conference when delegations gathered from all parts of the Commonwealth in Westminster Hall. I have seen the Commonwealth evolve in ways that could not have been imagined 30 years ago when I joined the executive committee of the UK branch of the CPA. I was privileged to become its president when I was Speaker of the Commons, and I returned to its executive when I entered your Lordships’ House, so it could be said that I have come full circle.

The Prime Minister made a bold assertion in his speech to the CPA delegates which I think has great merit. He said:

“we no longer live in a world of super powers but in a world of networks and friendships”.

That, in a nutshell, is what I believe to be the real point of the Commonwealth. It is why this unique association of independent, democratic, multiethnic and multireligious countries has survived the changes that have destroyed the global supremacy of the old power blocs. Their roots were too weak to sustain them. They were not nurtured by the networks and friendships that support the Commonwealth and its enduring aspirations.

The Queen’s message to the CPA conference expressed her personal experience and understanding of what makes the Commonwealth tick. She said it ensures that nations talk to each other and that,

“there are many more similarities between us than dissimilarities”.

I believe that to be profoundly true. Why else, I put it to sceptics, would South Africa have rejoined the Commonwealth as a multiracial democracy after decades of apartheid? Why else has Southern Sudan, ahead of its first elections after gaining its independence, already applied for membership?

Historic connections with this country are part of the answer. They obviously admire our contribution to democracy. Just as important, I believe, are the networks and friendships the Commonwealth offers in a world where billions of people are threatened by forces that appear to be outside their control and where co-operation can make a big difference. In that spirit, perhaps another former member will follow South Africa’s example and rejoin our rainbow of nations. The success of the Queen’s recent visit to Ireland was a historic event that marked a new phase. Ireland has much to contribute and the Commonwealth would surely welcome it back. That, of course, is for the people of Ireland to decide for themselves in their own good time.

My grass-roots role is as patron of the Commonwealth Countries League, founded in 1925 to promote and encourage mutual understanding throughout the Commonwealth. Our education fund, which became a registered charity in 1982, sponsors secondary education for girls in their own country. Since that time, 3,000 young girls have benefited in 35 Commonwealth countries, a small number perhaps but an example of what can be and is being done by way of practical help and personal encouragement when more eminent statesmen have had their debate, passed their conference resolutions and gone home.

Advances in many Commonwealth countries today enable far more children to receive primary education, but barriers are very much in place before secondary education becomes available to many. In addition to climate disasters, challenges such as abject poverty, remoteness of location and ignorance are barriers to secondary schooling. Jane, from a remote island in the Solomons, needed extra support for travel and boarding in a larger island. She is now studying dental surgery in Fiji. The first woman doctor in Tonga was sponsored by the education fund. Three students from remote areas of Uganda are now at universities studying development economics, civil engineering and industrial chemistry. Former students in Papua New Guinea are working in banking, journalism, tailoring and forestry. Those supported by the education fund not only have achieved goals beyond there dreams, but are ambassadors for female education.

Advanced societies recognise that there are economic and health benefits from investing in female education. Educated women tend to have fewer and healthier children. They are economically more productive and earn wages. Particularly in developing countries, educated women have a higher status within their own communities. By empowering young women, they make a contribution to the future well-being of their own country as well as to that of the wider Commonwealth.

A new initiative was launched a few months ago here at Westminster, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Flather and Lady Howells, and me, entitled Thousand Schools for a Thousand Girls, headed by Ladi Dariya, herself a former beneficiary in Nigeria. Schools here are invited to raise funds for a five-year period to cover the cost of a girl’s secondary schooling. The project will not only benefit the sponsored girls but open the eyes and broaden the minds of students in this country to the challenges and the barriers elsewhere and demonstrate to our young people that they, too, are capable of encompassing the Commonwealth theme as agents of change.

Our fundraiser Ladi knows the difference that such support can make. Her father died leaving three wives and 13 children. While still a child, Ladi hawked bean cake and herded cattle, and read at night under a kerosene lantern. She was assisted by the fund, subsequently graduating with a BSc with honours in economics and, after some years in banking, she achieved a Master of Science in management and is an associate of the Chartered Management Institute of the UK. Ladi herself supports 10 girls in Nigeria through secondary education. She says, “There is nothing special about my story. It could be the story of any other woman from my background who is given the same opportunity”.

The work carried out daily by people of good will though charitable organisations changes the lives of communities within the Commonwealth for the better. I greatly appreciate the initiative that has been taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in tabling this Motion, enabling me to give voice to some of the valuable grass-roots work undertaken by the educational fund of the Commonwealth Countries League.

12:12

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the noble Baroness for initiating this debate and am particularly glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, because I want to second some of the remarks that she has made. Like other speakers, I am convinced of the continuing value of the Commonwealth and welcome the evidence, despite the understandable note of scepticism that has been mentioned, that there has been a rediscovery and an increase in the personnel at the FCO dealing with Commonwealth matters. Like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I hope that this really does presage a change in attitudes.

I have really come to learn and I have already learnt a great deal, including some acronyms with which I am pretty unfamiliar, so it has been a pretty steep learning curve to listen to other, more knowledgeable speakers. However, the diocese of London, as a result of Mozambique joining the Commonwealth, initiated a partnership with our equivalent church in Mozambique. We have thus participated in trying to increase the provision of education, particularly in rural areas, opened a health centre and tried to support flood relief schemes. My point is not the help that we have given to people in one of the newer Commonwealth countries but the extraordinary impact that opening the channels of communication has had on thousands—in London, we educate 50,000 children a day in our schools—of young people in this country.

One of the most exciting projects has been the way in which Mozambican artists—we remember that the independence of Mozambique came out of the most damaging civil war—have been using the debris of violence and war to make artworks. Recently we have received a work called “Music Man”, made out of spent cartridges, spent gun parts and all the debris of the civil war. The work has been shown in school after school. I went to one large primary school in East London —not a church school—where a very long corridor was covered with poems, artworks and reflections on the experiences that lay behind “Music Man” and the way in which Mozambican artists created, out of the lethal detritus of violence, something much more hopeful.

My question echoes the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, as to whether there is any scope—and I speak like a fool—for a Commonwealth programme in particular to link schools, create partnerships within schools, promote mutual learning, and increase the ways in which we bring together young people who have very different experiences of life in our wired-up world. Much of what has been discussed is extremely valuable, but it is at a very high level and I doubt whether the commitment to the Commonwealth as a concept will survive so prosperously unless we devise initiatives that build a popular basis for Commonwealth consciousness among the young. So much of what we have been talking about is information that is shared with highly motivated people, but within a comparatively small compass.

I have just one more comment. We have heard several times already in this debate that the Commonwealth is a multireligious entity. I recently had experience of a Commonwealth initiative that has brought together leaders of different faiths, from Nigeria and Uganda and involving faiths in this country, to confront the question of climate change. This seems to me a positive way of advancing one of the main objectives of the Commonwealth; we build unity not so much by scrutinising and criticising one another as by standing together, confronting a common problem. That builds relations and creates new experiences that outflank old animosities.

Therefore, as someone who is hugely grateful for the existence of the Commonwealth, my question focuses upon how we can build that greater popular basis of Commonwealth consciousness among the young.

12:17

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, I welcome the debate on this subject. The Commonwealth is one of the few large, multinational organisations that have a very important position in the world in so many ways. This may be a surprising observation from me, as I am regarded—unjustly—as a eurofanatic and as caring very little about these things. In fact, as a Welshman, I go back to my days in the Sunday school at Carmel chapel, Aberavon, in 1935, when we were presented with a card from His Majesty King George V, celebrating his Silver Jubilee, which contained this sentence:

“I ask you to remember that in days to come you will be the citizens of a great empire”,

and I always have remembered that.

It fell to my lot, rather fortunately, some 12 years later, when I found myself commissioned in the Army— in the Royal Signals, though still having very little understanding of electronic science—to be posted to east Africa. I was stationed in Nanyuki on the equator, as second-in-command of the East African Signals troop, with 20 British NCOs and 100 Africans covering Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. I am reminded very much of the extent to which my black signallers had seen service in the Burma campaign with the 11th East African Division. Sergeant Mbela Kasema BEM was one of these. He had come to represent them in the victory parade, and was still corresponding with a girlfriend in Chalk Farm. Among other things, I had to instruct my African soldiers in the greater benefits of “Kingy George Five” rather than Bwana Joe Stalin. I became very conscious of the fact that we were all grown-up children of the same great Empire that King George had commended with his message so many years before. So indeed I found it during the six years which I had the privilege to spend as Foreign Secretary, because there was no doubt about the importance of the Commonwealth.

One particular feature, which I will come back to, relates to the fact that I was, on demobilisation to Cambridge in 1948, given the alternative of going as a captain to command the signals troop in Mogadishu. I did not take that up because the signals troop there was simultaneously giving service to the Somali Youth League as well as the interests of their own unit. That was a rather unfortunate episode, but it drew my attention to Somaliland and, subsequently, to the existence of British Somaliland—of which more in a moment.

As Foreign Secretary, I came quickly to realise the importance of the Commonwealth in so many different ways. One that struck me almost immediately was how much better informed I was in going to IMF meetings, or things of that kind, than the Secretary of State from the United States because I had acquaintance with a whole range of countries, many of which paid great tribute to Britain’s contribution. I recall one observation made by Yaqub Khan, the Foreign Minister for so many years of Pakistan, when he welcomed me to the country and said, “You will enjoy it here—you will find it peopled by the noble ghosts of Britain's past”. I found similar tributes would come in from the leaders of many Commonwealth countries. Commonwealth conferences, or Prime Minister’s conferences, are enormously valuable in finding agreement between the Commonwealth members with their great diversity. For example, it helped us in getting across to all the Commonwealth countries, notably in dialogue between my noble friend Lady Thatcher and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the sincerity of our attempt to bring the Cold War to an end.

I want to close, if I may, with a minute on the problems of British Somaliland, which are very serious because of its subsequent merger in the greater state of Somalia, where it has now suffered adversely as a result of corruption and worse in that country. A very valuable comment on the whole situation was made in the debate in the other place by Tony Worthington, who I think was on the Select Committee on International Development when it visited Somaliland. He pointed out that:

“Our foreign service hang-ups about recognition are getting in the way of us fulfilling our duty to pursue the millennium development goals for the poor people of Somaliland”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/2/04; col. 273WH.]

The reason is that it would like to be admitted to the Commonwealth—comparable to the admissions of, for example, Rwanda and Mozambique, which have been a great advantage to those countries and to ourselves.

British Somaliland, as it was, is not getting the treatment that it deserves. I cannot spend any more time describing the history behind that but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will pay attention to the case being tenaciously argued by a number of people for the recognition of British Somaliland, so that we are able to deal with it more independently than it is now being dealt with, in the unhappy marriage that it agreed to make with the rest of Somalia some years ago.

12:24

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

My Lords, I, too, add my word of delight to the noble Baroness for bringing forward this timely debate and offer congratulations, for what mine are worth, to the parliamentary association for surviving this long. Perhaps I might also say how much I respect the role of Her Majesty the Queen as an ingredient in the curious chemistry that has kept that body going, and being so lively for so long.

It is under the part of the Motion about the continuing role that I wish to offer my remarks. I would have wanted to spend a little time on and discuss further, for example, the place of Caribbean studies in our universities. I come to this debate from a meeting on that subject in my office. When I was pursuing doctoral studies in the area of Caribbean studies, there were at least half a dozen universities with vibrant departments looking at subjects that arise from that interesting part of the world. Now there are none. This is a source of great concern to those who live in significant areas within this country whose populations have large numbers drawn from those Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean.

In the few minutes available, I want to concentrate on what ongoing role the Commonwealth has towards countries that it has suspended from its membership. Suspension cannot be a self-justifying end in its own right. I have in mind particularly the case of Fiji. The Fijian Government have been suspended until they meet certain norms. Sanctions by Australia, New Zealand, the European Union and others have been placed on the present Government. However, they have taken terrible measures against the Methodist Church. They have refused to allow its annual conference to meet for three years and gave only 24 hours’ notice this year in ordering the church not to meet in conference. This takes away the economic basis of the Methodist Church in Fiji, where the finances for the whole year are gathered at its conference. Not only that but women’s prayer fellowships, choir practices, house groups, midweek communions and youth fellowships have all been banned. The Methodist Church is the only church against which the Fijian Government have taken such draconian measures.

Your Lordships may have a certain view of the minority place of the Methodist Church in Great Britain, but I bring the matter to noble Lords’ attention to remind them that, in Fiji, Methodism constitutes pretty much the DNA of the country. I myself preached at the institution of a president of the conference on the princely island of Bau not so long ago, in the very place where chief Cakobau was converted to Christianity in 1853 and where the baptismal font was carved out of a rock upon which previously the heads of those about to be eaten were crushed. Methodism has been part of the emerging Fijian country, and a wonderful place it is. However, at the moment, Methodism is being suppressed.

This is important because it means a very important part of Fijian society is being marginalised. The fabric of society is being weakened. Many of the council of chiefs, which operates alongside the legislature in Fiji, are themselves drawn from Methodism. The indigenous peoples are dominated by Methodism, too. Methodism has played a large part in bringing the Indian population, who are still landless—and that is another problem that has to be addressed at some stage—into the mainstream of life. I wonder what the Commonwealth can do to put further pressure on the Government of Fiji. The Pacific Islands Forum has already sort of excommunicated Fiji from its fellowship. I am hearing messages—texts and the rest of it—that, on the streets of Suva in Fiji, there are beginning to be the sorts of demonstrations that, who knows, could lead to things that we have seen in other parts of the world in recent times.

Prevention is better than a cure. Are there ongoing relationships? Does the Commonwealth have a continuing role? Should we be trying to do more and to be more proactive in creating conditions out of which conversations and pressure can be placed upon the Government of Fiji? All this is urgent. The Commonwealth must, therefore, be congratulated not only on the very proper range of activities it fosters and relationships that it engenders but also on the role it might play in keeping peace in troubled parts of the world. The Fijian Government are setting up an alternative Methodist Church to do their will, just as President Mugabe has done with the Anglican Church in Zimbabwe. Let us put in the cautionary note. Let us delight ourselves in the presence of the Commonwealth, and hope and pray that it can play some part in bringing decency and dignity back to the people of Fiji.

12:30

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for initiating this debate. This is a great day for the Chamber. I am the fourth Welshman to be taking part in this discussion, and the second Methodist minister. It is a good day for me if it is not a good day for the House of Lords.

Some noble Lords will remember going to school in the 1940s, as I do, and seeing a map of the world showing the British Empire marked out in red, as my teacher, Miss Evans, told me. We were so delighted to see that. This weekend the “Last Night of the Proms” will take place. Spectators at that event and at home will join in singing:

“Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set;

God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet”.

Those words may be sung at the “Last Night of the Proms” but I bet that they do not appear in any party manifesto at the next general election. Everything has changed. Ploughshares now replace the sword. We are building a Commonwealth that is full of dignity and understanding. I have always dreamt—I still do—of one country being a role model for the world. At one time I thought that India or the state of Israel when it was founded in 1947-48 could provide role models of peace and decency. Of course, I have been disappointed. Perhaps the Commonwealth of Nations can provide that role model as we work together, showing respect for each other and not entertaining military or political ambitions but civilised, cultural and often spiritual ones.

Last week I was in Poland, which I think Norman Davies describes in his book as the playground of the gods or of God himself. Six million Poles were killed—not only Jews but others as well—at the beginning of the Second World War and yet they have survived and pulled through. Some may disagree with me but I suggest that that is due in large extent to the fact that they have a faith: 96 per cent of Poles are Catholic. They fill their churches and their faith keeps them going, as is the case with Israel. In 72 AD, the people of Israel were expelled from Jerusalem and scattered throughout the world. All they had was their Sabbath and their Torah—their faith. That kept them going for the next 19 centuries. We do not always agree with them but, when they came back, the state of Israel was established. Therefore, we need not only a political element but elements of culture, civilisation and faith. This means that we have to respect people who have different faiths and cultures from our own. We should look at them and say, “Isn’t it great to be in a world where people are different from one another?”. It is.

I am a vice-president of the Llangollen International Music Eisteddfod. Every year I go there and see nations coming together. They are different and colourful and they respect and love one another. This past year, I think that 14 of the competing nations were from the Commonwealth. Thanks to the CPA’s sponsorship, they will bring a bit of the Llangollen festival to Westminster. Next year marks the Commonwealth Year of Culture, Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee and the Olympics. On 2 July 2012 we shall have a Commonwealth carnival of music before the festival participants make their way to Llangollen. Dancers, instrumentalists and choirs from different countries will enrich all our lives. I ask noble Lords to put that date in their diaries. We will be able to celebrate the diversity of the Commonwealth at that event. Does it matter that Scotsmen have the bagpipes and Welshmen have the harp? Not a bit. We can all appreciate one another.

Finally, there is still much work for the Commonwealth to do. Within the UK Scotland wants a wee bit more independence and Wales is also trumpeting in some way, but is not the Commonwealth the framework in which nations which want to loosen their bonds with central government might be able to achieve an independence that is not political but operates at a different level—that is, the independence conferred by respect and dignity? That is what we have throughout the Commonwealth but a tremendous amount of work is yet to be accomplished by our Commonwealth of Nations.

12:35

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on having secured this important debate. I wish to confine my comments to the continuing role of the Commonwealth, particularly with regard to healthcare and biomedical research. In so doing, I remind noble Lords of my declarations of interest, particularly my role as Professor of Surgery at University College London.

There is a distinguished heritage with regard to health and the provision of postgraduate medical education and training associated with the Commonwealth. For many decades, medical trainees, graduates and other healthcare professionals from Commonwealth countries have come to our country and made a vital contribution to the establishment of the National Health Service and ensured that that service was sustained over many years. Many of them returned to their own Commonwealth countries, having benefited from training in the United Kingdom, and went on to become leaders of disciplines in the profession of medicine in their own countries, contributing to the development of healthcare systems in many nations based on the provision of healthcare in the United Kingdom. In so doing, they brought great credit to our country and increased the influence of the United Kingdom in those countries because the provision of healthcare is so very important in every nation.

Equally, our own trainees had the opportunity to practise in many Commonwealth countries, making important contributions, learning an awful lot and having their own careers enriched as a result. The contributions in this two-way relationship have been substantial. In our own country the development of primary care, acute hospital practice, mental health and biomedical research have been hugely enriched by the relationships between Commonwealth countries. However, in the past 10 to 15 years, that emphasis on encouraging links with regard to healthcare and biomedical research across Commonwealth countries has become somewhat less important to our nation as we have looked to other regions to deal with the provision of staff and medical professionals to help in the delivery of healthcare in the United Kingdom. That is a great pity because one of the important by-products of these close links in healthcare and biomedical research has been the promotion of our own healthcare and biopharmaceutical industry in Commonwealth countries. We often hear that this area of economic activity and endeavour in health and biomedicine is the second most important industry for our nation after financial services in terms of its economic value.

Moving forward, there are important opportunities for us to refocus on the Commonwealth. As we have heard, one-third of the world’s population are citizens of Commonwealth countries. Many of these nations are seeing substantial economic development. As nations develop there is increasing emphasis on the provision of healthcare and the training of healthcare professionals. Our universities, National Health Service, healthcare industries and biopharmaceutical industry could all benefit from a renewed focus on the opportunities available if there were greater collaboration and co-operation in healthcare provision across Commonwealth nations. Equally, those nations could benefit from the very fine industries, knowledge, technology and innovation that we have developing in our own country in our universities and their associated industries.

I have four questions for the Minister with regard to health and training of healthcare professionals in relation to the Commonwealth. First, do Her Majesty’s Government have a specific strategy for ensuring that we can once again encourage some of the most able and capable medical trainees from Commonwealth countries to spend some of their postgraduate training time here in the United Kingdom rather than go to other countries, such as the United States, or other European countries? Secondly, can we facilitate our own trainees to take advantage of the wonderful opportunities existing in Commonwealth countries to enrich their own careers and training opportunities? Thirdly, is there a specific strategy to promote our healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries in Commonwealth countries, so that they can improve and increase their export opportunities and in so doing, ensure that the innovation and discovery from our own universities, and within those industries, can be used to improve healthcare delivery and health in Commonwealth countries? Fourthly, and finally, might there be opportunities for us to build on the concept of Commonwealth learning to develop a virtual Commonwealth postgraduate medical federation or university to promote continuing medical education driven from the United Kingdom to assist the development of healthcare in Commonwealth countries?

12:42

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hooper and I also congratulate the CPA on the centenary. I have been fortunate to go to quite a number of CPA conferences and to make bilateral visits to Malaysia, the Bahamas, Namibia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Australia, just to name a few. We were in Australia at the time of the Bali bombing and it was a privilege to be in the national Parliament to hear the then Prime Minister John Howard speak about what had happened.

On the same visit we also went to Parkes, the place of my birth in that largest island of the world, where we had the best barbequed steak that we had anywhere in the whole of Australia. When I came to this country I think that my passport said I was an Australian citizen but it certainly said that I was a British subject. That terminology has changed completely. When I had tea in the Lords Dining Room—I have been in this House for 30 years now—a colleague said, “Oh, it’s rather nice to have a colonial in the House”. Commonwealth people gave up that colonial tag a long time ago. He was not a young man but it was an interesting facet.

What has impressed me so much about the CPA is how well it works on what I would call not just an all-party but an almost cross-party-and-no-party system. Wherever we have been in the world we have all worked together and no party issues have ever come up. It has been much bigger than that, which is a very important point. I also went through the Commonwealth Secretariat as an observer to the first elections in the Seychelles after many years. That again was something that we felt was useful. I was in Kenya on Remembrance Sunday one year and saw all those wonderful, large, very black men with their umbrellas standing in the blazing sun on 11 November. That reminds me of the great contribution that the Commonwealth has made to this country. It has made a major contribution in both World Wars and in all other times and will continue to do so. There is great fellow feeling within the Commonwealth.

I am still in the position of having my domicile of origin which happens to be Australia. We almost lost the right for Commonwealth citizens to sit in this House. That would have been a tragedy because, although it affected me personally, it is a very much bigger issue. When I last wanted to speak in a Commonwealth debate in June 2009, I rang the Clerk of the Parliaments, asking, “Could you tell me what Act I am sitting under now because I always like to quote that when speaking on Commonwealth issues?”. There was a long pause and he said, “We are sorry but there seems to be a bit of an unforeseen mistake. We are not sure that you are meant to be here at all now”. I said, “What do you mean?”. He said, “Well, you did sit under the 1981 Act”, and I said yes that that was the one I quoted. He continued, “When they renewed that Act in 2006 the Government made a mistake and covered the Commonwealth in the House of Commons but failed to cover it in the House of Lords”.

My speech on that occasion was a bit of a bombshell when I brought this out in the Chamber. The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, who was answering, said that the Government guaranteed that it was a pure oversight and would put it right before the general election. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which is enacted now, was very late in coming to us and arrived on the last day of the previous Parliament. It was very controversial and various people said how ridiculous it was that we would be asked to put this all through on the same day and that we could not possibly do it as it would take weeks of deliberation. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, waved to me to come outside and said, “You have got to say something”. I said that it had been suggested to me not to say anything, but he said, “Well, I wouldn’t want to interfere with other people’s views but I think you should say something”, so I did.

Various other people made points but the most effective was the one from the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, who said that some parts of the Bill were good and we should allow them through and not the rest. He quoted the Civil Service and said, “It might be only 90 per cent right, but at least that is 90 or even 80 per cent more than we have ever had, and we have waited 40 years for that, so can’t we have it?”. Various other people hopped up and then I got up and said my little bit about not even getting a Writ of Summons for Parliament unless the legislation went through. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and to the then Lord Chancellor who spent most of that afternoon in this House working on an all-party basis to try to get agreement on which bits of the Bill would go through and become the reformed Act. Fortunately, at the last minute on the last day of that last Parliament it went through.

That is very important in terms of the Commonwealth because Commonwealth people are amazed when they hear that a member of the Commonwealth who is not an English person or a British citizen can be a Member of this House—as also southern Ireland. I heard someone mention southern Ireland. Perhaps this is another indication that southern Ireland may well become part of the Commonwealth.

12:48

[Lord Luce]

This occasion shows that there is a growing feeling on the need to renew the strength of the Commonwealth and gives new impetus to that. The attendance at this debate is higher than at any former Commonwealth debate I have ever attended and the interest in the subject is stronger than I have ever seen. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on the way in which she introduced the whole subject and the timing of the debate.

The approaching Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia in October will have, as has been referred to by many noble Lords, the report and recommendations of the Eminent Persons Group. Having seen the first draft of that report, I have every reason to believe that it will be robust and strong in its recommendations. The Heads of Government have to be robust and strong in deciding whether they will implement some of the recommendations. In addition, as has already been referred to, there is the Diamond Jubilee next year in which there will be opportunities to mark the Commonwealth and the commitment of this Government to give added strength to it, led, I am pleased to say, by the Minister.

The Commonwealth exists as an opportunity for us to take, as equal partners. It is a pragmatic, evolutionary group of nations representing a whole cross-section of the world. It is voluntary; it is not a treaty; it is not NATO; it is not the United Nations or the European Union. It looks in an informal way for practical solutions to problems, and it can add value to the work that we ourselves do bilaterally and multilaterally with other bodies. It is unique and it provides us with an opportunity which we can take if we wish.

There are two main points I want to make. First, I start on the non-governmental side, because I think that the people-to-people connection in the Commonwealth is in fact its heart; that is what it is really all about. We have a vast pattern of connections—in the various speeches we have heard today we have already seen a massive demonstration of this. It is not just the CPA, which is a very important association, but all the other connections in the field of education and so forth. There are more than 90 professional bodies, a mass of civic society bodies, and a mass of NGOs which all provide a sort of pattern. I declare an interest as president of the Royal Over-Seas League, which does educational work in three African Commonwealth countries and holds a Commonwealth music competition. I am also president of the new Commonwealth Youth Orchestra; music, of course, unites rather than divides nations. There are so many other organisations across the board, in every field, from universities, to law, to the Commonwealth Jewish Council, the Commonwealth Press Union, and so on, which demonstrate this vast pattern of links between us all.

