House of Commons

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

Thursday 13 October 2011

The House met at half-past Ten o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Business before Questions

Bank of Ireland (UK) plc Bill

Bill considered.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

1. What steps her Department is considering taking to protect households in Warrington from flooding.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

Before I start, may I welcome the new members of the Opposition Front-Bench team and the returning member, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)? That is a great pleasure and I look forward to working with them in future weeks; the hon. Gentleman is living proof that one can boil cabbage twice.

The Environment Agency is working closely with partners to develop a scheme that will reduce the risk of flooding from the River Mersey to 2,000 properties in Warrington. Last year, DEFRA provided £200,000 to Warrington borough council, which it used to address local flood risk for 30 homes in Dallam and Orford. Flood risk from rivers in Warrington is also actively managed by water course maintenance, flood warning and development control.

[David Mowat]

I thank the Minister for that reply, and, as he says, the work that has taken and is taking place in Westy is much appreciated. In other parts of Warrington, around Penketh and Sankey, the previously planned work has been delayed. Will the Minister give some indication of the time scales for that work?

[Richard Benyon]

It is to my hon. Friend’s credit that he continuously raises these issues with the Environment Agency and the Department. The Sankey area is of great concern to a number of households. It does not rate as highly as the other much larger scheme in the Warrington area and it will be considered, as is the way, with complete transparency in the funding scheme that has been announced, which will be considered by the local flood authority in due course.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

On the subject of Warrington, not Edmonton.

[Mr Love]

It is allied to Warrington.

[Mr Speaker]

Then we will test the water.

[Mr Love]

If I may say so, Mr Speaker, the similarities are very great, because just like Warrington, we suffered—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was prepared to give him some latitude, but the question must be purely on Warrington rather than allied to Warrington. We are grateful to him for his industrious efforts.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

2. What steps the Environment Agency is taking that will contribute to growth and employment in the recycling sector.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I, too, want to add my welcome to the new members of the shadow DEFRA team. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is remembered fondly by officials at DEFRA and I should send their regards.

The UK’s waste and recycling sector is valued at more than £12 billion a year and is projected to grow between 3% and 5% a year for the next seven years, making a valuable contribution to the greening of our economy. The Environment Agency will implement part of the Government’s waste review to ensure that regulation is effective in protecting human health and the environment while making compliance as easy as possible for legitimate business.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My right hon. Friend will be interested to learn of a potassic lime fertiliser produced by 4Recycling, a company on the periphery of my constituency of Elmet and Rothwell. The product is made from recycled material but the company is being hindered by the bureaucracy of the Environment Agency. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the issues that are restricting growth in this industry?

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend has been vigilant in writing to me about this product, produced by 4Recycling Ltd. I must set straight for the record that the product, potassic lime, is a mixture of water treatment work sludge and cement kiln dust. A current analysis of the product shows that it contains contaminated products, such as lead. The caution that the Environment Agency has exercised is therefore something that I am sure all Members of the House would understand, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further.

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

If the Environment Secretary had followed Scotland and Wales and adopted an ambitious 70% recycling target in her waste review, she could have created 50,000 new green jobs, yet she has been silent as the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government splurged £250 million on weekly bin collections, directly undermining her own waste strategy. Is saving her own job really more important than creating 50,000 jobs in the real economy?

[Mrs Spelman]

First, we ought to record with gratitude the effort that the public make to help with recycling rates. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that it is not right to take a one-size-fits-all approach and that it is up to local authorities to decide the best collection service for their area. I fully support the scheme being introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government because it is conditional on environmental benefits as well as giving increased value for money for the taxpayer.

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

3. What steps she is taking to encourage young people to take up learning and vocational training opportunities in the countryside and farming sector.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking to encourage young people to take up learning and vocational training opportunities in the countryside and farming sector.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to encourage young people to take up learning and vocational training opportunities in the countryside and farming sector.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

11. What steps she is taking to encourage young people to take up learning and vocational training opportunities in the countryside and farming sector.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

12. What steps she is taking to encourage young people to take up learning and vocational training opportunities in the countryside and farming sector.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I am delighted that so many colleagues are keen to ask about this important issue. Improving skills and creating learning opportunities is an essential part of delivering growth in farming, rural areas and food businesses. To that end, earlier in the summer, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, announced 50,000 new apprenticeships, mainly associated with agriculture and the food industry. In addition, we are working closely with colleagues at the Departments for Education and for Business, Innovation and Skills to make sure that rural areas benefit from the additional £250 million that the Government are investing in adult apprenticeships.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she encourage her Ministers to work with people such as those at the Suffolk Agricultural Association, who hold annual school days for children, to ensure that they are involved in encouraging the take-up of apprenticeships when people leave school?

[Mrs Spelman]

I have absolutely no hesitation in endorsing that scheme in Suffolk. Obviously, we would like to see that example of best practice replicated elsewhere.

[Andrew Stephenson]

With the rising price of lamb making upland sheep farming a promising and viable business now and for the future, what is the Minister going to do to ensure that more young people are attracted to remain in this sector of farming after generations of farmers’ sons and daughters have left it?

[Mrs Spelman]

I well remember, when we launched our upland support package, which brought £26 million of new money to help support farmers and their communities in the uplands, sheep farmers saying to me that this problem of succession is a serious one. So I was delighted to hear that Northumberland national park, in partnership with Lantra, is encouraging a programme with the local college in that national park for upland farming skills. A similar scheme called Dartmoor skills has also been introduced. I think that young people will increasingly be attracted to the tradition of sheep farming, which has a bright future.

[George Eustice]

Last year, the Welsh Assembly Government launched the young entrants support scheme—an innovative project that offers grant funding and business mentoring to new entrants and young farmers. Will the Secretary of State look at replicating something similar in the UK? We have a real problem in that around a third of farmers are over the age of 65. We must try to get some new people in.

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I think that that scheme has merit. As I announced earlier this month, we will have a rural strand as part of the growth review. I am sure that all Members want to see part of the economic recovery of our country vested in rural areas, which have often been neglected. A huge opportunity exists to help young people to enter land-based employment and to encourage rural enterprise.

[Brandon Lewis]

Does the Secretary of State agree that national park authorities such as the Broads Authority in my constituency do some great work with disadvantaged youngsters in their outreach programmes and that all national park authorities should prioritise that kind of outreach work?

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, the Broads Authority sets a very good example in helping young people, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged young people, to gain access to the countryside. I am delighted to tell the House that the Health and Safety Executive has, at the request of the Government, simplified its guidance for farm visits, thereby removing one of the significant barriers to helping schoolchildren access the countryside. Through the rural development programme for England, we make it possible for 1,000 farms to be visited by our young people; access to nature for young people is a very important part of investing in their future.

[Sajid Javid]

I recently met a farmer in my constituency who told me that more than 80% of his 50 employees are hard-working eastern Europeans. He finds it very difficult to attract young British people to take on those jobs. Is there anything that the Secretary of State’s Department can do to make this work more attractive to them?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am sure that the same complaint has been made to other hon. Members. On Open Farm Sunday, I visited a farm in Worcestershire where exactly the same point was made to me. It is important to stress, for the record, that although manual work on the farm is hard work, it can be very well paid—up to £10 an hour on average—so that seems not to be the impediment. By working with the Department for Work and Pensions, we are very keen to make sure that work does pay for our young people.

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

Will not a lot of young people be discouraged from going into agriculture by the Government’s plans to scrap the Agricultural Wages Board, as that will drive down wages and conditions, particularly for young people and casual workers? Should the Secretary of State not listen to her coalition friend the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I believe, has said that he is against the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board? Listening to him is something that she could do to help workers and young workers in particular.

[Mrs Spelman]

This is becoming something of an obsession for the Labour party, but Labour Members refuse to accept or acknowledge that, when in government, they were certainly considering scrapping the Agricultural Wages Board, and only the Warwick agreement and pressure from the unions—their paymasters—caused them to change their minds. Employment legislation has moved on tremendously since 1948, when the Agricultural Wages Board was set up. They are supporting an analogue solution in a digital age.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Notwithstanding the previous question, does my right hon. Friend not agree that potential new, young entrants will be looking closely at the common agricultural policy reform proposals published by the Commission yesterday? Although there are welcome proposals with regard to payments to young farmers, does she not agree that many of the other proposals would undermine the competitiveness of the future of British and, indeed, European agriculture?

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that. The House will be aware that the Commission has just published its proposals to reform the CAP, and I am afraid that they are disappointing. We will do all we can to improve them. We need agriculture that is competitive, market oriented and successful, to attract new entrants, but at first sight—we need to do more analysis—the Commission’s proposals seem extremely bureaucratic and do not move us in the right direction.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

4. What recent discussions she has had with (a) the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and (b) Natural England on the effects of bats on churches and other listed buildings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

The Secretary of State has met church building representatives to discuss the issues, and Natural England is working closely with them to find solutions to difficult cases. We have had no discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the issue.

[Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend’s family have the patronage of the livings of a number of churches, so he will know more than most Members about the damage done by bat faeces and urine to church fabric. May I exhort him to encourage Natural England to do much more to work with English Heritage to try to ensure that, while bats continue to have their statutory protection, they do not have it at the cost of irreparable damage to our parish churches?

[Richard Benyon]

As someone who loves bats and is a reasonably regular churchgoer, I suppose that I am qualified to talk about this. There is a serious point: of course, we want to abide by the habitats directive and, in most cases, working with Natural England, we can resolve these issues locally, but it would be ridiculous if churches that have been used for worship for hundreds of years become unusable owing to a too-close following of the directive. There must be a common-sense way forward. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend in his capacity as the Second Church Estates Commissioner to ensure that we have sensible policies on the issue.

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

At St Hilda’s church in a parish near Thornton-le-Dale parish, the bats are allowed to use the church but the congregation is not. Have we not reached a ridiculous state of affairs when bats have greater protection than the congregation?

[Richard Benyon]

I am aware of the issue at St Hilda’s. If that really is the case, we have reached an absolute impasse. We must consider finding an alternative means to provide a place where bats can roost and people can worship. That is one of the reasons why the Government have put all wildlife legislation in the Law Commission’s hands—to make absolutely certain that we are not gold-plating our interpretation of the directive. I assure my hon. Friend that I will work with her and any other Member if they find examples where we have hit the buffers and cannot find a way forward.

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

7. What recent discussions she has had on reform of the common fisheries policy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

As UK Fisheries Minister, I continue to have discussions about the reform of the common fisheries policy with a wide range of people and organisations, including the EU Commission, Members of the UK and European Parliaments and ministerial colleagues from other member states, as well as representatives of fishing and related industries. I will continue to press our case for reform, as the negotiations develop in the Council and European Parliament.

[Oliver Colvile]

May I urge my hon. Friend to press for UK fishing waters to come back under UK control, and to sort out the loopy idea that the Austrians might end up having a vote on the common fisheries policy even though they do not have a single piece of coastline?

[Richard Benyon]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. That debate will perhaps be had at a higher level than mine, but he should remember two things. First, we are dealing with an industry in crisis, so urgency is a real factor for those involved in the fishing industry, both in his constituency and everywhere else. Secondly, we would need a mechanism for dealing with other countries whether we were covered by the common fisheries policy or not, because fish do not respect borders. We would have to continue to deal with historical fishing rights, which go beyond our membership of the common fisheries policy. I take seriously my responsibility, given the door that has been opened by the Commission’s position on the subject, to push for real, genuine, radical reform that can improve the situation for fishermen and the marine environment.

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

Alongside CFP reform, the ongoing mackerel dispute with Iceland and the Faroe islands continues to cause great concern, not just for pelagic fishermen but for the white fish fleet and fish processors. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of negotiations with Iceland and tell us, in the event of a deal, what recompense will be made available to Scottish fishermen? Might it possibly take the form of additional quota?

[Richard Benyon]

I cannot give the hon. Lady that precise information at the moment. I can tell her that there has been a slight improvement in the relationship with the Icelanders, and I hope that we can build on that. I am still pessimistic about our discussions with the Faroese, but I assure her that I will keep her closely involved, because we are talking about our most valuable fishery. It is sustainable, and we face a severe risk of losing marine stewardship accreditation for the stock, which would cause great harm to her constituents and our economy.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

For the first time, I do not have to declare an interest in the subject.

Will the Minister update the House on any representations that he has made during the ongoing negotiations to enable the United Kingdom to introduce a higher standard of fisheries management for all fishing vessels fishing within our 12-mile limit, and say whether any member states have pledged support for that?

[Richard Benyon]

I continue to work with other member states to get across our view that where we are creating marine conservation zones outside the 6-mile limit, we should not be controlling the activities of our fishermen while allowing fishermen from other countries to continue to operate as they did. There has to be a level playing field. On fisheries safety and the development of control orders, which came in under the previous Government, this is the opportunity to make sure that fishermen from other countries behave as we require our fishermen to behave. It is really important that we follow through with that. We have allies in Europe, and I am determined to make sure that an even-handed approach is taken.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment she has made of the role agricultural science can play in promoting growth.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

New science and innovation is essential to enhancing the competitiveness and resilience of the UK and wider EU agricultural sectors. As the House will know, Lord Taylor of Holbeach recently joined the ministerial team of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Lord Taylor is, of course, the architect of the Taylor review, which explored the role of science in agriculture, and which the Government are taking forward.

[George Freeman]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and congratulate her Department on everything that it is doing to drive a sustainable recovery and unlock growth in our agricultural sector. I am sure that she, like me, will have seen the news last week from the world-class John Innes Centre and the Institute of Food Research about the launch of the new glucoraphanin-enhanced broccoli with the potential to reduce heart disease and some cancers. Does she agree that our often overlooked agricultural research base has huge potential to unlock new markets around the world, and will she meet representatives of the sector and me to see what more we can do to help?

[Mrs Spelman]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. Not only did I read about the new variety of broccoli, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science actively referred to the benefits that it can bring. It is a very good example of the benefits of investing in research on agriculture and agri-food. The Government spend £400 million on agri-food research and development, and DEFRA spends £65 million per annum on agri-food R and D, including on animal health and welfare.

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

The proposals announced yesterday for the reform of the agricultural policy include sums of money for promoting agricultural science. Will the Secretary of State please ensure that that is carried forward into the final proposals, and that Britain has its fair share of that money?

[Mrs Spelman]

I have no hesitation at all in agreeing with that and welcoming that part of the CAP reform proposals. It is very important that European agriculture is innovative and that the industry becomes more competitive and market orientated. That must be done with the support of research and development in agriculture. That is an element of the proposals that we warmly welcome.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

9. What representations she has received from the scientific community on her plans to pilot the free shooting of badgers.

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

We have received a large number of representations, including from members of the scientific community. DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Bob Watson, has also discussed the evidence with a group of leading scientists, who were able to agree on a number of key points. Their conclusions have been published on DEFRA’s website.

[Graeme Morrice]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but why is he blindly following the free shooting option and excluding others, such as vaccination, regardless of the scientific advice, and why did he cancel five of the six vaccination trials entered into by the previous Labour Government?

[Mr Paice]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are not blindly ignoring vaccination, which we have always said has a role to play. Indeed, it is being carried out at the moment in some parts of the country. The simple fact, as we have published, is that our veterinary advice states that we can have a greater and swifter impact on bovine TB through a culling policy than through vaccination. With regard to what he called the trials that I cancelled, they were not trials of the vaccine, but deployment projects, and we decided that we could achieve all that we needed in one project, rather than wasting another £6 million on the others.

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

Farmers across North Wiltshire are being ruined by TB in cattle and very much welcome the recent announcement that the Government will press ahead with a limited cull. Does the Minister agree that selected tests so far have shown a 27% reduction in bovine TB and that, although there was perturbation, as they call it, around the edge of the trial area, it is shown to have been reduced in subsequent years?

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The results of the Krebs trials, which were conducted by the independent scientific group on cattle TB, demonstrated that after nine years—long after the end of the trials themselves—there was a reduction of 27%, and even 29%, in the cull zone, which was slightly offset by a temporary increase in the peripheral area. What matters, however, are the measures that are taken to reduce that increase, which is why we are now saying that any group or farmer must now put forward their own ideas about how they will minimise this perturbation.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

In a parliamentary answer to me on 5 September, the Minister said that the science showed that his badger cull would lead to five fewer herd breakdowns a year in each cull area. Last year there were more than 2,025 confirmed herd breakdowns in England, so even with 10 cull areas after 2013 the cull would prevent just 50 herd breakdowns a year, a reduction of only 2.5%. However, the cost to farmers in cull areas will run to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds. Why should they bother?

[Mr Paice]

I suggest that the hon. Lady asks the farmers. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) has just said, the farming community is anxious to do something after 13 years of neglect under the Labour party. Of course it will be expensive for the groups of farmers involved, but that is up to them. This is one part of a large package of measures, all the rest of which the Government are doing.

[Mary Creagh]

The Minister says “do something”, but surely doing something effective is more useful. We know that the Home Secretary has objected to the cull and is concerned that it will divert scarce police resources away from policing the Olympic games next summer. The latest impact assessment, the consultation for which has just closed, put no figure on the costs, although last year’s consultation put the costs at £200,000. Have those costs risen or fallen since then and will he undertake to make them public so that taxpayers can see how much they are contributing to the cull before a final decision is taken on whether to proceed?

[Mr Paice]

I am glad the hon. Lady recognises that no final decision has been made, a point that I need to emphasise. The fact is that the proposals that we laid before the House, and the consultation that has just finished, were agreed by the whole Government. On the policing costs, we are in discussions, and have been for some months, with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Its attention was unfortunately but quite understandably diverted by the disturbances and riots, so it has only recently refocused, but I assure the hon. Lady that all that information will be used and involved in the final decision, when we bring it to the House.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Living as I do in the west country, I know that the Minister will be aware of our concerns not only about bovine TB, but about several other things. I gather that the Secretary of State has put together a proposal to close the vet labs in various places throughout the country, and I wondered what the rationale was for that, particularly in an area where bovine TB is such a problem.

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful that my hon. Friend allows me to correct her impression slightly. The decision, which will be made quite rightly by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, results from the merger of two agencies into one. All that is being closed is the actual laboratories that undertake scientific testing. The post-mortem centres are not proposed for closure, and most samples are already sent by post anyway, so it does not represent in any way a diminution of service.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

10. What plans she has to bring forward proposals to deal with antisocial behaviour by dogs and their owners.

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

As the House is aware, the Home Office has already consulted on changes to the tools and powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, including antisocial behaviour involving dogs, and is considering the responses. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is also considering a range of further measures to promote more responsible ownership of dogs and will make an announcement shortly.

[Julie Hilling]

When my constituent Pat Brennan was savaged by a bull mastiff, he was told that there was nothing he could do because the attack took place on private property. How many more people have to die or be maimed for life before the Government act?

[Mr Paice]

I am tempted to point out the lack of action by the previous Government, but the much bigger issue is that, as the consultations have demonstrated, some results of which have been published, there is a massive variety of ideas on the best way forward. On the specific issue of private property, that is one thing we consulted on and one thing being considered, but the problem is how we differentiate between an assault on a postman or somebody who is lawfully present and an assault on somebody who may be trespassing or a criminal.

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

May I urge the Minister, when he discusses the issue with colleagues throughout the Government, to impress upon them the need to ensure that anyone who encourages their dog to attack a guide dog used by a blind or partially sighted person is very severely punished indeed?

[Mr Paice]

Obviously, punishment is precisely a matter for the courts, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment, and the Home Office has fully taken that point on board.

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

I am glad to be back, as proof that this Opposition are serious about recycling.

Far too many people, including children, are being needlessly killed or maimed by dangerous dogs, and the numbers are rising every single year. Twenty organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Kennel Club, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Royal College of Nursing and the Police Federation, are calling for a change in the law. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have already acted, so, 16 months after the end of the consultation and when the Minister said in July that the Government ruled nothing out, will he now rule something in and bring forward his proposals before Christmas at the very latest?

[Mr Paice]

There speaks the authentic voice of 13 years of inaction—and the hon. Gentleman now criticises us about 16 months. We have shadowed each other, and I respect his integrity and admire him, but he is really stretching credibility. I assure him that, as soon as the Home Office has finished considering its consultation, which finished only recently, we will come together to the House with our proposals as soon as possible.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

13. What recent progress she has made in banning the use of wild animals in circuses.

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

The Government fully understand the House’s desire for a ban and are continuing to look at how the legal obstacles may be overcome so that one can be achieved. In the meantime, we are developing a tough licensing regime that will stop circuses using animals if they do not provide appropriate welfare standards. We will consult on these early next year, and I hope that they will be in place by July of next year.

[Dr Huppert]

As the Minister will no doubt recall, on 23 June there was a simply stunning cross-party debate on this issue which concluded unanimously with this House directing the Government to make sure that these regulations took effect by 1 July 2012. Can he assure us that he will make sure that the Government do deliver on this, absolutely definitely?

[Mr Paice]

As I have just said, despite the clear view of the House, which the Government share, we cannot ignore our international legal responsibilities—that is why we are still continuing with our regulatory proposals—but we want to be able to implement the ban as soon as we can when the legal obstacles are cleared up. Since the debate to which my hon. Friend rightly refers, a lot more legal advice has come to us, either having been sought or offered, and it all confirms that which I reported at that stage.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My Department takes responsibility for safeguarding the environment, supporting farmers, and strengthening the green economy. In line with that, I have just returned from the Rio+20 preparations in Delhi, where good progress was made in identifying areas of common ground on sustainable agriculture and energy, resource efficiency and inclusive growth for what I hope will prove to be a successful summit next year.

I have referred to the CAP reform proposals published yesterday. We are currently scrutinising the full document for its impact on all parts of the United Kingdom, and it will of course come before the European Committees in due course.

[Mrs Riordan]

The Forestry Commission’s current consultation proposes to reduce educational visits to public forests in England from 43,000 per year to just 15,000 per year. Will the Minister commit to consult teachers, parents and Forestry Commission staff over this shocking attack on children’s outdoor education?

[Mrs Spelman]

Obviously, the Forestry Commission is responsible for taking decisions in relation to its own budget, but this is a consultation and I will certainly look into the matter. In response to an earlier question, I said how important it is that young people are able to engage with nature, including with our woodlands and forests. Through the Rural Development Programme for England, we make it possible for young people to do that, and we would actively encourage the Forestry Commission to consider this as well.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

T7. The Minister will be aware that the Fishery Protection Squadron is the oldest squadron in the Royal Navy. Does DEFRA see an enduring role for fishery protection within the Royal Navy once the current arrangements finish in 2013?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

I much enjoyed a visit to HMS Mersey and boarding a trawler from another country, and I was impressed by the squadron’s professionalism and approach to the whole job. It is at an advanced stage in negotiations with the Marine Management Organisation on the continuance of this contract. I very much hope that that can be achieved, because I share my hon. Friend’s view that it is a very professionally run operation that is doing great service not only to our fishing industry and the maintenance of our waters but to our national security.

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

T2. The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency has announced proposals to close eight of its labs, including both Welsh sites at Aberystwyth and Ceredigion. I am informed that closure of the Welsh sites will result in a 24-hour delay in diagnosing livestock diseases—an unacceptable period that could leave the communities I represent terribly exposed. Does the Minister agree that it is a disgrace that this decision was made without any consultation with the Welsh Government or the farming and workers trade unions?

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

As I mentioned earlier, this was a decision by the agency, but I understand that it was discussed with the equivalent agency and the chief vet in Wales. No sites are being closed. As I said, this is purely about the laboratory aspect, not the post-mortem aspect. I agree that 24 hours extra delay may be unacceptable, but that is not what is expected; we expect timeliness to remain as it is.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

T8. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm when she expects to receive the final report of the Independent Panel on Forestry?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am pleased to say that the chairman of the panel, the Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, has recovered well from his operation and is back at work. That has not in any way affected the timetable for the publication of the final report, which will still happen next spring. When speaking to Bishop James Jones last week, he assured me that the interim report will be received by the Department in November.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

T3. The Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government this month made Wales the first part of the UK to introduce a carrier bag charge. That was done not to raise money but to encourage reuse and avoid waste. Is the Secretary of State willing to take the lead from Wales, in view of the Department’s recent back-tracking on recycling?

[Mrs Spelman]

I do not accept the accusation of back-tracking. My Department has the first waste review policy for 20 years. We are certainly looking at the Welsh proposal and we should consider everything that might deal with elements of litter that are part of our waste prevention strategy. At a European level, the European Commission is looking at the Italian Government’s proposal to ban plastic bags. That has to be considered in a single market context.

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

T9. The Shropshire Union canal runs through the heart of Chester and is much-loved by canal users, fishermen and local residents. How can local people and canal users get involved in the new north Wales and borders waterways partnership to help support the future of our local canals and inland waterways?

[Richard Benyon]

The good news that the launch of the canal and river trust is on schedule will be welcome to my hon. Friend’s constituents and all who know and love their canals. There is a plethora of ways in which they can get involved. They can take part in their local partnership, which, following our consultation, will have a much more local focus. I look forward to working with him and other hon. Members to ensure that the new charity is a great success.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

T4. Farmers and food suppliers in Wigan are desperate for the protection of a groceries ombudsman from the unfair practices of supermarkets. The Government recently promised a Bill to implement that proposal very soon. Will the Secretary of State put pressure on her colleagues to ensure that “soon” really will be soon?