The Commonwealth Foundation seems to be the basis upon which we can move forward. I was its chairman for five years in the 1990s. I know that the Eminent Persons Group will advocate for that foundation to be strengthened. It can act as a catalyst and facilitator of contacts within the Commonwealth on the non-government and civic society side. I think particularly of young people. I suggest that to mark the Diamond Jubilee and the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty being Head of the Commonwealth next year, the heads of government devise some kind of Commonwealth legacy which will devote itself to strengthening the Commonwealth for young people and civic society in particular. I hope a lot of thought will be given to this for next year.

The other point I wish to make regards the government-to-government side. I welcome the Eminent Persons Group’s belief that it is most important that we strengthen the governance systems of the Commonwealth and methods for dealing with conflict resolution. It is here that the Commonwealth must practise what they preach, committed to so often by heads of government. We should devise and set high standards, and should be robust with those who do not stand up to those standards—I hope that that is what will emerge. The heads of government will have to be courageous if they are going to commit themselves to that. The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth will have to be very robust in speaking up from time to time on maintaining standards within the Commonwealth.

This Government and heads of government must be sharp in defining their priorities. If we try to do too many things in the Commonwealth, we will not achieve a great deal. Remembering that 50 per cent of Commonwealth citizens are under 25, I hope that a lot of priority will be given to young people. As far as membership is concerned, I hope there will be a separate debate on the subject of the former British Somaliland—an issue raised by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, which I want to endorse. It was a great pity that the former British Somaliland was not allowed to enter the Commonwealth when it became independent in 1960. Perhaps new opportunities will be provided for us to debate this, as well as the prospects for South Sudan and other countries to join the Commonwealth. We now have this opportunity to rejuvenate the Commonwealth, and I hope the heads of government will take it in October.

12:54

[Lord Sheikh]

My lords, I also thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for securing this timely debate ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting next month in Australia. I strongly believe in the Commonwealth and I have spoken in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere on this subject many times. I personally know high commissioners of several countries and have met leaders of their diasporas in the United Kingdom. I am interested in foreign affairs and have visited several Commonwealth countries.

The Commonwealth stands as a beacon to the global community. Membership shows a commitment to democracy, good governance and the rule of law. It is understandable why so many countries take great pride in their membership, and why the number wishing to join expands frequently. The Speaker of the Parliament of Norfolk Island referred to the Commonwealth as,

“the most wonderful place for a small place like us”.

This sentiment was reiterated by the chair of the CPA International Executive Committee when he identified the need for greater attention to be focused on the challenges facing smaller branches and the island states. It must, however, be emphasised that the Commonwealth is an organisation of equals. Smaller and economically vulnerable states are all given equal weight in the organisation. We are all aware that this is not the case in many other international organisations.

In choosing to address the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary reaffirmed the importance of the association to the wider aims of the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister characterised the Commonwealth as modern, mainstream and practical. This seems to be a fairly relevant summary.

The Commonwealth's 2 billion inhabitants account for approximately 30 per cent of the world's population. It has been estimated that this translates to a contribution of one-quarter of the global economy. In excess of $3 trillion dollars worth of trade occurs annually within the Commonwealth. The combined gross domestic product of the organisation is thought to have almost doubled between 1990 and 2009. Member nations include India, South Africa, Malaysia, Nigeria and Singapore. These countries are among the fastest growing economies and are certain to shape the future of the global economy.

I welcome announcements by the Department for International Development that it will invest in Commonwealth countries separately to the United Kingdom's annual contribution to Commonwealth institutions and development programmes. A number of member nations are reliant upon the organisation's support in the area of development.

In choosing the right honourable Member for Kensington and Chelsea as our representative on the Commonwealth's Eminent Persons Group, we have an individual with a wealth of expertise in international politics. The group has been asked to make recommendations on improving efficiency within the Commonwealth. I, like many other Members of your Lordships’ House, look forward to reading its proposals.

It is argued by some that because the affairs of the Commonwealth are not legally binding, the organisation is weaker and its power is relatively less than, say, that of the European Union. I would, however, argue that this is a misunderstanding. It is the voluntary nature of the body and the common bond which provides its very strength. Indeed, the Commonwealth remains a forum for debating important issues affecting our world.

The Commonwealth comprises 54 nations, which represent each of the world’s prominent religions. I am actively involved in building harmonious relationships between various racial and religious groups, and I believe that the Commonwealth is a marvellous platform to bring people together under one umbrella. It is home to 800 million Hindus, 500 million Muslims and 400 million Christians. It is an important multilateral organisation that demonstrates the effective use of soft power in international relations. I would like to see Commonwealth countries more actively involved in conflict resolution and building stronger business links between the various countries.

The membership of Mozambique and Rwanda speaks volumes about the influence and prestige of the Commonwealth as a unique association in welcoming countries who do not have links to the British Empire. However, Zimbabwe and Fiji cause us concern. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on Her Majesty's Government’s plans to engage with these countries.

The Commonwealth includes Sri Lanka, a country that has failed to reach its full potential because of ethnic tensions that have blighted the lives of many. I visited Sri Lanka as a member of a parliamentary delegation—the visit was organised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—and I was impressed with the recent developments following the hostilities. My Lords, my time is up, so I will sit down.

13:01

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, my long-standing and firm friendship with the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, began when she served with great distinction as a Member of the European Parliament for the city of Liverpool, where at the time I was a local constituency Member of Parliament. I cannot think of anyone better to have opened today's debate. She set the scene with great clarity and we are all grateful to her.

My association with the Commonwealth began when I was a Member of another place. I served as chairman of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth. There is an old proverb that states: if you plant a seed, you plant for a season; if you plant a tree, you plant for 10 years; but if you plant education, you plant for a lifetime. I echo some of the things that my noble friend Lady Boothroyd said earlier, and others have said in the debate; it is clear that the role of the Commonwealth in future in promoting education must continue to be one of its central tasks.

There is a debate between ecclesiastical and secular Latin scholars about when to use a hard C and when to use a soft C. Many of us would say that in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for far too long we have used a soft C. However, in the Minister who will reply to today's debate—the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford—we have someone who has a long and distinguished record in promoting the Commonwealth, and who I am sure will insist that the hard C is used rather than the soft.

I will make one substantive point in my remarks. To some extent I echo what was said by my noble friend Lord Luce and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, about membership of the Commonwealth and new members. I support in particular what they said about British Somaliland. My remarks will return to a subject that I raised with my noble friend Lady Cox earlier today at Question Time: the position of South Sudan.

Before I turn to that, I will remark that 10 years ago I had the opportunity to visit Rwanda. I visited the genocide sites. In that country, the genocide that took place against the Tutsi minority by the Hutu majority led to the deaths of 1 million people. It was one of the most emotional and disturbing experiences of my life to see some of the mass graves and the places where people had been left. I had the opportunity subsequently to speak to President Paul Kagame. I was very struck when, in 2009, Rwanda applied and was given permission to join the Commonwealth. After all, this was a Francophone nation without the historic connections that many existing Commonwealth nations had. It was the right decision, not least because, in the Harare Declaration of 1991, we set out the principles of democracy and human rights that are not always observed even now in Rwanda. However, a country that seeks admission must surely have some belief in those principles: otherwise, why would it apply to join? At least when a country becomes a member of the Commonwealth and accepts the principles in the Harare Declaration, we are then able to hold it to account and also to enter into proper dialogue in order to strengthen those principles.

This morning, with the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I met two senior officials of the new Government of Southern Sudan. It has become the world's newest nation, having achieved outright independence on 9 July. I visited Southern Sudan during the civil war, in which 2 million people died. I went to Darfur, where more than 300,000 people died. As the House heard earlier today, in Southern Kordofan and Abyei a campaign of aerial bombardment continues. I was last in Southern Sudan with my second son last year. We visited some areas there and in southern Ethiopia and Turkana where major challenges continue to face those nations. Again and again, I heard of the great warmth that people had for the United Kingdom and for the Commonwealth. Therefore, I was not surprised when the Juba Government, led by President Salva Kiir, lodged an application to bring the world's newest fledgling nation into the Commonwealth.

This is a dangerous time. I heard from the officials we met this morning that they are fearful that Khartoum will embark on a new outright war against the South. I heard from them about some of the many challenges that the South faces. Half of the South's population is below 18 years of age; 72 per cent are below the age of 30; 83 per cent are rural; only 27 per cent of the adult population are literate; 51 per cent live below the poverty line; 78 per cent of households depend on crop farming or animal husbandry as their primary source of livelihood; 80 per cent of the population have no access to toilet facilities; infant mortality is 102 per 1,000 births; under-five mortality rates are 135 per 1,000 births; the maternal mortality rate is 2054 per 100,000 live births; just 17 per cent of children are fully immunised; 38 per cent of the population have to walk for more than 30 minutes one way to collect drinking water; 50 per cent use firewood or grass as the primary source of lighting; 27 per cent have no lighting; 96 per cent use firewood or charcoal as their primary fuel for cooking; and a mere 1 per cent of households in Southern Sudan have a bank account. These are pretty daunting odds for any Government, but at least the Africans of the South now have the liberty and freedom that they have craved, and for which they fought and spilt blood, for so long.

Despite the phenomenal challenges, the taste of freedom is sweet. What better candidate could there be for admission to the Commonwealth? I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do all that they can in these urgent circumstances to accelerate that application for admission.

13:07

[Lord Glenarthur]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hooper has done the House and the Commonwealth a great service by initiating this debate. I recall that a few years ago, when in opposition, my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford expressed concern during the debate on the Queen's Speech that the Government of the day had failed to make any reference to the Commonwealth when they prepared that speech. In my intervention on one aspect to do with the Pacific, where so many island states are staunch members of the Commonwealth, I very much echoed his remarks, as did others. Therefore, I look forward to hearing from my noble friend when he winds up about the current Government’s attitude towards and support for the Commonwealth, its members and its associated institutions.

I will turn to the South Pacific in a moment, but will begin with a more general observation. Sadly, we seem to read less and less about the influence and role of the Commonwealth. There was a time 10 or 20 years ago when barely a day went by without the comments of the Secretary-General or another influential member of the secretariat on matters relating to international issues involving the Commonwealth, or on more wide-ranging matters, being drawn to our attention by the media. Perhaps I read the wrong journals and am ill informed: or is it simply that the press and broadcast media feel that the Commonwealth has less relevance and do not report it? Or is the Commonwealth secretariat less forceful in expressing and publicising its views?

For the past 25 or so years, I have taken a close interest in the South Pacific. I was first involved as a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister in the late 1980s, when my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon was Foreign Secretary. I have been fortunate to travel there fairly regularly ever since. As members of the Commonwealth, Australia and New Zealand are naturally the major players in the region. Both countries do much to exert influence to ensure that the region remains stable and to enhance prosperity. The Commonwealth itself has a role to play throughout the region. Since the 1980s some of the reasons for a measure of disquiet in the region have diminished. The French are no longer testing nuclear weapons there; the United States is not destroying chemical weapons at Johnston Atoll. I recall both these issues being raised regularly at international or regional conferences which I attended. The UK naturally had to speak up for its wider interests, which did not always sit harmoniously with others in the Commonwealth, but it always struck me that somehow the fact that we were also members of the club that is the Commonwealth, if I may characterise it that way, made the Commonwealth something of a bridge between regional concerns and a wider international perspective.

However, now other issues have arisen which bear close examination. The influence of China throughout the South Pacific, often courting the island states with economic inducements, is no doubt welcome in many ways to those who need support, but one is bound to ask whether, in the international arena, its influence and aspirations are wholly benign or of self interest. The Japanese fishing industry, literally hoovering up the ocean with its long-line and other techniques of fishing—let alone its abhorrent whaling practices—stands, in time, seriously to damage the ability of the island states to sustain their own fishing industries. Of course, climate change and changes in sea levels are a major worry. I was very pleased to read on the Commonwealth Secretariat’s website that prosperity and resilience in the region was a key theme of the secretary-general’s address to the 42nd Pacific Islands Forum in Auckland yesterday.

There is also the matter of the internal politics of some of the island states and here I should like to dwell a little on Fiji, as did the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port. I visited Fiji last year for the second or third time. No more loyal member of the Commonwealth did there used to be than Fiji. Going back to colonial days, the people of Fiji venerated Queen Victoria and their links to the United Kingdom. The Rabuka coup of 1987 put paid, at least temporarily, to Fiji’s active participation in the Commonwealth. Now, 25 or so years later, following a third coup some years ago which removed democratic government from Fiji, Fiji remains politically isolated. I feel, as does the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that the Commonwealth has a major role to play in pressing for a return to democracy in Fiji and I hope that elections certainly will be held in 2014.

How different Fiji is from its neighbour, Tonga, another country I know well. How stark it is that Fiji, which has strong familial ties with Tonga, should have moved in one direction and Tonga in precisely the opposite direction. One of the first and very farsighted acts of the King of Tonga when he acceded to the throne was to promise change to Tonga’s constitution so as to give up many of his residual powers as an absolute monarch and bestow genuine democracy and a constitutional monarchy upon his people. The success of these changes, which took effect in November last year, are immensely encouraging. Tonga is a loyal member of the Commonwealth with strong residual links to the United Kingdom and it plays its part on the international stage too. For example, Tonga even has a large contingent of its defence force currently serving in Afghanistan.

In a nutshell, the Commonwealth is a force for good in the Pacific, as it is elsewhere. It deserves wider recognition, but to gain that, its secretariat must be encouraged to become much more forceful, more outspoken in its utterances and press harder on its publicity while it is active on the world stage. Sometimes individual members may be uncomfortable with that, and unanimity of approach is difficult to achieve, but surely it is an aspiration worth encouraging and working towards.

13:14

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

My Lords, I welcome this debate, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. My father was a diplomat in the Commonwealth Relations Office, so I was brought up to this. As a boy, I saw the Union Jack coming down in Kuala Lumpur in 1956 and heard the music changing—we had a musical discussion earlier this afternoon. In my career, I have visited scientific, meteorological and governmental institutions in about 14 countries. I declare an interest as a visiting fellow of the Malaysian Commonwealth Studies Centre at Cambridge. In my remarks I should like to point out how the UK might reorientate its diplomacy to combine more strongly its roles in the Commonwealth and in Europe, particularly to help deal with global issues of climate change, the environment and developing science and technology-based business. The UK high commissioners could, I believe, do more to help promote the idea in Commonwealth countries of flying the European as well as the UK flag. You can be quite sure that when the French have their embassies in countries in the francophonie, they will be flying the European and the French flag.

The present and the previous Governments have worked closely with other European countries and the EU to establish Europe’s leading research position in climate change and to establish policies for mitigating emissions of greenhouse gases and for assisting developing countries to adapt to climate change and reduce their damaging impacts. Collaboration with Commonwealth countries is growing; we are having strong policy initiatives. The Australian Government are introducing bold legislation and, I am glad to say, ignoring the trumpeting by certain present and previous Members of this House who are very loud and noisy. In Singapore, the Prime Minister has set up a climate change secretariat and foresees greater collaboration with south-east Asians. As I found in a meeting interview with him, there is great concern in that area about the rising sea level, which for reasons of physics is stronger in that part of the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has just emphasised. However, one has to say that the Canadian Government policy is not helpful in following the United States. I hope that there will be vigorous discussion with the Canadian Government at the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

In July this year, the Divecha Centre for Climate Change at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, together with the Malaysian Commonwealth Centre, held a workshop to review the special aspects of science and policies on climate change in Asia. The severity of the impacts, from the sea level rise to the melting glaciers in the Himalayas, were highlighted and the need to combine policies for energy and food was emphasised. Indian policy specialists commended the EU leadership for their climate policy and urged the EU, and the UK working with the EU, to keep up the pressure on the US Government to take a more constructive position, or at least not to prevent international collaboration.

The EU and the Commonwealth could work better to promote high-tech business and trade. Many of the most advanced projects in the UK are part of EU programmes—for example, Airbus and projects in space and the environment. In Singapore, I met the EU representatives—many Commonwealth countries have EU representatives. I believe that they and the UK High Commission could do more to explain how EU programmes are world leading and could be used more to help collaboration between the high-tech and advanced countries of the Commonwealth and the UK and Europe. Of course, many of these Commonwealth countries, as I again saw in Singapore, are now in a very advanced position in terms of their own work. Some of the leading groups and universities in the United States are setting up establishments there. UK funding, by Her Majesty’s Government, of UK technology at trade fairs is, in the views of many business people I have met, a poor shadow of the funding provided by other countries, including EU countries such as Germany. Perhaps, given the difficulties of our finances, Her Majesty’s Government should collaborate more effectively and economically with the EU in the promotion of UK industry and its development globally.

Finally, I should like to return to the point I have made several times before in this House and elsewhere that it is quite extraordinary that when scholars and researchers come to this country to work in universities—I have had many myself—there is no funding, no encouragement, nothing to bring these people to London, to Westminster, to show them what goes on. They know nothing. They go back to their countries—some of them become Prime Ministers—and they know nothing about the UK. It is quite extraordinary. Only Chevening scholars, a highly select group, are given, as it were, the treatment, but that is a tiny proportion, whereas when you go to other countries, they really use the opportunity to tell them about the country. After all, that is part of the reason why we do this.

One more thing: if they come to the UK, they should also learn that the UK is part of Europe, and perhaps that is how we should be moving. I have very little faith in this. I have spoken to leaders of the British Council and the Foreign Office, and they do not seem to understand that scientists need to know about the world in which they live, so there is a thought.

13:20

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Hooper because this debate provides an opportunity to recognise not just that the Commonwealth has been a force for good but that it has a strategic importance for our country now and in the future. Too often in the past, we have underplayed the connections and interest we have with our partners in the Commonwealth. That is why I wholeheartedly endorse what the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Commonwealth have been working so hard to achieve: the re-energising of our relations within the Commonwealth. The Foreign Secretary’s visit to Australia and New Zealand last year was the first visit to those countries by a Foreign Secretary in 20 years. It indicates in stark terms that our focus has been elsewhere. Fulfilling the role that we have undertaken overseas in recent times may explain in part why, but it does not entirely excuse it. Surely the skill in gaining new friends and working elsewhere is in retaining old ones.

The Commonwealth family remains a unique forum for voices that would not necessarily be heard elsewhere. It is not just Governments that come together. The Commonwealth has a key role in feeding the world’s growing population. We have seen in graphic and heart-rending terms the consequences of nations—particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where 19 countries are in the Commonwealth—being unable to feed their own people. I therefore draw to your Lordships’ attention to and commend the work of the Royal Agricultural Society of the Commonwealth—the RASC—which encourages the interchange of information about developments in sustainable agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and the rural environment throughout the Commonwealth. It aims to encourage member societies in developed countries to help where agricultural education and expertise are needed to enable food production to be increased.

British farmers are actively playing their part, and within the RASC emphasis is being placed on the next generation and the generations of youth to come. Being the only Commonwealth agricultural NGO, the RASC seeks to work more closely with the Commonwealth secretariat and to participate in setting the agricultural agenda. The Duke of Edinburgh was president for more than 50 years, and this influential role is now fulfilled by the Princess Royal. In 2012, the biennial conference of the RASC will be held in Zambia and the theme will be feeding people and Africa’s role in helping global food security. Zambia has vast areas of sustainable agricultural production and commands some 50 per cent of southern Africa’s water resources. What a tragedy that its neighbour Zimbabwe has had its agricultural production devastated.

The Commonwealth is held in great affection by so many. Many of us have family ties. It continues to bind diverse nations together. Whether it is in the healthy rivalry of sport, the values of liberty and tolerance or a desire to enable all our citizens to prosper, the Commonwealth is an institution on which we should build so that all these ideals flourish. That is why I wish the Minister every possible success in his endeavours and responsibilities.

13:24

[Baroness Flather]

My Lords, I have been thinking a great deal about what the Commonwealth is. Is it an organisation? No, it is not an organisation. Is it a family? No, I do not think it is a family. I think it is a voluntary association of nations. It is a very good thing that it is voluntary, and it is certainly an association of nations. Many speakers have said that things have to be looked at and judged and that perhaps improvements need to be made. I want to state right at the start that I am not an uncritical admirer of the Commonwealth, but more about that in a minute.

My origins lie in the Empire before the partition and independence of India. India was quite rightly known as the jewel in the crown because, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, in the two world wars we supplied a huge number of people as well as materials. India became a giant factory providing materials for the war effort. In the Second World War more than 2.5 million men volunteered. I am sure noble Lords know about the memorial that now stands on Constitution Hill to commemorate the contribution of Indians, Africans and people from the Caribbean islands because, amazingly, all these volunteers were not remembered on any of the memorials. It is very important to keep that in mind because that binds the UK to the countries that were there to help at the right moment. I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said about being called a colonial. I am quite happy to be called a colonial. I may not be one now, but I was one. I always say that it is the Empire striking back, so it is all right. I sometimes feel that I am here to remind people that we were part of the Empire and we are here now.

Anyway, to more important things. I think that we have set down too many absolute values for the Commonwealth to follow. If you set down too many absolute values, your attention is not necessarily focused on the most important ones. I believe that the most important thing, which was not mentioned in any of the papers, although it is an absolute value and has been mentioned as such, is the rule of law. Even with democracy, if you do not have the rule of law you have nothing. I am afraid that it is something in which many countries of the Commonwealth are sorely lacking. We have to find a way to help Commonwealth countries to develop better systems and to realise how fundamental this aspect of life is. You cannot have human rights without the rule of law. You cannot stop violence against women without the rule of law. You cannot protect the rights of individuals. Everything turns around. You can have democracy, but if you have corrupt politicians, who is going to stop them unless you have the rule of law? I want to make a particular plea because all the work the CPA does, which is wonderful, is about parliamentary democracy. It is necessary and essential, and it is an amazing programme, but somehow or other we have to bring in ways of improving the rule of law.

The other matter that concerns me deeply is that we talk an awful lot about climate change. We have talked about it in this Chamber. We talk about it, and we have conferences on climate change, but we do not talk about population. If in 1950 there were 3.6 billion people on this planet and there are now 7 billion, minus one or two, surely it is going to affect the climate. Surely no one can say that it will have no impact. There is no water, and all the trees have been cut down. It is extremely important that we start looking at population increase. Most of the population increase is in Commonwealth countries. In the next 30 years or so, the population of Africa is likely to more than double. Where will the food come from? Where will the water come from? No matter how many lightbulbs you change, or aeroplanes you do not use, it is not going to help with climate change. You have to look at the population. You have to consider helping women to not have so many children. This is a taboo subject. Nobody wants to talk about it, but it is essential for every possible reason: the needs of the people, too many young people, and not enough work, education, water or food. I therefore make the great plea that we should think about climate change aligned with population.

My last word—and it literally is a word—is that nowhere did I see corruption mentioned in the papers I have received. Is it not amazing that we all know how much corruption there is in Commonwealth countries and we do not mention it or talk about it? We have to be realistic. We have to be honest. We have to look at the situation as it is, not as we would like to imagine it is.

13:31

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, first, I would like to add my own tribute to Her Majesty the Queen who, it seems to me, has done more than anybody else over the last 50 years to keep the Commonwealth together and to provide a wonderful focus of leadership. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on her excellent speech and for bringing this debate, which I think is particularly important at this time.

The Commonwealth is clearly the most international association in the world. On the one hand, it reflects 400 years of British history, engaging with the other parts of the world, but I think it should also be a much more important force in the future. I have always regretted the fact that 100 years ago Britain lost the opportunity that was sought by quite a lot of politicians to create a federal structure.

Britain is privileged to be at the centre of the Commonwealth but, as has been alluded to, should be careful not to be patronising in its attitude. I remember and was extremely embarrassed by the shoddy treatment that particularly Australia and New Zealand received in the 1970s in the wake of unrealistic expectations of EU membership. I remind the House that last time round, in the early 1930s, when Governments and central banks in Europe and America messed up their economies, the UK was able to recover very strongly in the second half of the decade, with the highest growth rates of the 20th century, on the back of a great strengthening of Commonwealth trade and indeed domestically of housebuilding.

I am very pleased that the Government have upgraded the importance of the relationship with the Commonwealth—indeed, it should have been upgraded long ago—and have commissioned a new Commonwealth strategy paper. I understand that the FCO has trebled the size of its Commonwealth Unit. To me, the Commonwealth’s economic and political co-operation and influence are still extremely underdeveloped, and a much greater development would actually be appropriate to the global world we are now in, where the relationships—trading, commercial and even political— between mature economies and new, fast-growing economies is ever more important.

My great interest—indeed, I made my maiden speech on the subject—is India, where I worked in the 1970s, a country for which I have huge love and affection. I have long taken the view that the UK and India in particular represent virtually the perfect relationship between mature and new, growing economies. I also lived in Hong Kong. Noble Lords have referred to Ireland, but I have always hoped that a way could be found for Hong Kong to become some kind of member of the Commonwealth. There is of course the sovereignty issue, but all things are possible and Hong Kong has been perhaps the greatest economic success of all the economies that grew and arose from British connections in the past.

The Commonwealth is not just about the amazing ties of history and culture and personal and family relationships but about what can be achieved with much more important political and economic co-operation in the future. I believe Commonwealth trade could grow from $3 trillion to $10 trillion within five years without that much difficulty. Reference has been made to the fact that the combined GDP has doubled in the last 20 years and could well double again in the next 10 or 15 years. The share of world GDP that the Commonwealth represents is in the course of growing by 15 per cent through to 2015. There has been a massive increase in what one might call middle-class consumers, and not just in India. There are some 1 billion in the Commonwealth as a whole, and, as mentioned, the Commonwealth represents over 30 per cent of the world’s population. This is a huge club that I think is being underexploited politically and economically. I would like to see completely free trade within the Commonwealth, as within the EU. It is potentially just as important to the British economy as is the EU.

Finally—reference has been made to this—it is important that the Commonwealth addresses some of the problems. We have heard the story of the Methodist Church in Fiji. We all know about the problems of Zimbabwe. There should be a mechanism for the enforcement of law and, with reference to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, there should be some machinery to address corruption. Britain has just passed its anti-bribery legislation. It would be inappropriate and meaningless if that influence did not go international. I hope that the Government’s commitment is very much in earnest, and in the difficult times in which we live I believe that the UK is extremely fortunate in having its Commonwealth relationship, which could be of enormous economic help over the next few years.

13:38

[Baroness Benjamin]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for securing this important debate, and congratulate the CPA on its work, as I am a strong supporter of the Commonwealth. I also declare an interest as president of the Elizabeth R Broadcasting Fund, vice-president of the Royal Commonwealth Society, and as someone born in Trinidad, where membership of the Commonwealth is held in high regard.

My vivid childhood memories of the Commonwealth stretch back to my school visits to the now closed Commonwealth Institute, where through education I discovered the wonders of the various cultures which helped me understand how I fitted into the world as part of a global family. The feeling of belonging is one of the most important things for a child’s well-being and back in my days in the 1960s the Commonwealth, in all its glory, gave children that special ingredient.

Sadly, for one reason or other, the Commonwealth is no longer held in high esteem, especially over the last 15 years when it was government policy to place Europe centre stage and promote the EU as the most beneficial partnership for this country to be part of. However, nations like Japan, China and some South American countries have recognised the value in developing close ties with Commonwealth countries in order to increase support within world organisations such as the UN. We too need to nurture and encourage developing Commonwealth countries to participate within such organisations and influence the decisions that affect them and which can help them escape from the huge burden of debt.

Human rights are an important issue, too, so we need to help Commonwealth countries develop strategies for protecting the rights of people, allowing them to live without fear. This is where the Commonwealth Secretariat can play a part.

I am an optimist. I truly believe that the future is positive for the Commonwealth, because there is now a new, forward-thinking enthusiasm for it on the part of this Government. It is also good to know that the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group is working actively to promote the well-being of the Commonwealth.

There is a song which says of children:

“Teach them well and let them lead the way”.

That applies so appropriately to the future of the Commonwealth, for more than half the 1.8 billion people in it are under the age of 25. It is on these young people that we need to concentrate our efforts. Promoting knowledge and interaction between young people and encouraging them to be enthusiastic about the Commonwealth will strengthen understanding and global consciousness in our future leaders.

The task for us is to capture the imagination of the young and to energise them to support the values of the Commonwealth. Organisations such as the Royal Commonwealth Society have been doing just that for years with their youth summit and youth leadership programmes, which bring together young people to increase their awareness as global citizens. But more needs to be done, starting in the classroom.

Here in Britain, Commonwealth Day is one way of doing just that. For many years, I have tried to persuade the various Commonwealth bodies to open up the celebrations by holding the ceremony not just here in London in Westminster Abbey but in other major cities across the UK, in the same way as Maundy Thursday is celebrated each year. This way, the nation, especially schoolchildren, would get the opportunity to participate and understand the importance of the Commonwealth as part of their heritage. That is because, within every classroom, there will be several children who have Commonwealth connections. Will my noble friend the Minister give some consideration to the idea of moving the celebrations around the UK?

There is one area in the Commonwealth that I would like to highlight: the Caribbean member states, as they are vulnerable to many economic, social and environmental problems. Various trade agreements and the loss of agricultural revenue have forced many Caribbean islands to become wholly dependent on tourism. Now the question of the air passenger duty is hanging over their heads, with the potential to destroy their vital tourist industry, affecting many thousands of people. Policies adopted here in the UK, such as proposals for reducing leisure travel and a switch from long-haul to short-haul destinations, could have implications for the Caribbean in the areas of tourism and aviation. Another example of a decision made here that could have damaging financial consequences for the Caribbean is the proposal to abolish tax relief on Angostura bitters. This change would not only seriously damage the competitiveness of the product in the UK but would affect hundreds of people employed in the Caribbean by Angostura. I ask the Government to reconsider this proposal to abolish the tax relief.

There should be a long-term strategy to create sustainable businesses in the Caribbean—anything from call centres and light industry to medical and ocean sciences. Strong Commonwealth bonds will protect and help the Caribbean to survive. I have every confidence that this could happen. I was recently in the Caribbean and the political feeling there is one of optimism in respect of the UK Government. New links have been made at the highest level, and support has already been established through the Department for International Development. I believe that there are more connections elsewhere to be made.

I am so happy that the sun is rising on the Commonwealth once again. Let us all work together in harmony, show consideration when making decisions, and leave a golden legacy for our children to be proud of.

13:44

[Lord Lexden]

My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend Lady Benjamin about the need to rekindle enthusiasm far and wide for what our Commonwealth stands for and what it can do for all of us.

People in Britain who care deeply about the Commonwealth, and I am one of their number, have in recent years often found it difficult, I think, to overcome feelings of melancholy and restiveness. I should stress at the outset that this unease has not reflected any criticism of the work done by the myriad organisations that operate under the aegis of the Commonwealth, promoting cultural, educational and economic progress so successfully among its members. We will always be proud that the Commonwealth Secretariat is located in our midst at Marlborough House, where Edward VII as Prince of Wales tried to entice the King of Hawaii into joining the British Empire, an endeavour which, if it had succeeded, would have had interesting consequences for Anglo-American relations in more recent times. The Commonwealth is firmly embedded in our national life.

However, something serious has been missing. For far too long, the Commonwealth has been absent from our political life, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, reminded us with his customary force at the outset of this debate and as did my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble in more gentle fashion more recently. Winston Churchill taught us that the Commonwealth should always be one of our principal spheres of activity; in recent years, his injunction has frequently been forgotten. In politics, the Commonwealth has been widely regarded as an anachronistic embodiment of a sentimental memory. Under the previous Labour Government, no consideration was given to the importance of continuity and experience at ministerial level in our relations with key parts of the Commonwealth. Chris Mullin records in his increasingly famous diary that nine Africa Ministers held office in 12 years of Labour Government.

“How on earth can we expect to be taken seriously by our foreign counterparts?”,

he noted on 14 October 2009. It is an extremely pertinent observation, even though the word “foreign” slightly detracts from its force. The Commonwealth is family, not foreign, territory.

But now, at long last, despondency is in full retreat, which makes this debate, instigated so admirably by my noble friend Lady Hooper, a most timely affair. The coalition Government are seeking to restore the Churchillian precept. The Commonwealth is once again becoming a principal strand of British foreign policy. The Government choose to clothe their deep commitment to the Commonwealth in the fashionable jargon of the 21st century.

“The Commonwealth is a powerful global brand”,

the Foreign Secretary declares—not exactly Churchillian stuff—but it is the objective that matters, and the objective, reflecting liberal or progressive conservatism, could not be clearer. Our unique Commonwealth partnerships can, and should, bring us together on a family basis to help implement more fully in the world at large the liberal values that unite us: democracy, respect for human freedom and dignity, the rule of law and, not least, free trade, first promoted systematically by Pitt the Younger to the eventual benefit of many parts of the world that are now Commonwealth members.

We could be at a turning point in the history of the Commonwealth. This is a moment to encourage potential new members to consider the benefits of joining this unique institution, whose door is always open to newcomers as it is to former members. As the House has shown during this debate, the passing years have not diminished the sense of regret, so widely shared, that in 1949 the Republic of Ireland decided to leave the Commonwealth which, as “the restless dominion” of the inter-war years, it had done so much to shape. We are probably more conscious today than ever before that the family is incomplete without this conspicuous absentee from its ranks. So, too, are a number of influential figures active in the public life of our nearest neighbour. An open letter from them to the Irish Times on 3 March 2009 pointed out:

“When Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949 the other member-states hoped its departure would be temporary … Ireland’s membership of the Commonwealth would, we are sure, be welcomed by the unionist community in Northern Ireland as a significant gesture of reconciliation … It would demonstrate unequivocally that the Republic has finally drawn a line under the troubled history of Anglo-Irish relations that led to Ireland’s self-exclusion from the Commonwealth 60 years ago”.

There can surely be little doubt that our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland would rejoice if their southern neighbours returned to the Commonwealth family, and the family itself would surely rejoice to have southern Irish participation in all aspects of its affairs, from the Commonwealth Games to the advancement of human rights.

The point has been made earlier in the debate how very fitting it would be if progress could be made in the coming months, following the remarkable success of the visit paid by Her Majesty the Queen to the Republic of Ireland last May. The respect and affection felt for Her Majesty as head of the Commonwealth are boundless. It has been suggested that to mark her Diamond Jubilee next year, the means should be found to restore a royal yacht to her service. One way of doing this would be to put the project on a Commonwealth basis, raising the funds by public subscription from its members; it would work out at about 4 pence per head. The idea may be fanciful and impractical but rather magnificent in conception. The important point is to ensure that the Commonwealth never forgets for a single moment what it owes to its head.

13:50

[Lord Rogan]

My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on initiating this timely and important debate. As I begin, if I may interject a light note, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, in his somewhat musical address, alluded to the fact that the Welsh have harps and the Scots have pipes; he omitted to say that we Irish have drums.

While your Lordships’ House may still be reeling from the ramifications of the Parliament Act 1911, it is fair to say that 1911 was not a year without merit. As today’s debate notes, it is the centenary year of the formation of the Empire Parliamentary Association, from which today's Commonwealth Parliamentary Association traces its lineage. It is also the centenary of King George V's visit to Ireland, a royal occasion which was not to be repeated until Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth’s highly successful recent visit to the Republic of Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, mentioned. Those are two centenaries, marking two defining moments for the Crown and the Commonwealth, and two institutions with which our nearest neighbour in the Republic of Ireland may be redefining its relationship. I will return to that theme later.

I should like to place on record my appreciation and thanks for the often unsung work of the CPA and the wider Commonwealth, a not inconsequential network of nations which encompasses some 2 billion persons. I believe wholeheartedly in the Commonwealth, not just for its historical ties that bind our countries together but for its ongoing work bringing pressure to bear in the pursuit of democracy and the protection of human rights throughout the world.

People often question the relevance and the impact of the Commonwealth in the modern day. It would be fair to say that, as an organisation, it has struggled somewhat to profile its work effectively, be that because some sections of the chattering classes will not have anything to do with the age of empire or because, on occasion, it has found itself travelling at the slowest pace among its disparate membership. Nevertheless, for all that, the Commonwealth remains highly relevant today, retaining the ability to do much good both at home and abroad. A greater appreciation and knowledge of the Commonwealth would foster a greater appreciation and understanding of multicultural Britain. It would help our people view the world beyond the confines of the developed West and allow them to have a more global perspective and insight on global problems.

As the economies of western Europe and North America face the unhappy prospect of a lost decade, the Commonwealth has the scope and the opportunity to encourage more adventurous trade links, not least with the emerging markets on the Indian sub-continent. As we go forward to the next century, does the Commonwealth have a role? Certainly it does. Does it have the ability to carve out an enhanced purpose and role for the future? Absolutely it does.

As I noted at the start of my remarks, 2011 is a year of two centenaries: the formation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s predecessor and the visit of King George V to Ireland. Her Majesty's recent visit to that country has laid one ghost to rest; but perhaps there is now a case and an opportunity to settle another historical fracture. As was said earlier in the debate, Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949. A return would be a final reconciliation in Anglo-Irish relations and an acknowledgement of the historical ties that link these two close islands and neighbours. Undertaking such a project would be a fitting start to a new “century of excellence”.

13:55

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the excellent contributions from many speakers in your Lordships’ House. I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for initiating today's debate.

I wish to declare that in January I visited Pakistan as part of a CPA delegation and I will also shortly be visiting Mozambique with the CPA. I am a child of the Commonwealth. I was born in Uganda to a family of Indian origin. Those are two distant and vastly different lands, yet they share many characteristics and values aided by their ties to Britain and the Commonwealth. I would hope that my contribution today would be equally relevant if I were in the Parliament of either of those two countries rather than in this great House in the mother of all Parliaments.

I wish to focus on two elements: my experience of the CPA since being ennobled and the need for a more trade-based Commonwealth in the 21st century. Since my ennoblement a little over a year ago, I have been very impressed by my interactions with the CPA. Having had to flee my home country because of a brutal dictator, I know the value of democracy and how essential it is for the instruments of democracy to flourish. The CPA's continuous programme of visits and activities would be enviable in any organisation, but when it is fulfilling such a worthy function as promoting democracy, it is something that we parliamentarians should be grateful for.

On my visit to Pakistan, I was struck by the passion of many of the young parliamentarians there, who look up to the stability and empowerment of Britain's democracy. Many of them were educated in Britain, and all of them feared the alternatives to democracy. I very much look forward to visiting Mozambique, a former Portuguese colony and one of the newest of the 54 member states in the Commonwealth, as it joined in 1995. The country is performing very well, and its membership demonstrates the continued high regard in which the Commonwealth is still held in many parts of the world.

The Government's policy of putting trade at the heart of our foreign policy is a wise and necessary one. As the Foreign Secretary said in Japan last year:

“We will make economic objectives a central aspect of our international bilateral engagement alongside our other traditional objectives”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is right to say that the less developed Commonwealth countries are a market for tomorrow. I believe that the future of the Commonwealth must be debated with this statement in mind. Just as the Commonwealth adapted, with the London Declaration in 1949, to allow India and other independent nations to join, so it must adapt again to become a driver for economic growth. It is not just in Britain's interests; this sort of approach would most favour the poorest members of the Commonwealth, areas where poverty is still, sadly, far too prevalent.

As President Obama, also a child of the Commonwealth, said in his address to both Houses, the development of countries like China, India and Brazil has lifted hundreds of millions from poverty around the globe. If we can deliver sustainable economic growth to the Commonwealth, there is no reason why we cannot do the same. The countries of the Commonwealth are collectively responsible for more than 20 per cent of world trade, with over $3 trillion in trade taking place within the Commonwealth every year. At a time of global economic uncertainty, it is vital that we use our common links and long-established networks to boost trade and investment opportunities within the Commonwealth, and, in particular, in Africa. The Government have, encouragingly, already started to set out this case. I welcome the Government’s Commonwealth strategy. As the Foreign Secretary said:

“In our view, the Commonwealth could and should become one of the leading voices in the global economy, working to liberalise trade and break down barriers for international business”.

My noble friend Lord Howell has said that the Commonwealth strategy was drawn up thinking about,

“what the Commonwealth could do for the UK, and what the UK should do for the Commonwealth”,

I believe that it is in our mutual interest for the Commonwealth to ensure free trade—resisting protection and breaking down barriers for international business; to make it easier for smaller and medium-sized enterprises to export and do business abroad, especially early in the life cycle of a product; and to ensure that representatives of the business community are actively involved in the work of the Commonwealth, including promoting more businessmen to high commissionerships.

I am not advocating a complete change in the values of the Commonwealth. Pursuing economic policies is not contradictory to the core values set out in Trinidad and Tobago in 2009. I believe that economic security and prosperity are vital to ensuring that values like peace and security, education and good governance succeed.

The mechanisms of democracy—the rule of law, a free press, separation of powers, and free and fair elections—are vital for economic confidence. Economic prosperity is vital for the development of nations and, crucially, the development of a middle class, which is so often a defining moment in a country’s political history. I congratulate the CPA on its anniversary and encourage the Commonwealth of the 21st century to take a lead from our Government and demonstrate that it is open for business.

14:01

[Baroness Prashar]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for initiating this timely debate. Over the past 100 years, the CPA has done sterling work and deserves our congratulations and gratitude for helping to promote the values of the Commonwealth. We look forward to another century of CPA’s sustained and innovative work to make the aspirations of the Commonwealth a reality. We wish Sir Alan Haselhurst all the best with his endeavours.

The Commonwealth is a unique phenomenon, with something special to contribute to the world in which significant geopolitical and economic shifts are taking place, and where democracy and human rights are under assault in many quarters. The Royal Commonwealth Society, of which I am president and a former chairman, described the Commonwealth as,

“an uncommon association with a wealth of potential”.

But to realise its full potential, the Commonwealth has to improve its efficacy. It has to reassert and renew itself in order to become a formidable force for democracy, development and prosperity. Thankfully, there are some very positive developments.

The Commonwealth is currently in an intensive phase of self-examination, which was partly triggered in 2009 by the Royal Commonwealth Society’s consultation about the future of the Commonwealth, entitled, “The Commonwealth Conversation”. The results of this consultation uncovered uncertainty about what its members had in common that sets the association apart from other international organisations and, of course, ignorance of its purpose. In response, the Eminent Persons Group to examine the options for reform was set up. The emerging recommendations on which it has consulted are robust and encouraging. The final report will be presented at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth in October.

That meeting will be an important moment for the Commonwealth. It is difficult to resist a feeling that if this opportunity is grasped with our eyes on the horizon and our feet on the ground, the prospects for the future of the Commonwealth are bright and what it can contribute to the world in the future is enormous. Here is an opportunity, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who said that,

“the Commonwealth should shed its past diffidence and prepare itself to take a lead in setting the global agenda”.—[Official Report, 10/12/09; col. 1187.]

This would be a moment to raise the recommendations of the Eminent Persons Group and, of course, move forward. However, it is important that the recommendations are not just discussed, talked about and communiqués issued. It is important that a realistic implementation timetable is agreed. Who will take forward the implementation programme is firmly decided and arrangements for monitoring progress are put in place. We now need action and not just words.

The other encouraging development, which has already been mentioned, has been the coalition Government’s more positive and purposeful attitude towards the Commonwealth compared to that of their predecessors. The Foreign Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, have raised the profile of the Commonwealth within the FCO. They have spoken about the Commonwealth network as a vital strand of British foreign policy and the potential of the Commonwealth to become a leading voice in the global economy. Their analysis of why a shift in our foreign policy is necessary is compelling. The economic dimension of the Commonwealth is becoming increasingly important, as highlighted in, Trading Places: The “Commonwealth Effect” Revisited, a report published by the Royal Commonwealth Society in 2010.

That report pointed out that the Commonwealth Business Council is the only Commonwealth organisation which explicitly devotes itself to promoting trade and investment. There is further potential for the Commonwealth to nurture these links and this may well make its economic ties more important than its political ties: Rwanda, for example, joined the Commonwealth mainly for economic reasons. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that development, trade and democracy are interrelated, and that good governance and rule of law are central. Without good governance, development and prosperity cannot be sustained. The Commonwealth has a total package at its disposal, which it must exploit.

As we have heard, the Commonwealth is not just an alliance of Governments. It is an association of civil society organisations, the private sector and governments. Unrivalled among global organisations, the Commonwealth can realistically aspire to be a community of democracies. The Commonwealth’s attributes and connections, coupled with informal and unthreatening ways of working, make it well suited for building democratic societies from the ground up for conflict, resolution and mediation. Here is the opportunity with civil society to create what was referred to earlier as a very popular consciousness of the Commonwealth.

Some excellent work is being done by non-governmental organisations—for example, on migration and on issues of gender equality. The Commonwealth is a resilient and enduring force for good. It is a wide network both within and without. Now is the opportunity to grasp this moment with commitment and sharp purpose. I very much hope that the Government will do all in their power to assist with this process of reform and adaptation, in particular with the implementation of the Eminent Persons Group’s recommendations. It would be helpful to hear the Minister tell the House, if the recommendations are accepted, who is likely to lead the implementation of the reform agenda.

14:08

[Lord Selsdon]

My Lords, as always, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for the way in which she introduces these debates. She is a remarkably dynamic character. As she knows well, dynamics stands for “Do you need a more interesting challenge?”. I have spoken in these debates on many occasions because, in a strange way, I am descended from colonials who failed in the United Kingdom and went to Australia, New Zealand and Canada, or around the world, to try to do well. We Scots were always like that. I am descended from the first Lord Mayor of Melbourne and I was conceived on the beach in Jamaica, so I was told, and which I have reported to your Lordships before.

I do not like this term “common wealth”. At an earlier time, the French always referred to the Commonwealth and thought that the United Kingdom was a republic. I will go back to history in order that we may determine the future by looking at the past. We have had these crises of our economies over time. Perhaps the greatest was in the early 16th century when we had to form the council of trade because our coin was being devalued. That led to what one would today call international development. In those days, it was colonisation. It meant going out to acquire products at the lowest possible price from countries producing things that we needed and sending people out to increase production—whether that was sugar, jute, coir or even minerals.

We have forgotten that we as a nation at the moment have a major balance of trade deficit on manufacturing and that we have to be a worldwide trading nation. We forget, too, that we know these countries and they know us; but over a period of time we forgot what we would now call, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, “soft power”. We still felt that we had some great economic power when becoming an importing nation which needs to source its products. As noble Lords have pointed out, we have the technology to grow anything, anywhere in the world, at any time. We also have our historic relationships; I felt strongly that people in countries that left to become independent territories should have been treated differently and given Commonwealth passports. While I like the generic term Commonwealth—it has been used in the Commonwealth of Independent States across the board—I believe in the opportunities for bilateral relations.

During my time on various trade boards it was thought a good idea to go out to the colonies to see what they made and what they could produce. We forgot to look back at the records at what we had bought and imported. In my office I have a chart which the Department for Transport—the Ministry of Shipping—gave to me when I was trying to save the shipbuilding industry; it shows the position of His Majesty’s ships at sea and in harbour 14 days after my birth in 1937. It also shows what products we imported from which countries—rubber, flax or whatever. It drew to my attention that we were effectively an importing nation that may add value and re-export, and that is probably where we should come to.

We have the opportunity of being the world’s biggest client of individual Commonwealth countries, even if we have to re-export. You can give an order, an offtake agreement, to those countries in Africa which can produce enormous quantities of food—Sudan, for example, was meant to be the breadbasket of the Arab world—to acquire whatever they can produce. It could then be delivered to a particular port to be loaded on any one of the Commonwealth vessels—and these, as your Lordships know, make up 20,000 of the 90,000 vessels floating on the surface of the earth. The coastline of the Commonwealth is the largest in the world, some 44,000 kilometres.

If we look at those coastlines and we go back to Greenwich—which is of course the centre of the world—and we get a Mercator chart out and look down from the sky above from a satellite, beneath us there is an awful lot of sea, which is itself a great asset. Perhaps we should encourage certain initiatives with members of the Commonwealth countries, not least Her Majesty’s overseas territories, dependencies and islands. We have a normal 200-mile limit in the world. I think each of these countries should now declare a 500-mile limit and lay claim to all the resources that may be within or under the sea. If we look at the map, it shows where the resources are.

We as a country have no future as an insulated island; we have the ability, however, to look at soft power and build rapidly upon these historical relationships with Commonwealth countries provided we can bring an economic issue into the equation which will help their economies.

14:13

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, it must be a happy day when so many of us are lining up behind the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to celebrate the Commonwealth and the achievements of the CPA. It is an almost religious occasion. It is not fashionable to be positive about the state of the world at the moment; this weekend we are approaching another much less happy anniversary reminding us of terrorism. This is an important debate in that respect. Having been in New York last week I can confirm that Americans still have that spring in their step which has carried their economy through hard times in the past and has helped more than once to energise the post-war European continent. Whatever we do in foreign policy or in the Commonwealth we must not forget the underlying value of the transatlantic partnership to Europe and the rest of the world.

I, too, was brought up to admire the Commonwealth, not least as the son of a leading Eurosceptic who was the president of the anti-Common Market league and the safeguards campaign, no less. While I was never a supporter of that campaign and I voted for Europe, I have always recognised that this country has long depended on its relations around the world, as much as those in Europe, and those diplomatic and political ties with the Commonwealth remain equally strong and may be getting stronger.

There can be no doubt about the achievements of the Commonwealth and of the CPA; they belong to every sphere of activity and in some ways, as my noble friend Lord Luce suggested, the Commonwealth is the world’s largest NGO. It is this area of interest—the link between national parliaments, civil society and international development—on which I wish to focus. I declare my interest, having worked with several international NGOs and having benefited from visits through the CPA and others to parliaments in Kenya, Mozambique, Uganda, India, Nepal and, latterly, South Sudan.

I have read much of what my colleagues and others have written in the excellent CPA conference supplement. They summarise all the splendid values and objectives of the Commonwealth, notably in promoting democracy, human rights and development. There is no need for me to comment on these except to say that they include a number of unattainable targets such as some of the millennium development goals. Our own DfID has been a little more honest than the Commonwealth in explaining that a significant number of the development targets, as we now know, simply cannot be met within the timetable.

Poverty in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, is so acute that the systems we expect to be in place to carry out these targets are just not there and when we try to import or reinforce those systems we are only adding to the logjam of development. Have we got to the point where, remembering Iraq and Afghanistan, our aid is part of the problem and not the solution? This question will, I hope, be answered in part by our development Minister when he comes to report on the comprehensive aid review. Aid effectiveness is now on the agenda not only of our own Parliament but in Europe, Africa and Asia as well, and we must hope that this discussion will lead to beneficial changes and not another layer of government. My sympathies lie outside government, with civil society and with parliaments. Parliaments are very different in character of course—some are representative, some are a pretence or what used to be called a mockery of democracy.

The Africa All-Party Group published a groundbreaking report called Strengthening Parliaments in Africa and this has been important for the CPA in sharing experience and bringing expertise into parliaments. However, I firmly believe that we should go much further than this, through the CPA and other channels, and press for even more engagement between Parliament and the people, and thus draw governments into more meaningful development.

I have found that civil society organisations are, as my noble friend Lady Prashar has said, essential to this process. Human rights, however, illustrate a possible weakness of this engagement though the Commonwealth. My noble friends Lady Prashar and Lady Flather have mentioned the rule of law; my noble friend Lady Stern has written about this from her considerable experience. The New Delhi human rights office needs to be strengthened, CMAG could be more active. There is international support for the rule of law in Africa through the European Union and the African Union in Addis Ababa and this sets a good example for the Commonwealth. In Africa there are many stoic figures in human rights who can carry a torch, men and women, but they need much more back-up.

The independent human rights commissions, which I have visited in Kenya and elsewhere, bravely take up causes, sometimes with the help of the media and civil society, but they lack the political muscle which is sometimes only given to a parallel stooge government commission. Surely the Commonwealth, in the wake of the Harare Declaration, should do more in this area of human rights, which is always the neglected younger sister of development.

Finally, I hope that, like others, we can see a way for South Sudan to join the Commonwealth. Ideally, both parts of Sudan should belong, but there are problems. Let us hope that the conflict along the border will not prevent the south from benefiting directly through the Commonwealth from much wider contact with the region and other countries so that the people have an opportunity of lifting themselves out of poverty.