[Mr Paice]

The short answer is yes. As the hon. Lady knows, a draft Bill has been published and has been considered by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. The Committee’s report has gone to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills recently. It is that Department’s Bill, but we are pressing hard for it to be passed as soon as possible.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s negotiations in Europe on food labelling, but I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that we maintain the flexibility to keep the things that Britain holds dear, such as buying eggs by the dozen and beer by the pint.

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s words. This is a policy commitment that the Government have delivered on very clearly. We promised honest labelling and we now have a voluntary code in this country and mandatory country of origin labelling across a lot of products in Europe. I entirely agree with her point about quantities; Britain has its traditions and we want to stick to them.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

T6. Food prices have risen by 6% in the last year, costing a family with two young children an extra £350 a year. When will the Secretary of State do something positive to tackle speculation in food prices and its impact on families?

[Mrs Spelman]

The underlying cause of rising food prices is, of course, rising global prices of food commodities. The market fundamentals are the driver of that. Supply and demand is tight. We have to feed a hungry world, which will possibly have 9 billion people by 2050, as the Government’s own Foresight report says. That is why this Government and my Department have set a priority of producing more food sustainably.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s announcement about the canal and river trust. What plans does he have to ensure that its decision-making is transparent and accountable? Indeed, will he consider applying to it the Freedom of Information Act?

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful for the opportunity to point out that all the provisions that currently exist for British Waterways in that regard will follow through to the new charity. If the new charity is to have the credibility that it must have, it is important that we assure all those who really mind about this matter that we are protecting those rights.

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

On 6 July, in a Westminster Hall debate on dangerous dogs, the Minister said in his response that there was

“real evidence that the situation is worsening”

and that

“Action must, therefore, be taken.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2011; Vol. 530, c. 485WH.]

Given that admission, is it not morally reprehensible that even today he refuses to give a date for a response to the consultation started by the previous Government?

[Mr Paice]

As I said earlier, the Government are fully committed on the matter, and I do not resile from anything that I said in that debate. However, as I have just mentioned, the Home Office rightly decided to examine the wider issues. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are bleating from the Opposition Front Bench, but they know as well as I do that much of the problem is the people, not the dogs. That is why it is right that the Home Office should be involved, but we will bring forward our proposals as soon as we possibly can.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I am frequently advised by potential investors in my constituency that they lack confidence in the planning process due to delays caused by Natural England. Can the Secretary of State assure me that she will look into that and ensure that Natural England is mindful of the commercial pressures on investors?

[Mrs Spelman]

Natural England is a statutory consultee in the planning process, but I certainly give my hon. Friend an undertaking that I will look into the case in question. There is, of course, a balancing act, and Natural England is responsible for ensuring that directives that the previous Government and their predecessors signed up to are complied with correctly, but I will look into that specific case with urgency.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

In light of the meeting that is to take place on 25 October between the Secretary of State and the Ministers from the devolved Assemblies across the United Kingdom, will she set out what the agenda for that meeting is going to be? Will she assure us that CAP reform will be on the agenda, and that she will listen carefully to the needs of representatives of the rural regions across the UK and of the 40,000 farmers in Northern Ireland who rely on the CAP as it currently stands?

[Mrs Spelman]

I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are due to meet devolved Administration Ministers on 25 October, and agricultural reform is on the agenda. I expect that they will attend the Agriculture Council meeting next week, as I have encouraged them to, and we will work very closely with them. I hope the hon. Gentleman noticed that when I referred to how the Government were looking at CAP reform, I said that we would examine its impact on all parts of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

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

1. What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the potential opportunities for the Church of England to work with other parts of the community to attract public funds for local infrastructure investment.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

The Church of England and the Church Commissioners will always take every opportunity to work with local partners for the benefit of local communities.

[Julian Smith]

Ripon cathedral plays a really important role in our local community, bringing together community groups and developing the economy of Ripon as a whole. Will my hon. Friend pass on the positive feedback about the cathedral’s role, which could be an example for other cathedral towns across England?

[Tony Baldry]

Absolutely, I would of course be very happy to do that. Ripon cathedral is the oldest English cathedral—its crypt dates back to 672—and for centuries it has been at the heart of Ripon. I hope that every possible local organisation will work with the dean and chapter to help enhance the vitality of Ripon. The Church Commissioners will certainly engage positively in whatever way we can to support that.

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

2. What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had with the Home Office on reform of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 for the purposes of reducing the incidence of theft of metal from churches.

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

6. What resources the Church Commissioners plan to make available to churches that have been subject to theft or vandalism.

[Tony Baldry]

I shall place in the Library a copy of the Church Buildings Council’s report on metal theft, which concludes that the 1964 Act is no longer fit for purpose.

[Mr Nuttall]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the theft of metal from churches is costing them an estimated £1 million a month. Has he yet had any indication whether the recommendation made in the Church Buildings Council’s working party report of March this year—that cash payments by scrap yards for metals such as lead should be prohibited—will be accepted?

[Tony Baldry]

We are working very closely with Ministers to achieve that, and we have a meeting in the very near future with the noble Lord Henley to try to take it forward. I think that there is general agreement among everyone who has examined the matter that we need to take cash out of the transactions. It is too easy at present for people to strip churches of lead at night, go to a scrap yard the next day, get cash and walk away. The people who are suffering from that are in the most vulnerable communities in our society.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman will know of St John’s in Birkby, which had its steeple pulled down by people stripping the lead from the roof, and of the immense cost that the parish incurred. I certainly agree that we need to amend the scrap metal legislation, but we also need to consider the level of compensation and insurance premiums.

[Tony Baldry]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The thieves, in that case, simply wanted the lightning conductor, but in trying to get it they almost destroyed the whole church, because they pulled the steeple down into the church. One of the penalties for churches that have their lead stripped is that the insurers thereafter will refuse to insure them, so all the burden falls on local communities and parishes. This is an epidemic that we need to grasp and solve. It simply cannot continue.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

In my constituency, St Brides church in Old Trafford suffered the theft of its church bell. One of the reasons we are particularly vulnerable to such offences is the presence of a large scrap metal yard in the constituency. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in putting pressure on the Home Office not just to amend the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, but to ensure that the police are adequately resourced to deal with these increasing levels of crime?

[Tony Baldry]

I am glad to say to the hon. Lady that I think that police forces up and down the country are now taking this issue seriously, not just because of the theft of lead from churches, but because of the theft of copper from railway signalling devices. The theft of metals has now gone significantly up the agenda of police forces across the country.

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

3. What recent recommendations the Electoral Commission has made to the Government on the running of UK-wide elections.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The Electoral Commission has made a number of recommendations to the Government on the administration of UK-wide elections, most recently in its report on the 2010 parliamentary general election. The commission has recommended that the Government set out a comprehensive plan to improve the management of elections and to make it easier for voters to participate.

[Sajid Javid]

Although the result of the recent alternative vote referendum was probably predictable from the beginning, it was nevertheless a very well-run process. Are there any lessons that we can learn from that for future UK-wide elections?

[Mr Streeter]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being very perceptive, because there has been widespread public appreciation of how the UK referendum was run earlier in the year. The commission will be publishing a report next Wednesday that will make a number of recommendations for improving the delivery of all future UK-wide elections and will, in particular, emphasise the benefits of central co-ordination.

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

What consideration has the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission given to ensuring the integrity of the UK-wide franchise? We are hearing of proposals from the Scottish Government to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for their proposed referendum on Scotland separating from the UK.

[Mr Streeter]

The commission takes all such issues very seriously, and although I do not have a lot of knowledge of that particular issue, no doubt the commission is considering it. If I can respond to the hon. Gentleman in writing, I shall certainly do so.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

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

4. What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the effects of bats on churches; and if he will make a statement.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

I am sure that many in the House will be concerned about the damage done by bats in church buildings. Although all species of bats have statutory protection, considerable damage has been caused to church fabric by bat droppings and bat urine.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend is familiar with, and has taken up, the case of St Hilda’s church, but it is unacceptable that the congregation is not allowed to pray and worship in the church because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England are taking a leisurely pace to exclude the bats from the church. The bats would not be excluded completely, but would have a different access point. May I ask him to use his good offices to speed this procedure along so that the congregation can worship normally in St Hilda’s church?

[Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend and the whole House will have heard the comments at the Dispatch Box earlier from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). I think that the House will recognise that he acknowledged that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, will work with the church authorities, Natural England and all of us in trying to strike a much better balance and in making appropriate representations to the Law Commission to ensure that we do not gold-plate the habitats directive in a way that prejudices people against bats.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

5. What reports he has received on the outcome of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent visit to Africa.

[Tony Baldry]

The Archbishop of Canterbury, as spiritual leader to the worldwide Anglican community, was invited to make a pastoral visit to Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia by the Archbishop of Central Africa, the right reverend Albert Chama. The purpose of the visit was primarily to meet with bishops, clergy and parishioners to celebrate the life and ministry of the Anglican Church in the region and to strengthen ties with the Anglican communion. In the course of his visit the Archbishop of Canterbury met the Presidents of Malawi, Zimbabwe—Robert Mugabe—and Zambia, and the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Morgan Tsvangirai.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful for that response. Several of my constituents in Gloucester have told me that they thought that the archbishop’s visit showed real moral courage. How much confidence does my hon. Friend have in Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s pledge to ensure that the rule of law is applied and to allow Christians to worship in peace?

[Tony Baldry]

I would hope that the whole House would share that view about the courage of the Archbishop of Canterbury. By his preaching and presence in Africa he will have given immense encouragement to the persecuted Church there. The Archbishop of Canterbury in Africa has made a direct challenge to tyranny and given words of hope for the oppressed. The archbishop made it clear to President Mugabe that he should use his powers as Head of State to guarantee the security of Zimbabweans who worship with the Anglican Church and put an end to illegal and unacceptable behaviour—beatings and other degradation—that has been visited upon people simply because they are Christians.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On one of the very few occasions when I can agree with Conservative Members, let me say that many of us are deeply impressed by the way the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke the truth to Mugabe and urged him to stop the violence and thuggery that has unfortunately occurred over the past few years. The Archbishop of Canterbury has undoubtedly given a tremendous lead to decency.

[Tony Baldry]

This is one of the few occasions when I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the whole House would do so too.

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

7. What estimate the Electoral Commission has made of the cost of holding elections for police commissioners.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The Government included an estimate of the cost of holding elections for police and crime commissioners in May 2012 in their original impact assessment. When the Government proposed to move the date of the elections to November 2012, the commission advised Parliament that additional costs would arise from holding a stand-alone election and that it would be important to ensure adequate resources were in place. The commission has made no separate estimate of the cost of holding those elections.

[Hugh Bayley]

In North Yorkshire—just to give an example from one county—the Government have cut funding for the police from £54 million to £47 million in just two years. Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Electoral Commission to do all it can to reduce the cost of the elections and urge the Government to vire the money saved back into front-line policing?

[Mr Streeter]

I think the hon. Gentleman is raging against the policy rather than the Electoral Commission’s role in it. The costs are those incurred by the Government and local authorities, not the Electoral Commission, but I am sure that his plea for the cost of the elections to be minimised will be heard in the appropriate quarters.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

8. What recent discussions the Electoral Commission has had on giving communities the power to hold local referendums; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr Streeter]

The Electoral Commission has had no recent discussions on giving communities the power to hold local referendums. It has, however, set out its views on the proposals contained in the Localism Bill in briefings to Parliament. The commission’s priorities are that any referendum should be consistently well run and that the question put to voters should be intelligible and unbiased.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. In Harlow a planning application for a waste transfer site has been pushed through by Essex council against the will of local residents, the Tany’s Dell primary school and Harlow council. How soon will the powers for local referendums be put in place, so that Harlow people can have their say?

[Mr Streeter]

As ever, my hon. Friend is a doughty champion for the people of Harlow, but he will know that the local referendum provisions are contained in the Localism Bill, which is currently going through the House of Lords. Once the Bill has received Royal Assent, the Government will then need to produce detailed rules for local referendums, which the Electoral Commission will study very carefully indeed, so I am afraid that his constituents may have to wait a little while longer.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

9. What support the Church Commissioners are providing to Coptic Christians in Egypt.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

Church of England mission agencies, as well as the diocese linked with the region, continue to provide much needed pastoral support to Egypt’s beleaguered Christian minority. Bishop Mouneer, the Anglican Bishop of Egypt, North Africa and the Horn of Africa, is based in Cairo and is in regular contact with the leadership of the Egyptian Coptic Church.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, if the new regime in Egypt is to be taken seriously, it must ensure that the murder, victimisation and torture of Christians there ceases?

[Tony Baldry]

I entirely agree with that, and I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made exactly that point to the Egyptian authorities this week. He has told them that they cannot be taken seriously unless they afford proper protection to the Christian minority in Egypt, which, after all, forms something like 20% of the population of that country.

[Mr Speaker]

There is just time for Mr Simon Hughes.

[Hon. Members]

“Hear, hear!”

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

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. There is always just time.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Church Commissioners to work with the Government to ensure that the issue of Christian minorities not only in Egypt but in other countries such as China where they are being heavily persecuted will be taken up internationally and by the United Kingdom Government?

[Tony Baldry]

I entirely agree with that. In fairness to the Foreign Secretary, he has been a doughty champion of the need to protect persecuted Christians throughout the world, whether in Pakistan, China or Egypt. It is very important that religious freedom should involve freedom for everyone, irrespective of their religion and of where they wish to practise their religion.

Business of the House

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

11:31

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for the week commencing 17 October will be:

Monday 17 October—Motion relating to MPs’ pensions, followed by motion relating to disclosure and publication of documents relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 18 October—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 19 October—Opposition day (unallotted day). There will be a debate on energy prices followed by a debate on individual voter registration. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Armed Forces Bill.

Thursday 20 October—General debate on national planning policy framework.

Friday 21 October—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 24 October will include:

Monday 24 October—Remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (day 1).

Tuesday 25 October—Continuation of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (day 2).

Wednesday 26 October—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (day 3).

Thursday 27 October—Business nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

For the convenience of the House, I wish to announce the proposed calendar for the coming year. We intend for the House to rise at the close of play on Tuesday 15 November, returning on Monday 21 November, meaning that we will not sit on two days—Wednesday 16 November and Thursday 17 November—as previously planned. The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the close of play on Tuesday 20 December, returning on Tuesday 10 January 2012.

The House will rise for the constituency break at the close of play on Thursday 9 February, returning on Monday 20 February. We will rise for the Easter break at the close of play on Tuesday 27 March, returning on Monday 16 April. We will rise for the Whitsun recess at the close of play on Thursday 24 May, returning on Monday 11 June. The summer recess will start at the close of play on Tuesday 17 July, returning on Monday 3 September. Finally, we will rise for the conference recess at the close of play on Tuesday 18 September, returning on Monday 15 October. All those dates will be put before the House for approval, and the dates for the Queen’s Speech and private Members’ Bill Fridays for the second Session will be announced in the usual way. All dates are subject to the progress of business, and a calendar is now available from the Vote Office.

[Ms Eagle]

May I thank the Leader of the House for his statement, especially for his giving us early notice of the annual calendar? Even if it changes slightly, it is an innovation that I think all Members of all parties will appreciate. May I also take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) as my deputy, and to pay tribute to the work done by my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who even as we speak is wrestling with the intricacies of the local government grant formula in his new shadow Cabinet role? I look forward to shadowing the Leader of the House. I note that he first came to the House in 1974, when I had only just arrived in big school. I hope that I can achieve a triumph of youth over experience on at least a few of these occasions.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister promised to look at publishing a full list of all the meetings of Ministers and officials with the Defence Secretary’s self-styled adviser Adam Werritty. With further irregularities surfacing by the day, when will this list be published? Following the BBC’s revelations on secretive wealthy donors running a shadow operation at the heart of one of Whitehall’s most sensitive Government Departments, what are the implications for accountability and probity?

With unemployment hitting a 17-year high, youth unemployment at nearly 1 million and the highest levels of joblessness among women for more than 20 years, is it not time that the Government admitted that their economic plan is just not working? Even the Conservative Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee recently described the Government’s action on growth as “piecemeal, contradictory and incoherent”, so it was no surprise to see him being strong-armed round the corner for re-education by the Prime Minister’s spin doctors at the Tory party conference.

Is not the utterly inadequate response from the Government in yesterday’s debate on growth and jobs the clearest proof yet that they are in denial about the plight of millions of people now languishing on the dole? Will the Leader of the House therefore consider bringing forward the autumn statement so that we can take urgent action to implement Labour’s five-point plan on growth and jobs and begin to deal with the soaring unemployment and the waste of potential that it represents.

Speaking of potential, I notice that the Prime Minister yesterday hosted a reception of FTSE 100 companies, exhorting them to promote more women into their boardrooms. With only four women in the entire Cabinet, is this not a case of the Prime Minister telling people to “do as I say, not as I do”? Perhaps if the Prime Minister had more women in his Cabinet he would be spared further embarrassment from some of the men he has in it. And while we are talking about the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, given our debate later today on electronic devices and tweeting from the Chamber, will the Government provide him with urgent training on how best to keep his fingerprints off the increasingly frequent briefings against his Cabinet colleagues?

[Sir George Young]

May I begin by warmly welcoming the new shadow Leader of the House to her post? She has been a Member since 1992 and has held a number of ministerial and shadow ministerial posts as well as serving on Select Committees as a Back Bencher. She is well placed to take on her new responsibilities and help us in our efforts to strengthen the House. I look forward to working with her and her deputy, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), whom we also welcome, but the latter may have to clarify her role. I see from her website that she says:

“Along with the Shadow Speaker of the House, I intend to make sure this government is held to account for its actions right in the heart of Parliament.”

I am not sure whether you, Mr Speaker, will welcome this development and this new position.

Along with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), I pay tribute to the previous shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who had a deep understanding of, and affection for, the House. He will be much missed, as his bravura performances at the Dispatch Box every week were enjoyed on both sides of the House. Indeed, I believe he had to be moved because he risked overshadowing his leader on the Wednesdays. He now shadows my right hon. Friend the Communities and Local Government Secretary, and he may find that shadow a rather different profile from mine!

I welcomed what the hon. Lady said about the early announcement of the parliamentary calendar. I think that that is in the interests of the House and all who work here. In 2010 we were given the Easter recess dates two weeks before the Easter recess.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will honour the undertaking that he gave the House yesterday on the list of visits to Ministers as soon as the information has been dealt with. As for the other issue that the hon. Lady raised, the Cabinet Secretary is, as she knows, dealing with all outstanding issues and unanswered questions, and will complete his inquiry as soon as he can.

Yesterday’s unemployment figures were grim. We debated the issue at some length yesterday in Opposition time, and the Prime Minister made clear that every job loss was a personal tragedy. We need to do all that we can to get people back to work. Youth unemployment, sadly, has been rising every year since 2004 and, given that it was rising during a period of growth, it will obviously be difficult to get it down during a period of challenging world recession. I will not repeat what the Chancellor said about 360,000 new apprenticeships, new sector-based work academies and the rest. We have had an Opposition day, and we are always ready to arrange another.

As for being in denial, I think that the Opposition are still in denial on the deficit. During the Opposition day debate, the shadow Chancellor could not bring himself to discuss the central Opposition policy that was announced in the Labour leader’s conference speech. Perhaps that is proof that when it comes to constructive policies on the economy, the Government are the producers and the Opposition are the predators.

I will pass on the hon. Lady’s comments about the need for more women in the Cabinet to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there is a statement by the Foreign Secretary to follow, as well as a series of heavily subscribed debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. As a consequence, we need—from Back and Front Benches alike—brevity.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

The whole House is waiting with bated breath to hear details of a written statement later today on improved transitional arrangements relating to changes in the women’s state pension age. Government Members have fought very hard for that. Will the Leader of the House please give us some details of what he is expecting?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend and neighbour might have seen the written ministerial statement that has just been published in the name of the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), in which he says that he will

“today table Government amendments to the Pensions Bill”,

which we shall discuss on Tuesday,

“including one that caps the maximum increase in women’s State Pension age at 18 months, relative to the legislated timetable.”

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will welcome that announcement.

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

May we have a debate on whether the funding of a charity or an individual to further the political interest of a Minister constitutes a donation in kind?

[Sir George Young]

That sounds like one of the issues to which I referred in my response to the hon. Member for Wallasey, and which may arise from the ongoing inquiry by the Cabinet Secretary. I honestly think that it makes sense to await the outcome of the inquiry, and in the meantime to allow the Secretary of State for Defence to get on with his job.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

There is real concern about carbon taxation policy among industries that are large users of energy, such as CEMEX, which manufactures cement and is also a large employer in my constituency. May we have a debate on the matter, and on the need to ensure that UK industry remains competitive?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. He will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said from this Dispatch Box that he is anxious to engage in dialogues with intensive users of energy who might be adversely affected by the changes, and who might be put at a competitive disadvantage in relation to other producers in Europe. I am sure that those dialogues are continuing, but I will bring my hon. Friend’s concern to the Chancellor’s attention.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate to congratulate the Prime Minister on his wisdom in forecasting, just before the election, that the next major scandal affecting the House would involve lobbying? Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has done nothing about introducing his promised register.

Is this matter not quite separate from the inquiry into the Defence Secretary? Appalling accusations have been made that major lobbyists representing extreme views paid an individual who was not registered as a lobbyist, did not register any interests and did not undergo any security checks, but nevertheless gained access to the top discussions in this country and abroad. That dreadful situation requires an urgent debate and legislation.

[Sir George Young]

The previous Government totally ignored the Public Administration Committee’s recommendation to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists; they did absolutely nothing. We have given a coalition commitment to introduce such a register, as the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) confirmed from the Dispatch Box on Tuesday. He will publish a comprehensive consultation so that the widest range of views can be considered, with a view to introducing legislation providing for a statutory register of lobbyists.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Neal Butterworth, editor of the influential Bournemouth Daily Echo, has drawn it to my attention that media passes for the Olympics are not being given out fairly to the local and regional press. May we have a statement from the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, so that our local media can be properly represented?

[Sir George Young]

I understand why all our local papers are anxious to have access to next year’s Olympics. I will certainly raise this with Department for Culture, Media and Sport Ministers, although it might be a matter for the organisers of the Olympics. I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, and I will pass it on.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent statement on whether any Conservative candidate at the last general election received illegal funding for foreign travel from foreign organisations linked to Adam Werritty?

[Sir George Young]

If there is any evidence that anything illegal has taken place, the hon. Gentleman should notify the police.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has now published its report into pub companies, which shows that self-regulation has failed and that the Government must now legislate. The Government have said they will do that, so may we have a statement in the House from the responsible Minister, instead of just the normal response to the Select Committee report?

[Sir George Young]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work in promoting the interests of those who run pubs and who often face onerous Pubco terms. I am aware of the report the hon. Gentleman mentions, which basically says that the voluntary agreement has not worked. I cannot anticipate when the Government will respond to that, but I will inform the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills of the hon. Gentleman’s appetite for an early announcement.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

On 2 December last year I put a question about Southern Cross to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and received the dismissive reply that it was a matter for local authorities. I think he subsequently came to regret that response. An article in today’s Financial Times claims that from the summer of that year the chief executive of Southern Cross had been informing the Department that he wanted a meeting with the Minister in order to explain the seriousness of the problems and the possible consequences, but, again, the Minister said his diary was too full. May we have a statement from the Minister explaining his actions—or, rather, explaining his complete inertia?

[Sir George Young]

A written ministerial statement on Southern Cross was published on Monday; the right hon. Gentleman may have seen it. Because of the piece in the press today, I have made some inquiries. There have been regular constructive discussions between the Government and Southern Cross representatives since the moment it became clear that the Government were in difficulty. Ministers took the situation seriously, and they were kept fully informed. There were numerous meetings between senior Department of Health officials, the company and others, to seek to formulate a solution that protected the health and well-being of the residents. Ministers were kept fully in the picture.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Following today’s worrying report from the Care Quality Commission on the lamentable standards in the care of older people in the NHS—it found that 20% of the 100 hospitals it inspected were almost criminally negligent—may we have a debate on this subject?

[Sir George Young]

In response to the previous question, I think that instead of saying Southern Cross was in difficulty, I said that the Government were in difficulty, which of course they never are.

Like my hon. Friend, I was very concerned by the reports in today’s press. Everyone admitted to hospital deserves to be treated as an individual and with compassion and dignity, which is why we commissioned the report she mentions. It certainly shows the value of unannounced inspections. It found some exemplary care, but it also found that some hospitals were not getting even the basics right. The new Health and Social Care Bill gives new responsibilities to Monitor to integrate health care across health care services. I hope that everyone will learn the lessons: that some things need to be done tomorrow to put things right; that there are problems of culture, such as putting paperwork before patients; and that there is inadequate management training and leadership in hospitals. Some of these problems may have been going on for some time. Important lessons must be learned if we are to improve the quality of care in many of our hospitals.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on the future profile of civilian jobs in the Ministry of Defence? Many people in my constituency are concerned that they will lose their jobs while he is flying around the world with his mate.