14:20

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

My Lords, I join others in congratulating my noble friend on securing this important debate, in which I declare an interest as chairman of the Commonwealth Press Union Media Trust. We have been privileged today to hear many eloquent speeches about what an extraordinary institution the Commonwealth is, the benefits it brings and what remarkable opportunities exist for its development. While acknowledging those successes, I believe we must recognise a number of challenging areas where it must play a more forceful role in shaping the future stability and prosperity of its member states and their peoples, and I would like to highlight two of those.

The first relates to equality and the dreadful treatment in too many Commonwealth countries of gay men and women, a subject ignored for far too long by the Commonwealth. It is time for change. There has been some progress in recent years and I commend the Commonwealth Secretary-General for stating that:

“Vilification and targeting on grounds of sexual orientation are at odds with the values of the Commonwealth”.

That comment follows a vital ruling in the High Court in Delhi which led to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in India, and of course South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution was the first in the world to outlaw discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Those are positive steps, but I fear they are dwarfed by the oppressive regimes in many other countries. Consider this: homosexual acts are still punishable by life imprisonment in seven Commonwealth states—Bangladesh, Barbados, Guyana, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Uganda. In a further six, they are punishable by hard labour and flogging. Thirty-eight out of 54 member states still criminalise homosexuality, and indeed half of all the countries in the world that criminalise homosexuality are to be found in the Commonwealth. This state of affairs is wholly unacceptable.

There are many terrible examples of the human consequences of this. In Jamaica, sexual assaults on gay women are known by the odious term “corrective rape” and happen far too often. In Uganda, David Kato, a well known gay activist, was brutally murdered, unleashing a campaign of homophobic paranoia in that country. This has appalling implications for public health and the spread of HIV/AIDS. Where anti-homosexual laws exist, gay people are driven underground, away from effective HIV prevention, treatment and care. In Kenya, 42 per cent of gay men have HIV, which is a terrible waste of life. Whereas the Commonwealth once represented a beacon of hope during the start of the HIV pandemic, HIV now rampages within far too many Commonwealth countries with terrible consequences. It is now time for the Commonwealth to give a firm lead on this fundamental issue of human rights. Two years ago at CHOGM in Trinidad, many NCOs, notably the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, called attention to the issue of homophobia and its impact on the spread of HIV, but the call was met with a deafening silence. The issue must be on the agenda in Perth, and the meeting should be the beginning of a constant effort by Commonwealth leaders to make it central to a new human rights agenda. As the Secretary-General has said:

“The Commonwealth operates through encouragement not coercion”.

Let such encouragement begin now and in earnest.

My second issue is that of press freedom, and I declare an interest accordingly as chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance. Press freedom is important to developing countries, not just as a matter of principle, but because it is a vital precursor to successful economic growth and social progress. There are some Commonwealth countries where the record on press freedom is execrable. In the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index, many member states languish near the bottom of the table, with Rwanda an appalling 169th, in close proximity to North Korea and Iran. But the Commonwealth does take this matter seriously and recently there have been considerable gains in press freedom in Tanzania, Kenya and Zambia. In a number of other countries, Governments have moved away from the repressive architecture of state media control to allow the press the ability to self-regulate. Sri Lanka has made considerable progress in this area and there have also been significant strides in Bermuda, Vanuatu, Samoa and Namibia among others.

But my greatest fear is that funnily enough it is events in this country, the font of Commonwealth democracy and individual freedoms, which now cast a pall over further progress. For it is Britain, with a history of press freedom stretching back over many centuries, which has always been the shining example for those seeking such freedoms for themselves. For years we have assisted those seeking to move away from state control of the media, not just through our leadership but through practical help, as happened with the establishment of a press complaints commission in Sri Lanka. But now there are threatening noises here. Self-regulation has “failed”, we are told; the press must be “controlled”. “Independent regulation” is the way forward. How the repressive regimes in many member states must be cheering that. Let us be in no doubt that they will use what happens here as an excuse to crack down on the budding of a free press in their own countries. Already it has begun in Sri Lanka, and the runes are ominous in Namibia, Zambia and Botswana. I fear that others may follow, and that would be a tragedy.

I am deeply anxious that intemperate language about press freedom in this country could rebound to the long-term detriment of all member states in the Commonwealth, when what we should be doing is showing a leadership role. I would therefore urge the Government to make clear in Perth that this country continues passionately to believe in a free press, and will continue to do all it can to ensure that the ancient liberties we enjoy in this country are increasingly widely shared across the Commonwealth. That would be a great achievement.

14:26

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I am grateful to the House for allowing me to speak in place of my noble friend Lord Triesman without giving proper notice, and I thank the government Chief Whip for facilitating this. I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Triesman for his unavoidable absence.

We all owe a sincere thank you to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for initiating this debate. It has been a great debate which has triggered some absolutely fascinating and, for me, educative contributions. She summarised very well the excellent work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and certainly the Opposition want to join her in celebrating its work on the occasion of its centenary. There have also been some great contributions from around the House. I have learnt a lot from the noble Lords, Lord Luce and Lord Glenarthur, who both have great experience; and from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who spoke most movingly about the grass-roots work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We all pay tribute to that.

My own views on the Commonwealth are very similar to those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. I am pro-Europe and I am pro-Commonwealth, and I do not see one as a substitute for the other. Indeed, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, probably feels much the same. Perhaps I may say that this was embodied in my own family. My father-in-law, who was a Member of this House before he died, George Thomson, served as a Commonwealth Secretary in the Wilson Governments and as one of our first European Commissioners, so that is as pro-Europe and pro-Commonwealth as anyone can be.

A lot of people contributing to the debate have talked about what the Commonwealth meant to them personally. It certainly does not mean to me what it means to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who was conceived on a Jamaica beach, and I do not want to annoy the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London because obviously the Commonwealth is one of the great foundation stones of the Anglican Communion. However, the notable features of this debate were speeches from two Methodist ministers—my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno. It was in chapel in my home town of Carlisle that I learnt the virtues of the Commonwealth. We had fairly well drummed into us, although it did not have to be drummed very much, the problems of world poverty and the essential need for racial equality, both of which were seen through the prism of the Commonwealth. These values, plus those of democracy and human rights, were for me as a youngster what the Commonwealth was all about.

Let me make one general point before I ask the Minister some questions. I think that we need to be clear about what the Commonwealth is and what it is not. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, described the Commonwealth as a voluntary association of nations, but I think that it is more than that. I think that the Commonwealth should aspire to be a living network of values, sustained not just at the political level but at the people-to-people level, which many Members of the House have stressed. However, to be honest, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that the Commonwealth is a kind of fool’s substitute for a proper foreign policy in the modern world. It is not a defence and security organisation or a trade bloc; it is not NATO or the EU, which are vital pillars of our economic security and our position in the world.

[Lord Lexden]

In describing the Commonwealth, I applauded the fact that, under this Government, it was becoming a major strand of foreign policy. I certainly did not intend to suggest—and I do not think that I did—that that was to the exclusion of many other important strands.

[Lord Liddle]

Of course, I was not trying to suggest that, but there is a little bit of a danger in the present Government’s discourse if you think about the three circles of influence of the past 60 years. There is clearly a weakening of the transatlantic tie with the United States, in that America is looking more Pacific-wards, it has its own economic problems and it does not think that Europe has stood up to the plate in world conflicts. Then we have all the problems with our relationship with the European Union, from which many Members of the party opposite would like to distance us. Given that that is happening to two of the three circles, I do not think that we can imagine that the Commonwealth is a substitute for those. I see the Commonwealth as playing a very big supplementary role in foreign policy because, as a multilateral organisation, it is an instrument of soft power. We should see it as a network of influence and values that can aid us in achieving our objectives.

On questions for the Minister, I want to ask first about the people-to-people aspects of the Commonwealth. I was very struck by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, that about 50 per cent of the Commonwealth’s citizens are young people. What ideas do the Government have for strengthening links between young people within the Commonwealth? That brings me to the point about higher education made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, because there is no doubt that in the last few decades our universities have lost out in appealing to Commonwealth students—he mentioned the case of postgraduate medical students. How do we once again make our universities the first choice? Of course, we need to make sure that Immigration Rules do not stop that happening, which is a very important point.

On civil society links, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, gave as a good example the Royal Agricultural Society of the Commonwealth. We need those kinds of links. How can we build on the initiative that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, spoke of so warmly in terms of raising consciousness about the need for girls’ education, which is an absolutely vital development issue?

On the government-to-government aspect of the Commonwealth relationship, what leverage can we exercise and what issues will the British Government put on the table as they try to strengthen the influence and role of the Commonwealth? As we have seen in this debate, there is clearly a role in climate change, both in highlighting the risks to the very survival of the island states in the Pacific and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, mentioned, in persuading rich countries that they cannot become climate deniers—we have to be blunt with people like the Canadians, who have to live up to their responsibilities.

On the human rights issues that the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, mentioned, on migration which the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, mentioned, and on the corruption issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, mentioned, how are we going to prioritise these topics for discussion? How are we going to use positively the opportunity of membership of the Commonwealth to improve people’s situation—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, spoke about Somaliland’s membership? Conversely, how can the Commonwealth be used as a sanction? The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, gave the example of the actions taken by the Fijian Government against the Methodist Church and we have the very big example of Zimbabwe. How in future do we play this mix of incentives and sanctions? What are the Government’s proposals for strengthening the Commonwealth secretariat, including its funding, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, mentioned?

This has been an excellent debate, which has shown the value of the House of Lords, has been well attended and has included some excellent contributions. It has celebrated the cross-party work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—long may that continue—and it has demonstrated that the Commonwealth remains a good and great cause. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I would like to see the sun rise once again on the Commonwealth, but it will do so only on the basis of a proper analysis of its true potential as a unique instrument of benevolent influence in our very troubled world.

14:37

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, I cannot disguise my pleasure for this occasion this afternoon, or do anything to reduce or diminish my very warm gratitude to my noble friend Lady Hooper for initiating the debate. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that this is a happy day when we have heard so much skill, expertise and insights about the possibilities of the future, not about the baggage of the past—although some of the baggage of the past, not all of it of course, one is proud enough to carry—that have made this a terrific debate. I know that that is the normal phraseology, but in this case I really mean it.

Let me start with the comments of my noble friend Lady Hooper, who launched us into the debate. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which she focused on to begin with, is a marvellous example of the non-governmental Commonwealth network that is really at the heart of what makes the Commonwealth unlike other multinational organisations and more attuned to the 21st century than many of the organisations that we inherited from the 20th century.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association celebrated its centenary this year. That in July 1911 it was called the Empire Parliamentary Association is a reminder of its historical links, but July’s conference here, which I attended, showed how far it has come from that. We talked about Commonwealth mark 1, mark 2 and mark 3, and we are moving into a new pattern altogether. The more than 600 participants demonstrated the staggering diversity and yet unity of the Commonwealth, covering a huge range of cultures, religions and races with every country, as one of your Lordships rightly reminded us, on an equal footing—large and small, richer and not so rich, mighty and developing and holding back for the time being.

Of course, there is a very long way to go; your Lordships have all recognised that. The Commonwealth needs to have a more forceful role, as my noble friend Lord Black, one of the final contributors to the debate, has just reminded us, especially in the field of human rights, in matters such as sexual differentiation, and in other issues and the rights of minorities. Indeed, only last week I attended an amazing gathering at the Commonwealth Advisory Bureau, which was also attended by Justice Albie Sachs, who lost an arm when it was blown off by a bomb planted in his car. He has campaigned brilliantly down the years for homosexual rights in South Africa and throughout the Commonwealth.

All this sums up why the Government have made a powerful commitment to upgrading the UK’s relationships with the Commonwealth network, and strengthening it as a focus for democracy, development and prosperity. Next month’s Heads of Government meeting at Perth—the so-called CHOGM; I do not like the sound of that word, but that is what they call it—at which these recommendations will be discussed, has the potential to be a defining moment for the future of the Commonwealth. It provides an opportunity for this organisation to take its rightful place on the global platform and in the 21st century global system.

I would go a little further even than that and say that I think that from the point of view of Britain and this Government, of which I am a member, the Commonwealth marks out our country with a degree of exceptionalism. We have links, developed in the past from our own experience and from the way we have handled the unwinding of the old Empire and old Commonwealth while yet developing new friendships, and this gives the UK an exceptionalism that I think many people are looking for in a world in which we are constantly threatened by homogenisation and unification, and being submerged in the greater blocs that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, rightly suggested were a thing of the past.

When one thinks about the millions of people in our own country with Commonwealth connections, Commonwealth origins, Commonwealth relatives, Commonwealth links and Commonwealth memories, it is probable that this could be the unifying national narrative that many people feel we need in this country at the moment. Many people argued during the stormy days of August here that this was a necessary or missing part of our own social culture. Dare I even say that one could see the Commonwealth—something that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said reminded me of this—as the big society writ large. I hope I am not pushing too much of a line of thought representing one party or another, because of course this whole matter stretches right across our parties, our Parliament and our institutions.

We must not get carried away. It is of course true that the Commonwealth has its faults and problems. It does not have the executive power or the resources of many other multinational institutions. In consequence, I am afraid, it is from time to time sneered at by ill-informed columnists. I should hasten to say that we have some very good columnists, but alas we have an ample supply of the ill-informed. They do not understand that in this age of citizen empowerment it is the voluntarily and grass-roots-supported nature of the Commonwealth network, with its enormous latticework of trans-Commonwealth linkages not just at government level but at sub-governmental level—on the professional, social, cultural, scientific, judicial, and educational levels, mentioned by several of your Lordships, as well as business, agricultural and technical levels—which makes the Commonwealth such an amazingly relevant organisation for this information age and such a huge pool of potential opportunities for all who belong to it, not least our own country, the United Kingdom. That is what gives the Commonwealth its deep-rooted power and influence, such as no other international institution can offer its members, and it explains why today so many nations are anxious to be associated with it, or are indeed queuing up to join it, a point which too many members of our own media seem to comprehend only dimly, if at all. The marvellous thing this afternoon is that your Lordships comprehend it, which must give some people at any rate very great encouragement.

Let me turn to a number of the specific points that have been made. I shall try to comment on almost everybody’s arguments, but I shall not be able to cover all the points that were made. My noble friend who opened the debate referred to the CPA and to the educational element that binds the Commonwealth together. There is much more to do, and the right reverend Prelate emphasised the tasks ahead in bringing the young people of the Commonwealth into closer linkages through links between Commonwealth schools and so on; I will say a word about that in a moment. We are expanding the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan and it is my hope that we have more to come on that front, so I can assure noble Lords that the crucial importance of education, at primary, secondary, higher and postgraduate levels, is not for a moment lost from sight.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, expressed—and I think it was a valuable input to the debate—some scepticism about putting too much emphasis on what the Commonwealth network stands for and can achieve. As he rightly said, soft power is the thing. Several of your Lordships mentioned the nature of the emotional and reputational value of soft power in the new landscape of this completely changed world, and the way in which soft power can bring in hard cash—by people turning to this nation, a trading nation, for our services, our goods and our exports—if we handle the soft power side of things in the right way.

The noble Lord talked about the need to beef up the human rights element, and the need for a new commissioner. That, of course, is one of the proposals of the Eminent Persons Groups, which has been much mentioned in the debate, that there should be a new commissioner for human rights, democracy and good governance. That EPG proposal is one that Her Majesty’s Government will back. The question then arises: will it happen? I cannot answer that. We are going to Perth to argue through these things with 53 other nations, many of which have very firm views on how the EPG ideas should be processed. We will push them very hard indeed and put our full backing behind them, but it is a democratic organisation and I cannot guarantee that all members will come out in this way. Nevertheless, we are hopeful that the general aims of the EPG—to upgrade and reinvigorate the Commonwealth and bring it to its own standards of strong commitment to human rights, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and good governance—will be seen to be the values of the future that make the Commonwealth what it is.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, also mentioned another matter that I am hesitant to mention as it is not really my business: the position of the Republic of Ireland. I refer to it only because I think no less than three or four of your Lordships all referred to the Republic of Ireland and the Commonwealth. I would have to say from this Dispatch Box that it is of course entirely a matter for the Government in Dublin and the Republic of Ireland to decide their attitudes towards these matters, but I put down a marker that there is obviously a strong consciousness and interest in this House about that matter. It is a rather fascinating thought when one puts it in its historical perspective.

My noble friend Lord Chidgey, who is very active in all these fields, mentioned the need to commit ourselves to the EPG aims. We do. The establishment of a commissioner is just one of them; the charter is another. There is a whole string of ideas and proposals for upgrading the Commonwealth, for giving the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group—CMAG—more teeth and making it more proactive, and for bringing home to everyone in the Commonwealth the idea that reform of the Commonwealth will help.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and several others, pointed out that these are two sides of the same thing: more democracy and more commitment to values and the rule of law equals more attraction for investment, more trust, more trade, more people ready to commit their resources to a country where they know there will be no knock on the door from the police in the middle of the night or some corrupt device removing investments and assets from the person who owns them.

Trust is the key to this. There was some derision of the new language in talking about badges and brands for the Commonwealth, but in this transparent age that is really what is needed. There should be trust among business investors as to which countries they can safely operate in and which less so. With high standards, the Commonwealth becomes a sort of brand—dare I say, a sort of kitemark—for investment, which alone will be the main driver in lifting nations out of poverty and low-income.

The right reverend Prelate was the first to raise the big theme of young people in the Commonwealth. Half the Commonwealth are very young people. The case for more linkages and even involvement in the national curricula of the Commonwealth is a very good one, which I have made to the Department for Education here myself. He also mentioned, as did many others, the climate and energy issues. That is a fascinating area, because many smaller Commonwealth members face a hideous dilemma: how do you find the energy and power—electricity, if you like—to start the development that lifts villages in remote areas out of poverty in a low-carbon way? It has to be an inexpensive way, as they cannot afford the expensive diesel and other fossil fuels that they are having to import. They need low-carbon green electricity, but of course green power is very expensive. There is a gap to be filled there and the Commonwealth can play a part in that. I think it will be on the agenda at Perth.

My noble and learned friend Lord Howe told us about yet another fascinating element of his glittering career, when he led an African military operational unit. He then turned to the issue of Somaliland, which my noble friend Lord Luce also mentioned. There is a difficulty. First, Somaliland is obviously not a nation at present, so even if the 54 nations of the Commonwealth were to consider it, it would not qualify. The question then arises about the recognition of Somaliland as separate from the whole Somalia complex. I ask noble Lords to consider the dangers that if one goes for fragmentation in that area, plenty of other bits and pieces there would also fragment with very great dangers, possibly with bloodshed pursuing.

Meanwhile, to put a positive note into this, there is just a chance that the new Transitional Federal Government in Mogadishu is at last getting established. The al-Shabaab terrorist groups have withdrawn from Mogadishu. There is a possibility that Somaliland would be able to find the right relationship of reasonable autonomy within the Somalia complex. It would be a pity at this very moment to turn things in another direction, so one has to be very careful about encouraging any fragmentation trends in that area.

Fiji, and the attack on the Methodist community there, was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. We are working with Commonwealth colleagues. I was personally involved in these matters down in Vanuatu last year at the Pacific Islands Forum. My colleague Jeremy Browne is down there this year, at this moment, trying to see how we can get ways of getting better dialogue and bringing home to the Fijians that their pattern of government really must be less dictatorial. It is not at all easy, but the pressure is there and is organised. Both we and Australia, and other countries in the area including New Zealand, are very much involved in seeing how this can be carried forward constructively.

My noble friend Lord Roberts mentioned that he was the second Welshman to speak in this debate. Well, I can tell him that here is the third Welshman speaking now. The carnival of Commonwealth music sounds a terrific idea and I hope I get the chance to visit it.

I have a number of comments on the very interesting ideas from the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, about unifying health education and health training for graduates throughout the Commonwealth. I am advised that the Commonwealth scholarship system provides for UK medical professionals, while the Commonwealth Health Ministers meeting gets support from the Commonwealth Secretariat for its dialogue on medical issues. That does not quite meet what I think the noble Lord was saying and I would like to write to him on his interesting and precise details. I am very glad that my noble friend Lady Gardner is here. She described the ways in which that was a little precarious at times, but it has come out the right way and we enormously value her contributions on the Commonwealth, of which she is such a distinguished member. The Commonwealth Foundation came into the debate from my noble friend Lord Luce. That is being reset. There are new ideas, which will be brought forward at Perth, about how that foundation, which has been through some difficult times, can be strengthened. He also mentioned the Somaliland issues, which I have dealt with.

My noble friend Lord Sheikh, who stands on a marvellous platform on these issues, mentioned Sri Lanka. We want to see Sri Lanka come up to Commonwealth standards and to position itself so that it can be a responsible host for a future CHOGM in two years’ time. However, there are of course difficulties and we are trying to develop a much better dialogue than we have had in the past. On South Sudan, yes, we support its membership. It is of course up to the whole Commonwealth, all 54 members, but we think it is a good idea and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said so in terms.

Is there a loud enough voice in the Commonwealth, asked my noble friend Lord Glenarthur? No, I do not think that there is; the Secretariat must speak up. The Commonwealth is emerging as a major force in dealing with global trends, of which one is the Chinese developing their interests all over the Indian Ocean. What is the alternative to that Chinese interest? It is no longer America or the Atlantic but possibly the great Commonwealth unity of nations. We need a stronger voice in the Commonwealth for what we stand for, and for how we can bring the stability and relief from poverty to this modern world more effectively.

I mentioned agriculture, which my noble friend Lord Gardiner quite rightly referred to. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, was right to emphasise the rule of law. My noble friend Lord Flight talked about Hong Kong, which is very interesting. It is a gateway to China and a former member of the Commonwealth. Some of its members still turn up on an informal basis at Commonwealth meetings, which is a very good linkage to have to the great Chinese markets. Generally, I agree with my noble friend that there is ahead a vast expansion of intra-Commonwealth trade and that some of the figures mentioned may not be so wide of the mark. New trade routes are opening up all the time, criss-crossing between members of the Commonwealth. They are not necessarily coming through London but developing an entirely new pattern of development, trade and investment in capital flows.

My noble friend Lady Benjamin talked about celebrations outside London. These already happen in Cardiff on Commonwealth Day and should happen elsewhere so that other cities can be encouraged to participate. She mentioned the vexed question of passenger duty. I can tell her that a process of consultation on the structure was launched and is under way and that the APD has been frozen for this year, so the Government are looking at this and are well aware of the feelings of unfairness about the structure.

My noble friend Lord Lexden asked whether this was a turning point for the whole Commonwealth. I believe that it is and that we are going into an entirely new pattern that is much more associated with the fabric of international relations than in the past. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, the Commonwealth has a powerful future and it could, as my noble friend Lord Popat said, be a driver for economic development and for liberalising trade. The Foreign Secretary has emphasised those points.

Action is needed and not just words, said the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, quite rightly, reminding us again of the link between democracy and rule of law on the one hand and economic development on the other—the two go together. There is also the support of the Commonwealth for gender equality and other social aims, which are sometimes not given enough prominence in international or United Nations circles.

The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, gave us his unique historical perspective, as he often does, and reminded us about the criss-cross nature of trade within the Commonwealth. I have already mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Black, but he made some very powerful points about human rights. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked questions about young people. Half the people of the Commonwealth are young. We have to deliver real Commonwealth gains, and not just rhetoric and high-sounding speeches, for young people in employment, education, opportunities and travel.

We have mentioned the climate issues, which are very important for the smaller nations. There is a whole organisation focused entirely on migration problems throughout the Commonwealth, which are considerable but which I do not have the time to go into. He raised the issue of Somaliland again and what sanctions we can bring to bear on the miscreants—the Zimbabweans, who walked out in a huff but would have been sacked anyway—and Fiji, which is suspended. These are problem areas that can be addressed by careful Commonwealth co-operation and subtle dialogue and pressures. They are matters that will all be on the agenda at Perth.

Perth could be a defining moment for the Commonwealth. Heads will need to take bold and vital decisions in response to the EPG recommendations, which will shape the role of this unique organisation, so that it may have more impact in the future. None of us should shy away from the difficulties that will be involved in the EPG proposals when they come to be discussed by 54 nations; we should be quite frank about this. Alongside the Heads of Government Meeting there will be a meeting of the Commonwealth business forum and a number of other meetings of Commonwealth organisations, all of which will help to reinforce the realisation that the Commonwealth has a powerful role and place in the future.

I repeat that the CPA has an integral role in reinvigorating the Commonwealth and helping to put the Commonwealth and its networks on a firmer footing for the future. My right honourable friend, the Foreign Secretary, said the other day:

“The Commonwealth not only occupies a special place in our affections and our history here in Britain; it is a cornerstone of our foreign policy, alongside our role in the EU”—

which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, mentioned—

“our membership of NATO and our Special Relationship with the United States of America. It plays a key role in our thinking as we adjust to the new international landscape and the rise of the emerging economic titans of Asia, Africa and Latin America”.

As Her Majesty the Queen said, the Commonwealth is,

“in lots of ways the face of the future”.

The Government share Her Majesty’s ambition that the Commonwealth becomes a central platform of the international landscape, representing an enlightened and responsible association that plays an active role in shaping the direction that our world is moving in and the destinies of this nation as well.

15:03

[Baroness Hooper]

My Lords, this debate has amply fulfilled my hope that a wide variety of issues would be raised by those with a real personal knowledge and background in them. We have heard about healthcare, agriculture, climate change, specific projects, voluntary groups and partnerships. I was particularly fascinated to hear about the diocese of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and its relationship with Mozambique, one of the newest members of the Commonwealth. The consensus over the importance and value of education at all levels must be followed up to ensure that it is promoted by the Commonwealth in appropriate ways. I am glad to hear from my noble friend that the Commonwealth scholarship scheme is to be extended.

I particularly liked the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, referred to the role of the Queen as the ingredient that makes the chemistry of the Commonwealth work. The Queen plays an invaluable role and is much loved and appreciated throughout the Commonwealth.

Today is a Conservative day for debate and I am most grateful to the Government Chief Whip for making it possible at such a suitable time after the CPA conference in July and just before CHOGM. I am also delighted that the tone of the debate had a very cross-party feel, which I feel was entirely appropriate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on stepping in so admirably at the last moment, and I thank the Minister for his comprehensive wind-up. Finally, my thanks go to all your Lordships for your support and rich contributions to this important debate. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Health Professionals: EEA and Non-EEA Citizens

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Debate

15:05

Moved By

[Viscount Bridgeman]

To call attention to the disparity in the authorisation procedures for European economic area (EEA) and non-EEA citizens who are seeking to practise as health professionals in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.

[Viscount Bridgeman]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate and particularly grateful to those noble Lords who will speak, as notice only came last Thursday because of the Recess.

I call attention to the disparity of treatment of health professionals trained within the EEA and outside it. It is particularly marked in the case of nurses, but applies to a greater or lesser degree to all healthcare professionals. I am deliberately omitting mentioning doctors in great depth as I know distinguished doctors taking part in the debate will speak with authority on this subject. The Nursing and Midwifery Council—the NMC—is responsible for the registration of and setting standards for all nurses throughout the United Kingdom and the islands. There is no better way of viewing this disparity than through the eyes of the NMC and I make no apology for taking that route myself.

Let me summarise the main differences. Nurses from outside the EEA have to take the overseas nursing programme as part of registering. This is a comprehensive 20-day course invoking professional competency and, where applicable, a period of supervised practice of between three and six months in length. All applicants have to undergo the International English Language Testing System. The NMC is therefore in a position to exercise total control over the registration of these non-EEA applicants. Contrast this with healthcare professionals trained within the EEA, who are subject to the Commission’s mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive of 2005. Under this directive, healthcare professionals seeking to register and practise in another EEA member state have the right to do so provided that their qualifications meet the minimum standards as laid out in the directive. If these standards are met, the member states’ competent authorities—I shall refer to them as regulators, as it is rather easier—must automatically recognise the qualification and register those professionals as fit to practise in their countries. They have no option. Regulators are not allowed to undertake further competency checks, including checking whether practice competencies had been kept up to date or the applicant has basic communications skills in English.

Thus the directive does not require a migrating EEA nurse or midwife to demonstrate that they have kept their practice up to date since obtaining their training qualification. At the same time the NMC has no option but to register automatically EEA nurses and midwives, even those who may not have practised for, say, 20 years. Indeed, I am advised by the NMC that over the past year it had applications from over 1,400 EEA-trained nurses and midwives who have not practised for at least four years. Another proposal by the Commission—it is part of the revision of the directive, about which I will talk later—that causes concern is the principle of partial access. The Commission, in an otherwise well thought-out document, has suggested that professionals who have shortfalls in training that cannot be compensated by an adaption period should be registered with limits to their practice. This is simply not practicable in the case of nurses and midwives, who in the case of A&E nurses, for example, must often make ranges of critical clinical decision quickly and in pressured situations. I urge the Government to strongly resist this proposal.

I wish to cite a number of examples where, in the case of EEA applicants, the directive causes the registration process to be inadequate. First, member states’ training standards can vary greatly. For example, different countries put different emphasis on the importance of record-keeping. In inquiries that I made, I was amazed to find that several advanced countries did not have a tradition of patient notes such as we have in this country. While training in a large number is comparable to that in the UK, this is not the case with some of the newer accession countries. EEA standards for general nursing and midwifery date back three decades and do not account for fundamental changes in the professions over this time. Those changes include the use of new technologies and evidence basis, the shift from acute to community nursing and the move in some countries to a degree-level standard of training.

As regards language testing, as I said, under the directive EEA nurses and midwives applying for registration cannot be systematically tested for language competency. This is in stark contrast to the IELTS for non-EEA applicants, which includes even those from English-speaking countries. I consider that this is illogical and inefficient. Your Lordships will be aware that the directive places the onus of measuring language competency on employers rather than regulators. This has a number of practical defects, the first and crucial one being the lack of uniformity. For instance, hospital B may refuse an applicant on the ground of language competency, but that applicant may have come from hospital A where there was no problem. Not all hospital personnel departments are experienced in spotting language deficiency. A significant number of cases certainly slip through the net. The case of Dr Daniel Ubani is well known. In that case a patient died through an incorrect drugs dosage which was traced to the doctor’s inadequate command of English. Too much should not be made of this case as it was, after all, one isolated incident. However, for the reasons that I have just outlined, I suggest that there is another disaster waiting to happen. I know of one hospital where a number of consultant surgeons have refused to perform operations unless every member of the theatre team has English as his or her first language.

Here I come to the blunt instrument which will be familiar to those experienced in these matters. Until recently, the NMC required all applicants, including those from the EEA, to demonstrate at least 450 hours of practice in the three years prior to their application. However, over the past two years the Government have had no option but to request the NMC to drop this requirement as it affects nurses coming from the EEA on the ground that it is incompatible with the directive. I am told by the NMC that it has reluctantly had to comply.

On a more encouraging note, the Commission, the Department of Health and BIS are well aware of the urgency of the language and other competency risks I have discussed. Many of the risks to which I have referred could be mitigated through changes to the existing directive. A review of the directive is under way and is due to be completed by 2012. The NMC is leading a group of 25 European nurse regulators to co-ordinate their responses through the review process. As part of the review the European Commission released a Green Paper in June exploring changes to the directive. The Green Paper suggestions have gone some way to addressing concerns but they are still not clear enough. It is worth summarising what the NMC wishes to see in nurses from within the EEA registered in the United Kingdom. This is taken from its submission to Sub-Committee G—I am very pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, in her place—and is an excellent summary of what is expected from a nurse or midwife from the EEA seeking to practise in the UK. They should be trained to a level equivalent to that of training in the UK. They should be fit to practise within the scope of practice of the professions in the UK and they should be able to communicate effectively in English.

In the light of this the NMC has a “shopping list” which I respectfully bring to the Minister’s attention. First, minimum training requirements should be modernised to reflect the changing roles of nurses and midwives, potentially to a degree-level standard. I am talking about other EEA members here. Secondly, all EU regulators in the Community should be required to implement continuous professional development to ensure that competencies are kept up to date. Thirdly, the principle of partial access must not be applied to the healthcare professions. Finally, and most importantly—this is at the heart of this debate—regulators must be allowed to satisfy themselves of language competence at the point of registration, and employers should be allowed to undertake competency checks.

BIS, supported by the Department of Health, has recognised throughout the review process the unique position of healthcare professionals and supports many of the changes proposed by the NMC. I think that it also appreciates the urgency of the situation. The Government are to be commended for their recent efforts to strengthen a local-level system of language competency checks to be put in place at an early stage and operate until a full-scale revision of the directive is completed, which will take a number of years. I urge BIS to continue to reflect the concerns of the nursing profession in its submission to the Green Paper consultation, which closes on 21 September. I also urge the Government to continue this support when draft legislative changes to the directive are made later this year for consideration by the European Parliament and in due course by the Council of Ministers.

I hope that a feature of this debate will be patient safety. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that he and his colleagues in BIS will keep up the pressure on the Commission not only to set up an interim regulatory system but to ensure that the directive as revised emerges as helping to maintain the traditionally high standards of nursing in the United Kingdom rather than acting as a hindrance, which it sadly does at present. As with any measures taken to prevent or minimise accidents, tomorrow may be too late. I beg to move for Papers.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this is a strictly time-limited debate and that therefore when the clock reaches four, noble Lords will have had their time. To go further will take either from the time of other noble Lords or of the Minister responding at the end.

15:18

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, in January 1944 the American VI Corps of the Fifth Army was engaged in a bitter struggle at the Anzio beachhead when a doctor, Henry Knowles Beecher, ran out of morphine. In his field station with these desperately wounded patients, his nurse in desperation decided to put up a drip for each patient and tell them that inside the saline drip was a powerful pain reliever. The remarkable effect on these soldiers was such that very few of them complained of the pain, the amputations and the other horrific surgery that they were undergoing. Beecher founded in consequence the randomised control trial, which—the Minister will be aware—led to our partial understanding of the placebo effect. It was very clear that the communication with those patients was the key issue.

Since that time, Dr Bensing in the health service’s research department in Utrecht has looked at the growing tendency in medicine towards the business-like interview between patient and doctor, and has taken video tapes over some 20 years showing that. They show a gradual deterioration in the kind of care that is going on—probably throughout Europe. Bensing’s work is really very interesting. This is not due simply to a placebo effect. There is a very important publication from as long ago as 1976 by Patel and Daley showing that 77 per cent of hypertension patients’ condition improved simply by talking to the doctor and the doctor listening to them in great detail. It is obvious that this was not a placebo effect because in the main these patients did not require drugs afterwards to suppress their hypertension. Most of them required at least a reduction in drugs and some needed no drugs at all. What is impressive about the study is that that effect continued for at least six months or a year.

That is something that we will come back to during our discussions on the health Bill. Communication between the patient and the professional is vital. We run the risk of losing it with nurses who cannot speak English and who have been trained in a different way. I am particularly concerned about nurses coming from the eastern bloc of Europe—for example, from Romania or Bulgaria. Having been extensively in the far east of Europe when we were still in the Cold War with my research, I am well aware of the limited communication even in their own language that healthcare professionals had. If we are not careful we will increase that in our health service.

I hope that we will make sure that that, plus the fact that record-keeping is not fully understood by those nursing staff, are aspects that we will fight on in the European Union. I know that the Minister is caring and responsible, has high integrity and communicates and listens brilliantly. I understand that it is not entirely his problem because he has to communicate with BIS to represent our views in Europe. As he knows, Europe has already threatened our health service in other ways and I hope that we can make the strongest case possible to ensure proper communication between patient and carer.

15:21

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for securing this very important debate.

Since the inception of the NHS in 1948, it has relied heavily on overseas-trained nurses and staff to bolster its workforce. The NHS was built with the help of immigrant workers and professionals from across the world when the call went out around the empire that the UK needed their labour. Thousands of doctors and nurses migrated here from the West Indies, as it then was, Pakistan, India, and elsewhere during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. They were recruited in response to a health service in desperate need of health professionals in the post-war years. The value of their huge contribution has always been recognised, and it is that diversity on which the NHS was based and is now run. It has been a success story.

We know that more than 30 per cent of NHS professionals were born overseas. Without them, the NHS would come to a standstill. In some cases the NHS is now less reliant on overseas trained professionals to deliver services, but international recruitment has been regularly used as the main option for employers trying to fill vacancies in both health and social care, and in professions and specialisms with recognised shortages. Many Asian and black health professionals have been the backbone of the NHS, often concentrated in the lowest paid roles, the least glamorous specialisms, and in the least popular parts of the country. Some have faced racism and, for many, there has been slow promotion in their working lives.

There are legitimate concerns that the countries from which the nurses and midwives are recruited suffer from a knowledge and skills drain, reducing their capacity to provide healthcare to their own populations. But there have been huge advantages when professional staff have returned to their country of origin, taking with them the skills and development that they have acquired here. No one is advocating uncontrolled immigration but the introduction of a cap on non-EU health workers is insulting to those doctors and nurses who came to work in Britain’s hospitals. Many of them have faced difficult circumstances but have made enormous contributions. In light of the increasing evidence of how reliant we are on migrant workers, the cap could have unintended consequences by blocking much needed specialist workers from settling in Britain when they are vital for our economy and public services.

Social care is another area which is being hit by these procedures. It remains one of the lowest-paid sectors, and it is notoriously difficult to recruit for here in the UK. The National Care Association paints a rather stark picture of the policy's impact on social care. It is already complaining that the care sector cannot get the workforce needed to deliver services in this country. It is estimated that 1 million extra workers will be needed to support the UK's ageing population by 2025. In 2007, one in three care workers was recruited from outside the UK, while an estimated 60 per cent of London care workers were non-EU migrants. Meanwhile, we have the same problem with children's services where there has also been a cap, putting vulnerable children at risk because of the shortage of qualified and experienced social workers in some parts of the country, particularly in London. While measures put in place to train people from the UK and EU for roles now filled by non-EU migrant workers will help, it will take more than three years to have enough suitably qualified candidates to fill these positions.

I believe that successive Governments have failed to put the compelling case to the UK public that communities, from hospitals to schools, right through to local authorities, need to be encouraged to develop a more realistic understanding of immigration matters in this respect, and of how reliant we are on skilled migrant workers for our public services. In addition, we need to shape a practical, common-sense approach to this issue, one that reflects our heritage and our values.

15:25

[Baroness Young of Hornsey]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for securing this debate, as it gives me an opportunity as chairman of EU Sub-Committee G on Social Policies and Consumer Protection to let your Lordships know of the some of the aspects of the inquiry the committee has just completed. I very much look forward to seeing the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, on our committee in the near future.

We launched this inquiry into the mobility of healthcare professionals in June and received a substantial amount of written and oral evidence which has informed our response to the Commission’s Green Paper—mentioned by the noble Viscount—on the modernisation of the directive which governs intra-EU mobility of professionals. The report has not yet been debated by Select Committees, and we anticipate publishing it some time in early October. I am going to draw on some of the evidence we have received to point to the particular aspect which the noble Viscount has drawn to our attention.

The inquiry heard from the major regulators of healthcare professions in the UK, including the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. They expressed serious concerns that discrepancies in a number of areas were forcing them to admit to their registers individuals who did not meet what they considered the necessary standards for safe practice, thereby putting patients at serious risk. For example, the Nursing and Midwifery Council said it had concerns about the decisions it was forced to take in favour of certain EU applicants, and that it was absolutely certain that many of these would not have been admitted to the register if they had been UK applicants. Similarly, the GMC pointed out how countries joining the EU changed the requirements for doctors applying to work in the UK. Whereas previously applicants would have had to take an exam, which many of them failed, once they were from member states, the GMC’s ability to question their language, knowledge and skills was severely restricted.

It is right that there be some differences between EEA and non-EEA applications. For example, automatic recognition of professions is based on the fact that there are harmonised, minimum training requirements for these professions which do not exist for third countries. The majority of witnesses felt that the problem was not one of differences per se, but that the system lacked the necessary flexibility to take account of the specific nature of the healthcare professions, and did not reflect the nature and requirements of modern practice.

In certain areas, regulators argued that they should be able to apply the same standards to EU and non-EU applicants—for example, systematic language testing, as has already been indicated—at the point of registration. Others simply wished for greater freedom to decide what was appropriate in each case; for example, the ability to test more widely when they had doubts.

The fact that the Commission is looking at the issue is clearly welcome. However, there will need to be some far-reaching changes to ensure that intra-EU mobility of healthcare professionals maintains the confidence of patients and professionals alike. Mobility can bring significant benefits: exchange of ideas, new treatments, and so on. But as has been emphasised by all the witnesses, patient safety is the most essential thing and should be the priority over mobility.

15:29

[Lord Colwyn]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I spent many years on Sub-Committee G and I regret not being there while she was chairman.

Professionals holding specific qualifications and currently registered with a competent authority in one member state can register to practise in any other member state without having to satisfy further tests or formalities. Automatic recognition of qualifications under the directive 2005/36/EC is about granting access to professional registration, not about suitability to undertake a particular job. It is up to employers to ensure that the applicant has the necessary skills and competencies to perform the role for which they are applying. In the limited time available I will make some general remarks about issues that affect the dental profession. I declare an interest as a former dental practitioner.

Registration of non-UK dentists with the GDC is dependent both on the individual's nationality and the country in which they qualified. Dentists who are EU citizens with degrees obtained within the EU benefit from automatic registration based on the rules of free movement of EU citizens. Subject to proof of identity, degree and good standing in the home country, dentists are able to register with the GDC without further exams. A directive defines the minimum training standards required within the EU. All degrees of current EU countries comply with these requirements, although some member states require their dentists to undertake a period of clinical work experience in addition to the degree before they can work independently. In these cases, the requirement may apply also to registration with the GDC.

There are regulations for dentists who are EU citizens with degrees obtained outside the EU; regulations for dentists with a qualification gained before and after 01/01/01 from Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia; and regulations for dentists who are not EU citizens but who have obtained degrees within the EU. I would like to have had the time to explain this more fully. The regulations are considered to work well, both with regard to the minimum training standards and the compensation measures for those countries that joined the EU more recently and did not at the beginning comply with the directive. A consultation is currently taking place with a view to modernising the directive.

The main concerns for dentistry have been the lack of language testing at registration points and the lack in some countries of practical training involving seeing patients. In the current review there is a welcome option for more formal language testing. I suggest that there is also a need to update the minimum training standards in accordance with the latest science.

Another concern that is not directly related to registration with the GDC is the fact that dentists from Europe are exempt from the requirement to undertake vocational training. UK-qualified dentists as well as non-EU dentists are required to undertake this training, while EU dentists are able to register without further training on a local performer list. All dentists should be required to undertake such training. However, to ensure fairness of the system all places would have to be funded. EU dentists are eligible to apply for foundation training but, if allocated a place, take it away from a UK graduate. There is high competition for these training places across the UK.

The overseas registration exam for non-UK dentists is designed as a competency test set at the level of a UK undergraduate. The pass rate is not high. Concerns over the exam remain with regard to appropriate provision of exam places, as there continues to be a waiting list. Dentists who are not EU citizens are required to undertake vocational training or foundation training through an equivalence route before they can become independent performers. My time is up: I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

15:33

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Viscount on having secured this important debate. I will confine my remarks to medical practitioners and declare my interest as a practising surgeon.

For practitioners who have qualified outside the European Union, the situation is clear: our national regulatory body, the General Medical Council, is obliged to test their language skills and competency and is fully entitled to inquire into the content and quality of their medical education and training. For practitioners from the European Union, this is not the case: the GMC is not able to test language skills, is unable to make an assessment of their competency and is unable to inquire into their training and education. Clearly this is not acceptable, but the situation is worse even than that because, for practitioners who are registered elsewhere in the European Union and who, as we have heard, are entitled to come to the United Kingdom and practise, and for whom the General Medical Council is obliged to provide the opportunity for automatic registration, there is no obligation on the part of their home regulatory bodies to report any concerns that they may have about the practice of the individual—whether they have been suspended or whether there are any inquiries into their practice. That is an intolerable situation. It is not right for fellow practitioners who have to work with these individuals, but most of all it is not right for the citizens of our country who, at times when they are unwell and are becoming patients in our healthcare system, need to be absolutely certain that the practitioners to whom they are exposed are competent, meet the standards required of medical practitioners in our country and therefore can, with certainty, provide the quality of care that citizens in our country deserve.

There is a simple way forward. On language testing, I understand that a change in domestic legislation will allow immediately for the General Medical Council to move forward and assume responsibility for ensuring language competence. On professional competence, there will need to be changes at the European level. I know that the General Medical Council—and I am sure medical practitioners in our country—would warmly encourage the Government to pursue discussions at a European level of professional competence training, but in the mean time it would be most helpful if Her Majesty’s Government would consider looking at language testing and determining whether a change to domestic legislation could ensure that that particular problem is overcome. Ultimately this should not be a matter of politics or even of European relations: it is simply a matter of patient safety and providing for the people of our country the certainty they deserve in knowing that when they are unwell, the practitioners who will look after them all meet the same standard, whether they have been trained in the United Kingdom, in a European country or elsewhere in the world.

15:36

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a practising solicitor and partner for more than 40 years in the international commercial law firm Beachcroft. This debate gives me a wonderful opportunity, first, to thank my noble friend Lord Bridgeman for having introduced such an important subject, and also to support my chairman on Sub-Committee G and say to my noble friend Lady Young of Hornsey that I warmly applaud everything she has said. I am delighted that our overall chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, is listening to this, because I think that everyone agrees that this directive needs modernising and urgently so. I agree with many of the points already made. There is, sadly, insufficient confidence among patients, professionals and regulators in the current framework. I think that everyone agrees with that, so what are we going to do?

There are two areas of concern upon which I agree with my noble friend Lady Young of Hornsey. The first is the diversity of regulatory systems and approaches to registration right across the European Union. The second is the variation in the competencies of individuals, even where they hold the requisite qualification. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, that right at the heart of all this is patient safety. In the limited time I have, I want to make two points. First, I am concerned about the lack of what is called continuous professional development. There must, surely, be a CPD requirement. I agree with the Nursing and Midwifery Council that the idea that we have automatically to register all EU nurses and midwives who meet EU minimum requirements, even those who may not have practised for 20 years, makes it sound as though there is something fundamentally wrong. We need to get this right. Secondly, as I complete six years as chairman of the English Speaking Union, I have to refer to communication skills. I do so by quoting from the Guardian. An article in the Guardian recently said:

“As Good Medical Practice makes clear, communication skills are fundamental to a doctor’s work and the success of many doctor-patient relationships is often determined by the doctor’s ability to communicate effectively with patients, particularly when obtaining consent or if something goes wrong”.

I am very grateful to the Medical Defence Union for making me aware of the statistics. Its journal of June 2011 revealed that around 30 per cent of complaints notified to the MDU by its GP members involved allegations of poor communication. This is such an important subject, and it is about time that we started to make sure we get it right across the European Union.

15:40

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for bringing this important matter to your Lordships' House. Although this is a short debate, it is none the less of huge importance. I am very keen to identify these Benches with the need to resolve this matter. A Health Select Committee report last year looked at the death of David Gray as a result of Dr Daniel Ubani and said then that this is a matter of great importance and urgency. How much more so now? That report stated that if the GMC had been able to carry out language and competence tests on EEA doctors wishing to practise as GPs then that life and perhaps other lives would have been saved. The Select Committee was keen to see the issue resolved then.

We know that the Government need to press for change to the relevant EU directive to enable the GMC to test the clinical competence of doctors and to undertake systematic testing of languages. I was very pleased to see that Sub-Committee G of our European Union Committee has taken evidence on this matter and will be reporting. That helps to strengthen the case. It would possibly have been helpful if it had reported before the deadline for the Green Paper, which is 21 September, but the fact that the evidence that has been given to it has been made public is very important. I knew that it was considering these matters, but I read with alarm some of the reports about the evidence that it had received. Dickon Weir-Hughes said to our Select Committee that the Nursing and Midwifery Council had to operate a two-tier system because of EU rules on the free movement of workers. In evidence to the same inquiry, the GMC revealed that a foreign doctor’s husband had contacted it on her behalf to register her for work because she could not speak English. It went on to report that the Nursing and Midwifery Council is now admitting people who have not been near a patient for 20 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said in his speech.

We know that the GMC and the NMC have huge responsibilities for patient safety and we know that we must listen to them about this problem because this is about risk to patients. The problem we face is that this directive is an overarching document based on the principle of freedom of movement in the internal market and applies to several hundred professions, not just to those in the healthcare sector. While we on these Benches of course support the principle of freedom of movement and recognise the positive contribution of European Union nurses, midwives and doctors in the provision of healthcare in the UK, as the noble Viscount said, freedom of movement should not take precedence over patient safety. That is the challenge facing the UK Government in these negotiations.

I hope that this debate will help the Minister in his representations to BIS on behalf of the Department of Health about why this review is so important and why we have to stand firm on it. I join other noble Lords in urging BIS to continue to reflect our concerns in its submission to the Green Paper consultations and I urge the Government to continue their support when the draft legislation changes are made later this year for the consideration of the European Parliament and Council of Ministers.

We also know that the wheels of European directives move exceedingly slowly, which is why the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and others about addressing this issue in the mean time, if we possibly can, are also important. I would also like to identify these Benches with the call to do that.

15:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bridgeman deserves our thanks for tabling this very useful debate and for introducing the subject so ably. As he and other speakers have rightly indicated, there is considerable disquiet about the implications of European law in respect of the free movement of healthcare workers. I should particularly like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, on her committee’s very helpful report and on her concise remarks today in support of it.

Several healthcare professional regulatory bodies have expressed concerns about whether we have the right safeguards in place to check whether European Economic Area migrants wishing to work in the UK are fit to practise. They have called for new powers for checks on such migrants. Under European directive 2005/36/EC, many EEA migrants will automatically have their professional qualifications recognised by the relevant UK regulatory body, whereas healthcare workers from countries outside the EEA will generally be subject to checks upon their competence and communications skills before they are allowed to register.

Any EEA national whose qualification is automatically recognised must hold a European qualification which conforms to the standards set out in the directive. Picking up the point so well made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, this should ensure that, for example, a general care nurse’s qualifications broadly attest to his or her competence, but it is then up to whoever employs, or contracts with, the nurse to make sure that the individual in question has the right skills and qualifications for the role. My noble friend Lord Colwyn made this point very well in the context of dentists.

The UK system of health professions regulation largely treats registered professionals equally, regardless of their nationality and background. The differences lie primarily in entry to the profession—that is to say, entry into the register. In looking at the directive, our view is that elements of it need strengthening but overall the system for mutual recognition is effective. I can, however, reassure my noble friend Lord Hunt that we are absolutely committed to making the European system as strong and robust as it can be.

This summer we have been working constructively with other government departments and the health regulators themselves to formulate our response to the European Commission’s Green Paper on reforms to the directive. On that Green Paper there is very little on which the department and our partners disagree regarding areas of the directive that need strengthening. We agree that the harmonised training standards underpinning automatic recognition need updating and that a mechanism for regular updates is required. We would also like to see a focus over time on competencies in training rather than particular length of training.

My noble friend Lord Hunt referred to continuous professional development. We think that all member states should be required to have a system of CPD in place for the healthcare professions on their territories. Out-of-date training for the health professions can pose a much greater risk than for other professions covered by the directive. We agree that that issue needs to be tackled in a revised directive. We would want to ensure that EEA migrants subject to CPD requirements in their home state are obliged to demonstrate they meet such requirements when they register in another member state.

My noble friend Lord Bridgeman mentioned the principle of partial access. We share his concerns. The concept exists in European law through case law, whether we like it or not. The current case law allows that partial access can be denied if there are overriding reasons of public interest. We would argue that this means that it is not applicable to the health sector, particularly where harmonised training requirements apply. However, to avoid doubt about this, we wish to see explicit provision in the directive to clarify this point.

My noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Kakkar, referred to the issue of language checks. In fact, I think all speakers did so. Article 53 of the directive also states that those benefiting from automatic recognition,

“shall have a knowledge of languages necessary for practising”,

in the relevant member state. However, case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union precludes systematic language testing at the point of registration, and European Commission guidance states that the lack of language knowledge cannot be a ground for refusal of recognition of qualifications. So while a competent authority could test the communications skills of a healthcare worker from a non-EEA country, it could not routinely or systematically do the same for an EEA healthcare worker. Furthermore, such checks could not act as a barrier to recognition of their professional qualifications. However, both the directive and case law support language checks before a professional takes up a particular role provided that checks are not systematic, are proportionate and reflect individual circumstances.

In the UK, we have implemented a system of checks at a local level through duties on primary care trusts and guidelines to local NHS employers. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, is totally right to say that this is an issue of major importance for the quality of patient care. We have already taken steps to strengthen the system, and since January all designated bodies have been required to nominate or appoint a responsible officer—for example, a medical director in an NHS trust. In England, the responsible officer’s duties include ensuring that medical practitioners have the qualifications and experience necessary for the role and that references are checked. However, we think that we can and should do more, so we are working with the GMC to develop further proposals that will build on these existing duties.

Work is currently focused on the medical profession because risks there are perhaps most acute, especially in the context of general practice. However, we will also work with the relevant healthcare professional regulatory bodies and the European Commission to explore how a strengthened system of proportionate local checks might be introduced for other professions where there is evidence of justified concerns about patient safety.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, referred to the unfairness to migrants from non-EEA countries. I think the issue here is that regulators have to reconcile the need for fairness and reasonable treatment of migrants seeking registration with their principal objective of protecting public health and safety. International migrants, as the noble Lord said, may undertake training in a very different cultural context—for example, in relation to child protection. For that reason it is essential that robust checks on professional competence are undertaken. At the point of entry to the UK, the regulator may seek confirmation from the home member state, if it is an EEA candidate, that there are no known concerns about the individual. Our concern relates more to the need for a proactive duty to share information when concerns actually arise.

My noble friend Lord Colwyn spoke about dentists in his customarily authoritative way. We consider that there is an opportunity here in the context of the proposal to update the minimum training standards in the directive to address the long-standing concerns that some newly qualified EEA dentists do not have the same level of practical training at the point of qualification. It will, however, remain essential that PCTs and other contracting or employing bodies ensure that any person they appoint to their performers list is appropriately trained and qualified for the role to which they will be appointed.

On the issue of our interaction with the EU Commission and the efforts by my department and those of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I can reassure noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that the two departments have been working very closely together on the production of a response to the Green Paper. The closing date for responses to the Commission is 20 September. The Government’s response is being finalised more or less as I speak.

My noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece was correct in what she said. There is no question that, overall, the UK healthcare system benefits from the free movement of professionals and has done for many years. Thankfully, the NHS is moving more and more towards self-sufficiency in terms of its workforce but her point was very well made.

However, perhaps I may conclude by re-emphasising one issue. It is essential that there are effective checks on the suitability of all healthcare professionals for the specific jobs that they are going to undertake. In that context, there has to be, as there is now, a key role for those employing or contracting with healthcare professionals in undertaking those same checks.

15:55

[Viscount Bridgeman]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am slightly disappointed by the Minister. I understand that he is hamstrung by the requirements for the language testing. However, I draw the attention of your Lordships to the Green Paper where a number of quite constructive options are set out. I hope that, with tremendous support, the Government will pursue these with great vigour. I am particularly grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on the question of partial access. I think noble Lords will be reassured on that.

Turning to my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece’s point, it is essential that the free movement of all health professionals is not impeded. I am confident that in due course satisfactory checks as to suitability and language will emerge. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her kind words of welcome and I very much look forward to serving on that committee with my noble friend Lord Hunt. I have seen the submissions, which are of very high quality. We can expect some very interesting results. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Baha Mousa Inquiry

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:57

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Corporal Mark Palin from 1st Battalion The Rifles, Marine James Wright from 42 Commando Royal Marines, Lieutenant Daniel Clack from 1st Battalion The Rifles and Sergeant Barry Weston from 42 Commando Royal Marines, who were killed on operations in Afghanistan recently; and Senior Aircraftman James Smart, from No. 2 (Mechanical Transport) Squadron, RAF Wittering, who was killed in Italy on Wednesday 20 July while supporting Operation Ellamy. My thoughts are also with the wounded and I pay tribute to the courage and fortitude in which they face their rehabilitation.

I should now like to repeat a Statement made in the other place by the Defence Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, with permission I would like to make a Statement on the report into the death of Mr Baha Mousa in Iraq in 2003. In any conflict, no matter what the reason for our country’s involvement and no matter how difficult the circumstances, what separates us from our adversaries are the values with which we prosecute it and the ethics that guide our actions.

To represent Britain, in war as well as in peace, is to represent our inherent democratic values, the rule of law and respect for life. When those values are transgressed, it is vital that we get to the bottom of what has happened, are open about the issues and their causes, make sure that what reparations we can make are made and do all we can to prevent it happening again. Only in that way can we ensure that those values hold firm, in how we think of ourselves and in how others perceive us.

I am today laying before the House the independent report published this morning by Sir William Gage as chairman of the public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Baha Mousa in Iraq in 2003. I am grateful to Sir William and his team, who have produced a report that is sober, focused and detailed. Above all, I believe it to be both fair and balanced. It is, however, a painful and difficult read. As the report sets out, Baha Mousa was subject to violent and cowardly abuse and assaults by British servicemen whose job it was to guard him and treat him humanely, and this was the primary cause of his death.

This inquiry was rightly set up in 2008 by the previous Government with the intent to shine a spotlight on the events surrounding the death of Baha Mousa and to provide the most definitive account possible in the circumstances. It does that comprehensively. What happened to Baha Mousa and his fellow detainees in September 2003 was deplorable, shocking and shameful. The Ministry of Defence and the Army have previously made a full apology to the family of Baha Mousa and to his fellow detainees and have paid full compensation to them. We can take some limited comfort that incidents like this are extremely rare but we cannot be satisfied by that.

Given the seriousness of this case, there is a series of questions that I have asked myself and that others in this House will ask, too. Among these are, ‘Who was responsible and what happened as a consequence?’, ‘What action has been taken to prevent a recurrence?’, ‘Do we have the right protection in place today in Afghanistan?’, and, of course, ‘How will the Government respond to the recommendations made in the report?’.

First, on responsibility, the report makes clear the extent of the failings of individuals, the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces at the time and in earlier years. In addition to the shocking displays of brutality for which individuals are responsible, it is also clear that there were serious failings in command and discipline in the 1st Battalion Queen’s Lancashire Regiment. There was a lack of clarity in the allocation of responsibility for the prisoner-handling process, and sadly too there was a lack of moral courage to report abuse. However, it must be acknowledged that a small number behaved with both integrity and courage in reporting what they had witnessed. They are examples of how others should have behaved.

Wider than the battalion, there were also deficiencies in policies, orders and training relating to detention at that time. The chairman notes that there was inadequate doctrine on prisoner handling. There was a ‘systemic failure’ that allowed knowledge of the prohibition on abusive techniques made by the Heath Government to be lost over the years. The report confirms that the Army was underprepared for the task of handling civilian detainees, having expected after the end of war fighting to provide humanitarian aid rather than become involved in counterinsurgency activities.

Since this incident in 2003, six different Defence Secretaries have stood at this Dispatch Box. I am sure all will regret that it has taken so long to get to the bottom of what happened, and that even now the refusal of some involved to tell the whole truth means that it has not been possible to establish the full extent of the culpability of individuals. Their behaviour is a matter for their own consciences, but others must take responsibility for the wider failures and deficiencies.

This report does not mean that our investigations of the mistreatment of detainees are over. The evidence from the inquiry will now be reviewed to see whether more can be done to bring those responsible to justice. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment here in the House of Commons on specific individuals and the role they played in this appalling episode. Where individuals are still serving, I have asked the Chief of the General Staff to take urgent action to ensure that the Army’s ethical standards are upheld. That action is now under way through the chain of command.

The investigations of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, IHAT, which started work in November last year, are now well under way and are revealing evidence of some concern. It is too early to comment on what the conclusions of the IHAT investigations might be, but cases will be referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions if and when there is sufficient evidence to justify this.

Since 2003, action by the Ministry of Defence and the Army to address failings as they were identified has touched every aspect of the prisoner handling system, from policy and doctrine to ground-level directives as well as training and oversight. The changes wrought have been fundamental. The Army inspector’s report in 2010, validated by an independent expert adviser, is one example of the detailed scrutiny applied to the training and doctrine for handling detainees. I can assure the House that there is a commitment to continuous improvement at all levels inside and outside the Armed Forces.

As the report acknowledges, further positive changes have been made as a result of matters that emerged from evidence heard during this inquiry’s final module, module 4, which was a thorough scrutiny of our current detention policies, practices and training. The Minister for the Armed Forces and I take a close personal interest in detention matters in Afghanistan. I am confident that our approach to detention in Afghanistan is now markedly improved from the period rightly criticised in this report. But we are in no way complacent about the issues identified by Sir William. I can inform the House that I am accepting in principle all of his recommendations with one reservation. It is vital that we retain the techniques necessary to secure swiftly in appropriate circumstances the intelligence that can save lives. The recommendation that we institute a blanket ban during tactical questioning on the use of certain verbal and non-physical techniques referred to in the report as the harsh approach, I am afraid, I cannot accept. However, I share some of Sir William’s concerns and I have asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to ensure that this approach only be used by defined people in defined circumstances.

Let me conclude by saying this. In Iraq, between 2003 and 2008, 179 British personnel were killed serving their country and many more returned injured. In autumn 2003, the 1st Battalion Queen’s Lancashire Regiment faced an immensely difficult challenge as they attempted to bring law and order to a large area that had been subject to a brutally oppressive regime for many years. As Sir William acknowledges, the issues addressed in his report,

‘need to be understood in the operational context in which they occurred: the tempo of operations; the poor state of the local civilian infrastructure; a daily threat to life from both civilian unrest and an increasing insurgency; the deaths of fellow service personnel and incessant oppressive heat. In combination these factors made huge demands on soldiers serving in Iraq in 2003’.

There are few of us sitting in the comfort of the House of Commons who can claim to understand what that must have been like. However, the vast majority of Armed Forces personnel faced these same challenges and did not behave in the way outlined in this report. They represent the fine ethical values found day in and day out in our Armed Forces, and we must not allow the unspeakable actions of a very few to damage the reputation of the whole.

I want to make it clear that Baha Mousa was not a casualty of war. His death occurred while he was a detainee in British custody. It was avoidable and preventable, and there can be no excuses. There is no place in our Armed Forces for the mistreatment of detainees, and there is no place for a perverted sense of loyalty that turns a blind eye to wrongdoing or erects a wall of silence to cover it up. If any service man or woman, no matter the colour of uniform that they wear, is found to have betrayed the values this country stands for and the standards that we hold dear, they will be held to account. Ultimately, whatever the circumstances, rules or regulations, people know the difference between right and wrong. We will not allow the behaviour of individuals who cross that line to taint the reputation of the Armed Forces, of which the British people are rightly proud”.

I commend this Statement to the House.

16:12

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we also wish to express our sincere condolences to the families and friends of Corporal Mark Palin, Marine James Wright, Lieutenant Daniel Clack and Sergeant Barry Weston, who have lost their lives in operations in Afghanistan recently, and Senior Aircraftman James Smart, killed in Italy in July while supporting Operation Ellamy.

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State and for giving me sight of the lengthy inquiry report. I have not been able fully to digest its contents, but the Minister is in the same position. However, even sight of the summary of the report and its conclusions is enough to know that a small group has acted in a shocking, brutal and totally unacceptable manner and, as the Minister has said, that there were serious failings in command and discipline in the 1st Battalion The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment.

I would like to add my thanks to Sir William Gage, the chairman of the public inquiry set up in 2008 by the previous Government into the events surrounding the death of Mr Baha Mousa, and to the members of his team for their detailed and thorough report. The report had to be painstaking, thorough and detailed because it appears that getting at the truth was not made any easier by the difficulties that some appeared to have in telling the truth.

The report makes it clear that the brutal and shocking behaviour was not just in relation to Mr Baha Mousa whose death occurred in British custody but also to other detainees. Other allegations of maltreatment are still being investigated by the Iraq historic allegations team, whose creation was announced in March 2010, which started in November 2010. Presumably, any further allegations will be investigated by this body.

A small group has acted in a way that is totally alien to the manner in which our Armed Forces conduct themselves and the standards they uphold, and is totally alien to the professionalism and bravery of our Armed Forces personnel, all too many of whom have given their lives or suffered life-changing injuries, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or over Libya. This report does nothing to diminish our pride in our Armed Forces. It is precisely because what happened is so far removed from the standards demanded and upheld that this inquiry has taken place, and why its findings will cause such dismay.

There are one or two points that I wish to raise with the Minister. As he has said, the Secretary of State has accepted all the recommendations except one, which was in relation to a blanket ban on the use of certain verbal and non-physical techniques referred to in the report as the “harsh approach”. Can the Minister say a little more about the reasons for not accepting this recommendation? Clearly, if such techniques are to continue to be used, there will be a need to have in place very firm and precise safeguards, to make sure that all concerned are fully aware of the limits of what can be done, and that those limits are not exceeded, however difficult the circumstances may be at the time.

Can I also ask the Minister if he is satisfied with the action that has been taken or is still to be taken to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, there is no repeat of the unacceptable actions spelled out in the inquiry report, in Afghanistan or anywhere else? It is not just about making sure that appropriate processes and procedures are in place. It is presumably also about making sure that people who do have immediate responsibility for detainees have the qualities needed to meet the high demands that this role can place on the standards of behaviour of individuals concerned, particularly in the kinds of conditions and circumstances that were faced in Iraq, and also on their strength of character, to speak up if actions are being taken which they must know are unacceptable. It also means that those at the highest levels of command take a direct and active interest in what is actually happening to detainees, as opposed to what should be happening to them according to the rules and procedures. Can the Minister say what importance is attached to the role of being responsible for detainees, and whether he is satisfied that relevant checks or assessments are made of those who are given this onerous responsibility?

I want also to ask the Minister whether in the light of the inquiry report it is felt there is a need for any legislative measures to strengthen the position in relation to the treatment of detainees or the powers and duties of those who have responsibility for them. I ask that in the context that we currently have the Armed Forces Bill going through your Lordships’ House, and since there will presumably not be another one for five years, action on this point ought to be taken now if it is considered necessary.

The inquiry referred to an “inadequate doctrine” on prisoner handling, as the Minister has said, and also to a “systemic failure” that allowed knowledge of the prohibition on abuse techniques to be lost over the years. The 1972 Act banned certain interrogation techniques, but it appears from the inquiry report that the terms of the Act have been overlooked when it comes to training policies and orders relating to detention. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Act will be enforced, including the cultural change needed to ensure that?

A third point I would like to raise, and without asking the noble Lord the Minister to refer to any specific individuals mentioned in the report, is whether legal action will be taken, or is being considered, against any of those involved. I appreciate immunity from prosecution was given, but that presumably related only to an individual’s own evidence. Will the Minister say how many of those referred to in the report who are still currently serving have been suspended or have had other sanctions taken against them?

We support the statement the Minister has made. We are proud of our Armed Forces. We will not allow unacceptable and shocking behaviour by a small number of individuals to tarnish the reputation of our Armed Forces, and those who breach the standards we uphold must be held to account.

16:19

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support for the Statement and for the chairman’s thorough report. It is clear that what happened in 2003 was utterly deplorable, and we have apologised wholeheartedly to the detainees and to Baha Mousa’s family for that. As the noble Lord said, lessons must be learnt.

As the noble Lord said, there were serious failings in command and discipline in the 1st Battalion The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment but this shameful episode should not be a reflection on the Armed Forces in general. Indeed, we must not forget that over 120,000 British troops served in Iraq and that the vast majority conducted themselves with the highest standards of integrity and professionalism, often in difficult and dangerous circumstances. We are grateful to them and it is deeply regrettable that they have been let down by a very small minority.

Turning to the noble Lord’s questions, he asked first why we have rejected recommendation 23. As the Secretary of State said,

“It is vital that we retain the techniques necessary to secure swiftly in appropriate circumstances the intelligence that can save lives. The recommendation that we institute a blanket ban during tactical questioning on the use of certain verbal and non-physical techniques referred to in the report as the harsh approach, I’m afraid I cannot accept”.

He went on to explain, however, that he shared some of Sir William’s concerns and has,

“asked the Chief of Defence Staff to ensure that this approach is only … used by defined people in defined circumstances”.

The noble Lord asked whether we have taken action, as the previous Government did, to ensure that there was no repeat of those terrible circumstances. This is a very important question. We have moved on since Iraq. Questioning secures information that is vital for force protection and saves life. The questioning is highly regulated and important safeguards are in place, including the recording and monitoring of all interrogation sessions. Detainees are given ample opportunity, at various stages of the detention process, to raise concerns about their treatment. Very few concerns have been raised, and where there are any each is investigated by the Royal Military Police special investigation branch.

The chairman has recommended that we cease using the so-called “harsh approach”. The old harsh approach is no more but, as the Secretary of State said, we need to keep a broad range of techniques to allow us to extract intelligence that helps to save lives. The controlled use of short spells of shouting and a sarcastic, cynical tone of voice still have utility in questioning in certain circumstances. We have combined these elements into an approach that is now called challenging, which is very carefully defined and taught. It is designed to get detainees to focus on the questioning that they are undergoing. We will look again at our training and practices to ensure that any approach which challenges detainees conforms scrupulously in letter and in spirit to international humanitarian law.

The noble Lord asked whether those guarding detainees are given sufficient training. All personnel who deploy now have a good level of training in detention, because anyone could become involved in this activity. The Military Provost Staff, who are the detention experts, are highly trained professionals. They are deployed in Afghanistan to provide advice. Regimental provost staff also receive training in managing custody facilities, which has an operational element.

The noble Lord asked whether we needed to legislate to make any changes. I can confirm that we are looking at this. At the moment, we do not believe that we will need any legislation. The noble Lord asked if any legal action is being taken or considered against any of those involved. The service police will review the chairman’s findings on individuals—serving and non-serving—to establish whether any further investigation might be necessary. The military chain of command will also consider whether action should be taken against former, or serving, personnel. I anticipate a number of suspensions imminently of serving soldiers. Finally, as the noble Lord said, there is an awful lot to read in this excellent report. I would be very happy to organise a briefing in the Ministry of Defence on 18 October, when officials and the senior army officer most closely involved with the report will be on hand to brief Peers and answer any questions that they have.

16:25

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, first, I join these Benches in the earlier tribute. I, too, thank my noble friend the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the offer of the briefing on 18 October. We have only had a few hours to study the 1,400 pages or so of this report. Clearly, in that time, one has only been able to skim through certain sections of it. It makes sickening reading. The horrifying thing is that, had Mr Baha Mousa not died, there would not have been an inquiry, a report or this Statement. Neither would there have been the 73 recommendations which, we hope, will prevent a ghastly act like this happening again.

I ask two specific questions. First, there has been a certain amount about Afghanistan in the press. What is the position in relation to our forces handing over detainees to the Afghan authorities and do we have any ability to monitor what happens to them when they are in Afghan hands? Secondly, would it be possible for the Ministry to investigate, possibly using closed-circuit television in some of our detention centres overseas or in our overseas prisons to give us an ability to monitor the behaviour of our troops and the treatment of detainees? If we had CCTV in this particular situation, perhaps this ghastly incident would not have happened.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I agree with my noble friend that this report makes ghastly reading. We monitor very carefully the detainees that we hold and we hand over detainees to the Afghans only very carefully. To the best of my knowledge, we do our best to monitor the detainees that we hand over to the Afghans. However, I will undertake to write to my noble friend on this point.

[Lord Dannatt]

My Lords, I was the Chief of the General Staff in 2008 when, in conjunction with the then Secretary of State for Defence, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, it was agreed that the inquiry that has reported today should be convened. We knew that at some point in the future today would come and that this report would be difficult and a very uncomfortable experience. The inquiry reports on grave and shameful events but rightly says that they are a shocking deviation from the normal standards of behaviour expected from the Army.

We have rightly apologised to and compensated the family of Mr Baha Mousa. Of course, that is no real compensation for what happened. Does the Minister agree with me that today’s report would not have come about had the Army not been open and transparent prior to the inception of this inquiry, and that it was only the publication of the Aitken report—we commissioned that internal report ourselves as we were already disturbed by what we had learnt—that brought about the decision by the then Secretary of State for Defence, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to instigate this report? I offer that comment and look to the Minister for agreement simply to enable me to say that we do not, and will not, tolerate disgraceful behaviour from any rank in the Armed Forces or the Army. High standards, according to our core values and standards, are absolutely key when we deploy on a foreign operation, and do so in a position, whether wittingly or unwittingly, close to the moral high ground, and knowing that when actions like this occur we fall from the high ground to the valley in a trice under the full glare of the media.

Today is a desperately sad day for the reputation of the Army and for a number of members of it who know that their conduct has been less than it should have been and can be described only as disgraceful. However, we have tried to cover up nothing. The Aitken report laid the foundation which gave the previous Government the opportunity to instigate this inquiry. We fully accept its outcome.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, of course, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. The Army has been very open and transparent and we should congratulate it on that. The noble Lord said that this is a sad day for the Army. It is a very sad day for a small number of people who behaved outrageously. The Army should be congratulated on the very open and transparent way in which it has reacted. The noble Lord said that he was the Chief of the General Staff when the noble Lord, Lord Browne, set up the report. I compliment the noble Lord, who is not in his place, on setting up this very important report.

[Viscount Slim]

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will not misunderstand me. My reading of this is that the behaviour was unforgivable, but we are not discussing the behaviour of professional interrogators. Interrogation is a subtle art. There is the problem of when discomfort becomes torture. If we were to introduce draconian legislation in relation to the interrogation processes and techniques that our professionals use, we would be in danger of hamstringing ourselves in obtaining the intelligence that is needed. We have to be very careful here because if we do not get the intelligence that we need—often time is of the essence—another of our airliners will fall out of the sky and a chunk of one of our cities or utilities will be destroyed. Certainly, if there is a threat of an action about to take place involving some chemical mixture which puts the population at risk, the interrogation teams, who are very professional—there are strict rules—must not be hamstrung so that they cannot get the relevant information. This is a very delicate subject but national security is paramount. Under the very careful rules that apply, we have to make certain that the interrogation system in our country gets the vital information that saves lives and stops terrorist and criminal activity.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the noble Viscount makes a very important point and I quite agree with him. The ability to seek and obtain intelligence from detainees is too important but we will always seek to ensure that it is done within the constraints of the Geneva conventions. The UK Armed Forces are at all times subject to English criminal law. MoD policy reflects applicable international law, including prohibitions on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the Statement. It has been said that today is a sad day, but I have to say that I feel extremely proud of being in a nation that allows such an all-embracing report to be produced. I am extremely proud of being a member of the Armed Forces of this nation where the vast majority of them perform amazingly and with all the constraints that they should in very difficult circumstances. Does the Minister agree that I should feel that way?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord and feel very proud to be a Minister at this time. I congratulate the previous Government on what they did to initiate this report; as the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said, the Army has been very open in the way in which it has followed up on these terrible deeds.

[Lord Goldsmith]

My Lords, I apologise, too, for not being here at the beginning of the Statement but I have been able to read it. There was misinformation about what time the noble Lord would be standing up.

I welcome the Statement and the report. I ask the Minister, first, to consider whether he agrees that it entirely vindicates the decision taken, although criticised at the time, to bring prosecutions. Secondly, would he also agree that there remain questions to be answered, which Sir William Gage said were not a part of his inquiry, as to how the criminal investigations took place? The Minister may recall that he and I have debated these matters before on concerns that I have in relation to that. Thirdly, would he agree—I have in mind statements that he himself made in July 2005 in this House on a debate on prosecutions—that it would not be right in the light of these findings to describe a need to look at these matters in the light of law as anything to do with political correctness? What undermines respect for the discipline and for the armed services is not trying to uncover what took place and to deal with it, but the sort of circumstances that sadly we now know from Sir William Gage did take place and with at least the absence of knowledge of senior officers, standing by and not doing anything.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his support for the Statement and for the report. I can confirm that the noble and learned Lord’s Government acted at all times in a very proper and correct way in this matter.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am conscious that we are running rather ahead of time and that not everyone is here for the next debate, although I note that the Leader of the Opposition is. I suggest that we adjourn for five minutes to enable everyone to join us.

16:40

Sitting suspended.

Multiculturalism: Interfaith Dialogue

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

16:43

Asked By

[Lord Mitchell]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve interfaith dialogue in multicultural Britain.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I wish just to remind noble Lords that Back-Bench contributions are four minutes, so when the clock strikes four, contribution time is over.

[Lord Mitchell]

My Lords, I am quite overwhelmed by the response of noble Lords to this debate. I am sure that the next 90 minutes are going to be both illuminating and enhancing. I know it is only four minutes per noble Lord, but I am sure it is going to be a good debate and I thank everybody for participating.

I was on holiday during the August riots, but even following events on the internet, one incident made a huge impression on me. Tariq Jahan had just lost his son, Haroon, who was murderously mowed down when he and his friends were trying to protect local shops from looters. Mr Jahan’s words were haunting:

“Why do we have to kill one another? Why are we doing this? Step forward if you want to lose your sons. Otherwise, calm down and go home, please”.

I have twin sons who are the same age as Haroon, and I very much doubt whether I would be so generously minded were the same thing to happen to one of my boys. His words are seared on to my soul. Tariq Jahan said more about inter-communal dialogue in those few words than any of us could do in a lifetime.