[Sir George Young]

I understand why Labour Members want to continue on this issue, but the Secretary of State for Defence has a responsible job to do on behalf of this country and the Government. He should be allowed to get on with it and the hon. Gentleman should wait for the Cabinet Secretary’s report into the issues he raises.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Given the recent decision by the Communities and Local Government Secretary to overturn the inspector’s decision to reject 500 new homes in Hampton Park II in Salisbury, may I urge the Leader of the House to table a debate on public understanding of localism? Local councillors, community groups and residents constructively engaged to persuade the inspector to turn the application down, and they are now bemused and do not understand what localism means.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern of another of my parliamentary neighbours about the outcome of that decision in his constituency. My hon. Friend asks for a debate, but I have just announced a debate next Thursday on the national planning policy framework, which will provide an opportunity for him to raise that issue and get a response. The decision was issued on 21 September. The Secretary of State has no further jurisdiction in the matter, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits as we are still within the six-week period during which the decision can be challenged in the High Court.

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

The Leader of the House will be aware that G20 meetings are increasingly becoming as important as those of the G8. The next G20 meeting, in November, will be particularly important. Will the Government agree to have a debate in advance of a G20 summit in which the House can express its views on the policies that the Government should put forward, as used to be the case for G8 meetings, and to ensure that there is a statement from the Prime Minister after the summit to report on and account for what has happened?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern and I agree that such an approach would be desirable. I am not sure whether he has approached the Backbench Business Committee to see whether it would find time for such a debate, but I will certainly take account of what he has said in planning future Government business.

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

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the rise in the number of photovoltaic cells on houses across the United Kingdom is a policy started by the former Government and rightly continued by this one. However, the rise of cowboys installing them is costing the country money and resources, and putting people’s long-term ownership of houses at risk. May we have a debate on this Government’s renewable energy policy to discuss the photovoltaic cells that are being put on householders’ roofs?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend might catch your eye, Mr Speaker, a week today during Department of Energy and Climate Change questions, but in the meantime I will alert the Secretary of State and ask him to write to my hon. Friend.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the recent report showing that 20% of FTSE 100 companies do not have any women on their board and that it will take 20 years before one in three executives are women, so may we have an urgent debate to show everyone outside that this House believes in positive action and not just positive words?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a speech about this a few days ago, urging the FTSE companies to do even better. As for a debate, the hon. Lady may wish to raise the matter with the Backbench Business Committee or, indeed, to apply to you, Mr Speaker, for a debate in Westminster Hall, so that we can have a proper discussion of this important issue.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

The East of England strategic health authority published an independent review into Downham Market health centre, which found serious failings in oversight by the authorities, as no action was taken after four serious incidents at the health centre. I am very concerned that, as yet, no individuals have been held to account for those failures. Please may we have a statement from the Health Secretary on the steps he will take to ensure that people are accountable?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern to make sure that anyone guilty of misdemeanour is held accountable. This is a matter for the local NHS, and I understand that NHS Midlands and East is working with NHS Norfolk and the Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust to take forward the report’s recommendations. I have been assured by NHS Norfolk that there will be accountability for the failings to which she refers.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

When we discuss the Localism Bill next week, will the Government give a guarantee that the protections against the sale of playing fields—school playing fields or public playing fields—will still be in place? At the moment, there is nothing in the Bill to protect those playing fields.

[Sir George Young]

The debate next Thursday is not on the Bill as such—it is on the policy framework—but the hon. Gentleman will be able to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, and raise those issues. In the meantime, I will alert the relevant Secretary of State to the fact that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the disposal of playing fields and that he is anxious that proper protection should be in place to ensure that children and others have access to recreational facilities.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time on the report by the British Hospitality Association, which was published today and which was mentioned in The Times? The report calls for a reduction in VAT in the sector, as happens in many European countries, which would benefit all seaside towns, including my own, and greatly help local tourism in this country.

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the impact of VAT on the hospitality sector, particularly in his constituency. He will know that taxation matters are for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will be coming to the House in November, as the shadow Leader of the House said. When he does so, my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to press him on the issue.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House announced a shorter week in November when detailing the calendar. Will he confirm that the Prime Minister will account to the House on 15 November, which is during that week?

[Sir George Young]

If the House is not sitting on a particular day, it is difficult for the Prime Minister to come to be held to account. I say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I congratulate on his appointment to the Opposition Whips Office, that the Prime Minister has made more statements from this Dispatch Box than his predecessor, that he has stood here, on some occasions for hours on end, being held to account by the House and that he has appeared before the Liaison Committee, so my right hon. Friend has no fears about coming to the Dispatch Box to answer questions.

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

The Leader of the House will be well aware that lots of colleagues on the Government Benches were very concerned about the impact of the proposed pension reforms on a particular group of women. I welcome the idea that we will have some movement on that and a statement today. As this is such a vital issue, perhaps he could expand on what the Government are going to do. Will we see amendments to the Pensions Bill next week?

[Sir George Young]

Yes, it is probably easiest if I refer my hon. Friend to the written ministerial statement, which sets out the amendments that are being tabled today. It states:

“The amendment to Clause 1 will ameliorate the increase in State Pension age for around 245,000 women and 240,000 men and reduce total savings from the increase to 66 by around £1.1 billion…It maintains our policy to equalise the State Pension age for men and women in 2018 and increase to 66 by 2020.”

My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to intervene in that debate, but I note that she welcomes the fact that the Government have listened to the concerns that have been expressed and taken steps to mitigate the impact on women of the increase in the state pension age.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will, I hope, be aware of this week’s damning report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which predicts that an additional 500,000 children will be living in absolute poverty by 2015 as a direct result of this Government’s policies. May we have an urgent debate on the Government’s abject failure to keep their promise to end child poverty?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady will know that progress towards the target of eliminating child poverty by 2020 stalled under the previous Government. We remain committed to that target. The universal credit will take 600,000 adults and 450,000 children out of poverty, as the IFS said. The report also examined tax and benefits, but did not look at some of the broader things that the Government are doing, for example, in the Work programme. I am sure that she will be pleased to hear that we remain committed to the target of eliminating child poverty by 2020.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I am chairman of the all-party group for motor neurone disease, and the group has recently produced a report on access to care for those suffering from the disease. It is a dreadful, devastating disease; would it be possible to have a debate on access to palliative care for sufferers?

[Sir George Young]

I commend the work that the all-party group—my hon. Friend and other Members from both sides of the House—have done to emphasise the importance of palliative care for those who suffer from motor neurone disease. I think it would be an excellent subject for a debate in this House, either nominated by the Backbench Business Committee or in Westminster Hall. The Government would very much like to hear more about the report to which my hon. Friend has just referred.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

In answer to my written question yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), told me that he would not be considering plans put forward by staff at Crosby coastguard that would save the Government money on plans for a new maritime operations centre. The Crosby plan would use existing buildings and makes revenue savings, too, whereas the Government plan is for a new build. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any plan that saves the Government money should at least be evaluated, not disregarded before such an evaluation takes place, and will he ask his colleague to reconsider his decision?

[Sir George Young]

Of course, the Government are interested in all options that might save money, and I will put that option to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House that we are very pressed for time and I am not likely to be able to call many more Members, so there is a premium on brevity if we are to maximise the number of contributors.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I have recently been dealing with a case on behalf of two constituents who were dismissed from their jobs with a commercial cleaning firm called Jani-King, allegedly for being British. May we have a debate on discrimination against British workers in this country?

[Sir George Young]

If anything illegal has taken place, I hope the appropriate authorities will be notified. I shall share my hon. Friend’s concern with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and see whether anything irregular has taken place.

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

There are reports that up to 60 NHS hospitals face serious financial difficulties due to the new burdens being imposed by NHS reforms. As there are risks that such trusts could be taken over by private sector health interests, may we have an urgent debate or an urgent statement, so that we can take some action before the situation becomes terminal?

[Sir George Young]

No trust can be taken over by a private sector concern, but I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that any financial problems confronting his trust or other trusts would be even worse without the extra resources committed by this Government, which his party opposed.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) recently received a written answer from the hon. Member who represents the House of Commons Commission showing that the marginal costs of the House sitting for just two weeks in September could be £1.5 million on an ongoing basis. May we have a debate on the merits of moving the party conference season to save that money for the public purse?

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Sir George Young]

I thought my hon. Friend was going to suggest abolishing the party conference season, which might have received an even greater cheer—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] He raises a serious issue, in that the party conference season imposes some constraints on the parliamentary calendar, and I shall bring his remarks to the attention of the chairmen of my party and the opposite numbers in the parliamentary Labour party and the other parties—[Interruption.] We have a chairman and a chairwoman. I shall see whether there is any emerging consensus on the treatment of political conferences in the future.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I note that the Leader of the House passed very hastily over the answer to the first question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) today about the meetings between Adam Werritty, Ministers and members of Downing street staff. Will he assure us that that information will be made promptly available and that if there is anything of substance in it, it will be the subject of a statement to the House?

[Sir George Young]

I do not think it makes sense to have a running commentary on the inquiry by the Cabinet Secretary into the Secretary of State for Defence and related matters. I have said that the inquiry will deal with all unanswered questions and outstanding issues, and the sooner it is brought to a conclusion, the better. In the meantime, I think it is sensible to avoid speculation.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

In 1997 the incoming Prime Minister said that his priorities were “education, education, education”, yet 14 years on, a publication has shown that in reading, 15-year-olds in our classrooms are a year behind those in our competitor countries. May we have an urgent debate on the actions that the Government will take to remove this appalling legacy for the people whose future has been prejudiced?

[Sir George Young]

I would welcome such a debate. Some of those issues were touched on in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on Monday. I would welcome further opportunities to debate the steps that we are taking to drive up standards of education in our schools.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Following the riots in the summer, the Prime Minister announced a cross-departmental review of gangs and serious youth violence. A strategy is due to be published this month. Can the House have a debate on this vital issue in Government time?

[Sir George Young]

There will be a debate this afternoon in Westminster Hall on the riots, and the hon. Lady might like to go to that and to ask that question. She is right to say that there is an ongoing report into gang violence and related issues, and I hope that it will be made available in the relatively near future.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Well over 2,000 early-day motions have been tabled in this Parliament so far, and it is estimated that they cost the taxpayer around £1 million each and every year. Given that in the last year we had a spending review that carefully considered every aspect of public expenditure, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that we should now have a debate to examine the cost-effectiveness and value of early-day motions?

[Hon. Members]

Table an early-day motion!

[Sir George Young]

It is suggested that my hon. Friend table an early-day motion to abolish early-day motions. He is not alone in believing that the costs of the current arrangements outweigh the benefits, but on the other hand many people place some value on early-day motions. Any debate on early-day motions should take place in Backbench Business Committee time and be informed by the views of the Procedure Committee; its Chairman was in his place a few moments ago, and I shall draw those remarks to his attention.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

There are only three more days allocated for private Members’ Bills before the end of this Session, but there are 96 such Bills now tabled for consideration on those days. Some of them are completely and utterly bonkers, because, frankly, they come from Members whose grasp of reality is somewhat strained anyway—[Interruption.] Mine is splendid, obviously. As only one more of those Bills is likely to become law in this Session, does that not show that the system for examining private Members’ Bills is now completely bust? We need to reform it. Before the Leader of the House says that that is up to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, could he please show some leadership on this matter in his remaining weeks as Leader of the House, as he will have to hand all the business over to the Backbench Business Committee by the start of the third Session?

[Sir George Young]

I was hoping that I had a little bit more than a week left in this post. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Procedure Committee is looking at private Members’ Bills, the way in which they are treated, and whether it makes sense to deal with them on Fridays. We have allocated more Fridays to private Members’ Bills to reflect the length of this Session. Despite the hon. Gentleman’s rather dismissive remarks about the Procedure Committee, I think this is something that it is worth its while investigating.

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

Would my right hon. Friend be willing to have a debate on mental health issues for young people? According to today’s edition of the Plymouth Herald, a very good organ in my constituency:

“Hundreds of vulnerable children in Plymouth are having to wait months for mental health treatment”,

and 90 have had to wait beyond the 18 weeks allowed.

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. Funding for child and adolescent mental health services for local authorities has been maintained and is included within funding provided for ongoing personal social services. That funding is due to rise in line with inflation through to 2014-15, but it is for commissioners at a local level to decide how best to spend the money.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Department for Transport’s policy of installing station barriers even when they block pedestrian access to established routes for non-rail users? Such is the situation in Sheffield. The previous Government made a commitment that no barriers would be installed until alternative access routes were provided, but the current Government have changed their mind, apparently.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I will raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and ask him to write to him.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the history of the Conservative party so we can gently remind our coalition partners that, far from being the party that sent children up chimneys, we are the party of Wilberforce, who abolished slavery, the party of Disraeli, who emancipated the working classes, the party of Baldwin, who brought in universal suffrage, and the party of Thatcher, who turned Britain into a property-owning democracy?

[Sir George Young]

Whose birthday it is today, and I am sure that the whole House wishes Baroness Thatcher a very happy birthday. It was not right to say that the party—my party—is the ideological descendent of the people who sent children up chimneys. Lord Shaftesbury introduced the legislation against the practice; I am not sure where the Liberals were on that matter.

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

Following the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday to uphold Scottish Parliament legislation that will allow people who have been exposed to asbestos to receive compensation, will the Government now introduce legislation here to enable pleural plaque sufferers across the UK to achieve justice?

[Sir George Young]

I shall certainly raise that matter with the appropriate Minister—perhaps the Attorney-General, the Justice Secretary or the Home Secretary. The hon. Lady raises an important issue and I shall ensure that she gets an answer.

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

May we have a debate about immigration? Many of my constituents are keen to see the Government make progress on their promise to reduce migration from the hundreds of thousands that came in under the previous Government to a more reasonable level.

[Sir George Young]

I would welcome such a debate and I am sure that the Opposition would too, as they now recognise that this is an issue that they did not take seriously. We could set out the measures we are taking on students, family visas and work permits to bring the numbers down to a sustainable level.

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

Following the Home Secretary’s conference speech, which drew such praise from the Lord Chancellor, when can we expect to have an opportunity to discuss her amendments to the Human Rights Act 1998?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have just set up a commission to consider the Human Rights Act. When that reports, there may be an opportunity to debate its recommendations and conclusions.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

May I add my name to those of the Opposition Members who are calling for a debate on NHS funding? NHS East Lancashire has just been given the go-ahead for a new £10 million, state-of-the-art health centre in Colne town centre, subject to the approval of NHS Lancashire and the North of England strategic health authority. This Government’s £12.5 billion increase in investment in the NHS has been widely welcomed, and stands in stark contrast to the Labour party’s proposed cuts of £28 million.

[Sir George Young]

I am glad that the extra funding is being put to good use in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I remind him that the shadow Secretary of State for Health said:

“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms”.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Leader of the House aware of the 1,400 job losses that will occur at BAE Systems as a result of the Government’s cutting the defence budget too far and too fast? That is having a devastating effect on families across Lancashire and on the manufacturing base in this country. May we have a debate specifically on the future of manufacturing in this country?

[Sir George Young]

I know that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Ministry of Defence are anxious to mitigate the problems that confront BAE Systems and a number of towns throughout the country that have been impacted by the reduction in defence spending—which I suspect the hon. Gentleman’s party would have had to do in any event had it been re-elected. I shall certainly pursue the particular issue in his constituency and see what steps can be taken to mitigate the impact on unemployment.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that many of us have struggled to enjoy the rugby down under in recent weeks—

[Chris Bryant]

We’ve enjoyed it!

[Kris Hopkins]

May I wish Wales every success in their match against France? In Yorkshire, not only do we have Leeds Rhinos, who have thrashed our Lancastrian opposition, but the Keighley Cougars have become the grand finalist champions. May we have a statement heralding their support please?

[Sir George Young]

I am certainly happy to wish Wales very well in the semi-final.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Earlier this month, Hartlepool borough council passed a vote of no confidence in the management of the local NHS trust as a result of the loss of accident and emergency services at Hartlepool hospital. The Secretary of State has said that this is a local matter, but the local authority has made its views clear. I know that other areas, such as Chase Farm, have similar problems, so could we have a debate in Government time on local accountability and the reconfiguration of services in the NHS?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman has made a powerful case for the Health and Social Care Bill, which is currently in another place. The Bill reinforces the links between the NHS and local government, and gives local government much more influence on how the NHS will be run in future.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

As energy bills rocket and more of my constituents might be unable to pay their energy bills—especially if this winter is as hard as has been widely predicted—may I endorse the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for a debate so that the Government can reassure the House that the price of developing greener technologies will not fall on our poorest pensioners?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is quite right. There was a written ministerial statement earlier this week reminding everybody that cold weather payments are £25 a week when activated. Those payments complement the winter fuel payments, the green deal and other measures we are taking to reduce the costs of energy. There is also work going on to increase transparency and the ease with which people can switch from one supplier to another. I would welcome such a debate.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

May I press the Leader of the House and ask him whether we may please have a statement on NHS care for the elderly? As he knows, today’s Times describes it as

“a scandal that is getting worse”.

The House should discuss this as soon as possible.

[Sir George Young]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and other hon. Members have raised the reports in today’s press regarding the Care Quality Commission investigation into a number of hospitals. I would welcome such a debate, and I suggest that he should approach the Backbench Business Committee to see whether it might find time for one.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

These are unhappy times for employment. May we have a debate to congratulate Government Ministers on adding to total taxpayer-funded employment by having more special advisers—not including the unofficial one—than the Labour Government? Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister will commit to his 2009 statement that Liberal Democrat special advisers will be paid from party political funds? As I like the House, and the Leader of the House, I am willing to work for him unpaid as a part-time special adviser if it helps to resolve the problem.

[Sir George Young]

That is a very generous offer, but I have total confidence in my current special adviser, who needs no reinforcements. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that on coming to office we appointed fewer special advisers than the outgoing Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I must thank the Leader of the House and colleagues for their extreme self-discipline, which has meant that all 43 Back Benchers who wished to take part in business questions had the opportunity to do so. It shows what can be done when we put our minds to it. I am most grateful to all colleagues.

Middle East and North Africa

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

12:16

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Events in the middle east continue to have far-reaching implications for the peace and stability of the region and for our own security. Libya continues its profound transformation after more than 40 years of dictatorial rule. On 20 September the national transitional council took up Libya’s seat at the United Nations General Assembly. Order has been restored in Benghazi and Tripoli, as I saw when I visited with the Prime Minister last month, and the NTC has consolidated its hold on the vast majority of Libya’s territory.

The remaining Gaddafi supporters are concentrated in Bani Walid and Sirte, where there has been intense fighting. The NTC has said that it aims to declare the liberation of Libya once Sirte has fallen, to move swiftly to form a transitional Government within 30 days and to hold elections for a constitutional assembly within the following eight months. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary visited Tripoli and Misrata last weekend. His talks with Libyan leaders confirmed their clear understanding of the need for quick formation of a new, inclusive Government.

Colonel Gaddafi’s location remains unknown, but scores of his closest supporters and family members, including his wife and daughter, have fled over Libya’s borders. Interpol has issued red notices for him, his son Saif al-Islam and his former director of military intelligence, all of whom have been indicted by the International Criminal Court. No state should harbour any of those fugitives from justice.

Last week NATO agreed that the positive trend in Libya is irreversible, but that not all Libya’s population is yet safe from attack. We will continue operations to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973 for as long as is necessary, at the request of the NTC and with the authority of Security Council resolution 2009, which was unanimously agreed on 16 September and established a new UN support mission in Libya.

British planes and attack helicopters have flown some 3,000 sorties across Libya and have damaged or destroyed some 1,000 former regime targets. Their precision targeting has minimised civilian casualties and saved countless lives, helping Libyans to gain their freedom. I pay tribute to them and all our partners involved in the NATO operation.

We are supporting the NTC’s own plans for political transition in Libya, through the friends of Libya group and the allocation of up to £20.6 million in UK funding for stabilisation, including for the rule of law, police, elections, essential basic services and the removal of mines and unexploded ordnance.

Libya’s economic growth will be an important component of its future stability, and on 26 September the Minister for Trade and Investment, my noble Friend Lord Green, visited Tripoli with a trade delegation, followed by a conference in London for representatives of British business.

By contrast with the progress being made in Libya, appalling violence and repression continues in Syria. Some 2,900 people, including 187 children, have died at the hands of the regime and its armed forces in just seven months. Along with the United States and our European partners, we tabled a draft UN Security Council resolution condemning the Syrian regime’s use of force, calling for an end to violence and threatening sanctions, while ruling out military force. Nine of the 15 members of the UN Security Council voted in favour of that resolution, but Russia and China, regrettably, chose to block it. It is a mistake on their part to side with a brutal regime, rather than with the people of Syria.

We will go on working with other nations to intensify the pressure on the regime. On 24 September the seventh round of EU sanctions came into force. They now target a total of 56 regime figures and 18 Syrian entities, and include an arms embargo and a ban on the purchase, import or transport from Syria of crude oil and petroleum products. As the EU previously imported over 90% of Syria’s crude oil, and in 2010 oil revenues accounted for a quarter of all Syrian state revenues, the import ban will have a significant impact. We expect the EU to adopt further sanctions soon against a key regime entity. Turkey has also announced plans to adopt unilateral measures against Syria. We will look to work with it and other like-minded partners to increase the pressure on the regime, as well as continuing discussions at the UN.

Too much blood has been spilled for that regime to recover its credibility. President Assad should step aside now and allow others to take forward reform. We urge the Syrian opposition to develop a peaceful vision for the future of their country, and welcome the formation of the new Syrian national council. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) met senior members of the council in Paris, and I met Syrian activists in London at the end of last month. The Syrian ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office this morning and told that any harassment or intimidation of Syrians in our country is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

There is no one model for democratic development in the middle east. We must work with the grain of each society, while standing up for universal human rights, recognising that the pace of change will vary in each country and offering our assistance where we can and where it is requested.

On 23 October, the Tunisian people will vote freely for the first time in their history. The Tunisian authorities have worked hard to prepare for elections. Tough economic challenges lie ahead for the new Government, but they have achieved a great deal in the space of 10 months.

In Egypt, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has announced parliamentary elections beginning on 28 November, followed by a referendum on a new constitution and presidential elections. I spoke to the Egyptian Foreign Minister last night to express our deep concern about recent unrest in Cairo, and to argue for the need for steps to avoid further tensions and uphold the right to freedom of religion and worship in Egypt.

Members on both sides of the House will have concerns about events in Bahrain, including the use of military-led courts to try civilian defendants, including doctors and nurses. We welcome the announcement by the Bahraini Attorney-General that the cases of the medical staff will now be retried in a civil court on 23 October, and the expected report of the independent commission of inquiry on 30 October. We attach great importance to the publication of that report. It is a major opportunity for Bahrain to demonstrate that it will adhere to international standards, meet its human rights commitments and take action when abuses are identified.

In Yemen, President Saleh’s return without a clear plan to transfer power has worsened the severe economic, humanitarian and security crisis. We continue to work for and to urge an orderly transition of power, along with our Gulf partners and other allies. We are now seeking discussion of the situation at the UN Security Council.

The House will know that the United States has announced the disruption of a major conspiracy to assassinate the Saudi ambassador on American soil in Washington. There are indications that that deplorable plot was directed by elements of the Iranian regime, with the involvement of senior members of the Islamic revolutionary guard corp’s Quds force. This would appear to constitute a major escalation in Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism outside its borders. We are in close touch with the US authorities and will work to agree an international response, along with the US, the rest of the EU and Saudi Arabia.

Separately, we welcome the King of Saudi Arabia’s recent announcement that women in Saudi Arabia will soon have the right to vote and run in municipal elections and to become members of the Shura Council, the King’s advisory body. That will be a significant step forward for the people of Saudi Arabia, and I welcome the King’s commitment to listening to the aspirations of the Saudi people.

I also welcome the progress that has been made in Morocco, where elections will be held on 24 November, and in Jordan, where we look forward to the implementation of amendments to the Jordanian constitution, strengthening the rights of citizens and the parliamentary process. Positive, peaceful change is taking place in much of the Arab world.

The case for progress on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become more urgent as the pace of change in the region has quickened. We support a settlement with borders based on 1967 lines, with equivalent land swaps, a just settlement for refugees and Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states.

On 23 September at the UN General Assembly, President Abbas lodged an application with the UN Security Council for full Palestinian membership of the United Nations. This application is now being considered by the UN membership committee. Also on 23 September, the Quartet adopted a statement that provides a clear timetable for a conclusion to negotiations. We have called on both parties to return to talks on that basis. I welcome Baroness Ashton’s statement on 9 October that the parties will be invited to meet in the coming days. Success in this will require bold, decisive leadership from both sides, as well as painful compromises. Palestinians should focus on returning to talks, rather than setting too many preconditions.

For the Israelis, time is slipping away for them to act in their own strategic interest. The expansion of settlements must end; they are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. That is why we voted in favour of the UN Security Council resolution on this subject in February and why we continue to condemn the announcement of new settlements. The Israeli Government need to take bolder steps than Israeli leaders have been prepared to do in recent years.

Separately, I welcome the agreement between Israel and Hamas to release the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, as part of a prisoner exchange. Holding him in captivity was utterly unjustified from the beginning, yet it has gone on for five long years, and the whole House will warmly welcome his return home.

The Government are determined to do all we can to support peaceful economic and political reform across the middle east and north Africa through our Arab partnership initiative, the work of our embassies and our role in the European Union and the G8.

In Tunisia, we are supporting voter education in rural areas. We are helping the government of Morocco to improve transparency in Government Departments. In Algeria, we are supporting a loans scheme for young entrepreneurs. In Egypt, we are helping to establish an academy to provide new female candidates and their election campaigners with relevant skills.

We helped to secure a revised European neighbourhood policy, which makes an ambitious offer of much deeper economic and trade integration and more explicitly conditional financial assistance, and the G8 has pledged $38 billion for the region. In both cases, we want to see policy turned into action, so that the whole of Europe and the G8 can act as magnets for change. The Arab spring has brought conflict and uncertainty, but it undoubtedly has the potential to bring about the greatest single advance in human freedom since the end of the cold war.

We are also determined to learn the wider lessons of these events. On 16 March I announced a review of policy and practice relating to the export of equipment that might be used for internal repression, in particular crowd-control equipment. I have this morning laid a further written ministerial statement before the House outlining a package of proposals resulting from that review, which concluded that measures should be taken to improve aspects of UK export policy. We will introduce a new mechanism to allow Ministers to respond more rapidly and decisively to the outbreak of conflict or to unpredicted events like the Arab spring, by suspending licensing. Our proposals also include steps to strengthen decision making when we provide security and justice assistance overseas. That announcement does not preclude additional measures or further strengthening of the system.

On all these issues, the Government will continue to defend human rights and support political and economic freedom and to work closely with our allies in the interests of peace and stability for this vital region.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and for advance sight of it this morning. On the Government review of policy and practice relating to the export of equipment that might be used for internal repression, we will study the package carefully. I welcome the statement, given continuing events in the middle east, and note that the last time the House had the opportunity to discuss such a statement was on 29 June.

Let me turn first to Libya, where our forces are still engaged in upholding United Nations Security Council resolutions. Much progress has been made in Libya since the House last met, thanks in no small measure to the continuing and characteristic professionalism of our armed forces in enforcing those resolutions. Fighting continues around Sirte, as the Foreign Secretary says, and I would be grateful if he gave further details of the situation on the ground. I note the presence of the Defence Secretary, who has said that the fall of Sirte is “getting very close”; perhaps the Foreign Secretary is willing to give a time scale, given continuing events in the city.

Will the Foreign Secretary give his reaction to concerns expressed yesterday by the Libyan oil and finance Minister, Mr Ali Tarhouni, and the deputy chief of the national transitional council’s executive committee, that weapons are still entering the country in a way that could threaten its future stability?

On Syria, the right hon. Gentleman rightly condemned President Assad and urged him again to step aside. We welcome the fact that Europe has moved to broaden sanctions on the regime, including on its oil sales; Labour Members have argued for that for some months. However, it is six months since Ministers stated that Syria was

“at a fork in the road.”

In light of the continuing bloodshed and repression, will the Foreign Secretary give some detail of the character of the Turkish unilateral actions now under consideration, and will he give us more information on the expected extension of European Union sanctions?

I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed by the brevity of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on Bahrain, given his previous recognition of the need for more fundamental reform there and, of course, its historically strong links with the United Kingdom. Indeed, in March the Foreign Secretary told the House that

“the King of Bahrain pledged himself…to further such reforms.”—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1137.]

However, in recent months, there has been little evidence of real and substantive reform, and further evidence of deeply troubling events, such as the sentencing of the doctors whom the Foreign Secretary spoke about. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that continuing worries about Bahrain will be met with ongoing diplomatic efforts from the British Government, and will he set out what steps he intends to take? In April, the Foreign Secretary expressed his frustration that

“In Yemen, attempts at agreeing a political transition have repeatedly stalled or failed.”—[Official Report, 4 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 753.]

Six months on, can he tell us what further steps he is planning to take to help prevent further dangerous deterioration in the situation there?

Recent events in Cairo will also cause concern to many who remain friends to the new Egypt. I join the Foreign Secretary in condemning unequivocally the killing of 24 Coptic Christians after recent demonstrations. That is just the latest, though clearly one of the most serious, causes of concern. The deaths in Cairo have reportedly prompted the resignation of Egypt’s Finance Minister, Hazem el-Beblawi; in addition, Egyptian output fell by 4.2% on the previous year in the first quarter of this year alone. Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern about what will happen to the Egyptian economy, and that access to European markets in particular needs to be accelerated?

Eight months after the revolution, the armed forces continue to run the country through their supreme council. The emergency laws originally introduced by President Mubarak have been maintained, and there is at least some talk of the presidential election being slipped to 2015. Will the Foreign Secretary share with the House the Government’s assessment of the situation, and his judgment as to when presidential elections will take place and when power will effectively be transferred from military to civilian authority?

Let me associate myself entirely with the Foreign Secretary’s remarks about the prospect of Gilad Shalit’s long-overdue release, and the recognition that a negotiated two-state solution remains the route towards peace and stability in the region. There is much common ground on the issue across the House. However, I note the carefully chosen words that the Foreign Secretary used in relation to the recognition of Palestinian statehood in the United Nations. Will he confirm today that it has never been the case that that recognition can only follow the conclusion of the negotiations? Will he offer the House a little more insight on where those discussions in the Security Council have reached?

Let me turn to Iran. I concur with the concerns expressed by the Foreign Secretary, but will he give us the British Government’s view of where that leaves the E3 plus 3 process? In June, he promised:

“Until Iran negotiates seriously, international pressure against it will only increase.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 35.]

Will he set out what measures he expects to use to increase that pressure? We know that being able to see protests elsewhere in the middle east and north Africa, online or on satellite television, was a key driver of the changes that we witnessed this year, so what action is the Government taking to support the BBC Persian service, which has been subject to repeated attempts to jam and otherwise block its important information?

These remain days of great possibility and great peril for the middle east and north Africa. I hope that the Government continue to keep the House updated in the weeks and months ahead.

[Mr Hague]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those questions; I think that they reflect the large measure of agreement across the House on many of the issues. I shall run through his questions in the order in which he asked them.

The right hon. Gentleman was quite right, of course, to pay an additional tribute to our armed forces and the work that they have done on Libya. He asked what the situation is in Sirte. There remain two small, steadily shrinking areas where the pro-Gaddafi forces fight on. I do not think that it is possible to give a time scale—[Interruption.]—well, a more precise time scale than anyone has given so far, which is what the shadow Foreign Secretary was asking for. We have always resisted putting precise time scales on things. However, clearly great advances have been made by the free Libya forces in recent weeks and days, and there are now two small areas left. That shows that the pro-Gaddafi forces that remain are in a very difficult position.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to ask about weapons coming into the country. Indeed, that is part of the issue of the stabilisation of Libya. The national transitional council has been consistently underestimated in the past six months, at every stage. International opinion, many media commentators and sometimes those in this House thought that the council did not have the capacity or expertise to get a grip on its country. It has shown at every stage that it does, and I think that it will, in addition, have that ability when it comes to controlling the supply of weapons. We are giving it assistance in tracking down some of the weapons of the Gaddafi regime that have gone missing, and that assistance will continue.

Syria has long since passed the fork in the road. The right hon. Gentleman is right that back in March, I said that it was at a fork in the road—I said it for a while—but the Assad regime is now far past the fork, and sadly it took the wrong fork. That is why we said in August, along with the United States and our European partners, that Assad should go, and that the regime should come to an end. It is for the Turks to announce, of course, the details of their proposals. For reasons that will become obvious, I cannot give details of the next measure that the European Union will take; action against a major Syrian entity will be announced pretty soon.

The right hon. Gentleman was worried about the brevity of my remarks on Bahrain, but that was simply to comply with Mr Speaker’s strictures. One could talk for hours on any of the subjects that we are discussing, and if the House sets aside the time, I will be delighted to do so. Over the past few months, Bahrain has taken some actions that are welcome, and some that are very unwelcome; it has gone in different directions—sometimes at the same time, speaking frankly. It was welcome that it announced the commission of inquiry into abuses, and indeed put internationally respected people on it. I also welcome its decision, after the international outcry about the trial of the doctors and nurses, about the retrial. It is welcome that it has attempted, since the time that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about, a national dialogue in Bahrain, yet of course there are many valid, legitimate criticisms as well, and allegations of human rights abuses. That national dialogue has not yet been successful in bringing everybody together in Bahrain.

The diplomatic message to Bahrain is communicated in many different ways, including by me, in my conversations with the Foreign Minister of Bahrain. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), is in regular discussion with the Bahraini authorities. The National Security Adviser, Sir Peter Ricketts, recently visited Bahrain and made clear our views on all these matters, so I want to put the emphasis for the next 17 days, up to the publication of the commission of inquiry’s report, on the great importance that I think all of us in the House attach to that, because the credibility of the report and the readiness to act on it will be an important test of how Bahrain will approach the coming weeks and months.

In Yemen, we are taking many steps to support an orderly transition of power. I pay tribute again to the staff in our embassy in Yemen, who work in what is perhaps the most dangerous situation that any of our diplomats face around the world. I visited them there in February. They do a great job in supporting the Gulf Co-operation Council’s efforts to promote dialogue and trying to persuade all sides to sign up to the orderly transition of power. We continue to work closely with the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, on this. As I have said, we are about to discuss this in the United Nations Security Council and are considering whether a resolution there would add to the international pressure on the President to sign up to an orderly transition of power.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the Egyptian economy. I expressed those concerns to the Egyptian Foreign Minister when I talked with him last night and, in particular, asked him and the Egyptian Government to take steps to give investors in Egypt greater confidence about both security and in relation to recent court decisions. That is very important to British businesses, which are the largest investors in Egypt, particularly in the oil and gas sectors. He undertook to do that, and UK Ministers will of course strongly reiterate these concerns on forthcoming visits.

The right hon. Gentleman is also right to raise concerns about the timetable for presidential elections slipping. When I asked the Egyptian Foreign Minister about that yesterday, he said that he believed that the elections would take place by the summer of next year. According to other commentators, that is an optimistic timetable. Without interfering in the sovereign affairs of Egypt, I think that we can continue to express our view that the sooner such elections take place, the better. Egypt of course needs clear and strong civilian leadership in the form of a democratically elected President, and that cannot come about too soon.

The right hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement on welcoming the release of Gilad Shalit. The Security Council is considering the membership application of the Palestinians through its normal procedures. When and how to take that forward will be partly up to the Security Council and partly up to its members. There is currently no specific proposition before the Security Council on this. He said that I had expressed carefully chosen words on the issue. They are very carefully chosen, because words really matter on this issue. It is a delicate and difficult subject. Our words are all directed towards trying to bring about the resumption of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. How we act in the Security Council or on any motion that may come before the UN General Assembly will be determined by how we can bring about a resumption of negotiations. All 27 EU countries have withheld a verdict on motions at the UN, partly because there is currently no specific motion to vote on, but also to maximise our leverage over both Israelis and Palestinians to return to talks. That is the basis of our position and I think that it would be wrong to move away from it at the moment.

On Iran, we announced considerable additional European sanctions at the end of May. We are working on further sanctions, but I am not in a position to announce those today. The attempted action revealed by the United States this week makes a strong case for additional measures, which we are now discussing with our partners. The right hon. Gentleman rightly identified the importance of the BBC Persian service, through which we should communicate at every opportunity. Attempts are made to block that, but we of course support the service politically, diplomatically and technically in any way we can.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have taken quite a long time so far, so we need brevity in the questions that will be asked and certainly more brevity in the answers.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the advancements that could be made after the long-overdue release of Gilad Shalit could be followed by Hamas agreeing to recognise the state of Israel and renounce violence?

[Mr Hague]

This successful negotiation is a ray of hope in a difficult and often bleak situation in the middle east. It shows that a successful negotiation can be carried out with the involvement of Israel and, as was necessary in this case, Hamas, through the good offices of Egypt, and I congratulated the Egyptian Foreign Minister on Egypt’s role in this. It would of course be welcome if Hamas were to move away from its rigid positions. If peace is to be brought about, it is very important that all concerned recognise Israel’s right to exist, support previous agreements and denounce the use of violence. It would be very welcome if Hamas would do those things or make concrete moves towards them.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

On the same theme, does the Foreign Secretary accept that the continued economic siege of Gaza creates the space for the most extreme voices to gain traction there? If we are to see movement towards a proper negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, is it not necessary for that economic siege to be lifted?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman’s terminology is slightly different from how I would describe the situation, but yes, we think that the Israelis should act to allow more goods into and out of Gaza. We have criticised the current policy on many occasions, although there have been some improvements over the past year. I agree with the gist of his remarks. Often the effect of the policy has been to strengthen the position of Hamas domestically within Gaza and its financial interests there. It would be wiser for Israel to change the policy, just as it is necessary for Hamas to change its policies in the way I have just described.

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

We have seen the winds of change blowing though north Africa and the middle east in an encouraging way and the British Government have been strong and robust in their words and actions, for which I congratulate the Foreign Secretary. We have also seen the opportunities in Israel and Palestine with the pending release of Gilad Shalit and the deal. It would be helpful, and compatible with the negotiations and Baroness Ashton’s intervention, if we ensured that Israel knows that Britain’s objective will be to recognise a Palestinian state as soon as possible so that there can be parity and equality in the negotiations and their conclusions?

[Mr Hague]

It is of course our objective to help bring about a two-state solution. We believe in and want to see a Palestinian state, but that state will only be a truly viable state, in control of its own territory and able to make its own decisions, as a result of negotiations with Israel. We can pass all the resolutions we like at the United Nations, or not, but what is required is a successful negotiation. That is what we must keep in mind. Our attitude to the recognition and inclusion of Palestine at the United Nations is determined by how we can restart negotiations. I put it that way round, but the objective is absolutely as my right hon. Friend describes it—to have a Palestinian state.

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

When the right hon. Gentleman talks about carefully chosen words with regard to the Palestinian application for membership of the United Nations, will he note that the carefully chosen words of Obama and Clinton are already intended to oppose the application totally and bully and blackmail other countries as well as the Palestinians into opposing it? Will he assure the House that the Government will not succumb to that bullying and blackmailing and that they will do the right thing for the Palestinians?

[Mr Hague]

Of course, I work closely with Secretary Clinton on this and other issues, so I do not characterise the United States’ policy as the right hon. Gentleman does. Nevertheless, there are differences between us and the United States in our approach to the issue. We voted in opposite ways on the resolution on settlements in February, and we have a different way of handling the Palestinian approach to the UN: the United States has discouraged it—that is absolutely right.

I believe, however, that President Abbas did achieve at the UN General Assembly the highlighting of the issue in front of the world. Nothing technically changed at the United Nations, but he did achieve that and did press on the world the urgency of it—and he was right to do that. So we do differ from the United States in many things that we say on the issue, although we share with them the objective of a negotiated two-state solution.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and in particular I am very encouraged by mention of training and support, and whatever, for female candidates in Egypt. Can he assure me that the Government will continue to take a leading role in pressing for women to benefit from the new political and economic freedoms that we hope will sweep across the region?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. That is of immense importance and one of the potentially very exciting aspects of the ongoing change in the Arab world. Senior people in Saudi Arabia told me before the recent announcement by the King that they cannot treat the next generation of women in the same way as the previous generation—they know that.

We have made the case in all our contacts with the Libyan authorities for the much greater involvement of women in their public life. The International Development Secretary and I met leading women in civil society in Benghazi on our visit there in June, so we will continue very much to encourage that, and I agree with my hon. Friend.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary know why the Bahraini doctors and nurses are on trial in any court, criminal or civil, bearing in mind that they were just doing their jobs and could be covered by international humanitarian law?

[Mr Hague]

It is absolutely not my brief to defend the Bahraini Government in their handling of the situation. There are allegations about those doctors and nurses, and some in Bahrain argue that they were not going about their jobs but doing other things. It is not for me, however, to state those allegations or to agree with them. Those people should have been tried, if they needed to be tried at all, in a transparent way, in a civil court and with, of course, a fair judgment at the end. Therefore, we welcome the decision that they should be retried, and we will all watch very closely how that retrial takes place and what the verdicts are.

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

The Foreign Secretary is right to draw attention to the elections being held in Morocco next month and to their importance. What significance does he ascribe to the far-reaching constitutional reforms announced as part of the referendum held in July in that country? Does he agree, as he has before, that Morocco offers a beacon of hope in a region that has been blighted by conflict and violent disorder over the past several months?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I do agree. The King of Morocco has shown a determination to be ahead of the curve in the demand for change, in his own country and throughout the region, and that should be strongly welcomed. I will visit Morocco shortly to see for myself what is happening and to discuss those matters in more detail. It is part of the excitement that we should feel about what is now possible in north Africa. If we just imagine Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and, we hope, Egypt as more open societies and economies, we find that the possibilities for their citizens in terms of freedom and economic progress are a tremendously exciting development in world affairs.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The first question that the Foreign Secretary was asked from the Government side of the House basically involved urging Hamas to recognise the state of Israel, and if I understood the Foreign Secretary correctly, he broadly agreed with that idea. I think that both sides of the House would have a real problem, whatever individual Palestinian or Israeli political parties did about recognising each other, if there were any doubt about the international community recognising Israel. That being the case, why should there be any doubt about the international community recognising Palestine? Sooner or later a decision will have to be made on the issue at the Security Council. How will the Foreign Secretary take the feeling of the House before Britain makes its decision on that question?

[Mr Hague]

The paramount need is to return to negotiations—I stress that. The Palestinian state that the hon. Gentleman and I want to see come securely into existence will come about in the end only through successful negotiations, and therefore the difficulties that arise with ideas of UN resolutions at the Security Council or in the General Assembly are the dangers of resolutions that may undermine the prospect of negotiations, rather than buttress them. That is what we have to weigh in the balance, and carrying resolutions that then make it harder to pursue negotiations or are not accompanied by a clear commitment to return to negotiations may not be helpful. That is just one factor that we have to weigh in the balance.

On parliamentary opinion, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I make as many statements as possible on this subject—I think more in this calendar year than any Foreign Secretary has made in some decades; and, if the business managers can find time for debates on these matters, I would welcome it.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s rejection of the admonitions of some in this House for precipitate recognition of Palestinian statehood. He may know that in December 2008 I raised in an Adjournment debate the incarceration of Gilad Shalit, who has been in captivity since 25 June 2006. Will my right hon. Friend restate the imperative for Hamas to use that gesture as an opportunity to build for the future, to reject violence and terror, and to move towards peace and prosperity under the auspices of the Quartet principles?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I very much agree. In line with my earlier answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott), that is absolutely right. That gesture is a glimmer of hope, but it is very good news in the individual case of Gilad Shalit. In terms of the overall scene we should not overstate it, as it is a glimmer of hope, but all sides should now seek to build on it.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s focus on the importance of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians as the only way to achieve a viable and lasting Palestinian state alongside Israel, but what steps is he taking to secure the resumption of those negotiations, without conditions, as the Quartet requests?

[Mr Hague]

We have made our view very clear, including in discussions at the United Nations General Assembly. For instance, during the General Assembly ministerial week last month, I held direct talks with President Abbas and with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr Lieberman. At the beginning of that week, our Prime Minister also spoke to the Israeli Prime Minister about the matter, and we have urged all of them to return to negotiations in the spirit that I described in my statement.

Of course, we work through the European Union as a whole and through the very good work of Baroness Ashton on the matter, and we also influence the work of the Quartet—the EU, the UN, the United States and Russia —whose statement on 23 September provided the framework and timetable for a resumption of negotiations, so we are active on this issue on all diplomatic fronts.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend and, particularly, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on their work over many years to secure the release of Gilad Shalit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that Israel has released more then 1,000 prisoners, many of whom were involved in horrific terrorist atrocities, shows that it is willing to negotiate and to make some moves towards peace?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I do agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, as does the Under-Secretary; we are grateful for that. The release does show such willingness, but it is now important to replicate it in other negotiations.

In this case, Israel has made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) suggests, a decisive offer to bring about the release of Gilad Shalit; we now need Israel to make decisive offers on a much grander scale in order to bring about a two-state solution. That is what we urge it to do in the coming weeks. It will be necessary for Israel to do so if we are to arrive at that two-state solution, because without that solution Israel will be in a steadily more isolated and dangerous international situation.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for the individual efforts that he made with regard to Gilad Shalit; I know that that is greatly appreciated. I also support his comments about the persecution and murder of Coptic Christians and other minorities in Egypt.

Turning to the cocktail of crises on the African continent, is it not about time that there was an Africa summit led by this nation, with our partners across the world, to address the many-faceted problems and to keep world attention on those problems so that we can help to resolve them and bring freedom, encouragement and business acumen to that continent?

[Mr Hague]

There are, in effect, many such summits. The G8 summit at Deauville at the end of May focused absolutely on that, and it was followed up by a meeting of the G8 Finance Ministers early in September and the meeting of G8 Foreign Ministers in New York that I attended on 20 September. That is about much of the western world—the developed world—trying to ensure that it is a magnet for change and for economic and political freedom in north Africa. A total of $38 billion of finance is available multilaterally to these countries. That effort is very much going on. Of course, the African Union also holds its own summits, and we are present and active around them—my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary, in particular. This country has a very strong record in promoting freedom and prosperity in Africa.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The positive example of Liberia and the rather more depressing tale of Angola show that the involvement of women in post-conflict negotiations is not just a matter of equality—it is absolutely vital for security and stability. How is the Foreign Secretary using his influence to ensure, at this critical time in the formation of new Governments and institutions in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, that women are around the table, with full speaking rights, as an essential part of those future successful states?

[Mr Hague]

That is a very high priority for the Department for International Development in all the work that it does, and it is an important priority in our Arab Partnership fund. I listed earlier some of the projects that we are undertaking: for instance, to train and assist female candidates for election in Egypt. Of course, we cannot ensure that such things happen in those countries—we are not a sovereign power—but we can transmit the right signals and encouragement all the time, and we do so. The Prime Minister very much did that in his meeting with national transitional council members in Tripoli a few weeks ago. I will be visiting Libya and many other north African countries shortly, and I will return to that subject constantly.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Would not a successful resolution on UN membership for Palestine strengthen the hand of Fatah, whereas at the moment, with the prisoner exchange, Hamas is looking as though it is more successful than Fatah?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman has an important point. It is true that how we act at the United Nations and how we promote negotiations must support the work of the moderate leaders of the Palestinians. I do not think that Israel is going to have better partners than President Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad for reaching peace and a two-state solution. That is why we should not be dismissive of their efforts and what they have brought to the United Nations, with President Abbas’s speech on 23 September. It nevertheless remains the case that a return to negotiations is the only way to bring about what we want. The simple passing of resolutions, if passed in a form that makes the situation worse in some ways—the US Congress has threatened to cut off funding and the Israeli Government have threatened to withhold tax revenues under certain scenarios—would not bring about that negotiated solution. That remains our paramount interest in our approach to these matters.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his comprehensive statement. There are worrying signs in Egypt. Under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, there has been increasing use of summary justice and emergency powers, as well as the reports of shooting of Coptic Christians. What is Britain doing specifically to facilitate the transition to democracy there? In particular, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is vital that the forthcoming elections are overseen by international monitors?

[Mr Hague]

In answer to the early part of my hon. Friend’s question, we are active in particular projects in Egypt, and we are also active diplomatically, in persuasion and pressure where necessary about respect for minorities such as the Copts in Egypt, respect for human rights, and so on. My hon. Friend will have to remind me of the last point in his question.

[Mr Raab]

Monitors.

[Mr Hague]

Monitors, yes. In the case of Egypt, it is important that the terminology is right. The Egyptians do not like the term monitors, or even observers—I think they would prefer to call such people witnesses—but the concept is the same. I discussed that with the Egyptian Foreign Minister last night. Certainly, Egypt is now accepting such witnesses—or monitors, or whatever they are to be called—for the forthcoming elections.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s initiative in seeking a discussion on Yemen at the Security Council. Does he know why the President of Yemen has changed his mind? He had agreed to go, the Gulf states and he backed it, and now he has changed his mind. Will the Foreign Secretary consider making a visit to Sana’a, as he has before, perhaps with another EU Foreign Minister, to try to enter into a proper discussion on these matters?

[Mr Hague]

We will consider any step that helps. The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to read the mind of the President of Yemen. Having met him on my visit in February, I know that that is an extremely difficult thing to do, even when sitting talking to him, let alone watching developments from afar. I do not know whether he has changed his mind or whether he ever decided to give up power; there are different hypotheses about that. One of the constraining factors is the presence of people around him who do not want to give up power, whatever his own intentions. There are indications that that puts back the signing of an agreement and an orderly transition. We will keep on with all our efforts and pursue them in any effective way that we can. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s welcome for our approach at the United Nations.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have just returned from a trip to Jordan and the west bank. I used the opportunity of a meeting with the Palestinian Authority’s Prime Minister, Mr Fayyad, to call on him to facilitate the release of Gilad Shalit. I was therefore delighted when that action took place the following day. However, I do not claim the credit; I express the delight of everyone in this House that it has finally happened. During the visit, it became evident to me that the level of settlement activity on the west bank is speeding up, and that is obviously of great importance. Will my right hon. Friend therefore make sure that the Palestinians return to negotiations urgently, rather than using their time lobbying members of the Security Council and the United Nations to secure a vote, so that we can get a viable two-state solution?

[Mr Hague]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend raised the case of Gilad Shalit; he is well on his way to a Nobel peace prize for the instant result that was achieved on that. Yes, the pace of settlement activity, which is illegal and which is on occupied land, is wrong. It is also one reason why it is an urgent issue, because a two-state solution will become impossible in a few years’ time if it is not arrived at in the near future. That means Palestinians returning to talks, but it also means Israelis returning to them ready to make a decisive offer to Palestinians.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that very many Palestinians—I would imagine the large majority—believe that the western Governments, including the British Government, are much more on the side of Israel than of Palestine, and that therefore the question of a vote in the United Nations, if there is to be one, is of crucial importance regarding the line that Britain is going to take?