Two weeks earlier, in a senseless act of Islamophobia, a white supremacist slaughtered 77 white teenagers at a political holiday resort in Norway. A white killing whites: how can that be Islamophobic, you might ask. Anders Breivik saw the Norwegian Labour party’s policy of defending diversity and tolerance as being supportive of minorities, which indeed it is, and therefore, in his twisted mind, worthy of the terrible carnage that he wrought. His gun was aimed at whites but his true targets were Norwegian Turks. With the tenth anniversary of 9/11 almost upon us, we all know too well that murderers and madmen are everywhere. When we learnt that Breivik had strong links to the extreme right-wing and racist groups in our own country, we knew that we must be on our guard. Indeed, the community response to the English Defence League protest in the East End of London last weekend is a testament to the strength of this vigilance.

The Prime Minister in his speech in Munich last February addressed racism, terrorism, and the failures of multiculturalism. Addressing the issues of extremist ideology, he concentrated on two platforms. The first was to tackle all forms of extremism; the second was to encourage stronger citizenship. He coined the phrase “muscular liberalism”. I would like to introduce a third component: greater understanding. I confess that, for much of my life, every time I heard the word “interfaith”, my heart sank. I saw it as the language of do-gooders—people who speak well and do nothing. My gradual immersion in the world of interfaith dialogue has been a personal journey of overcoming my prejudices. The more I am exposed to the subject, the more convinced I am that it is a crucial way to achieve greater understanding in our society.

Like many noble Lords speaking today, I am a descendant of immigrants. I am Jewish: my grandparents and great-grandparents emigrated to this country from eastern Europe during the 19th century. They trod a well worn path. Like Huguenots and Irish Catholics before them, and Caribbeans, Indians and Pakistanis after them, they came to this country for a better life. Some came to escape persecution, others for the opportunity to participate in the freedom and prosperity that this country has to offer—but all of them came to be part of our nation. When I hear people say that immigrants are lazy scroungers, I look at what the children of immigrants have achieved in business, science, sport, the arts and entertainment, and the professions. This country has been enriched by us all. I do not know this for sure, but I would bet that getting on for 15 per cent of your Lordships' House can trace their ancestry back to relatively recent immigration. What an achievement and what a statement about our country.

In Mr Cameron's view, our multiculturalism has failed because we have,

“encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream”.

In truth, I agree with him. Like three other Lords in your Lordships' House, including the noble Lords, Lord Sacks and Lord Young of Graffham, I went to a grammar school in Finchley called Christ's College. The name is ironic given that all four noble Lords are Jewish, as were at least 50 per cent of boys at the school. Even though we did not attend Christian prayers, we had religious studies on the syllabus. We learnt about the New Testament and Christianity. I am glad to have a good understanding of what is still the dominant and established church in this country. Has this made me a lesser Jew? I think not.

Today, it seems that many minority faith schools pay only lip service to understanding other religions and customs. How can a child from one faith understand a child from another if they never mix, play together or visit each other's homes? Many people from minority communities are worried that their children will become assimilated and their culture diluted. In the UK, more than one-third of young Jews are marrying non-Jews: but this is no reason to live in hermetically sealed silos. For this reason, I feel very uncomfortable with faith schools, although I concede that on this matter and in the Chamber this afternoon I am probably on a losing wicket.

Our ignorance of each other's religions and traditions is shameful. I find it amazing that Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Pesach—major Jewish religious holidays—are simply blurs to most non-Jews. But then, what do I know about Islam and Muslim holidays, or Hindu or Buddhist? Not much, I grant you, but these days I am trying hard to learn. I would like to see the Government begin a programme of instruction to develop interfaith understanding. I would like to see schoolchildren really immersed in other religions so that they know what being a Muslim or a Hindu is really about. I would like to see university administrators and faculty members, school teachers and civil servants versed in minority religions. Here I must pay tribute to the Three Faiths Forum, which does sterling work encouraging school teachers to understand other faiths.

Dietary rules are very important to observant Muslims and Jews, so campus administrators and employers need to know about halal and kosher. It is outrageous that universities still hold exams on major minority religious holidays and then claim, as I have heard them say, that they had no idea. The Coexistence Trust, which I chair—I declare my interest—has a very focused remit. We seek to bring greater understanding between Jewish and Muslim students on our university campuses. Many people are surprised when I tell them that among the Jewish community several universities have been considered no-go areas. They are also surprised to learn that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia exist not just among the students, but among the faculty. I do not want to overstate the case, but the fact is that it lurks below the surface and comes to prominence every time there is an incident in the Middle East. Many faculty members and university administrators have a curious attitude towards these anxieties. They say that universities are not only places of learning, but also places of intellectual challenge. Students, they say, must be prepared to hear things that they do not like, things which may cause them distress; such is campus life. Who will disagree with that? However, when administrators and faculties believe that the laws of the land are somehow not relevant in the campus, as I have witnessed, we have problems. Free speech is of paramount importance, but it has to exist within the law. Universities also have a duty to ensure that hate crimes and racial slurs are not committed. They also have a duty of care to all their students.

How do we go about trying to change these attitudes? The Coexistence Trust addresses issues between Jews and Muslims on 12 of our national campuses. We confine our activities just to Jews and Muslims, just to universities and just to 12 campuses—we have limited resources and we have to be very focused. We set up the trust in such a way that it reflects a balance between both communities. Our trustees, many of them speaking this afternoon, are all Members of your Lordships’ House. Three are Jewish and three are Muslim. Our employees also come from both communities. Our donors are nearly balanced between Muslims and Jews. It means that I can face down anyone who says that we have a bias in either direction. On each campus we have student ambassadors whose function is to engage with both communities. The National Union of Students positively encourages our work, as does the Union of Jewish Students. We are progressing in our links with the Federation of Student Islamic Societies in the hope that they, too, will back us. Our employees and campus ambassadors are taught conflict resolution, which they will need when the situation arises. They are taught leadership skills, which will be required when they enter the workplace. They are our leaders of tomorrow and what we are doing is really making a difference.

Finally, last April I was invited by the British consulate in New York and the British Council, also in that city, to tell the American Jewish community about our activities. There were many misguided opinions about Britain, some quite absurd, but I think that we did a great job of convincing them that we are robustly addressing the problem and when we pushed hard we were astonished to learn that American campuses, too, face many of the same issues that we have in the UK. Anyhow, they must have liked what we said because the FCO and the British Council are encouraging us to set up a partnership with CAUSE-NY, New York—an important example of transatlantic collaboration on intercultural issues. It is a British export of British ideas.

Changing deep-seated opinions and prejudices is not easy. I believe to my innermost core that meeting each other, working with each other and understanding each other’s cultures through interfaith dialogue is a vital way to reduce tensions and make our country a happier place.

16:54

[Lord Young of Graffham]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, for bringing forward this debate today and I declare an interest as a trustee of Coexistence Trust. I pay tribute to the work and the way in which he has transformed the trust over the past few years.

There are three monotheistic faiths. All have the Bible in common, all believe in the same creator, yet so many have suffered down the centuries through ignorance of each other. I am first generation. My father was an immigrant. He came here in 1905 aged five. His elder sister, who was three years older, came with him and kept a diary. She recounted how at night they crept out from the village where they lived, how they were smuggled across the border and how, after a difficult journey, they arrived here and found to their amazement that they could speak the language—they arrived in the Pool of London, the East End was next door, and the language was Yiddish. She quickly learnt that there were other languages. By the early 1920s, my father was playing club cricket and keeping wicket. Never did they wish to give up on their religion, but they were proud to be English. They regarded themselves as English Jews and never forgot their debt of gratitude to this country that gave them shelter and relief from persecution and pogrom.

My noble friend Lord Tebbit has a very succinct way of expressing ideas. His idea of the cricket test—that when you come somewhere, you should follow its side—is one that my father passed with flying colours, but I must confess that I have not yet heard of Lithuania playing test cricket. When they arrived, they expected to conform. They expected to rely on themselves or their coreligionists, for this was decades before Beveridge. However, many decades have passed, and after a period of what appeared unrestrained immigration we are where we are with some parts of our country appearing like another country and another culture, and that is not something that we can just accept.

To declare an interest, I am chair of the Jewish Museum in London, and I commend it to your Lordships' House. Please pay it a visit because it is a museum that shows the experience of an immigrant population that came here and subsumed itself in the life of the nation. Indeed, when our patron, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, came to visit us last November, he was met at the door by a group of 30 schoolchildren under 10 singing Hebrew songs, and they were, without exception, Christian and Muslim. I see the museum as a powerful force in order to spread knowledge of each other’s faiths. Every quarter, 100 Met officers who deal with immigrant communities come through. We have visits from many Muslim schools to better understand our faith. As soon as they see what our religion is about, they realise the similarities with their own religion and how similar the concepts are.

The only antidote to prejudice is knowledge and familiarity. I believe that there is an obligation not so much on the Government, although the Government have their role to play, but on each and every one of us as citizens of this country to reach out where we can to immigrants who arrived after us to show the way and to show how to play a part in the full life of this nation. We intend to widen our board to bring in others of different faiths, and although I may have referred mainly to the Muslim community in what I have said today, because that has been the greatest point of tension, I welcome very much those from the Hindu and Sikh communities.

16:58

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, my noble friend’s debate begs the question: why do we need interfaith dialogue? After all, no religion preaches hatred of our fellow men. Indeed in ancient times, Rabbi Hillel famously summarised the whole of the Torah with the words,

“What is hateful to yourself do not do to your fellow men. The rest is but commentary".

This compassion is emphasised across all the major religions, so the answer to my question is that it is not the faiths that need dialogue, but the faithful. It is people.

Like the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Young, I came here aged five—yes, from Lithuania. I am ancient enough to remember people being openly anti-Semitic, openly talking about the Jewish conspiracy to gain control of the world by corrupting non-Jewish society. The Council of Christians and Jews recognised that dialogue could help deal with this, and it has been arranging dialogue ever since I can remember. Vatican II was also the result of dialogue. Thankfully, this dialogue has been extended to the shared values which apply to all three Abrahamic faiths.

I do not say that anti-Semitism has entirely gone away. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mitchell: it is much reduced; it is not expressed openly any more. It is sometimes expressed in terms of criticism of Israel and it has also gone on to the internet. What has replaced it is Islamophobia. This is discussed openly. In 1997, the Runnymede Trust coined the expression to capture the already growing animosity towards Muslims. In a way, Islamophobia has replaced anti-Semitism. It is as dangerous to our society and our civilisation now as anti-Semitism was then and it should be fought with equal determination.

How do we fight the ignorance and prejudice of the faithful? We do it with dialogue. The work and initiatives of my noble friend Lord Mitchell’s Coexistence Trust and others is crucial. Then there is the law. As my noble friend has said, we have very powerful laws on the statute book regarding hate crime and they need to be enforced and made more known. We are also a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, which has plenty to say about respecting each other’s faiths and traditions. The faith communities themselves must try to understand their own communities better. I declare an interest as Honorary President of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, which is using the recent census and a parallel survey to better understand the nature of the Jewish community. This work is important because the data can be used to both inform dialogue within faiths and inform interfaith work and policy.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Mitchell that publicly funded faith schools act as a barrier to dialogue and the Government should not encourage them. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rees, will tell us that science can help. Maybe modern genetic science, modern body chemistry and our better understanding of behaviour can help. Most important is the internet, as a means both of dialogue and of expressing prejudice. The Arab spring and the recent riots have demonstrated what a potent force it is and the power that it gives to the internet generation.

My approach to interfaith dialogue was inspired many years ago by Isaiah Berlin. There are no moral absolutes, he said. There is no absolute mercy, no absolute justice, no absolute compassion. We just have to work it out together—through dialogue.

17:03

[Lord Hussain]

My Lords, I apologise for being a couple of minutes late to this debate. The Government have a clear responsibility to support greater interfaith dialogue in Britain today. It has never been as critical as it is now to recognise and value the importance of the diversity and richness of a whole variety of cultures which now make up the wonderful tapestry of modern-day Britain.

However, the Government are not the only body to have such responsibilities. Many local authorities are doing splendid work in promoting interfaith dialogue and supporting community-based projects that promote diversity, harmony and mutual respect. Those local authorities need to be encouraged to continue their support for such projects.

However, the Government should pay particular attention to those local authorities which are not doing enough in this regard. We must be careful not to use this debate to place the burden of dialogue solely on faiths associated with settled communities, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism et cetera. This can lead to stigmatism and isolation within what should essentially be an inclusive debate. It is therefore just as important to get Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Methodist and other Christian denominations talking to each other as it is to get Sunni, Shia, Wahhabi and other Muslim groups communicating and promoting understanding.

My home town of Luton often gets headlines for the wrong reasons and ends up getting more than its fair share of negative publicity. At times, it gets branded as a stronghold of the BNP and the English Defence League; at others, as a hot bed of Islamic extremists. These images exist only in the media and are far from reality. I can proudly say that Luton is a shining example of multiculturalism and is able to display some excellent examples of multifaith dialogue and co-operation.

Luton has many multifaith projects which are run by the Luton Council of Faiths. It successfully organises an annual peace walk, where representatives from a variety of faiths walk together from one place of worship to another. It enables people of different faiths to observe the Holocaust memorials together. It holds open days in mosques, churches, Hindu temples and other places of worship so that believers of other faiths can visit and gain knowledge and understanding of each other's faiths. It holds evenings of learning, sacred music events and diversity weeks.

The incredibly hard work of Luton Council of Faiths has been fostered and encouraged in Luton by both Labour and Liberal Democrat administrations in the town hall for the past 20 years. These projects help to promote the whole process of bringing people together from different faiths and cultures and allowing them to appreciate the value of what each other has to offer. Luton Borough Council has also launched the Luton in Harmony initiative, which is a unique campaign to draw diverse communities together to work in partnership and challenge extremism. It is precisely because of the success of this hard work that extremist organisations such as the English Defence League and the British National Party, and Muslim extremist groups such as Al-Muhajiroun, enjoy very little support in the town.

Improving cultural awareness should also be higher up the agenda in schools. Education regarding faith and culture should comprise visits by faith representatives to share their beliefs and practices. In addition, pupils should undertake faith tours, comprising visits to key places of worship.

All initiatives should most definitely be community led and remain completely independent of local and central government control. Anything other than this approach is likely to damage the credibility of faith bodies and will most definitely hinder the great work already being carried out in numerous places across the land.

17:08

[Lord Sacks]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, for initiating this important and necessary debate. I go back to words said by an expert on the subject 2,600 years ago. His name was Jeremiah and he became known as a prophet of gloom. Were he to return to life today, doubtless he would be an economist. He was the first person to analyse the situation many find themselves in today of being a minority in a culture whose beliefs are not their own.

Jeremiah wrote a letter to the Jewish exiles in Babylon in which he said:

“Seek the welfare of the city to which you have gone and pray to God on its behalf, for in its peace and prosperity you will find peace and prosperity”.

He told them in effect: “Maintain your identity while contributing to the common good. Be true to your faith while being a blessing to others regardless of their faith”. That is the challenge today. The good news about religion is that it creates communities based on altruism and trust. It teaches people to make sacrifices for the sake of others. It builds social capital. The bad news is that every community divides as it unites, because for every “us” there is a “them”—the people not like us.

The best way to improve interfaith dialogue in multicultural Britain is to create a sense of national identity so strong that it brings different ethnic and religious communities together in pursuit of the common good—not just the good for “my” group, but the good for all of us together. A nation should respect its faiths, and faiths should respect the nation. That is the only way we will achieve integrated diversity and the dignity of difference, in which we see our differences as contributions that we bring to the common good.

In yesterday's Times, Daniel Finkelstein wrote a moving tribute to his late father, who came to Britain as a Jewish refugee in World War II. He wrote:

“He lived here proud of the nation that let him live, let him learn, let him teach, let him practise his religion. And ultimately let him die in bed, loved by his family”.

That is what Britain means to us in the Jewish community, and surely to the vast majority in all our faith communities. It is vital that we teach all our children, whether in faith schools or not, to honour this country, respect its traditions, contribute to its welfare and show the same respect to others as we ask others to show to us.

Therefore I have a simple proposal. I believe that all Britain's faith communities should be invited to make a voluntary covenant with Britain articulating our responsibilities to others and to the nation as a whole, so that we can be true to our faith while being a blessing to others regardless of theirs.

17:12

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, it is a very great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, because I think that he has done more than almost anybody to provide us with a vocabulary—a grammar— that commends and communicates the dignity of difference. I know that I speak for many people when I say how grateful we are.

I declare an interest as the president of St Ethelburga's Centre for preventing and transforming those conflicts that have a religious dimension. The centre was established in a church bombed by the IRA—of course there is a conflicted history there—with the support of Cardinal Hume and indeed of the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, who is Chief Rabbi, and various Muslim friends as well. I mention that not just to draw attention to a piece of work that is relevant to the debate initiated—for which we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell—but to acknowledge a recent shift in attitudes that, I am glad to say, has already been reflected in government policy. After the very serious disturbances in the northern cities, the subsequent reports and discussion tended to suggest that religion was a problem and that faith schools were a problem. Of course, faith schools are rather different from the church school that the Chief Rabbi attended. It is a quite different idea. We resent very deeply being lumped into that constituency. However, after the northern cities, there was quite an emphasis on religion as a problem.

What happened at the riots in August? Religious tensions did not play a part. Actually, parishes and religious communities were in the forefront of trying to help. That enormously impressive plea from the father of that young man, with the subsequent prayer meeting, was an example of that. Here is another extraordinary example from Tower Hamlets. Already the provocative demonstration of last weekend has been described. A woman member of the EDL got detached from her company and was assaulted not by someone from a different faith but by a totally apolitical ruffian of the borough. He went for her. She was rescued by stewards of the Muslim forum for Europe, who threw a cordon around her and escorted her politely to the Underground station. It is a wonderful vignette of community relations in Tower Hamlets, which, like Luton, sometimes gets a very bad press.

It seems to me that often we have a suggestion that members of certain faith communities are hostile to what are called western values such as freedom and tolerance. In my experience, it is not so much that there is a hatred of our values, but people are appalled by a vacuum of values and an absence of moral true north of the kind visible on our streets in August. That is where there can be a useful partnership between government and faith communities. It is clearly desirable that there should be religious literacy at all levels of government, not least in local authorities, with the capacity to distinguish self-appointed community leaders from people with real followership and commitment to the common good.

I pay tribute to the work that has already been done by government thinking and planning on social cohesion in this area. I am grateful in particular for the Near Neighbours programme, which recognises the positive capacity of churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras and temples to engage with one another across confessional boundaries, and to build alliances in the interests of the common good. I believe that we are in a new world.

17:17

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, on securing this timely debate in view of the challenges that we face—not just in Britain but across the globe. Notwithstanding the hundreds of differences we have between us, people of faith all believe in God, in creation and in the Creator. After all, we belong to the same denomination. We are all God’s creatures. We belong to the same race—the human race. As inhabitants and citizens of the same country, we are mutual neighbours. That applies to all communities.

This requires that we build understanding and friendships with each other based on the purity of heart and sincerity of intentions. We dispose kindly towards one another. In the difficulties pertaining to religious and worldly matters, we should exercise empathy, sympathy and understanding towards one another’s views. After all, a religion which does not inculcate universal compassion is no religion. Similarly, a human being without the faculty of compassion is no human at all. If someone questions the possibility of reaching reconciliation where differences have occurred—indeed, religious differences—because they perceive that it is playing a negative role such as dividing hearts and minds, it can succeed only if it is not based on human values. All religions are based on common, human values. That what binds us is greater than what divides us. It is a danger to our community, to our nation and to the fragmentation of our society if we let those who seek to divide us come forth. Differences can only destroy communities and nations if the process of reconciliation results in some people resorting to insulting and being blasphemous towards the views and religions of others.

Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend the Minister some practical steps. The Muslim community in which I grew up had a concept of religious founders’ days. A common theme is chosen, such as peace or humanity. All faiths are invited to present. But here comes the special ingredient. The Christian will present the Hindu’s view on peace or humanity. The Muslim will present the Jewish perspective and so on. This does not only broaden horizons among people; it educates and teaches not just tolerance but respect and reverence towards the beliefs of all.

The second element I would suggest to the Minister is this. I had the pleasure of following her as the Conservative Party’s vice-chairman for cities, yet when I travelled the country I saw divisions. Under the guise of inclusion we allowed children to be excluded from schools. A child who did not wish to attend a religious education class was allowed to sit aside, but what kind of inclusion is that? Like many others, I am a product of a Church of England school. I learned the Lord’s Prayer. Did it make me any less of a Muslim? As the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, suggested, not at all—it broadened my understanding and taught me about other faiths and communities and, most importantly, respect for all faiths.

The final component is that we must continue to stand up against extremists of all kinds. We should be intolerant of those who are intolerant towards others. If a person wishes to exclude someone, that is the time to instead exclude them.

In conclusion, I am an optimist but I am not complacent. I defy those who say that problems are caused by faith, which means that communities cannot ever work together. I defy those who say those of faith cannot work with those of no faith—they can and our country is testament to that. Faith matters and religion has the solution to build new communities. I accept that we have challenges but they will be overcome. Those who refute the diversity of strength in our faiths and our communities and indeed our nation should look no further than to your Lordships’ House, which is reflective of the strength and the success of our nation—our country—Britain.

17:21

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I join those who pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Mitchell for having given us the opportunity for this debate.

Globalisation is a tough reality. One of its consequences is a sense of powerlessness among increasing numbers of people who feel marginalised and threatened. We therefore have to be very careful about condemning the concept of multiculturalism. My own conviction, from years of working in this sphere, is that multiculturalism can enable people to find a sense of belonging and significance. The challenge is to lead on from that sense of identity and belonging to the realisation that the problems of the world cannot be solved by individual communities. They can be solved only by co-operation. The challenge, therefore, is not to deny multiculturalism but to lead it into dialogue about the realities of the very difficult complexity of modern society and the need for us all to co-operate.

It has been interesting to note how much common ground there has been in this debate and how clearly the voice of moderation and reason comes across. As an extremely liberal Anglican—I hope the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for the description—I feel strongly that one of the greatest God-given realities is the power of reason and intellect. It is almost sacrilegious to deny the development of reason and intellect. It is by fulfilling that potential for understanding that we can be true to what we see as the foundation of our particular faith. We also have to be careful not to let it become a rather comfortable middle-class prerogative to discuss relationships between different religions.

I was glad yesterday to be at a very special occasion in Portcullis House where there was the launch of a book by a policeman who had worked all his professional life in Special Branch in the realm of community relations. He ended his career very effectively as head of the Muslim relations unit at Scotland Yard, and had done a tremendous amount of community work in Brixton. His name is Bob Lambert. I commend to all Members of the House his book about his life’s experience because one of his most important messages is that we must be careful not to accentuate exclusion by allowing the already privileged and articulate to monopolise the debate. He believes strongly that there is always a need to reach out and bring in to the dialogue people who are extreme in their beliefs. It is important to get to the young who, in their isolation and insecurity, have sought refuge in oversimplified and bigoted interpretations of the faith they claim. Bob Lambert has devoted his professional life to doing this and now he has written about it. He is currently involved in immensely important work at both Exeter and St Andrews universities. We need to listen to that kind of experience.

I end by saying that, for me, truth is something for which we are all searching. We have chosen different routes, but whatever route we take, we must always remember that other people in all sincerity have picked other routes. It is by working and talking together that ultimately we will reach an understanding of the truth.

17:26

[Lord Hameed]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Mitchell on this timely and useful debate. As the threats to our daily lives have increased, many of us have sought to understand the message of faiths other than our own. Many eyes have turned in the direction of Islam from whose corner a spate of tragic events has emerged. I make this statement with the declaration of being a Muslim myself. Therefore, in looking at Islam through its main reference source, the holy Koran, we see a religion completely at odds with the actions of the perpetrators of the vile acts of violence and terrorism committed in its name.

The holy book of the Muslims begins with the concept of God as not hurting, harming or cruel, but as beneficent and merciful. It talks of Islam as a religion of peace and not war, for every time a Muslim takes the name of the holy prophet Mohammed, he adds the words “peace be upon him”. The Koran also instructs the believer to be tolerant and compassionate, and to extend a helping hand to the sick and infirm. It commands the pursuit of knowledge, with respect for scholars, women and minorities in any land. The Koran also instructs Muslims to respect other faiths and to live with them as good neighbours in peaceful coexistence. Therefore, strapping oneself with explosives to kill others in an act of suicide in search of martyrdom is totally un-Islamic and against the instructions of the Koran, the holy book that all Muslims must obey.

We have here in the United Kingdom a multi-religious and a mult-ethnic society. Here, dialogue is the only way forward in addressing our differences. We ought to celebrate our commonality and discuss our differences based on mutual respect and trust in each other. It is imperative that we engage together in a continuing dialogue. This dialogue is no longer a luxury of a few well-meaning individuals, it has become a necessity demanding action, without which only catastrophe stares us in the face.

The word “phobia” in the Oxford English Dictionary is described as an extreme and irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing. Thus noble Lords may have heard the term “Islamophobia” being bandied about against Islam, leading to prejudice and a generalised hatred or fear of Islam and its followers. The media around the world have to bear a share of blame for drip-feeding into the minds of readers of newspapers and journals and television viewers regular doses of anti-Muslim material, not to provide factual reporting but to create public excitement and sensationalism to enhance the number of their readers and viewers. The widespread damage that this does to society at large is incalculable. The resultant pressure on Muslim families leads to anger, confusion and frustration at the resulting acts of violence. God’s vision of a just and compassionate human society remains unfulfilled. This in turn leads impressionable young men, low in self esteem, frustrated with unemployment and ostracised by society, to become the best recruiting grounds for the sergeant-majors of terrorism.

We should agree to a broad consensus for more engagement between different cultures and faiths through dialogue. This would be a body blow to extremists. My Lords, your participation and goodwill would be of enormous value to all of us in this task ahead.

17:31

[Lord Sheikh]

My Lords, I was brought up in Uganda, where there were people of different racial and religious backgrounds. I learnt to speak several languages and developed an understanding of, as well as respect for, all religions. I am a patron of several organisations which include Muslims as well as groups of other religions.

I believe that there are more similarities than differences between people and we should highlight similarities in order to establish closer links between communities. I feel that the lack of understanding leads to suspicions and divisions between people. Islam teaches us to celebrate the difference and diversity that God has created in our world. Despite the image portrayed in some parts of the media, Islam has a long and proud history of tolerance of and respect for people of all faiths.

Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions and, according to Islam, people of the book are Muslims, Jews and Christians. The books of Allah are the holy Koran, the Torah, the Gospel of Jesus and the Psalms of David. I may add that in the holy Koran there is a whole chapter on Mary, the mother of Jesus. There are a number of similarities between Sikhism and Islam, and I would like to state that the foundation stone of the golden temple was laid by Mian Mir, a Muslim holy person.

I am chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum and membership of the forum is open to everyone. At all our meetings, we invite persons of all faiths and racial origins. Our guests include members as well as non-members of the Conservative Party. The Conservative Muslim Forum is an active organisation and a substantial part of the work that we do is promoting harmony among various racial and religious groups.

We recently held a meeting at which the two main speakers were an Arab lady and a Jewish lady, both of whom talked about peace between people. The Arab lady was from Gaza and had lost several members of her family during the fighting in Gaza following the Israeli invasion. A book has been published which highlights cases where Muslims saved Jews from the atrocities of the Nazis in the Holocaust. I am in fact launching this book in the House of Lords next week.

Unfortunately, there is a demonisation of Islam in certain quarters, and it is important that the media act in a responsible manner in this regard and avoid use of inflammatory language. In regard to suicide bombings, Islam forbids suicide. In the holy Koran it is written that,

“whoever kills a human being … it as though he has killed all mankind, and whoever saves a human life, it is as though he saved all mankind”.

This saying is similar to what is written in the Talmud, where it is written,

“if you save one life, it is as if you have saved the world”.

I am proud that this country has a longstanding respect for pluralism and tolerance, grounded in a firm respect for liberty. I am also pleased that we seem to have moved away from the concept of what was termed “state multi-culturalism”, whereby the Government decided what was good, and sought to impose their vision. That resulted in an unhealthy degree of intolerance in the name of tolerance: what we should be seeking to build is dialogue and understanding, not an imposed vision decided by Ministers. The best way to challenge extremism is to promote integration and cohesion. That is not something that Ministers or Parliament can impose from Whitehall or Westminster.

In his speech in Munich, I believe the Prime Minister was right to focus on eradicating the things that tear us apart. Separation can lead to extremism, and extremism can be a very unpleasant spectacle. That means that we need to focus on what brings us together, rather than obsessing about what makes us different. We need therefore to talk about integration, which was the real message underpinning the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich.

Finally, I am looking forward to receiving my noble friend the Minister’s comments as to the initiatives the Government will implement in strengthening interfaith dialogue.

17:36

[Lord Stone of Blackheath]

My Lords, an increasing number of people are now describing themselves as spiritual, but not necessarily religious. They are able to see the spirituality in all faiths, and in the traditions of the East, and in the new scientific models of the universe. This new cultural approach is welcoming of diversity, inclusive and holistic.

In the past year I have witnessed this at a meditation of thousands of people with Deepak Chopra, in Alternatives in Piccadilly; at the wedding of my niece, Becky Cantor, at Bevis Marks, the oldest synagogue in the UK; and at the ordination of a multi-faith minister, David Wetton, at the Second Church of Christ. Only last month, for three days, at the Global Retreat Centre of the Brahma Kumaris, I met with 30 experts from 18 different countries—swamis, rabbis, Muslim Sufis, Archbishops, Buddhists and, of course, several Hindu and Brahma Kumari. In a session with Sister Jayanti and Marcus Braybrooke, the president of the World Congress of Faiths, we discussed how to integrate spirituality into our life and work. The major faiths, with differing road maps, all want to instil the qualities of love and compassion, and much interfaith dialogue consists of comparing those road maps. We discussed whether interfaith dialogue could actually lead to something more binding, that is, inter-spirituality.

At this point, I must declare an interest: I have been working with a group for over two years, planning to build and develop “Space to Contemplate” in Britain. This will be a visitor centre, as big as the Tate Modern, where people of any faith, or none, can enter a variety of carefully built rooms, to express the essence of spiritual existence. We intend to trigger for people a brief encounter with what we might call the numinous, or the divine, or the universal force. It will offer a selection of methods learned from human traditions going back thousands of years, through the Abrahamic faiths, the pre-monotheistic traditions, the philosophies of the East, and secular sciences, art and music. The project is a work in progress, and next weekend over 40 experts and practitioners from all over the world are gathering for three days in Oxford to discuss the concept. Those involved believe that such a facility is a key ingredient for building communities, and, in doing so, it will enhance our social capital. It will open up the experience of spirituality to tens of thousands of individuals, young and old, from all walks of life. Cumulatively, it will change people’s perception, and thence, perhaps, help them to choose to live lives that are of service.

I would suggest to the Minister that the Government do have a huge part to play here, as this is so important to civil society. I suggest that, in those areas where I have some little experience, the Government should continue to develop mindful strategies. For example, with regard to education, humans are known to have a rudimentary moral sense from the very early start of life. We must develop this using methods whereby children as young as eight, university students certainly, and people in lifelong learning, can absorb knowledge not only from a physical and intellectual level, but also from experiencing a different type of awareness and consciousness, connecting humanity to the whole universe and thus bringing to the fore values of how we think, speak and act.

On health and well-being, I am pleased that within our health service we are beginning to focus, with the help of a charity I chair, Healthtalkonline, on the whole patient and their experience as a human being. Meanwhile, in the creative industries the Government should support those innovative centres such as Imperial College and the Royal College of Art that have together formed Design London, recognising that there is huge potential in tapping into the inspiration where science, art and consciousness come together in a broader awareness. Finally, on conflict and its avoidance and resolution, both at home and abroad multicultural and interfaith dialogue can bring people together in deeper, more sympathetic understanding. Also, when we have to go to war to defend those principles, even that can be done mindfully.

In conclusion, I suggest that while interfaith dialogue is important we should all support the millions of open-hearted people—and their projects—who recognise that at the core of all religions and within the new, scientific understanding of the universe there is a common experience of the sheer wonder, energy and mystery of existence and its interconnectedness. It is this that holds us together in the diverse fabric of life. Thank you, and Om Shanti.

17:41

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, for this debate and I very much appreciated what other noble Lords have said. I have been involved in interfaith work for some 40 years now and have been hugely enriched by that experience. In this short debate, I want to approach the subject in a slightly oblique way. My starting point is the positive attitude by both the previous Government and this present one to faith communities. I very much want to affirm that stance and outline why it is of such importance at present.

Michael Sandel, in his Reith lectures and writings, has shown decisively that the combination of social and market liberalism which has dominated the West in recent decades, if taken by itself, totally fails to reflect our deepest convictions as human beings. Furthermore, a number of secular academic thinkers such as the late Tony Judt have argued passionately for a much stronger ethical framework for our economic, political and social life. More than this, the distinguished German sociologist Jürgen Habermas entitled a recent book An Awareness of What is Missing. In this, he argued that all our most fundamental concepts such as community, person, and solidarity are rooted in religion and, more than this, he refers to what he calls “the unexhausted force” of religion to continue to nourish and help shape the values and life of our society.

In drawing attention to this, I do not want in any way to underplay the contribution of secular thinkers to our society or ignore the huge contribution to the common good made by people who have no religious faith. I do not think that religious bodies have any claim to the high moral ground; indeed, as we all know, their record is a mixed one. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore a range of distinguished secular thinkers, with no religious axe to grind, who are worried not just about the actual state of our society but about the total lack of a coherent and consistent overriding moral framework for it. Seamus Heaney, the Nobel prize-winning poet, wrote that he thought that our society was running on an unconscious provided by religion. He went on to say that he thought his grandchildren would not have that.

We have already heard of the deeply moving attitude of Mr Tariq Jahan after the death of his son in the riots in Birmingham. It has been pointed out to us that this was not an isolated reaction. In Southall, I understand that the Sikhs and Muslims guarded each others’ place of worship at times of prayer during the riots. If religion sometimes leads people to take up extreme attitudes, infinitely more it motivates ordinary people to live out their highest ideals, sometimes with great courage. It might interest noble Lords that Mr Tariq Jahan has already indicated his intention of coming to speak under the auspices of the All-Party Interfaith Group, which I have the privilege of chairing, to talk about constructive reactions to the riots—as has a reading Sikh.

In contributing to this debate, I want to emphasise not just what the Government can do in relation to interfaith dialogue but their whole stance towards faith communities in every aspect of government policy.

The fact is that there is a huge amount of interfaith dialogue going on at every level from universities to neighbours in streets. However, this is only one aspect of what faith communities do. It is the attitude of the Government, not least in education, that is so important. There are a number of strident secular voices in our society that like to erase religion from life altogether and banish it from the public sphere. Therefore, we cannot take the positive attitude of the Government for granted. We should very much welcome it. I particularly look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in particular in relation to interfaith work.

17:46

[Lord Popat]

I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, for instigating today’s debate. I apologise in case I missed the first few seconds of the opening remarks. It is not always easy to discuss or defend faith in modern Britain. I can understand why individuals or particularly the Government decide not to “do God”, as the previous Prime Minister put it. I am often concerned that we do not have a suitable platform on which to discuss faith in this country. Too often we are scared to discuss faith for fear of offence or because we do not understand things. This is not helped by a media that are often very negative to faith and the positive roles that faith can play.

However, for those of us who believe in faith and know what identity and strength faith can provide, avoiding these discussions would be a great injustice for society, and so I fully welcome today’s debate. As a proud Hindu who attended Catholic school in Uganda, I always consider it a great honour to sit on these Benches and attend the daily prayers. Faith is a great inspiration to me. We are very fortunate to debate in a House that praises God at the beginning of every day. I find our prayers energising, and a great inspiration for the day ahead.

Interfaith dialogue and co-operation is an essential part of building real communities. We should not isolate ourselves and build barriers through religion. However, to prevent these barriers arising, it is essential that all of us, including the Government, engage openly in discussions of faith. We cannot rely on the Government alone. Interfaith dialogue can be truly successful only at a grassroots level. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, who said in a recent article that we need more faith leaders and faith communities not just to stand up and speak out in defence of faith, but to explain it properly as well.

For interfaith dialogue to succeed, faith leaders need to explain their religion in a way that people of all faiths, and of no faith, can understand. I firmly believe that many, if not most, religions share similar values at their core, yet people of faith still feel distant from one another. We in the Hindu community have been very lucky to receive excellent guidance in the past from the Board of Deputies of British Jews. I have always believed that no faith has a monopoly on the truth and that, when we respect other faiths, we are in fact showing respect to our own faith, which teaches us to respect other faiths. Through respect, love, compassion and dialogue, we can all become more enlightened through each other’s faiths.

I am encouraged by the approach that our Government have taken to faith and in promoting interfaith dialogue. Faith groups are now treated with respect. Their work is welcomed. How many of us have seen churches or faith groups working in their community to help people who others have abandoned? This Government have been quick to identify the positive work of faith groups in communities, particularly in school and charitable work. I support the Government’s more open stance to suitable faiths and faith groups; their inclusion makes us a stronger and better society.

However, the Government have also been clear that our faith is subordinate to our nationality, our common values and the law and that extremists of any religion must not be tolerated. Faith groups, or faith communities, that wish to work with, live in or rely on the British state must also respect core British values—values that are envied around the world. I was proud to be an instigator of the Hindu Forum of Britain, adopting the slogan “Proud to be British, proud to be Hindu”. It is a phrase that I believe strongly echoes the position that the Government are moving towards and must continue to support.

17:50

[Lord Noon]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Mitchell for initiating this important short debate. It is even more pertinent given that we are approaching the anniversary of 9/11. That should focus all our minds on the central importance of mutual understanding and tolerance. I am honoured to be a trustee of the Coexistence Trust. My noble friend has said much about that trust. There is a long and proud tradition in this country of interfaith dialogue and co-operation. The previous Government sought to build on this in the excellent report, Face to Face and Side by Side, with its focus on partnership working in a multifaith society. The report primarily concerns how faith communities, government and wider societies can work together. It was a bold initiative from a Government.

Dialogue means talking to one another and to do that we must have a shared language. Yet it is sadly still the case that many imams in mosques around the country do not speak English. As a Muslim, I encourage trustees of mosques who bring in imams from overseas to make sure that they can speak English and know the traditions of our country. I would like to see more young Muslims, especially young Muslim girls, taking their place alongside young people from other faiths in promoting interfaith dialogue and collaboration.

Islam teaches peace, affection and brotherhood. We can all learn from each other. With free and open dialogue we will reach greater understanding and tolerance. I hope the Minister agrees that that is an important issue which needs to be addressed. For my part, my foundation has provided substantial funding to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, especially to train local imams to promote the scholarly study of Islam in contemporary Muslim societies. It is also important to acknowledge that there are some excellent British imams and mosques undertaking tremendous work to break down barriers, and who use their influence to promote dialogue and understanding. We must stand up to the extremists and pedlars of rubbish and discontent. The Government must be strong in their opposition and not mollycoddle the uneducated, imported priests who are doing the damage.

A truly religious person who believes in divine justice will not be unjust to others. We must work towards justice for all. In that context we must understand the problem of Palestine and work towards implementing a just solution. Real or perceived injustice is one of the main causes of extremism. Extremism feeds on prejudice. This must be countered by a commitment to the truth—truth about oneself and one’s relations with others. Extremism thrives where there is an absence of knowledge and reasoning. Respectful public debate about the truth of religious claims would be one of the best antidotes to religiously motivated violence. At the same time we must reject disrespect of any religious symbols. In this country we have taken a stand against dictators and tyrants at great personal cost. Extremism thrives when people do not have legitimate ways of expressing their individuality, unique perspective and common grievances. However, I remind every Muslim that the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, said that whichever country you go to and whichever country you live in, you should be loyal to that country.

I hope that through debates such as this we can keep alive the idea that it is not just religious leaders who need to be engaged in interfaith dialogue; it is also crucial to have government, politicians, parents and young people involved in this work. That is the true meaning of interfaith dialogue partnership. I am sure that the Minister will respond positively to this call for more action.

17:55

[Lord Rees of Ludlow]

My Lords, speakers in this debate have focused on the crucial need for dialogue among the different faith traditions but we are an increasingly secular nation. I speak as an unbeliever but one who has been nourished by the cultural, musical and liturgical traditions of the English Church in which I was brought up. Many Jews sustain their Friday ritual in their homes, even though they describe themselves as atheists. By analogy I am a tribal Christian, practising but not believing.

I speak today because I am concerned about a troubling trend spearheaded by some scientists—vocal intolerance of those who profess any faith. This kind of stand-off between science on the one hand and faith in general on the other is harmful to both. Science should be a unifying force. It pervades all our lives and it is a truly global culture. Protons, proteins and Pythagoras are the same from China to Peru. The pursuit of scientific understanding straddles all barriers of nationality and faith. We can all share the wonder and mystery of the natural world.

Charles Darwin said about religion that,

“the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can”.

That is, of course, a glaringly different stance from that adopted by some of Darwinism’s most strident proponents today.

Of course, we should all oppose the teachings of views manifestly in conflict with the evidence, such as creationism. But we can aspire to peaceful coexistence with the less dogmatic strands of mainstream faiths. Indeed, many researchers and teachers of science are religious. They have no problems with Darwinism; they can study cosmology and at the same time proclaim that the,

“heavens declare the glory of God”.

Indeed, I think that it is teachers with faith who can be most effective in defending evolutionary science against attempts to inject creationism and intelligent design into the school science curriculum. A less conciliatory approach can backfire. If scientists take the uncompromising line that Darwinism is incompatible with any belief, many young people raised in a faith-based culture will stay loyal to their religion and be lost, quite unnecessarily, to science.

This stand-off is counterproductive for another reason. Extremist zealots imperil us all, whether they are traditional fundamentalists or new-age cults, and we need the broadest alliance we can muster against them. That alliance should surely include the adherence of most mainstream faiths that support science and who are equally anxious about extremism. Indeed, we are fortunate in this nation’s current religious leaders who all elevate the tone of public debate. Their role is crucial. Society must be guided by the knowledge that 21st-century science can offer, but even a secular society needs the idealism, vision and commitment that science alone cannot provide.

17:59

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, this has been a very fine debate thanks to the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lord Mitchell, and the wealth of experience in this Chamber. In this House we are fortunate to have noble Lords of so many faiths, and none. Shortly we will have a new colleague who is a Sikh and I am sure that we all celebrate that.

Interfaith dialogue and action have taken place for many centuries—indeed, millennia, as the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, informed us. I mention Emperor Akbar the Great who encouraged tolerance in Mughal India which was, and is, a hugely diverse nation. Acts of violence, including wars, have also taken place over the centuries in the name of religion. The need for interfaith action and dialogue continues. I suggest that in our globalised world, more and more people migrate for economic and social reasons, and for security when their own states become fragile, and that need will increase. Indeed, when one considers poor harvests, escalating water shortages, and the effects of climate change, especially in coastal areas, there are bound to be more tensions in our world, more migration and more diversity in our societies. As a result, the mutual understanding and tolerance that come from interfaith dialogue grow more and more significant. As we have heard this afternoon, interfaith is not just about religion; it is about building bridges within and between diverse communities; it is about health, education, poverty, hunger, and so many other things; it is about action. As Gandhi said,

“What is faith if it is not translated into action?”.

We have heard some superb examples this afternoon of interfaith dialogue leading to action and to real change in people’s lives. Thanks to a conversation with the former Bishop of Coventry some years ago, I learnt of the interfaith work that they have nurtured in Kaduna, Nigeria. I visited both Christians and Muslims in that area, and learnt that lives have been saved there thanks to the interfaith dialogue that has taken place. Only a couple of months ago I was in Bradford with the Muslim Women’s Council, a feisty bunch of confident women who I am sure are well known to the Minister. They are leaders in their community, and some are actively engaged in interfaith dialogue. I say to my noble friend that they certainly are encouraging young girls to engage in dialogue with people of other religions.

I was much taken by the Coexistence Trust mentioned by my noble friend who chairs it and by so many others. I am delighted that it is being encouraged by the FCO and the British Council to set up a trust in the United States, and I wish it well. I hope that it is asked to take root in other countries. As an aside, I have to say that I have concerns about some religious schools. Like my noble friend, I wonder how closed institutions that educate children of one faith only can contribute to combating ignorance and lead to a more tolerant society in which the traditions of this country are honoured and respected.

President Kennedy said:

“Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s one beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others”.

Tolerance is at the heart of our debate this afternoon. I hope that our society is becoming more tolerant, including of science. A recent poll said that 88 per cent of people of faith supported the previous Government making incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation unlawful. I think that is a great way forward. I am proud to live in a country where, for the vast majority of the time, we celebrate our communality and respect our differences.

We live in a richly diverse and multicultural society that we celebrate, but we live in difficult, often divisive, times. For many reasons, our communities are sometimes fractured and people feel insecure and burdened. The values that underpin our society sometimes feel more fragile than they should, and some citizens, of all religions and origins, feel that the cultural and religious values that they cherish are under threat.

I agree with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, that the liberal, unregulated market economy that we have been living with has failed us, and that we need to build a more ethical framework for our future. I think that interfaith dialogue can help us in that. As has been said, interfaith dialogue nurtures understanding, promotes tolerance, and fosters our confidence to be proud of who and what we are in a diverse society. It contributes to the common good, but it must be inclusive. Therefore, interfaith dialogue is and must be one of the means by which our communities are strengthened in our increasingly complex world.

18:04

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, not only for initiating this important debate but also for the work of the Coexistence Trust which he chairs with such energy. I have worked with the noble Lord for a number of years and have seen first hand the good work he does in promoting understanding between followers of the Islamic and Jewish faiths, especially among the young. He has an amazing ability to speak frankly and robustly, and with a genuine, deep understanding.

In September last year, I made a speech about faith at the Anglican Bishops’ Conference in Oxford. I believe that it was the first time a Cabinet Minister had spoken so frankly about faith for many years. I said that this Government would “do God”. I thought long and hard before I said what I did. As my noble friend Lord Popat said, it is not always easy to speak openly about faith. I tried to make an evidential case for faith in our country and stated that, contrary to popular belief, it is certainly not fading away. I explained that faith inspires many people to do good works and gives rise to huge numbers of personal kindnesses and other civic contributions. Faith shapes beliefs and behaviour, offers a sense of purpose and, ultimately, helps build a bigger and more just society in the positive ways referred to by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I announced that the aim of this Government was to help rather than hinder faith communities in the good works they did. Looking back, I believe the impact of the speech was positive. Again today, I welcome the positive remarks about the Government made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. The main thing that I discovered by making the speech was that there is a large, untapped appetite for a more mature discussion of faith in our country. It was important to take stock of where Britain was with faith.

This brings me to the topic of this evening’s debate: interfaith dialogue, collaboration and activity. Interfaith dialogue helps raise the standard of all faith-based debate in our country. The UK is home not just to Christianity but also to a host of the world's great religions and faiths: Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and many more. Britain's faith communities come from a huge range of different ethnic backgrounds and religious traditions, and this gives our country strength. I profoundly believe that there is far more that unites faith communities than divides them: common bonds that should be the basis for better understanding. This sentiment was put far more intellectually by the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that we must not accentuate exclusion but seek to be more inclusive.

Despite what we may read in the papers or see on our television screens, we know that the vast majority get on and live together as peaceful neighbours. We must recognise and pay tribute to the role of the established church and its Christian values in making Britain a welcoming and tolerant society—and all noble Lords know the value of having bishops in the House. The church has always been at the forefront of providing support to our communities, both established and newly arrived. There are many excellent examples of Britain's strong tradition of good neighbourly relations and our strong record of harmony within and between faith communities.

This brings me to the point raised by my noble friends Lord Young of Graffham and Lord Hussain about the work of faith communities. Faith communities make a vital contribution to national life and have done for centuries: guiding the moral outlook of many, inspiring great numbers of people to public service and providing help to those in need, as well as providing much needed knowledge about their own faiths. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the tremendous work that my noble friend Lord Hussain continues to do in very difficult circumstances in Luton. I know from my own visits how difficult Luton can be.

Faith is not just a belief or a theory: it is about how we live, how we shape our lives and how we work together to serve those in need. Across the country people from different faiths are working hard together in countless churches, mosques, temples, gurdwaras, synagogues, charities and community groups. They are inspired by their faith to address often the most deep-seated problems in their local communities. Unfortunately, in the past, this has not been sufficiently recognised by Governments of all colours.

I have worked with the Church of England for a number of years and I am constantly amazed by the work that it does throughout the country; for example, by providing education, supporting the homeless and helping those recovering from the problems of drug abuse and other addictions. Through the Government’s £5 million investment in the Church Urban Fund's Near Neighbours programme, we are putting our money where our mouth is—not through a top-down intervention but by using the existing infrastructure of the Church of England to build productive local relationships between people of different faiths in four key geographical target areas. People of any religious background will be able to bid for that fund through their local Anglican parish, to run projects that improve their local neighbourhoods with people from all faiths working alongside each other. The programme is an excellent example of partnership working.

I come to the point raised by my noble friends Lord Sheikh and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, and by the noble Lord, Lord Noon, about interfaith dialogue. There is a great deal of work going on locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. Some projects are supported by central government, some by local government and some by faith communities themselves. There are 25 national interfaith bodies, such as the Joseph Interfaith Foundation, the Christian Muslim Forum, the Inter-faith Council for Wales and many others, which exist to promote interfaith engagement.

I note with interest my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon’s comments on the Lord’s Prayer. My daughter has her own version; she says that she ends her Lord’s Prayer by saying “Ameen” and thereby makes it her own.

The noble Lord, Lord Hameed, spoke about interfaith dialogue being a necessity in today’s times and I agree with him. He will be pleased to know that local interfaith groups have grown significantly over the last few years. There are currently more than 220 local interfaith bodies in the UK as well as 15 regional ones. There is also an increasing number of interfaith groups in schools, colleges and universities, and seven educational and academic institutions now exist with a particular focus on interfaith issues. Our country is a world leader in interfaith activity; indeed, our officials working in this area have often been approached by other countries to ask how we do it.

A number of noble Lords raised the issue of the alleged negative effect of faith schools on integration. This Government greatly value the contribution that faith schools make to the education sector by providing high-quality school places and choice for parents. Faith schools have been and remain an important element of that provision and this Government remain committed in our support for that. We do not accept that faith schools are divisive and promote segregation. They are no less committed to community cohesion than other schools. What matters is not the school one attends, but the understanding taught in these schools, as was so beautifully put by the noble Lord, Lord Sacks. I also note with interest his idea of a covenant of Britain. I would welcome a further discussion with him as to what role government can play.

I also note and welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and his concerns about the rising level of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred, issues that I raised earlier this year myself. The Government are doing much to support interfaith work and interfaith activity, whether that is interfaith dialogue; a continuation of support for the Inter Faith Network, despite the current economic climate; or the further support for Inter Faith Week, when, last year, 435 separate events were hosted around the country, including many supported by government. This year, Inter Faith Week will take place between 20 and 26 November. We are continuing to support the Near Neighbours programme, which I have mentioned, and, of course, there was a clear interfaith element to the papal visit of last year. I take on the further suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath.

I welcome the way that this debate has been conducted, especially by the Benches opposite. In conclusion, interfaith work has been going on for a long time, but it needs to be more meaningful and more practical. Of course religious leaders have spoken to each other for many centuries but, interestingly, it occasionally appears to be dialogue around my understanding of your version of your god, and your understanding of my version of my god. It has to be much more meaningful than that; there has to be respect for my understanding of your god in the way that you view your god. And it has to go beyond religious leaders; congregations must actually work together, not just in interfaith dialogue, but in interfaith activity; congregations must get together and do meaningful activity within their communities, because the best way to understand a person is to work with them, to eat with them, to create a friendship. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, will remember that we spoke some time ago about the challenge to the Coexistence Trust and to many interfaith bodies in going beyond what I used to define as “samosa and chai parties” into more meaningful interaction. I am delighted with the work that the Coexistence Trust has continued to do in light of those discussions.

I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that the Government have taken a very clear stance in relation to faith, the importance of faith, the importance of faith in the public sphere and our support for interfaith activity and dialogue.

Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with an amendment. It was ordered that the Commons amendment be printed.

House adjourned at 6.15 pm.