[Mr Hague]

We are on the side of a two-state solution. We want a secure Israel living alongside a viable and secure Palestinian state. I do not see us as being on one side or the other. We make no compromises on the security or the legitimacy of Israel. The hon. Gentleman can gather from my remarks today and on many other occasions, and from the way that we have voted on settlements at the Security Council, that we believe in putting Israel under pressure to arrive at a two-state solution. We have done more of that, I have to say, than happened under any previous Government. That is the direction of our policy; it is not a matter of taking sides one way or the other.

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

May I turn the House’s attention to today’s written ministerial statement on the arms export regime? I welcome the tightening and strengthening of that regime, but there remain real concerns that British-made matériel is being used to suppress democratic movements, particularly in Bahrain. Will the Foreign Secretary publish the review and tell the House what more he is doing to stop British-made matériel being used to persecute people seeking democratic reform?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for this move. On Bahrain, there is no evidence of British-made equipment being used in that way. He will be aware that we revoked export licences to Bahrain to try to make sure of that for the future. The review points the way to being able to make such decisions at earlier stages if enough is known about a situation. The internal report gives advice to Ministers and contains commercial information, so I do not envisage publishing it, although I have published its conclusions. As I indicated in the written ministerial statement, I am open to taking further measures and to further consideration of the matter.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

We support the Foreign Secretary when he condemns Gaddafi’s torture in Libya and Bashar Assad’s torture in Syria. Why will he not condemn the al-Khalifa family’s torture in Bahrain? Is he aware that the senior police officers who were suspended for that torture have been reinstated? Women doctors should not be put in prison after a fake trial. If that happened in Burma or Zimbabwe, the Foreign Secretary would be straight out there calling for their release. Instead of welcoming an announcement and attaching great importance to it, will the Foreign Secretary say from the Dispatch Box that these women should be freed this afternoon?

[Mr Hague]

I think that I have been very clear in what I have said about that matter. I do not think that the Bahraini Government are in any doubt about our views on these issues; I expressed them forcefully to the Bahraini ambassador last week. They must not miss the opportunity that is there with the report on 30 October. The difference between Bahrain and Libya is that a political process is alive in Bahrain. The only way forward for Bahrain is for that political process to succeed and for an accommodation to be reached between its Shi’a and Sunni communities. That is a different situation from the one that prevailed in Libya six months ago.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I lived for three years in Yemen, for three years in Bahrain and also in Jordan. I was always told not to make any comment about the Sunni or Shi’a branches of Islamic religion. May I ask the Foreign Secretary to ensure, as I am sure he is doing, that our diplomats are utterly bipartisan and as neutral as possible in this matter, because it has a knock-on effect elsewhere, for example, dare I say it, in trade?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I assure my hon. Friend that our diplomats are religiously neutral about religion. We support the rights of minorities throughout the world, including the right to freedom of worship. In that, we do not differentiate religions and that should apply all over the world.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I have profound respect for the role of our armed services in Libya. However, we know from experience in Afghanistan and Iraq that the challenges of post-war reconstruction can be as taxing as military operations. Will the Foreign Secretary soon make a written statement to spell out our plans for post-war reconstruction in Libya and for the development of democratic institutions using agencies such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy? Will Britain support the inclusion of Libya in NATO’s Mediterranean dialogue?

[Mr Hague]

I will seek every opportunity to keep the House updated on what we are doing. To give a brief answer, I stress that this is a very different situation from Iraq or Afghanistan: there is no serious damage to the civilian infrastructure, it is a Libyan-led effort and there is no occupying army. The hon. Gentleman asks about our plans, but I stress that they are Libya’s plans for the stabilisation of its country. They are not plans for reconstruction, because the children are at school, the shops are open and the traffic is running, as I have seen for myself in Tripoli and Benghazi. We are involved in many ways, some of which I listed in my statement. As matters develop, as the transitional Government come in and as the UN mission expands its work, I would be happy to spell out in more detail in a written statement or in another statement to the House what we will be doing.

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

In the past year, the Egyptian economy has shrunk by more than 4%. That is reflected throughout the middle east, demonstrating that the Arab spring started because of economic disadvantage and a lack of economic opportunities. What efforts is the Foreign Secretary making to sponsor a dialogue between the European Union and those African countries? He has mentioned the efforts of the British authorities, but surely the crucial factor will be reaching an EU-wide agreement to support those economies and help them through this difficult period.

[Mr Hague]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. That is why we place such emphasis on the European neighbourhood policy being a bold and ambitious policy that offers closer economic integration to those countries. There was a very good meeting of the EU-Tunisia taskforce on this matter in the past couple of weeks. That needs to be followed up by looking at Egypt. The role of the European Union is really in solidifying and expanding the economic links, and I think that that work is going on.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On a recent visit to Gaza, the United Nations was keen to stress that 800,000 Gazans were living on UN food aid and that 600,000 of those people would receive no food aid at all come 1 January because of a lack of funds. If poverty is a major barrier to peace in the region, what can the Foreign Secretary do to remedy the impending humanitarian disaster?

[Mr Hague]

Through the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, we are one of the biggest contributors to the funding that goes to Gaza. Wherever such problems arise, we encourage other nations to join in with such funding. We will encourage other nations to do that, as indeed we have been doing. We are on to that.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

What estimate has the Foreign Office made of the number of Libyan students currently studying in the UK? There are a number in Leicester who have made representations to me. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on what arrangements are in place to ensure that those students continue to get funding from Libya so that they can continue in their studies?

[Mr Hague]

That was one of the major issues when we ordered the closure of the embassy of the old regime. From memory, there were about 8,000 Libyan students in the UK at that stage. Of course, that varies from one academic year to another. We were concerned at that time to ensure that the financial arrangements for those students were robust. Certainly, enough money was set aside for their support to be continued. We will monitor how that situation develops. The new Government of Libya have access to substantial financial resources and we will look to them to continue the support that has been given in the past.

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

I commend the work of the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on religious freedom in the middle east and north Africa, and the specific action that the Foreign Secretary took last night with regard to Egypt. Will he say a little more about his general approach to religious freedom across the region, which is experiencing much change at the moment?

[Mr Hague]

The whole House believes in such freedom, in the rule of law and in places of worship being respected. The Foreign Minister of Egypt assured me last night that the violence with the Copts, in which 36 people were killed, is being investigated through an inquiry and that legislation concerning places of worship will be brought forward in Egypt. I hope that that will help to guarantee, at least in law, the sanctity of those places. Beyond that, there is a wider argument to be won across the middle east and north Africa. British and other western voices should be strong in that argument, pointing out the great advantages to those societies of diversity and respect for freedom of religion. Amid all the horrors of the Syrian regime, one good thing in recent years has been the right of minorities to practise their religion in Syria. We hope that that will continue.

Point of Order

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

13:19

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Along with other right hon. and hon. Members, I received today a letter from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), saying that in future all his communications with us would be by e-mail. I do not challenge the sincerity of his desire not to spend an evening signing letters, or to be quicker or save a bit of paper, but I really do think it is a worry. When we send letters on to constituents, they should not be PDFs or bits of e-mails; they should be letters. They represent an important relationship between the state and the citizen. I am not sure, either, of the legal authority of letters that have not been physically signed. I do not want to add work for Ministers—believe me, I know what it is like—but will you look at the matter with your colleagues, perhaps including the Leader of the House, who is kindly in his seat, and work out whether it is a good initiative for any Minister to take?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That was discussed at Speaker’s conference this morning, and Mr Speaker is certainly uneasy about it. Concern was expressed by the other Deputy Speakers, as well. I can say that Mr Speaker will investigate the matter.

Backbench Business

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[32nd Allotted Day]

Procedure Committee Reports

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Mr Speaker has selected the amendment to the motion on hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber. With the leave of the House, we will take the first four motions together.

13:21

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes the Third Report from the Procedure Committee on Use of hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber and committees, HC 889; and resolves that hand-held devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum, that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this we will consider the following:

Amendment (a) to motion 1, leave out from 'used in the Chamber’ to end and add

‘to a minimal extent, silently and with decorum, to receive and send urgent messages, as a substitute for paper speaking notes and to refer to documents for use in debates, but not for any other purpose.’.

Motion on Select Committee Amendments—

That this House approves the recommendations relating to select committee amendments contained in paragraph 21 of the Second Report from the Procedure Committee on Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny, HC 800.

Motion on Explanatory Statements on Amendments to Bills—

That this House notes the recommendations relating to explanatory statements on amendments to bills contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Second Report from the Procedure Committee on Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny, HC 800; and invites the Leader of the House and the Procedure Committee to put in place a pilot scheme to implement these proposals in respect of one or more bills before the end of the next session.

Motion on Written Parliamentary Questions—

That this House approves the recommendations relating to written parliamentary questions contained in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the Second Report from the Procedure Committee on Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny, HC 800.

[Mr Knight]

May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for providing time this afternoon for these debates? I have to say that I do not think it should be the Committee’s responsibility to provide this time. These are House matters relating to the procedure of the House, and I think that in future the Government should provide time for debates such as this.

All the motions arise out of reports by the Procedure Committee. For the benefit of Members I should say that House of Commons papers 800, 889 and 1104 are relevant. I thank the members of the Committee for their hard work, which goes largely unnoticed. We frequently disagree, but it is part of our strength that we have a Committee comprised of a wide range of Members from all parts of the House.

I wish to start by referring to the first motion, on hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber. The House last revised its rules on the use of such devices in the Chamber and in Committee in October 2007, and of course since that time the use of technology and the introduction of smaller and less obtrusive devices have developed rapidly, as has new software. I therefore believe we need to re-examine our rules.

I remember when I first purchased a mobile phone—I think I was one of the first people in the country to do so. I had to carry it with a shoulder strap, and the battery was larger than a large, bound volume of Hansard. It was a device that weighed about eight pounds, and it would have been totally impractical to bring it into the Chamber. Yet we now see devices that have the power of computers but are capable of being held in the palm of the hand. It is therefore right that we look again at our rules, and I hope that the House will agree to the motion before us.

As I said, the current rules go back to 2007. They permit the use of mobile phones and other hand-held devices to keep up to date with e-mails, provided that they cause no disturbance. Since 2007, the availability and use of new technology both within and outside Parliament has increased dramatically. There are many new devices, including portable tablet computers such as iPads, and smartphones, that did not exist when the Modernisation Committee drew up the report that led to our 2007 resolution. It was against that background that Mr Speaker and the Administration Committee asked the Procedure Committee to look into the matter and see whether it felt the rules should be changed. We gladly agreed to consider the matter further.

We have examined what happens in other parts of the world, and we were particularly impressed with the new and simple rule that has been introduced in the United States of America. There, the House of Representatives had previously banned the use of mobile phones and computers on the floor of the House, but on 5 January this year the new Congress agreed to a revised rule stating:

“A person on the floor of the House may not…use a mobile electronic device that impairs decorum.”

That seems to us straightforward and simple. It is designed to give discretion to the Speaker, or whoever else is in the Chair, to decide what sort of technology can be used by referring to how the device is used rather than what it is used for or what type of device it is, as was the case in the past.

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

I want to pick up my right hon. Friend on one very small point. He keeps talking about “us”, but I know he will acknowledge that the Procedure Committee was split on this matter, and that four of its members have signed the amendment.

[Mr Knight]

The Procedure Committee’s report upon which the debate is based was passed by a majority of Committee members voting on it. I am happy to acknowledge straight away that my hon. Friend has been an opponent of it from the beginning and voted against it in the Committee. I accept that this is a matter of fine judgment. I do not think it is one of those issues about which one can clearly say that the mainstream view is right and any other view is wrong, but I hope during my remarks to convince the House that, on balance, it should follow the majority view of the Committee.

I accept that there is a respectable argument that electronic devices should not be used at all in the Chamber or in Committees. It could be said that Members present at any time should be attending to the debate in hand and not undertaking any other activities, and that the use of electronic devices, even silently, could distract others. However, there are arguments the other way. I believe that the main arguments, although not all the arguments, in favour of permitting the use of electronic devices are pragmatic. The Modernisation Committee, to which I referred earlier, recommended the lifting of the restriction on hand-held devices, at least as far as e-mails were concerned, because of the possibility that allowing multi-tasking in the Chamber might increase the number of Members present in a debate. In a report specifically aimed at revitalising the Chamber, it argued:

“Members might be more willing to spend time in the Chamber listening to debates or waiting to be called if they were able to do other work at the same time, either dealing with correspondence or perhaps even using a handheld computer or laptop to deal with e-mails.”

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept my view that given that women are notoriously good at multi-tasking, it is possible for female Members to listen to debates, attend to e-mails and even think about what they are going to feed their children that evening?

[Mr Knight]

I hope that some male Members are also capable of multi-tasking, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

In considering how to refresh and enliven the Chamber, did the Committee consider ensuring that the Chamber has wireless reception so that we can communicate more quickly using our electronic devices?

[Mr Knight]

I believe that in such matters it is better to take one step at a time, but we may return to that, subject to the House’s conclusion today.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Knight]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady has just walked in. It is a little discourteous, given that we have already started, for her to seek to intervene. She ought to allow others to do so first. It is up to Mr Knight whether he takes the intervention, but Members ought to listen for a bit before jumping in. Mr Knight, do you wish to take the intervention?

[Mr Knight]

I defer to your judgment, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you were facing in that direction and I was not. If that is you view, I am happy to give way to someone else.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman is laying out a clear case. Does he accept that one of the other functions of using hand-held devices in the Chamber is to let the general public know what is happening? Our procedures are not always clear to the casual observer. Many people are interested in what we do, and Twitter, for example, is a good way of letting them know what is going on.

[Mr Knight]

There is certainly a strong argument for saying that we should not rule out of order anything that increases public interest in the Chamber and our Committees. I agree, therefore, with the hon. Gentleman.

There is also the question of consistency. Written notes as well as books, newspapers, letters and research papers may be used as an aide-mémoire. There is no difference between allowing a Member to consult his or her speaking notes or necessary documents in hard copy and allowing them to use an electronic device. Indeed, as more material is published in electronic format only, it might soon be the only way in which some documents can be consulted, particularly if the House of Commons Commission pursues its quest for further savings and decrees that some of our publications, which currently we enjoy in paper format, should be available in electronic format only.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I think that I inadvertently became the first Member to use an iPad for a speech in the Chamber a few months ago, mainly because I thought that we had been told that we now could—I picked that up from Twitter, so perhaps that is one of its perils. I was one of the last to be called in the debate and, whereas in other circumstances MPs might stick grimly to a pre-written speech, the fact that I could listen to Members and amend my speech as I went along meant that it was more of a response to the debate, as opposed to my coming along to say my five or 10 minutes’ worth.

[Mr Knight]

That is a very good point. What is the difference between the written word on a note made contemporaneously and referring to an iPad or other tablet device using the same process?

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of us think that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) proposes a more appropriate way of proceeding? It looks pretty bad if Members spend all their time looking at papers and other things that have nothing to do with a debate, but they look even less connected if they spend all their time playing with bits of electronic machinery. If we are here, we should be taking part in the debate, and the administration of our lives should happen outside.

[Mr Knight]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. If I may, I shall return to his point when I address the terms of the amendment.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is wrong if Members decide to have a little snooze? The motion states that we should behave with decorum. Is that not the point? We should use electronic devices sparingly, but the option to use them should be available.

[Mr Knight]

That is the essence of my argument—in whatever we do, we should behave with decorum. There is no duty on any of us to listen to the Member who has the Floor. The duty on us is to behave with decorum and not to be out of order, which is why it is appropriate to allow the use of these devices. In many instances, Members wander into the Chamber early and wait for a debate to start, and are not there to participate in the debate under way. What is wrong with Members discreetly checking whether they have messages, e-mails or other documents to review?

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As a lowly member of the animal life in the House, I have previously had to wait six hours to be called right at the end of a debate. As my right hon. Friend suggests, those six hours would be much more fruitful if I could do some work while waiting to be called—owing to my low position in the rankings of the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman does very well when he speaks. Perhaps that is why.

[Mr Knight]

I agree with my hon. Friend, although I have never thought of him as lowly.

The issue is one of fine judgment. I have reservations about basing the rules on what activities are permissible or forbidden. First, the inadequacy of the reference in our current rules—to checking e-mails and nothing else—shows how quickly the range of applications on hand-held devices could outstrip any attempt to define what is acceptable. Secondly, it is difficult, if not impossible, proportionately to police activity on an electronic device. Do we really want the Speaker frequently to have to rule on whether a Member had been using a device for a proper purpose following a complaint from another Member? It is illogical to prevent Members from using electronic devices when they could use paper speaking notes and documents or other research. Why should we prevent Members from checking facts on the internet in the Chamber?

[Claire Perry]

I was told as a new Member of Parliament by those who shall remain nameless, “Never mind whether your facts are accurate. Just say them anyway.” Of course, I have never followed that advice, but there are many advantages of instantaneously being able to google an article or, for example, to send a message to the chief constable of Wiltshire police in order to deal with damning statistics being provided by Opposition Members. That is incredibly helpful to us in doing our job of holding the Government to account and being good parliamentarians.

[Mr Knight]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ministers have had this facility for years. Officials in the Box have regularly passed notes to Ministers so that the latter can gauge the accuracy of points being made. Why should this be denied to the rest of us, who could obtain such information electronically? The Procedure Committee therefore concluded by a majority that Members should be allowed to use electronic hand-held devices for any purpose when in the Chamber while not speaking and that the current ban on the use of such devices as an aide-mémoire when we are speaking in a debate should be ended. I understand that even Hansard is now willing to accept notes for speeches electronically, rather than asking right hon. and hon. Members for a hard-copy of their speech. However, we all hope that such devices, if allowed to be used, will be used with discretion and due regard to decorum.

The amendment that I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire will seek to move shortly would allow hand-held electronic devices to be used in the Chamber only to receive and send urgent messages as a substitute for paper speaking notes and to refer to documents in debates. There would be no right to search for information or to check e-mails while sitting in the Chamber.

[Mr Gray]

I cannot understand how my right hon. Friend has interpreted my amendment to mean that there should be no searching for information. Of course, there should be. The point of the amendment is that the devices could be used for any purpose connected to the debate, but for no other purposes. Of course, under the wording of my amendment as I understand it, they could be used to search for information.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It does not say that.

[Mr Gray]

It does not have to.

[Mr Knight]

The amendment removes from the motion any mention of using such devices in Committee, which is extremely unfortunate because Select Committees already circulate non-confidential papers electronically. Indeed, I understand that the Administration Committee is piloting the use of electronic devices for the provision of some House papers. However, if my hon. Friend’s amendment is passed, the Chairman of the Committee alone will determine whether an electronic device may be used. The amendment provides no guarantee of consistency in Committee use.

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps the drafting of the amendment is not all that it could be—had my right hon. Friend drafted it, it might be better—but if the procedure in the Chamber were changed in the way I have described, I presume that precisely the same would apply in Committee. I acknowledge that the amendment does not say that, but that is the clear implication.

[Mr Knight]

My hon. Friend is now telling the House what he wished his amendment would do rather than what it does. I could not recommend anyone to vote for such an amendment. He drafted it, and it takes out all references to the use of electronic devices in Committee. In my view, Members should have certainty in what they can and cannot do in Committee. Imagine a Member attending a Committee with their notes on an electronic device and the Chairman saying, “Well, in my Committee we don’t use these devices.” That Member would be left high and dry.

[Chris Bryant]

If we were to presume, in the way the right hon. Gentleman does, that Chamber practice was consistent with Committee practice, the rule allowing hon. Gentlemen to remove their jackets in Committee, which does not apply in the Chamber, would presumably lapse.

[Mr Knight]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

The amendment has been badly drafted, but there is another aspect to it. Currently Members have to sit in the corridor to use laptops; if the amendment is passed, they will have to stay in the corridor and will not be allowed in the Committee Room. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Mr Knight]

I do indeed. I am against the amendment for reasons of consistency. If Members can send messages between themselves by paper, they should be allowed to do so with electronic devices. Indeed, if a member of a Committee wishes to pass a message to a member on the other side of the room, it might be less disruptive to use an electronic device, rather than leaving his or her chair, because sending a paper message would mean going to the side of the room. As for enforcing the rules, it would be difficult for the Chair to determine during proceedings whether a Member was using an electronic device to send or receive urgent messages. Who is to determine whether the messages that I view are urgent? Surely that is a matter for me to determine, not the Chair. The Chair would therefore be expected to rule on what is an urgent message.

[John Hemming]

Is not the real challenge for anyone receiving a message to know whether it is urgent before they have received it?

[Mr Knight]

That is a fair point. We have to view our messages before we know whether they are urgent.

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

rose—

[Mr Knight]

Although I am still halfway through my explanation of why the House should not support the amendment, I feel that I should give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Gale]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. I would like to clarify something with him, because it is quite clear that he has not served on a Standing Committee for rather a long time. The Chairman of Ways and Means, in his courtesy and wisdom, allows members of the Chairmen’s Panel, of which I happen to be one, a great deal of leeway in determining how we run our Committees in the interests of good order and progress of business. Let me assure my right hon. Friend that in any Committee I am chairing Members are under no illusions whatever about whether they are allowed to use electronic devices, which they are not, whether they are allowed to bring tea or coffee into the room, which they are not, or whether they are allowed to take their jackets off, which they are. I have never yet had a problem with any Member being in any doubt whatever.

[Mr Knight]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he thereby underlines my case for passing the motion unamended. He has made it quite clear that if Committees were exempt, he would not allow the use of electronic devices, whatever view we took in the House. If we wish to see the use of electronic devices, I would invite the House to reject the amendment and pass the motion unamended.

The point about participation is not one that we can ignore, either. There is an argument that Members are more likely to attend debates if they are able to do other work while they are waiting to be called. That is why I believe we should allow the use of electronic devices in Committee and on the Floor of the House.

The remaining motions on the Order Paper, which you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have indicated we may debate together, contain three sets of recommendations that share a common aim: improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. First, the Procedure Committee was asked by the Liaison Committee to consider whether Select Committees should be allowed to table amendments to Bills and motions being taken on the Floor of the House. We agreed to look at this and think there is a case for their being able to do so, subject to certain safeguards. Any amendment tagged as a Select Committee amendment should be agreed unanimously at a quorate meeting of the Committee, and notice should be given to all its members that such amendments will be proposed for consideration at a forthcoming meeting. We have also suggested that, subject to the established conventions on selection for debate and decision, the Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means might look favourably on a Select Committee seeking a separate Division on its amendments where business is programmed.

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

Let me say on behalf of the Liaison Committee that we are grateful that the Procedure Committee has not only accepted our proposal, which originated from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but refined it, building in helpful safeguards. Is my right hon. Friend as astonished as I am that the Government appear to have it in mind to use the payroll vote to prevent what we propose from happening?

[Mr Knight]

I hope that the Government will have a change of heart even as this debate progresses, but I rather share the right hon. Gentleman’s feeling that that may not come about.

Secondly, we also recommended that we should conduct a further experiment in this Parliament whereby Members and Opposition spokesmen are encouraged to attach explanatory statements to amendments and the Government provide explanatory statements clarifying the origin of amendments and new clauses proposed on Report.

Thirdly, our Committee recognises that although written parliamentary questions are a vital part of parliamentary scrutiny, they impose a significant cost on the public purse. Although we felt it would be wrong to consider imposing restrictions on Members’ ability to table questions in person, we think we should have a three-month trial whereby Members are restricted to a quota of five written questions a day submitted electronically.

To assist Members, we also recommended that the Government should deliver all answers to parliamentary questions to the Member concerned by e-mail at the same time as the answer is delivered to the House, which is vital. I do not know whether Members know this, but answers are delivered by a person who literally walks round the building. He takes the answer into Hansard and then to the Press Gallery, and then he puts it on the notice board for the Member. I asked a question recently, and in my case I was the last point in the journey. The House business was collapsing and I was on a train when I had a phone call from a journalist wanting to know my view on the answer to my question, which my office had not received. On checking the board, I found that it had still not got there. I therefore do not think it acceptable for Members to be the last in the queue when receiving answers to their questions. That is why we feel that there ought to be a system in place whereby Members always receive an electronic reply immediately the answer is available.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I warmly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee on an excellent set of reports and proposals on explanatory statements and so on. However, I want to press him slightly on the restriction on written questions that are only e-tabled, which seems to go against the arguments for consistency that have been marshalled for electronic devices. Surely a question should be treated the same whether it is tabled via the internet, by post or in person. Although we might need to look at a quota system, I cannot quite understand why electronically tabled questions need to be a special case, so that there is a quota for them but not for others.

[Mr Knight]

If I may, I will come back to that point in a moment. I want to deal completely with Select Committee amendments first, but I will return to the hon. Lady’s point and, if she is not satisfied, I invite her to intervene on me again.

The Procedure Committee was invited by the Liaison Committee to look at the possibility of a tabling system that would enable Select Committees to table their own amendments. The current practice is that amendments agreed by a Select Committee may be tabled only in the names of individual Members, which makes it difficult to distinguish Committee amendments from those tabled by the same members of the Committee acting as individuals. After consulting interested parties, the Procedure Committee published a report recommending that the practice be changed to allow Select Committees to table amendments to Bills and motions in the name of the Chair, with a tag line indicating the name of the appropriate Select Committee. The advantage of that practice would be that it would offer clarity to the House and to individual Members, and enable anyone reading an amendment paper to see that an amendment had originated in a Select Committee. It was also felt that it would contribute to the effectiveness of Select Committees.

We recognised, however, that there could be disadvantages, as individual members of a Select Committee might disagree with a proposed amendment, either at the time of its adoption by the Committee or afterwards. To counter that, the Procedure Committee recommended that stringent safeguards be built into the process whereby Committees agreed amendments that carried the special status of Select Committee amendments. We suggested that such amendments would have to be formally agreed, without Division, by a quorate meeting of the Committee. That is a more rigorous requirement than that for Select Committee reports, which can be agreed by a simple majority.

The Committee rejected the idea that Select Committee amendments should be guaranteed debate, because of the constraints of programming, but we supported the adoption of a convention that the Chair should grant a Division when one is sought. Unfortunately, as the Chairman of the Liaison Committee has said, the Government have indicated that they oppose this innovation, and I understand that they continue to oppose such a modest, sensible move today. Indeed, I have seen the Patronage Secretary buzzing round the House, rather like a wasp, discussing this matter. I therefore suspect that there could be a Government payroll Whip on this Liaison Committee suggestion.

The Government object to the proposal because they feel that it would be wrong for an amendment to be marked as having the support of a Select Committee if some of the Committee’s members might be in disagreement. We have tried to address that difficulty by recommending stringent conditions that would have to be met before a Select Committee amendment could be tabled as such. They include the condition that notice must be given before the Committee could agree the amendment. The Government say, however, that it would still be possible under the new arrangement for any two members of an 11-member Committee to approve an amendment on behalf of the whole Committee, as the quorum is only three and the Chair has a casting vote. That is technically correct, but I would suggest that the requirement for notice would make it most unlikely—or, in practice, impossible—that that could happen against the wishes of a majority of active members of a Committee.

[Chris Bryant]

With due respect, I do not think that either the right hon. Gentleman or the Government are correct in what they say. In this House, unlike the House of Lords, the Chair of a Committee has a vote only when there is an equality of voices.

[Mr Knight]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. That makes my argument even stronger and the Government’s case even weaker, and I am grateful for his intervention.

Our proposal is merely intended to enhance the visibility of Select Committee issues, without in any way diminishing the position of individual members in voting for or against amendments on the Floor. This matter was not initially on our agenda, but the Liaison Committee asked us to look at it. We have done so, and this is our conclusion. I therefore hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will reflect on their opposition to it, which I feel is misplaced. We have given our view, and whether the proposal now proceeds further is a matter for the whole House.

I see the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) in her place. She was one of the Members who supported the idea of explanatory statements, which is the subject of one of the other motions on the Order Paper today. The House has conducted a series of experiments with explanatory statements, and the Procedure Committee has assessed them. We decided that the overall effect was inconclusive, but it was put to us that carrying out a further experiment in a new Parliament—namely, this one—could be worth while, and that it would also be worth pursuing the experiment during the Report stage of a Bill. That is what we have decided to recommend to the House, and we are pleased to note that, in a debate Westminster Hall on 3 February this year, which the hon. Lady attended, there was complete consensus that it would benefit not only Members but those outside the House to have an accompanying explanation of what an amendment or new clause was designed to do.

I am rather more hopeful about this proposal, because the Deputy Leader of the House attended that debate and—it was a rare situation indeed—offered Government support for the measure. He said:

“Regarding explanations for amendments, we had the experiment in Committee and I am certainly happy, as far as the Government are concerned, for that experiment to proceed. Perhaps we ought to look at having such explanations on Report, too.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 384WH.]

I wholeheartedly agree with him, and I am glad that, on this issue, we are as one. I hope that he will confirm today that he now thinks it appropriate for us to trial the explanatory notes again in this Session and the next one. It would then be a matter for the House to decide in due course whether the facility was to be made permanent.

On the question of having a three-month trial quota for questions tabled electronically, the concern arose from evidence—mainly informal—from the Table Office. It found, when questioning the intended scope of some questions tabled electronically in Members’ names, that some Members appeared to know nothing about the questions and registered surprise that they had been tabled in their name. The Procedure Committee took the view that, in some cases, research assistants might be using the electronic procedure to table questions without the express authority of those for whom they work.

Questions are a proceeding in Parliament and should not be submitted without the express and explicit authority of a Member of Parliament. As the electronic submission method could be used without the Member’s knowledge, we decided, in this area only, to limit the number of questions to five in a three-month period to see what the effect would be. We are not recommending any restriction on the number of questions that a Member may take into the Table Office personally. This is a modest recommendation, and we hope that it will lead to Members being fully aware that a question is being submitted in their name.

[Dr Huppert]

Would an alternative be to encourage the use of electronic submissions and to introduce a system whereby, once a question had been received, it was automatically sent to the Member by e-mail? It would then be very hard for a rogue researcher to table questions without being noticed.

[Mr Knight]

That is a possibility, but we felt that, in the first instance, this three-month trial might lead to a small drop in the number of questions that a Member might deem worth asking. If Government Departments had smaller postbags to deal with, it could lead to better and quicker answers. We think that that is worth an experiment, but of course there are other options that we could look at. Indeed, as it is just an experiment, I would be quite happy to reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said, should this motion proceed today.

[Mr Gale]

My right hon. Friend is being gentle and courteous, but I think it is time he took the gloves off. There is a very real problem of parliamentary processes being manipulated by others who are not MPs—lobbying bodies, researchers and other parties associated with MPs. The process is quite clearly being abused, and it is time it was brought under control.

[Mr Knight]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a modest way of putting a check on the number of written questions going in and ensuring that in each case the Member is fully aware of what is being tabled in his or her name.

I have now laid my Committee’s recommendations before the House. I believe that they are all balanced, fair, proportionate and likely to assist Members in the performance of their duties. I commend them to the House—unamended.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. A 10-minute rule for Back-Bench speeches now comes into force. Will Members try not to use the maximum time and to cut down on interventions? The next debate is greatly oversubscribed. I understand that this debate is important, but people outside might not understand why we wanted to spend more time on hand-held devices than on high-speed rail.

13:59

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in robust support of the main motion and strongly against the amendment. The main motion seeks to allow Members to use hand-held devices in a way that does not impair decorum. We are all adults, and we are all mindful of how we are viewed in the eyes of the public and of the importance of being respectful to each other. It is therefore right that we use our phones and our tablets with discretion. It is also correct that laptops should be banned—they conceal people’s faces and make a noise—and it is right that any smartphone or tablet should be in silent mode when used. It is always regrettable and often embarrassing when a colleague’s phone beeps or rings in the Chamber.

I cannot support an amendment that allows Members to receive and send only urgent messages. According to an e-mail that explained this amendment, the intention behind using the term “urgent messages” is to ban tweeting, among other things, from the Chamber. Twitter started five years ago and now has more than 100 million active users. More than 300 MPs use Twitter. It allows us, in a bite-sized 140-character nugget, to talk to people outside this place. While it is not a replacement for traditional forms of communication, it is a very useful way to connect with the communities we were elected to represent.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I am a user of Twitter myself. One of its advantages is that messages have to be condensed into 140 characters to communicate with the outside world. Does the hon. Lady agree that we could learn from that, and try to condense more of our contributions to 140 characters?

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. That point has been made by many people engaged in the discussion about whether we should be able to continue using Twitter from the Chamber. I shall go on to refer to some of those contributions.

Many of us have a function whereby our tweets are listed on our websites for people to read, particularly for those who do not access the main Twitter website. Some MPs have been lambasted for using Twitter solely to publish press releases or to state what they are doing. Others use it to engage in debate. A conversation on a topic can unfold on Twitter via a hashtag. I started #keeptweeting to initiate an online discussion and identify what the public thought about tweeting in the Chamber. I was careful to ask what people thought about using Twitter in this place, not outside it.

The fact that the amendment has been tabled at all has provoked anger from some. For example, @RichSwitch said:

“No wonder people think Politicians are out of touch”.

There were many tweets offering reasons why Chamber tweeting should continue. I will not read them all, but I have picked a few relating to a number of themes. Some see it as a means of engagement. For example, @LeamingtonSBC said:

“Surely anything which widens public participation in the democratic process is a good thing!”

Similarly, @NHConsortium said:

“Parliament already seen as cut off & static, don’t amputate it further.”

Others shared why Twitter was important to them in understanding what is going on. Thus @maggieannehayes admitted that

“parliament can be such an alien place. MPs tweeting enables us, the voters, to get a sense of what’s happening”.

[Mr Gray]

Does the hon. Lady agree with me that she has taken a somewhat self-selecting sample? She has asked the twitterers whether or not they like twittering. I would have thought that they probably would do.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I shall come on to the responses of people who thought that we should not continue tweeting. I have a selection here. To continue, @PercyBlakeney63 said, “Citizens deserve transparency”, while @Daisydumble said, “Censorship of MPs now”.

[Claire Perry]

Does the hon. Lady agree that tweeting helps MPs to stay informed, in touch and accountable to their constituents, and that to ban it would be an inexplicable step back in time? That is 138 characters.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the hon. Lady for her succinct, pithy and tweetable intervention of 138 characters, and I wholeheartedly agree with everything she said.

All too often we are accused of being inward-facing. The public say that we are out of touch and inaccessible. Twitter allows us to make politics relevant, and makes us as individuals accessible.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber when we discussed whether we should able to discuss whether the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed to sit here on a Friday for the second year running. It was a debate on whether to have a debate on that subject. Many MPs were here into the early hours of the morning. It was important that we could tweet and explain to people, particularly young people, what on earth this charade they were watching on the BBC Parliament channel was all about. Many young people wanted to know what we were talking about. I think that was the best use of Twitter in the Chamber that I have encountered so far. I think people valued the fact that their MPs were prepared to explain to them what was going on.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and wholeheartedly agree with everything she said. That was a good example of something embarrassing—the prospect of not allowing the Youth Parliament to sit in this place. We debated it for many arduous hours and came to the right decision in the end. The fact that we were able to communicate with the public, particularly with those young people who wanted the opportunity to come here, was a fantastic use of Twitter. Twitter also enables us to offer an immediate reaction to a debate, to signal when we are going to speak—as I did just before I began my speech—and to inform our constituents how we are voting.

[Dr Huppert]

I have the great honour, I believe, of having been the first of all current MPs to join Twitter. It has been useful. [Interruption.] I was not an MP at the time I joined; I do not claim that. I, too, have received a number of comments about this debate. A number of people said that they had become interested in politics as a result of following Twitter and receiving tweets from myself, the hon. Lady and others. There are also people who actively tune into debates because they know what is happening; they can quickly understand what is being debated in this place. The TV and online audience for Parliament goes up because of Twitter. Another point is that deaf people have no better way of following a debate in this Chamber as it happens.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who makes two points on which I shall elaborate in a few moments. As I said, I believe that Twitter, for the reasons I outlined, allows our constituents to hold us to account better.

A number of Members have said that if the public want to know what is going on, they should watch our proceedings on television. However, as @Scarletstand said, people “can’t all watch” it “on TV”. Not everyone has access to a television or a computer for internet TV, although they may have internet access to sites like Twitter on their mobile phones. It also less likely that the public would choose to watch the Parliament channel. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) expressed in an earlier intervention his worry about what people might think as they watched us on television, but according to BARB—the Broadcasters Audience Research Board—the average weekly viewing per person of BBC Parliament is just one minute.

[Kevin Brennan]

That much?

[Luciana Berger]

That much. I think it is when they flick through to get to another channel. As @Scarletstand went on to say, tweeting from the Chamber

“helps voters gauge mood & tone”.

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

Is the hon. Lady aware of any evidence relating to MPs like me who do not tweet to suggest that our constituents are less satisfied with us than other constituents are satisfied with their MPs who do tweet?

[Luciana Berger]

I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that constituents would be less happy with their MPs if they did not tweet. I am saying, as I have said before, only that Twitter enables us to reach out to a wider audience. It should not be a replacement for traditional forms of communication, but for younger constituents and people who go on to our websites and want to see some pithy little updates, Twitter provides that opportunity. As I said earlier, it also enables people to gauge the mood and tone of this place, which they might not be able to pick up by watching television.

One aspect that had not occurred to me until I opened up the debate on Twitter is the fact that, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) mentioned a moment ago, it has positive benefits for people with hearing impairments. The BBC parliamentary channel is not subject to the BBC’s 100% subtitle commitment, and pledges just 800 hours of subtitled content a year. As @TimRegency observed, Twitter is one really useful way for deaf people to get involved in political discussion and debate.

Some objections were expressed. @JimSpin said that we could not concentrate and tweet. However, I would argue that we can, and that tweeting is equivalent to sending a text message, which takes just seconds. I agree with the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) that both women and men are able to multi-task.

@Donna_Smiley asked:

“Can surgeons tweet from operating theatres, policemen in a raid, jurors from courtrooms, teachers from classrooms?”

I would argue that the audience for each of those individuals—the surgeon, the teacher and the juror—is immediately in front of him or her, whereas we are accountable to our constituents, who are a long way from this place.

Do not get me wrong. I am not advocating constant tweeting, or tweeting while we are talking. As @TrojanFanl969 said,

“mp’s to use common sense. 50 tweets an hr bit silly, but selective use v good, engaging with electorate etc.”

Just two countries in Europe have banned tweeting, and I do not think that we should join them. @RichSwitch said:

“A ban on Tweeting in the chamber would be unconstitutional”.

I am not sure that I agree, but I do believe that—as he also says—it would be

“anti-democratic, regressive and bemusing to the public”.

14:11

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am not speaking to a brief from the Administration Committee, and I am pleased that the written evidence submitted on behalf of the Committee—whose conclusions were unanimous—has been printed along with the report that is before the House today. What I am about to say will contain my own emphasis, in the context of the Procedure Committee’s report and its recommendations to the House, and I am aware that it will give me a good chance of becoming the leading candidate for the “dinosaur of the year” award.

I think that we should appreciate the extraordinary reputation that the House has throughout the world. We should be humbled by the fact that whatever Parliament or the Government may say or decide, the institution itself is admired and respected enormously. People come from everywhere to see how we proceed as a legislature. I think that the requirement for us to stand on our own feet and use our own wits produces a quality of debate that has given all British parliamentarians a fairly high reputation around the world.

We should bear that in mind, because I believe that if it appears that we are being prompted from outside—which is entirely possible if hand-held devices are produced in the House—our reputation will decline. I am not targeting the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), but I believe that such devices will accentuate the tendency to read speeches, and the reading of speeches, which is discouraged by “Erskine May”, does have a dampening effect on debate. The hon. Lady made a very gracious contribution, and I repeat that I am merely making a general point.

Once, when I was in the Chair, I had to listen to a speech from an hon. Member who is no longer in the House. I thought that it had a certain ring about it, and indeed I discovered that it was a submission by that hon. Member to a Select Committee which was being read to the House. I was able to follow it word for word. I think there are certain dangers in going down that particular road.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many speeches that are based on closely written notes are a great deal more interesting than some of the more rambling contributions of other Members? I mention no names.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I accept that the quality of our contributions may vary, and I certainly make no claims for what I have said in that regard. As the hon. Lady knows, I have experienced 13 years with no practice of speaking in the House, so I am a bit of a newcomer myself.

I sometimes wonder, though, what would happen when a Member was using an electronic tablet, for example, and the power went off. That Member could be caught in a very difficult situation. It is ironic, is it not, that we are discussing this matter at a time when one of the best-known devices, owned by many Members, is having problems in achieving the purposes that some Members have extolled today.

I know that I shall not be able to stem a tide of what is, I guess, modernity, but there can be no doubt that it is transformational, and that it does not necessarily accord with the style of debate that we have used in the House over the years. Twice, when I had the privilege of sitting in the Chair, I had to restrain hon. Members from making telephone calls from the Chamber simply because the device was there. No one is suggesting that telephone calls should be made, but the fact that the device is there and can be used for that purpose does, I am afraid, lead to infringements. I also noticed that the Whips on duty on the Government and Opposition Benches were often distracted by the use of their devices and were not keeping pace with business, which created a dysfunction with the Chair.

Such devices are very compelling when they are in someone’s hand. It is not a question of what they might do, which is what is being recommended, but a question of what they can be used for. We know that people’s eyes tend to be drawn to a television screen when they visit someone else’s house. Similarly, the press of a button on a hand-held device can easily enable someone to view images from outside the House that command his or her interest. People know of my interest in cricket. How convenient it would be to ascertain what was happening in the Test match at that very moment! As the bowler was walking back to the end of his run, I should be able to look up and appear interested in what was going on in the Chamber, before looking down again at what was happening at the match.

Notwithstanding the qualified nature of the recommendation before the House—and the fact that it is accompanied by an even more curious suggested qualification from my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray)—the Chair will have no means of knowing what is actually happening when these devices are in use. When we admit them—if we do—we shall have to recognise that they can be used for a variety of purposes that the Chair will find very difficult to distinguish from one another.

[Mr Gray]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I am afraid that I will not. It would extend the length of my speech, and I do not want to do that in view of the limited amount of time left. I apologise to my hon. Friend, because I did refer to him.

It has been said that the purpose of allowing hand-held devices in the Chamber is to enable Members to get on with other activities—what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) described as multi-tasking. I can honestly say, however, that over the years the Chair has tried to accommodate colleagues by not making them sit through the whole of debates. The convention is that Members are present for opening speeches and for the speeches immediately before and after their own, but the Chair sometimes provides guidance, bearing in mind that we are all under heavy pressure to do so many other things nowadays. I therefore do not think that the idea that Members have to be present for six hours and must get on with their work during that time is a particularly good excuse.

I am not sure whether this still happens, but I know that the public have complained about the fact that the Chamber is so often empty and have asked, “Where are they? What are they doing?” One of my constituents said to me once that any Member who was not in his place in the Chamber for the whole of a debate should be deselected. That has been the level of misconception outside the House. But now, as they look around the Chamber, the public are beginning to notice that Members are, in fact, doing something. A moment ago I saw several colleagues, heads down. It is not a question of whether they are able to multi-task, or whether they are unable to listen to what is being said; it is a question of what the public think they are doing—and they do appear to be distracted from what is going on. That is a reputational point, and the House should consider it. Although I suspect that the House will bow to the inevitable and say, “This is progress,” we must be aware of the direction in which we are heading and understand that the character of our debates is likely to alter.

The Administration Committee report suggested that we should trial this move much more in Committee first, and I still believe that. I used to have doubts on this subject. When I was the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman’s Panel, we were rather opposed to the use of laptops, but I think that the tablet is different. It is less obtrusive and can be used effectively to deal with notes on clauses and all matters related to Committee work. I encourage this course of action, therefore, and that is why the Administration Committee is trying out how to operate in a paperless manner.

To my mind therefore, a better balanced response would have been to say, “Let’s see how this works in Committee before considering whether there is an essential difference between the work in Committee and the work in the House.” My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), for whom I have great respect, said what he was commending was a balanced approach on hand-held devices. I think the Administration Committee proposal, which I have advocated in my speech, would have offered a better balance still.

14:21

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

I warmly welcome this debate and congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) on his Committee’s work. I support the Procedure Committee recommendations on Select Committee amendments and handheld devices, but I shall focus on the motion on explanatory statements to amendments. That might sound like a very dry, technical and abstract issue, but I believe it goes to the heart of exposing something that is rotten about the way this place works. When I first arrived in Parliament as a new MP last year and started voting on legislation, I was shocked to discover that, due to lack of time, some Government amendments go through on Report “on the knife”, with neither debate nor explanation. That effectively means that legislation is being passed with no scrutiny whatever.

It is equally scandalous that many MPs frequently have no idea what they are voting on when they file through the Lobby. The Procedure Committee has done excellent work in trying to address that problem and has offered the simple solution of explanatory statements. I addressed this issue last year in a report entitled, “The case for parliamentary reform”. Following that report, I was able to secure a lively and well-attended Backbench Business Committee debate in Westminster Hall, which was held on 3 February.

During that debate, I was heartened by the degree of cross-party support that there was for the idea of explanatory statements for amendments taken on the Floor of the House. That was supported because the public would be rightly outraged were it to be widely known that legislation is being passed undebated and that many MPs are simply not in a position to know what they are voting on.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Given the sheer volume of legislation that passes through this place, the truth is that none of us can be fully familiar with all of it. Surely the hon. Lady could be a little more generous-spirited to the rest of the House?

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman underlines my point. I am not blaming Members as they simply cannot know the minute details of the effects of all amendments. That is why having explanatory statements—a limited amount of text clearly explaining what a particular amendment seeks to achieve—is so important. If Members had that information, they would be much better able to exercise their vote judiciously on behalf of their constituents, and would be able to put their hand on their heart and say, “Yes, we do know what we are voting on here.”

I was about to discuss the question of who is at fault. I am not blaming hon. Members; I am blaming the way we work. Given the way our system is set up, it is perhaps understandable—but it is not acceptable—that many MPs have to rely on the Whips to tell them how to vote, and do not really know what the amendment they are voting on actually does. I have seen Members literally being physically propelled through the Aye Lobby in support of Government legislation even as they are trying to find out the significance of what they are voting on.

Members might be less likely to be treated in such a way if there were a simple explanation of the effect of each amendment under consideration, and at least they would know whether they actually agreed with the Whips’ directions. If there were explanatory statements, there would be more transparency and better debates, and Members would be better able to object when the Government make a large number of significant amendments to their own legislation on Report with inadequate time for scrutiny.

It is, of course, absolutely right that MPs should as much as possible listen and contribute to debates in the Chamber, which should enlighten them on the effect of any given amendment. However, as all Members know, being an effective MP involves many other tasks, including responsibilities to undertake work on Committees, to attend debates elsewhere, to chair and attend meetings, to take part in all-party groups, and to meet constituents. As a result, MPs do not, and frequently cannot, sit in the Chamber for all the time that the debate on amendments on which they will later vote is going on. Furthermore, if it were easier to work out what the amendments meant before the debate, more MPs might contribute.

It is obviously good for democracy for MPs to know what they are voting on, but it is also important that we have a system that can be easily understood by members of the public who want to follow a Bill. Currently, interested citizens who might be following proceedings on television or on Twitter have to go separately to the Bill, then look up the clause and then probably go to the explanatory notes to the Bill to try and make sense of what is happening. We need a remedy.

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady mentions explanatory notes to Bills, which we currently have. Does she agree that the proposal under discussion is simply an extension of what is already available? We have explanatory notes saying in plain English what a Bill does, and to extend that to amendments is a common-sense proposal, particularly for those of us and our constituents who do not have legal training. I have had experience of sitting in a Bill Committee and reading an amendment proposed by another Member and wondering what it means. Sometimes that is not clear until the debate starts. This proposal would address that problem.

[Caroline Lucas]

I completely agree. The hon. Lady’s comments underline the fact that the proposal is not as complicated as rocket science; rather, it is an extension of the common-sense measures that are already in place.

[Chris Bryant]

I must have been reading different explanatory notes than the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) as I have never known them to explain anything. I fear that explanatory notes on amendments would be even worse, and I note that the report states:

“An explanatory statement is not required where the amendment is self-explanatory”.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman can try to make fun of this proposal if he wants, but in the European Parliament it is mandatory to have an explanatory statement and it is incredibly useful. If it is condensed down to about 50 or 100 words and explains what a measure is intended to achieve, an awful lot more people will have an awful lot more sense of what is going on. If the hon. Gentleman wants to stand up and say he thinks it is absolutely fine that so many Members do not know what they are voting for, that is up to him, but I am not happy about that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Caroline Lucas]

I want to make some progress.

There is an ongoing pilot in Public Bill Committees, which is permissive in that it allows Members to table explanatory statements to amendments if they wish. What is now needed is to make that pilot permanent and to extend it, so that Members can table explanatory statements in Committee of the whole House and, crucially, on Report.

Given this state of affairs, it beggars belief that a Government who say they want more transparency and a healthier democracy were so negative and obstructive in their response to the Procedure Committee recommendation for explanatory statements on the Floor of the House. Why are the Government doing their utmost to block this simple move, which seeks to make sure that MPs are not just rubber-stamping legislation and to prevent the Government from sneaking things through on Report without any scrutiny whatever?

The Government try to use the low take-up of the Public Bill Committee pilot as an argument against changing the status quo on the Floor of the House, but that argument does not stand up to scrutiny. First, as the Government well know, MPs serving on Public Bill Committees will all be thoroughly engaged in the detail of the Bill, and the 20 or so members of a PBC voting on an amendment that they have all thoroughly discussed in minute detail is quite different from a Division on the Floor of the House, where 650 Members are called to vote, the majority of whom have no idea of the specifics of what they are voting on. So explanatory statements would be there not for those who had tabled them but for those who are voting and, thus, the suggestion that a lack of action from people tabling them equates to a lack of demand simply does not stack up.

If the Government really want to measure demand, why do they not simply survey MPs running down the escalators from Portcullis House to the Lobby all asking each other hurriedly, “What’s this on? What’s going on? What are we voting on?” Furthermore, the Government should have been leading on this pilot. If they had made the effort to provide explanatory statements consistently themselves, they could have created a culture where such provision was expected. Instead, they did nothing to participate in or assist with a simple pilot of a mechanism to increase transparency.

When I tabled explanatory statements alongside my amendments in the Energy Public Bill Committee, MPs from all parts of the House told me how helpful they found it. This is about leading and working to change the standards that Members expect, and have expected of them, when they try to change legislation.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I understand that this proposal does not require the Government or anyone tabling an amendment to provide an explanation, but merely allows them to do so.

[Chris Bryant]

The Government have to.

[Zac Goldsmith]

So it requires the Government to— I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention on my intervention.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that we will have the debate carried out through the Chair.

[Zac Goldsmith]

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Lady agree that this should be a requirement on anyone tabling an amendment in order to boost slightly the chances of people having some idea of what they are voting on when they go through the Lobby? I absolutely concur with her view that most people have no idea what they are doing when they vote.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree with him. It should be the case that not only the Government, but all Members should provide a short explanatory statement explaining the purpose of any amendment that they table. That would help everybody.

The Government’s complaint about these explanatory statements, as set out in their response to the Committee’s report, was that the statements would be a “burden”. Their idea that providing the statements would be too burdensome for them displays an incredible arrogance. If they want to change the law, they have to accept the work involved in making their intentions transparent. They should be more respectful of the right of this House to scrutinise the laws they want to pass.

In conclusion, this proposal is about redressing the balance between Back Benchers and the Executive. The Executive are riding roughshod over the rights of Back Benchers to scrutinise them. The Government have put up obstructive objections, which demonstrate their desire to maintain a massive imbalance in their favour. This is bad for Back Benchers, bad for democracy and bad for the legislation that we must live by. So long as MPs are not told what they are voting on and Government amendments go through without debate, our system merely delivers an illusion of scrutiny. I can think only that the Government are trying to protect a system that serves to keep MPs as Lobby fodder and to keep the public in the dark. We are talking about secretive and opaque processes that serve against transparency and are reminiscent of the processes preserved for so long to try to hide the expenses scandal. I can assume only that the Government are taking this approach with some deliberate measures in mind. The fact that MPs have no idea what they are voting on is a scandal. It has been going on for years, but as the public find out more about it, as with expenses, they will be rightly horrified.

Eight months have passed since the debate on parliamentary reform in Westminster Hall, and I am disappointed that it has not been possible to effect greater change more quickly. I hope that the motion on explanatory statements will go through today. If it does, it will be a quiet but significant win for transparency and democracy. But if the Government force a vote, whipped or not, I hope very much that Back Benchers will stand up for themselves to address a glaring fault in our parliamentary democracy and correct the appalling imbalance that currently favours the Executive.

14:32

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

I shall be very brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to support the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). I am particularly concerned, as a member of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairs, at the impact of the proposals before the House on behaviour in Committee. I fear that if the report goes through, as it is suggested it will, and if that impact is felt on the Floor of the House, it is almost inevitable that those of us who find ourselves in the business of having to chair legislative Committees upstairs will be under similar pressures to allow similar devices in Committee.

What we have experienced in the House over the past few years is, first, a definite shift away from the use of notes and the participation in genuine parliamentary debate, of which this country has historically been very proud, and towards the preparation and reading of speeches. The preparation has been carried out either by the Member concerned or by other people who then persuade the Member to read the speeches for them. That has become particularly prevalent in Public Bill Committees. It is no great secret that hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken to reading into the record vast tracts of brief prepared by lobbyists for the sole purpose of putting something on the record. That is not debate: it is a misuse and an abuse of the processes of this House. If we are now to suggest that hon. Members on both sides of the House are going to be allowed to twitter and tweet and receive comment in the course of these debates, it is inevitable that we will have people sitting in the Public Gallery sending messages, saying, “Ask him this,” “Tell her that,” or “Read this.” That is not what this place is about. If hon. Members come into this Chamber, they can and should be expected to sit down, listen to the debate, hear what other Members are saying and agree, disagree and comment accordingly, rather than simply reading out prepared speeches.

As the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Deputy Speaker, you, like your predecessor, have been extremely understanding in giving leeway to those of us who chair legislative Committees, allowing us to manage the business on the Floor of the House, when there is a Committee of the Whole House, or in Committee in our own way and in the interests of the Members and the business they are trying to get through. It works. Any man or woman sitting in the Chair, whether that is the big Chair in which you sit, Mr Deputy Speaker, or the slightly smaller Chair in one of the Committee rooms, has to exercise the Nelson touch and we do so constantly. We know what is going on; we know that on occasion the processes of the House are being abused.

We know that hon. Members are busy people and that within the next six weeks, before Christmas, Committee tables will suddenly be piled with Christmas cards being signed while Members are also participating in Committee business. That is inevitable. It is multi-tasking and a dual use of time, but as a Chairman I object to the kind of situation that occurred fairly recently in a Committee over which I was presiding. A Front-Bench spokesman—I will not name the party—was so obsessed with an electronic device and the manipulation of that machine that they missed the amendment they were supposed to be moving, in spite of my best efforts to get their attention from the Chair and draw them back to the business in which they were supposed to be participating. That is nonsense.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Gale]

No, I am going to be very brief.

Outside the Committee Rooms upstairs, there are wonderful green benches, rather like the ones in the Chamber, and lots of tables and telephones where people can go and work, send messages, receive messages, have cups of coffee and do what they like outside the Committee Room. I can see no place for these electronic devices in the Committee Room at all, any more than I can see any rhyme or reason why Members should sit there reading newspapers and magazines, which is, of course, also not allowed.

I accept—and use—a radio pager. On occasions, I have received messages while I have been in the Chair and I have had to say to the Badge Messenger, “Here’s a telephone number. Can you please go and ring that person and tell them that I cannot talk to them because I am in Committee and that I will ring them when I come out?” I do not have a problem with that—I do not know a Chairman who does. I do not have a problem with the sensible, quiet, courteous and discreet use of these machines in precisely the way that the House of Lords, at the other end of the building, has adopted the procedure. If we go down the route that is to be proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, we shall achieve what we want to achieve, which is a solution that is pragmatic, practical and protects the dignity of the House. I urge the House to accept the amendment.

14:37

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I support the proposal ably put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight)—and he is my friend. He has recently printed an excellent book, “Dishonourable Insults”, in which I appear on page 163, and I thank him for that, too—[Interruption.] It is available in all good book shops and I wish him every success. When I intervened on him earlier, I suggested that in addition to his proposals we should ensure that we have wireless reception in the House of Commons Chamber. Not so long ago, when I was trying to live tweet during Prime Minister’s questions—I had advertised the fact that I would try to do so in advance—I failed completely because of the poor reception we sometimes get here for electronic devices. I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, if, in doing so and in making that admission, I was breaking some rules of the House at the time.

May I clarify one thing? I had a little contretemps in the Chamber earlier this year with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who told us with his characteristic modesty that he was the first MP ever to sign up for Twitter—

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

I see I have provoked him into intervening, and I cannot say no after I mentioned him, can I?

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for praising my modesty—that is very kind of him. We did have that discussion, but I think things have moved on. I wanted to be clear in case I misspoke earlier: of the current MPs, I believe I was the first. I was certainly not the first MP on Twitter. I do not know who has that honour, although I am sure they will claim it later.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention because he has highlighted the fact that what I said about his modesty was meant to be ironic, and Hansard does not pick that up very well, so this gives me the opportunity to make that clear. Let me repeat a proposal that I have made in the past—that irony should be put in italics in Hansard so that everybody outside reading it can understand what exactly was meant.

The contretemps that the hon. Gentleman and I had was in relation to a point of order that I raised while you were in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. At that time, your ruling was interpreted as a ban on the use of Twitter in the Chamber, but I know, having had subsequent talks with you, that that was not exactly what you meant.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. For clarification, it is not that what I said was not what I meant—it was that people had not listened, I think.

[Kevin Brennan]

I stand corrected, Mr Deputy Speaker. As ever, what you said was very wise indeed.

Returning to the point about the hon. Member for Cambridge, my point of order related to his use of Twitter in the Chamber during a debate when he was disputing something that was being said from the Dispatch Box by another Member. I think that some very reasonable concerns have been raised by opponents of the motion on how it could impact on the quality of debate. I have always thought that if one has a point of dispute or question about what is being said by someone who has the Floor of the House or other Chamber, one should attempt to intervene before one starts putting out messages disputing what they are saying on Twitter. I think that is the kind of courtesy and common sense that the Chairman and his Committee are calling for in their recommendations.

Yesterday, I met a delegation from the central committee school of the Communist party of China, who were very interested in what I had to say about communications and Twitter and the way that MPs use them. If I tell the House that the delegation was somewhat sceptical about my advocating the use of Twitter, hon. Members might understand that I think it is a force for good, for democracy, for free speech and for communication with our constituents, and not a source for bad. I understand the concerns held by many hon. Members on the Government side but I think they might find themselves embracing this means of communication in the near future as a good way of getting their messages about politics and their views out there and of engaging in interactive discussion with their constituents and others.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that social media such as Twitter and Facebook give MPs the chance to broadcast to their constituents without relying on broadcasters?

[Kevin Brennan]

I do. Further than that, it can also lead to opportunities to broadcast through the more conventional media. For example, as some hon. Members will know, yesterday in Welsh questions I asked the Welsh Secretary to ask the Prime Minister, when he was sitting next to her, to make sure that the Welsh flag was flying over No. 10 Downing street this weekend, just as the flag of St George flew last year during the World cup, to acknowledge the achievements of the Welsh rugby team. After Prime Minister’s questions I was invited on to a phone-in on Radio Wales on which there was a very lively discussion about this proposition. By five o’clock in the evening the Prime Minister had quite rightly agreed that the flag could be flying, and I give him credit for that. So, very quickly, Twitter, conventional media and the use of this Chamber altogether were involved in getting a result for constituents. I think that is a good example of how this technology can be beneficial.

[Jo Swinson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

I will give way for the last time because I had not intended to take up my full time.

[Jo Swinson]

I am very grateful. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although Twitter can certainly be useful for broadcasting, the real value of that kind of interaction is that it is not solely about broadcasting, with MPs sending out messages to constituents, but that it allows two-way communication and can really engage people in the political process?

[Kevin Brennan]

I just about heard the hon. Lady over the twittering of her colleagues at the Bar. She is absolutely right. I was about to make that point, but I will not do so in the interests of brevity, because she has made it for me.

I wrote an article, alongside the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), in Total Politics magazine a few months ago in which we debated these issues. I think I made it clear in that article that I respect and understand where he is coming from. Like other right hon. and hon. Government Members who have spoken about the issue, he wants to maintain the reputation of the House for the quality of its debates and to ensure that our debates do not descend into a simple parade of read-out speeches. I agree that it would be the death of debate in the House if that happened, but their fears are misplaced.

One can embrace and use such technology and such devices while enlivening and enhancing our debates by bringing in information—yes, from outside, but what is wrong with that? If Ministers can get in-flight refuelling from the officials’ box, why cannot Back Benchers get in-flight refuelling electronically during their speeches if a useful fact can be drawn from outside? I see nothing wrong in being able to draw on all the expertise and information that is available from outside the Chamber.

In our exchange of articles, the hon. Gentleman made some very interesting points, but I will end by simply saying that there is nothing new in political communication in trying to get a message across in a pithy, memorable way, as Twitter enables us to do. In fact, I think that it was a certain Winston Churchill who said:

“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”—[Official Report, 20 August 1940; Vol. 364, c. 1167.]

If that statement was issued as a tweet, it would leave 66 of the 140 characters available on Twitter still to play with. That goes to show that those who want to fight the onslaught of technology on the beaches will find that the tide is turning against them.

14:46

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

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak and to Mr Speaker for selecting the amendment that stands in my name and those of a goodly number of right hon. and hon. Members from across the Chamber. I thank you for allowing a goodly amount of time for this important and useful debate. I do not intend to take up much of the House’s time, because a number of useful speeches have addressed most of the important arguments on both sides of the debate.

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), who started the debate by saying that this is a matter of taste, discretion and delicacy. There are not passionate arguments on either side. One side is not definitely right and the other side definitely wrong. It is a matter of how we handle such machines, what we use them for, what their purpose is and how we ensure that debate in the Chamber is as good as possible.

In fact, as is often the case when we discuss matters that affect ourselves, today’s debate on the issue has been among those of the highest quality that I have heard recently. My right hon. Friend’s Committee was split on the report; four of us have signed the amendment disagreeing with it. We go from his stance, which is that virtually any electronic device can be used for virtually any purpose either in the Chamber or in Committee, through to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), a former Deputy Speaker—he is by no means a dinosaur in this matter—whose broad view is that such devices should not be used for any purpose whatsoever.

I received a letter from a very senior Member with which I would not necessarily agree. He said that he felt that the rules applying in the House should be precisely the same as those applying at the opera—we should not use such devices at all—and there is some sense in that, although I do not necessarily agree with it.

[Chris Bryant]

Give us a song!

[Mr Gray]

I shall not give the House a song; I fear that my voice does not rise to that.

I would not necessarily agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who focused on the use of electronic devices for Twitter. It is right that I suggested in the e-mail that I sent to all hon. Members that we should probably not use Twitter and blogging, although I will suggest how we might be able to use them. I am not necessarily totally opposed to the notion of twittering.

The main thrust of my amendment, and of my thoughts on the subject—and the thoughts of a great many hon. Members who have spoken to me—is that if we allow unfettered use of electronic devices, three things will happen. The first is that the quality of debate will decline. Let me give an example. Recently, I chaired a Public Bill Committee. Glancing round the room, I saw that some two thirds of the people on the Committee were using electronic devices for one purpose or another. That included the shadow Minister, the Minister, both Whips, and six or eight Back Benchers, one of whom, rather magically, was using two electronic devices simultaneously; how on earth he managed to do that I have simply no idea. It seemed to me that the fine technical point being made about the Pensions Bill—for that was the Bill—was not necessarily being considered carefully by the two thirds of the Committee who were using those machines at that time. Had I challenged members of the Committee to lay out precisely what the person speaking had just said, a very large percentage of them would have looked at me blankly, and would not have had the faintest idea what was going on.

I totally accept the point made by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), that we can all multi-task. Of course we can; there is no question about that. MPs do it all the time. However, I simply do not believe that the finer points of argument in a debate will necessarily be picked up if one is focusing one’s mind on something else. The purpose of debate is not just for our own voices to be heard, or to get something on the record; we could do that by handing the speech in, as they do in the United States of America. The purpose of debate is to listen carefully to what the other person is saying, to pick up the other person on fine illogicalities in their speech, to make delicate points, and hopefully to come to some kind of useful conclusion. If a person is focusing on emptying their inbox, surfing the net, tweeting or who knows what else—famously, recently a member of the Italian Parliament was spotted surfing an escort site—while theoretically listening carefully to a debate, they are not taking part in it in the way that they should.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

The crux of the issue has been touched on. In the Welsh Assembly, every Member sits in front of a computer. Earlier this year, the Conservative Assembly Member for North Wales, Brynle Williams, passed away at a very young age. A Labour Member, paying tribute to him on the radio, said, “When Brynle Williams spoke in the Chamber, we stopped working on our computers and listened.” Is that not the crux of the issue?

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and it is useful to hear of his experience of the Welsh Assembly, where such changes have been made. Elsewhere around the world, there are examples of all kinds of Parliaments where people use the devices excessively and so are not taking proper part in the debate. [Interruption.] I am being passed a message—on paper—from the Whip, which reminds me to move my amendment; I shall indeed do so. I am most grateful to her; had she passed me that electronically, I would not have got it.

I beg move amendment (a) to motion 1, leave out from ‘used in the Chamber’ to end and add—

‘to a minimal extent, silently and with decorum, to receive and send urgent messages, as a substitute for paper speaking notes and to refer to documents for use in debates, but not for any other purpose.’.

That useful intervention from my hon. Friend the Whip leads me to the second reason why I feel uneasy about unfettered use of electronic devices. Whereas at the moment outside interests—including, dare I say it, the Whips Office—may have some influence over what we do or say, or how we vote in this place, by and large they have to exercise that influence in writing, prior to the debate. It would be particularly unhelpful if, during a speech or debate, outside interests—lobbyists, businesses and groups of all kinds—got in touch with us on our electronic devices and said, “I think you should ask the Minister such and such a question, because that is a weak point in their argument,” or “I think you should do this or that.” We should be listening carefully to the logic of the other person’s speech, and seeking to counter that argument not because a lobbying company or the Whips have asked us to do so, but because it is what we want to do.

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

Does my hon. Friend not accept that that is possible under the rules as they stand? It is perfectly possible right now, under the rules of the House, for someone to receive a message and check it in debate.

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and if that were to happen, I would decry it. The purpose of my amendment is to say that electronic devices should be used for the purposes of the matter under debate and no other purpose. If the Chamber was seen to be full of people blogging, tweeting and surfing the net, it would risk bringing the Chamber into disrepute.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the reasons MPs exist is so that people can lobby them with a view to influencing Parliament?

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, I was a professional lobbyist for a number of years and so have no difficulty with that whatever. It is of course right that all sorts of interest groups around the world, from journalists to lobby groups, should be able to make their views known to us, but I am not certain about the propriety of a lobby group, the Whips or anyone else getting in touch with us during the course of a debate or a Select Committee evidence session to say, “Here’s an interesting point you ought to raise.” Would it really be right for outside interest groups to get in touch with us via electronic devices during Select Committee cross-examinations, for example of the Murdochs, and say, “Here’s something you ought to say”? I think that that would be an unreasonable intervention in our internal debates by outside influences.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Gray]

I will give way, but first I should say that I am absolutely sure that what the hon. Gentleman said during the Select Committee cross-examination of the Murdochs was entirely his own idea, irrespective of what outside influences might have said to him.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, I was not a member of that Committee, but that is just one minor factual inaccuracy of several that we are passing by. The point I was going to make is that one of the oldest rights of members of the public and constituents is the right to come to the Lobby and demand that we come out of a debate to listen to their point of view, so I do not see the difference.

[Mr Gray]

The difference is extremely simple. Someone outside communicating via an electronic device during a debate is not equivalent to a member of the public coming to Central Lobby, filling in a green form and asking to speak to us; it is equivalent to a member of the public coming into the Chamber and saying, “Would the hon. Gentleman please ask this question?”, which I do not believe is right. We should be debating among ourselves and not excessively involving people outside.

Most people agree that excessive use of electronic devices is not a good thing. Two or three objections have been raised with me. The first relates to the fact that we must all sit here for six or seven hours before finally being called to speak. That could be corrected in two ways: first, Members could take a greater interest in the debate; and secondly, we could perhaps move to the system enjoyed at the other end of the Palace, where peers have some indication of when they will speak. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues tend to indicate when Members will be called to speak, but the notion that we should sit here clearing our inboxes or writing articles on electronic devices for local newspapers because we are a little bored and cannot be bothered to listen to a debate seems a thin argument.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes his case powerfully, although I do not necessarily agree with it. Is not the key issue that Members can best engage in debate by being in the Chamber? If we are outside doing the work of clearing inboxes, the example he raised, we cannot be present listening to the arguments. I agree that Members should be present in the Chamber more often, but I believe that his amendment would prevent that.

[Mr Gray]

On the contrary, my amendment encourages Members to make use of their electronic devices in the Chamber for purposes connected with the debate. That is the important point about the amendment.

The last main objections that have been raised concern the fact that the amendment’s proposals would be very difficult to police. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, sent out a letter in July stating that although any such ban on the use of hand-held devices would be difficult to police, it would none the less be down to the individual discretion and decency of hon. Members not to use them. There are all kinds of conventions and rules in this place that we observe. They do not have to be written down or policed. The fact of the matter is that there are things that we agree to do, and I believe that the amendment's proposal should be one of them.

If we allow the Procedure Committee’s report to be agreed as printed, we will end up with a Chamber full of Members staring at their electronic devices—I can see three or four doing so now. I suspect that those looking in from outside, whether from the Public Gallery or on television screens, would say, “What are those people doing? We used to object to the Chamber being too empty. It has filled up a little, but look at them all playing with their electronic devices.” I think that it brings the whole nature of debate in this place into some disrepute. I would like to see the standard of debate maintained. We are the mother of Parliaments. Let us engage with each other in detailed and logical debate and not spend an excessive amount of time on our electronic devices.

15:00

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

With the leave of the House, I should like to put on record my tribute to the work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who discharged her duties in the House assiduously and will be a very hard act to follow.

We on the Opposition Front Bench support the motion on explanatory statements put forward by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). The Committee’s recommendation marks progress from a position already established, and as I understand it, Government Front Benchers have also adopted the recommendation, so I hope that it receives support from all parts of the House today.

We also support the sensible recommendation on written parliamentary questions, because there are alternatives to electronically tabled written questions, and if implemented the recommendation will not curtail the opportunities for Members to table written questions, as is their right.

We do, however, believe that the motion on a Select Committee’s right to table amendments to legislation should be sent back to the Procedure Committee for further consideration, as it has not been thoroughly thought out.

[Sir Alan Beith]

That recommendation was introduced by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the previous Session; it was carefully considered by the Liaison Committee; and it has now been carefully considered and substantially modified by the Procedure Committee in order to meet those concerns. Do we have another case of the two Front-Bench teams conniving to stop Select Committees and Back Benchers having rights in this House?

[Angela Smith]

Perish the thought.

My point is that, if we give Select Committees the right to table amendments to legislation, business relating to the Floor of the House and Public Bill Committees, will it not create the danger of Select Committees taking a much less consensual approach to their work? That is the real risk with the recommendation, and for that reason it should go back for further consideration.

I turn to the recommendation on hand-held devices. I do not need to repeat the background to the debate which goes back to the decision in 2007, because the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire outlined it very clearly. Suffice it to say that technology has moved things forward at a rapid pace—to the extent that we now have smartphones, iPads and other tablets, which have completely transformed the way in which Members conduct their business.

On top of that, we have new forms of communication. According to the Procedure Committee’s report, 225 Members tweet or have Twitter accounts, but in today’s debate we have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) state that the figure now stands at 300. That demonstrates how over a six-month period 75 Members have signed up for Twitter accounts. It also shows the popularity of the device as a means of communication, and for that reason alone Members increasingly see new forms of communication such as Twitter as making it easier for us to open up a dialogue with the world outside—with the people we serve. Those new forms of communication and technology have called into question once again how we conduct our business in the Chamber.

I was elected in 2005. At that point, I never thought that I would be standing here on the Front Bench making arguments about smartphones, iPads and Twitter accounts, but that in itself demonstrates how quickly the world is moving forward and how difficult it is for the House to keep up. It would be all too easy to step backwards and pretend that the world has not changed. We could pretend that Steve Jobs never existed and say to ourselves that the business of the House should stay true to the days of paper, pen and ink. However, to do that would be to deny reality and to deny the dynamic relationship that now exists between Parliament and the world outside. Even if we deny it, the media, quite rightly, will not. We cannot, therefore, fulfil our obligations as legislators effectively if we pretend that the world outside has not got smaller and smaller in terms of how quickly news travels.

There are advantages and disadvantages in allowing a more relaxed approach to the use of hand-held devices by Members on the Floor of the House and in Committee, for it is undoubtedly the case that members of the public sometimes object to seeing Members of this House using their phones or their iPads while here in the Chamber. If the Chair of the Administration Committee were in his place, I am sure that he would testify to that fact.

[Robert Halfon]

I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s remarks. While it is true that some members of the public object, it is also true that many of them like the fact that their MPs are on Twitter and on Facebook communicating what they are doing. Does she agree that that has come about partly because of the huge shift from paper to electronic mail and in how our constituents communicate with us?

[Angela Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is absolutely the argument that I am trying to make.

Although such behaviour is seen by some members of the public as discourteous and indicative of a lack of attention to the business of the House, and although on occasion that has proved to be true, and excessive and obtrusive use of such devices should be deplored, I would contest that excessive chatter and private conversations on the part of Members is equally to be deplored, and that it is those who persist in that kind of behaviour who bring the business of this House into disrepute. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, who pointed out that Members who fall asleep in the Chamber while business is being discussed are most to be censured for discourteous behaviour. Indeed, it has been known on occasion even for Front Benchers to fall asleep or to snooze while the business of the House is ongoing.

We need to be pragmatic in our approach. Those who would continue a stricter approach to the use of hand-held devices in the Chamber on the grounds that it constitutes interference in parliamentary proceedings ought to bear in mind that we already allow the passing of messages and envelopes containing paper-based documents in and out of the Chamber for use in debate. On that basis, why cannot we allow the electronic transfer of such information for use in the Chamber? If a Member is given statistics relating to a debate via documents passed to her or him in an envelope brought to the Chamber by a member of his or her staff, then why should not that be done independently by the MP in the Chamber using an electronic device? Moreover, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said, given that civil servants pass a fairly constant stream of notes to the Government Front Bench during debate, why should not other Members of the House be able to access information speedily and without delay?

We support the motion laid before the House by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and other Members, and we commend the Procedure Committee for its work. We believe that it represents a pragmatic response to the challenges raised by the development of new technology and means of communication in that it requires Members to be sensible and discreet about their use of electronic devices in this Chamber and elsewhere. We also support the recommendations in the Select Committee report relating to Twitter and to tweeting, which are, again, sensible and pragmatic. As someone who has a Twitter account—and who is about to get her 1,000th follower—but who does not generally tweet in this Chamber, I nevertheless uphold the right to do so and the inevitable pragmatic need to give way on that point.

Our view is that we should give the approach recommended by the Procedure Committee an opportunity to work. We should bear it in mind that it is always possible to review the decision if it is felt that the recommended way forward is not working.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that this is a point of order; I am still somewhat feeling my way in this place. There is another debate this afternoon, which was brought about by the Backbench Business Committee as a consequence of one of the first e-petitions. I might be wrong, but I understand that this debate can carry on until any hour. Judging by the number of colleagues who are standing to speak, it looks as though the second debate will get less time than a Westminster Hall debate. If that is the case and the second debate gets squeezed out, I hope that the Leader of the House, who is in his place, will consider giving it injury time at some point because it is an important debate that affects the constituents of a large number of Members.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House tried to protect the debate in which my hon. Friend has an interest by tabling a motion last night. Sadly, that was blocked by a member of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am very concerned about the time that this debate is taking. I will reduce the time limit on speeches and hopefully, if we have some brevity, we will get to the second debate. The high speed debate is important to this House and people will not understand why we are spending so much time on ourselves and our use of hand-held devices. As important as this is, we need to make progress as quickly as possible.

15:11

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

High-speed debates sound like a very good idea, Mr Deputy Speaker.

As I did not get to warmly welcome the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) to her new responsibilities in our cameo appearances last night, may I do so now? I echo what she said about her predecessor, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), with whom I always enjoyed debating. I wish her well in her new responsibilities.

I congratulate the Chairman of the Procedure Committee on securing this debate on his Committee’s proposals. The one area in which I disagree with him is on whether this debate should be held in Backbench Business Committee time. The Government have implemented the Wright Committee’s report, which was explicit on this matter. We hold to the position that the House should follow what the Wright Committee said on this matter. It is therefore the responsibility of the Backbench Business Committee.

I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the motions, which I will take in order. The first motion on electronic devices is very much a House of Commons matter. Perhaps I should indicate that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I will support the motion, although some ministerial colleagues may hold other views.

Changes in technology have been swift and the Procedure Committee has taken a sensible approach in seeking to update the 2007 resolution in a way that might not need constant updating as technologies change. The Committee helpfully demonstrates how its proposed change is in line with trends in other legislatures. The concept of not impairing decorum that has been adopted by the US House of Representatives is helpful. I am sure that Mr Speaker will decide, with characteristic wisdom, how this resolution will be interpreted in practice, just as he has provided general guidance about appropriate conduct in the Chamber.

I support the comparable changes for Committees, although I have one reservation in that respect, to which the Procedure Committee has referred. Tweeting about an ongoing evidence session would be discourteous and disclosing deliberations in that way could be a breach of privilege. That is an important reservation to enter at this point.

There is no Government position on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) and others, although enforcement of the resolution, if amended in that way, might pose significant challenges for the occupant of the Chair.

I noticed that in opposing the amendment the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) asked why Members should not receive facts while they are preparing to speak. The explanation, perhaps, is that facts would entirely demolish the speeches of some hon. Members. Of course, just because a Member has received a fact does not mean that they have to take any notice of it.

The second motion, on Select Committee amendments, is where the Government part company with the Procedure Committee, because we do not believe that the case for the change has been made. We are continuing the position of the previous Government, which I believe is still that of the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge and the Opposition. Interestingly, that position was expressed at the time by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I am not sure whether he still takes that view.

Currently, amendments are tabled in the name of a Member of the House—it does not matter whether they are tabled by the Government, the official Opposition or anybody else. The Procedure Committee argues that if an amendment appears simply in the names of members of a Select Committee, other Members may not realise its status, but I am not convinced by that.

The Government have taken a number of steps to strengthen the Select Committee system—arguably more than any Government since that of 1979, under whom departmental Select Committees were established. We have enabled the House to take the bold step of electing Select Committee Chairs, and the profile of the Select Committee system continues to increase. I believe that an amendment in the name of members of a Select Committee will almost invariably be recognised as such by the House without the need for additional steps.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I am very surprised to find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend on a House matter, because we very rarely disagree on them. However, a Select Committee amendment would have had to be approved unanimously by it. Is his real fear not that of the Whips Office—that on just one or two more occasions an amendment that was not moved by a Minister might be selected by the Chair and be debated in the House? Is he not simply echoing the traditional Front-Bench view that anything that allows Back Benchers to get anywhere near getting amendments selected is far too dangerous to be permitted?

[Mr Heath]

It is extremely rare that I disagree with my right hon. Friend, but I do on this matter. The selection of amendments is, of course, a matter for the Chair, and if the Chair feels that a Select Committee’s members are proposing an amendment that needs to be debated, it will be selected. However, it is a serious concern that under the Procedure Committee’s proposal three members of a Select Committee, who would form a quorum, could obtain a Committee’s imprimatur for an amendment. That amendment would attribute to all members of the Committee a position that was held only by those present at a meeting. I do not think that that does the House a service.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I want to make a further correction, because I do not want to delay the debate any further by making a speech—I want the rail debate to go ahead.

My hon. Friend must recognise that any member of a Committee who felt dissatisfied with an amendment tabled in the name of their Committee, their having been notified of a meeting but not gone to it, would make that abundantly clear. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) made it clear at the beginning of the debate that he did not support the motion moved by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight).

[Mr Heath]

I am sure an hon. Member in that position would make their dissatisfaction abundantly clear, but equally it does not seem beyond the bound of reason that a Chair of a Select Committee could make it abundantly clear that he or she was presenting an amendment in the name of the Committee. The same arguments apply, and I am not persuaded by my right hon. Friend, which is why my ministerial colleagues and I will vote against the motion.

I turn to the third motion, on explanatory statements on amendments, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The crux of what she said was that the Government were being unreasonably obstructive and unhelpful in their approach. However, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is quoted in the Committee’s report as having said:

“I would certainly not oppose the continuation of explanatory statements”.

The report also quotes my comment:

“I am certainly happy, as far as the Government are concerned, for that experiment to proceed.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 384WH.]

It might be said that the barriers that we have sought to erect to prevent it from happening are rather low indeed. I repeat today the Government’s position that we will support the recommendation. However, it is important that we express caveats for the benefit of the House.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman said that the agreement was on the voluntary introduction of explanatory statements, but we are driving towards something mandatory. In his response to the Committee’s report, words such as “significant burden”, “lukewarm support”, “inconclusive” and “disappointing” strongly suggest that the Government are not firmly behind our proposal.

[Mr Heath]

The lukewarm response was not from the Government—this Government and previous Governments have been happy to table explanatory amendments—but from other Members who showed not the slightest inclination to do so. That is the concern.

Let us go back to the origins. The experiment with explanatory statements on amendments was first proposed by the Modernisation Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), in its 2006 report on the legislative process. The Committee envisaged that the main benefit would be helping Ministers and civil servants to understand the intention behind Back-Bench and Opposition amendments, so that the Minister was prepared to address the issues that the Member wanted to debate and to respond to the queries or concerns being raised. They were envisaged as a vehicle for Back Benchers to explain their amendments, rather than for the Government to explain their amendments, for which there are many other mechanisms. Despite that, and although the Government have participated fully in each pilot, the take-up by Back Benchers has been low and has declined since the first pilot.

We have to acknowledge the resource implications. The Procedure Committee was told in the previous Parliament that the general application of explanatory notes to all Committee papers would cost the House services alone more than £100,000, and the costs would be greater still if applied on Report. That takes no account of the staff resource implications for the House services and the Government. The Government agreed to provide explanatory notes to all amendments in previous pilot schemes, and the Procedure Committee envisaged a mandatory requirement for Government amendments on Report. At the same time, however, the Committee rejected imposing such a requirement on others. I take it from what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said that she would like that to apply mandatorily to others. There is some justification for that, but there is little justification for the current asymmetrical approach.

If the motion is agreed to, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will write to the Procedure Committee with proposals for the pilot. This is the last chance to show that the voluntary approach for everyone other than the Government could work as originally envisaged by the Modernisation Committee. We will want the experiment to demonstrate clear value-for-money benefits to the House, and if it does not, we might decline to support any further proposals along the same lines.

I support the final motion on written parliamentary questions. Again, the proposal is for a pilot scheme involving an earlier cut-off point for electronically tabled questions and a daily quota of five written questions that could be so tabled for an experimental period of three months. The right to table questions belongs to hon. Members and hon. Members alone. If the experiment encourages Members to take a closer interest in questions prepared by their staff, that would surely be a good thing. The average cost to the taxpayer of tabling a question is £239. Although overall quotas are not proposed, I am sure that hon. Members will wish to be mindful of the costs of what they do. We are keen to ensure that all written questions receive timely, substantive answers. If the pilot leads to “fewer, better questions”, as the Procedure Committee hopes, I would hope also to see quicker, better answers. We will provide the statistics on the timeliness of answers in the current Session on the timetable requested by the Procedure Committee.

To end where I began—on the theme of technological change—I can confirm that the Government are keen to work closely with the House authorities to take forward proposals for the electronic distribution of answers, which would benefit all Members.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am reducing the time limit on speeches to five minutes.

15:24

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Much of the debate on the use of hand-held devices—I note, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you called them “held-hand devices” when introducing the debate, but I am not sure what such a device might look like—reminds me of the Russian Orthodox Church, which in November 1917, while the revolution was gathering around it, spent its time debating whether to wear black or purple vestments for funerals. The honest truth is that the horse has bolted.

We can see them all round the Chamber: @ZacGoldsmith, @CarolineLucas, @lucianaberger, @SteveBakerMP and, of course, the brilliantly named @claire4devizes. All tweet regularly—[Interruption.] There is also @stellacreasy and many other Members.

[Steve Baker]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I give way to @SteveBakerMP.

[Steve Baker]

Even though I was named in January as the most influential MP on Twitter—ahead, even, of the hon. Gentleman—I am most concerned that we should get on to the next business before I am flayed alive by my constituents.

[Chris Bryant]

I understand, because the hon. Gentleman is the Member for Wycombe, and I know how such issues affect people there, but if he had not intervened, we would get on to the next business faster.

I want to correct a couple of points made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). He seemed to think that I was on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I should point out that I am not @tom_watson. There are a few differences between us, although we are often seen together.

I should also say that although he has been much misquoted, John Bright, the Liberal Member of Parliament, did not say that we—the House of Commons—were the mother of Parliaments; he said that England is the mother of Parliaments. That is because he believed—this is an important point—that we had to be transformed as history is transformed. I would say that Parliament has always been bad at opening itself up to the public. Indeed, in 1376 we first decided that we would take an oath of secrecy to ensure that nobody outside this place knew what was going on here. It took many centuries to get rid of that oath of secrecy, which was why John Wilkes ended up being expelled from the House of Commons on four occasions and had to be re-elected before eventually being allowed to publish what went on this House.

It is not a question of being dinosaurs or anything else; it is about opening Parliament up to the wider world around us, so that people can understand everything that goes on here. It is not for our convenience, but for our constituents’ convenience. The world has changed. When I was first elected in 2001, the vast majority of my constituents got in touch with me by coming to a constituency surgery. Now the vast majority get in touch by Facebook, Twitter, e-mail and, sometimes, text messages. We should make that more possible for our constituents, not more difficult.

Incidentally, I wholeheartedly agree with @KevinBrennanMP, who said earlier that proper wi-fi should be available in the Chamber so that people can engage properly. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that only urgent messages should be dealt with. Who on earth will decide what an urgent message is? It is my constituents who should decide what an urgent message is.

[Mr Gray]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way, because others want to get on to the next debate.

I have this picture in my mind of the Speaker going over to an hon. Member and demanding to see their last tweet or this place setting up “Oftwit” to ensure that Members are behaving properly. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire has only to listen toour constituents to find out what they are moreinterested in.

Members have said how inappropriate it would be if facts were brought to bear in debate, but that is what the officials Box is there for. [Interruption.] I see them smiling. Perhaps we should abolish the officials Box, so that Ministers have to rely on their own wit and intelligence. Would it not also be good if “Erskine May” was available online so that people could refer to it in the Chamber instead of having to buy a copy for several hundred pounds?

I want to respond to a couple of points that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made. She is absolutely sincere in wanting to make our business more intelligible to people. However, I would like to know how explanatory notes to amendments would stand legally if an amendment were carried. There is a danger in proceeding down that route. In addition, I would have thought that the whole point of a debate on an amendment was to decide what it meant and what it did; just accepting at face value what the hon. Member who tabled it had said would not assist.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I shall not give way, because I want to be circumspect.

Finally, I look forward to the day when we have on Twitter @RogerGaleMP—and, for that matter, @15thcenturyMP, or perhaps he would be called @JacobReesMoggMP. I should also point out to the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who is not in his place, that one of his constituents has begged me on Twitter this afternoon to ask him to reinstate his Twitter account so that his constituents can get in touch with him better.

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made.

15:30

Division 366

Ayes: 63

---

Conservative: 43
Labour: 15
Liberal Democrat: 3
Plaid Cymru: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 206

---

Conservative: 124
Labour: 56
Liberal Democrat: 22
Green Party: 1
Independent: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Scottish National Party: 1

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the Third Report from the Procedure Committee on Use of hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber and committees, HC 889; and resolves that hand-held devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum, that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I understand that the motion on Select Committee amendments will not be moved.

Explanatory Statements on Amendments to Bills

Resolved,

That this House notes the recommendations relating to explanatory statements on amendments to bills contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Second Report from the Procedure Committee on Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny, HC 800; and invites the Leader of the House and the Procedure Committee to put in place a pilot scheme to implement these proposals in respect of one or more bills before the end of the next session.— (Mr Knight.)

Written parliamentary questions

Resolved,

That this House approves the recommendations relating to written parliamentary questions contained in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the Second Report from the Procedure Committee on Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny, HC 800.— (Mr Knight.)

High Speed 2

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

15:43

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of High Speed 2.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to open the debate, and I am particularly grateful to all the Members —in all parts of the House and on all sides of the debate —who have turned up to participate. It is an incredibly important debate, because it involves £32 billion of taxpayers’ money. I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is not present, because, being an eternal optimist, I believe that he is delaying his decision until December—as he certainly should—and is keen to listen to the debate as it progresses. I know that not just you, Mr Speaker, but many right hon. and hon. Members have taken a great interest in this subject. Let me mention in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright).

It is fashionable for those who oppose HS2 to be dismissed as nimbys. Let me make it clear that I am here today not just as a concerned constituency MP but as someone with 25 years of experience in finance, including project finance, and that I am determined to defend the taxpayer against what I consider to be an unjustifiable and eye-wateringly expensive project. If the route went from Truro to Paddington, or from Leeds to Edinburgh, I would still be here today defending the taxpayer.

When I first heard about HS2 I thought it was a superb idea, but 18 months later all the proposed benefits have fallen away one by one, and there is no hard evidence that spending £32 billion can truly be justified. For instance, there is no evidence that this project will solve the north-south divide. In fact, there is plenty of evidence from the experience in France and Germany, and from our own HS1, that high-speed trains can suck development out of the regions and into the major cities.

I also have an intuitive concern about the point-to-point nature of the project. The north is not a place; it is a region. Those close to the terminals will benefit of course, but it is unclear how people outside those areas can directly benefit. I recently spoke to my former constituency chairman in the Knowsley South seat, which I contested in 2005, and his view is that Knowsley South will end up paying its share of the cost of this project but will get little, if any, benefit.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

The north is not a region. It is made up of three regions—the north-west, Yorkshire and Humber and the north-east—all of which have their own identities, which I hope my hon. Friend will respect.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I certainly do respect the right of people in the north to economic regeneration. I am speaking as much for them as I am for people in Cornwall and the Isle of Wight when I say that £32 billion spent on this project is the wrong use of taxpayers’ money.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would like to make some progress, if I may.

There is no hard evidence that this project will reduce unemployment in the north. HS2’s own estimate of 30,000 new jobs—

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

The estimate is 40,000.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The figure is 40,000, my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, but some 73% of those jobs will be generated in and around London, not in the north. Moreover, every one of those jobs will be associated with £300,000 in costs, which is about five times more than the cost of job creation in other infrastructure projects.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I want to make one further point before giving way again.

On HS2’s green credentials, HS2 itself admits that at best the project is carbon neutral. That leaves me pondering whether £32 billion of taxpayers’ money spent on a project that essentially only cures the capacity problems on the west coast main line is good value for money. It blatantly is not. I am not alone in thinking that. Organisations including the RAC Foundation, the Institute of Economic Affairs and the TaxPayers Alliance seriously challenge the business case for HS2.

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

London’s Crossrail was given the go-ahead by this House on a consensual basis. Surely what is good enough for London is good enough for the rest of the country?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am glad the hon. Lady raises that point, because it is ludicrous nonsense. Anybody who has any knowledge whatever of assessing such projects and making sure they offer value for money would say it is nonsense. This is not our money; it is the taxpayers’ money and it belongs to the country. We should not spend money on HS2 on the grounds that we did so for Crossrail. That is just nonsense.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I want to make a little more progress, if I may.

I hear arguments that lots of other countries have high-speed rail so we need it to be able to keep up and compete with them, but the truth is that France, Germany and China are very different from our country. They each have a far greater land mass and much longer distances between cities. Furthermore, their high-speed railways follow existing transport corridors, and their non-high speed trains are extremely slow, unlike our existing inter-city trains, which are technically high-speed, with a top speed of 125 mph.

I also hear arguments that we should replicate the fabulous experiment with HS1. Yet a wealth of evidence suggests that commuter services running parallel to the HS1 link have become more expensive, have far more stops and far fewer trains running along the line, in order to subsidise HS1. Even the chief engineer of HS2 Ltd told me that, as a Kent commuter, he has had to get used to more expensive train fares in order to subsidise those using the HS1 service.

If all else fails, we hear that killer argument, “This is about a vision for Britain. This is like the great Victorian railways. It is like the fabulous post second world war motorways.” I am sorry, but I just do not buy that argument. The Victorian railways were largely privately funded The motorways are fabulous, but they have benefited every town and village in this country, because they have junctions every few miles. By contrast, every family in Britain will pay £1,000 for HS2 but 99% of people in this country will use the service less than once a year, and the wealthiest will use it four times more often than the poorest. That is a massive skewing of scarce resources.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although £32 billion is a great deal to spend on an infrastructure project, it is probably a welcome sum to spend on the supply side of our economy? Does she further agree, however, that it could be better spent on more local projects, such as the Stourport relief road in Kidderminster?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we could have a fabulous relief road for £32 billion. He makes the serious point that there is a huge opportunity cost to spending this amount of money on HS2.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will give way in a moment, but first I wish to discuss the business case for HS2. HS2 Ltd claims that there is a net benefit ratio of two, which means a £2 return for every £1 spent. That is pretty much the minimum we could expect from a rail project, but even that modest claim makes some enormous assumptions. For example, a core, but ludicrous, assumption is that the time spent on a train is completely wasted, so we can attribute a value in pounds to any minute saved on travel. That would not matter so much if it were not for the fact that more than 50% of the £20 billion return claimed for this project comes from the time savings. That is simply ludicrous.

A second enormous assumption is made in the passenger forecasts. HS2’s forecasts are heroic when compared with Network Rail’s own assumptions over a similar period. Surely we should learn the lesson of history. By 2009 Eurostar had achieved only 37% of the passenger numbers forecast when the HS1 link was built. We simply cannot continue to make these massively optimistic forecasts. The Public Accounts Committee took the Department for Transport to task on this point, and the DFT agreed that it would put in far greater downside assumptions for its next infrastructure project.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

If the hon. Lady represented a constituency further away from London than Northamptonshire, she would value the time savings that would allow businessmen to meet their business contacts more quickly. Has she not seen the PricewaterhouseCoopers assessment that within three years of the line being completed the Government could cover their costs and get £6 billion or £7 billion in addition by floating the railway to the private sector?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Has he seen the Mott MacDonald report showing that since the advent of wi-fi and the internet the value of time spent on a train has been increasing exponentially every year? It is ludicrous to assert that there is no value in time spent working on a train.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I wish to make some more progress. Families up and down the country are feeling the pinch desperately. We are in an economic crisis, yet this project is costing the taxpayer £1 billion even before a single piece of track is laid in 2015—that sum is just to pave the way for HS2.

I wish now to discuss the ludicrous time frame. Nothing is going to get built before 2026. When I commute between Euston and Milton Keynes in peak hours, as I often do, it is not a case of, “Can I get a seat?”; it is a case of, “Can I physically get standing room on the train?” There is a massive capacity problem right now, and it cannot wait until 2026. It certainly cannot wait for 21 years, until the full “Y” is completed. Man might not land on Mars by 2032, but it is entirely possible that there will be technological changes by then that mean that HS2 is out of date before it is even finished.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not accept, however, that HS2 was a manifesto promise that was extremely valuable to people like me who were campaigning against a third runway at Heathrow? We were going to put people on trains, not planes, and phase 2 of this project will deliver precisely that.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. All I can say to her is that when the facts change, we should change our minds. HS2 has not fulfilled its early promise. We simply cannot say that we will spend £32 billion because we broadly scoped something out in our manifesto that looked as if it would deliver the earth.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not give way again. I am sorry, but lots of people want to speak.

I am no rail expert, but there are lots of people who are, and they have put forward a broad range of different options that the Government and the Department for Transport should consider as alternatives that would offer more jobs, and faster and greater capacity while improving our existing rail infrastructure. I want to mention a few. We could lengthen existing trains from nine carriages to 12, and we could convert more from first class to standard.

[Stephen Hammond]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not give way again.

We could consider solving the bottlenecks and pinch points that are so frequent along routes that slow down the system and give us less capacity. We could consider reopening old branch lines, particularly those that would enable passengers to switch between the east coast and west coast main lines and the Chiltern line. That would solve part of the problem in the firewall argument. We could consider solving the artificial peaks in demand generated by our appalling fare structure. We could even consider a new line just between London Euston and Milton Keynes so that the west coast main line could be dedicated to taking passengers to the north of England far faster and on a far more frequent service.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, because it strikes me that her argument is that HS2 is a bad, bad idea, but that it is all right if we build an extra line between London and Milton Keynes. Is she then saying that those of us who live in the north, the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside should not be allowed to travel on trains? I am bemused.

[Andrea Leadsom]

If the hon. Lady had listened, she would have heard that I said we should consider building a dedicated local line so that the west coast main line could be exclusively available to those wishing to travel fast to the north of England on the inter-city train. It is nonsense to say that we should build a dedicated £32 billion line instead of considering a proper solution to the capacity problem. The final potential solution we should be considering is giving the right spending priority to rolling out superfast broadband.

Archie Norman, the chairman of ITV, has said:

“Scrap HS2 now and announce instead £17 billion of spending…to bring about the biggest improvement in history of Britain’s existing railway.”

I am genuinely sorry to be so at odds with my Government and with many Members over this project, but we must seriously consider whether spending £32 billion of taxpayers’ money on a project that will deliver nothing until 2026 is worth while. In my view, it is not. It is monumentally expensive and the time scales are so long that they become satirical. As a result, HS2 risks being a vast white elephant that is out of date before it is even completed.

HS2 is not visionary, it is not green and it is definitely not economically sound. We can and must do better. I urge the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to reconsider this project so that it does not become a triumph of political will over economic sense.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), let me emphasise that in seconding the motion he should confine himself to no more than 10 minutes, although he is not obliged to speak for that length of time if he does not wish to do so. Thereafter, in light of the very large number of Members seeking to catch my eye, there will be a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

15:59

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

The purpose of asking yet again for a debate in the Chamber on high-speed rail was that, having had two very successful earlier debates in Westminster Hall, we knew that there was a great deal of interest throughout the House among Members representing virtually all the constituencies that have an interest in it. I am very pleased to see the remarkable attendance we have this afternoon, and to follow the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who has just opened the debate.

Those who attended the demonstration in Old Palace Yard this morning will have seen that there was a good turnout and a lively response from lorry drivers and others in relation to what we still call HS2. I am pleased to say that one lot from your constituency, Mr Speaker, remarked that they were anxious to speak to your good self about it, and I carry their best wishes and thanks to you. I said that you would almost certainly be in the Chair for the debate today, so I am pleased to see that you are indeed there.

The various points that have consistently been made against this project remain, but they have not been answered in debate or by the Government. The hon. Lady covered virtually all those points in her opening remarks. I am limited for time, and I intend to stay well within the 10 minutes because I know that a lot of Members wish to speak, but let me say that although the point about people being local or nimbyish about this issue is fair, I do not think that any MP who sticks up for his constituency should be at all apologetic about it. That is what we are sent here for, and if we do not do it, why are we here?

We have to take into account the national dimension, but I am prepared to say that I, and my Labour colleagues from Stoke and Coventry, certainly will not benefit from this project at all. I can see the arguments for Manchester, York, Leeds and other areas, which are well represented on the Opposition side, but it seems to me that we are doing things the wrong way around. I can see some benefits—although not the regional benefits that the Government claim—for Manchester, Leeds in particular, and York of being connected to a high-speed link to Birmingham and from there to London, but I think we should start the whole “Y” the other way around. We should start the line where it is most needed and most appreciated—from the north to the south. What is very clear, if we are honest about this, is that we do not desperately need the line from London to Birmingham. We are well served with trains every 20 minutes, and we are only going to get 30 minutes off the journey at best.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Robinson]

I will in a moment if my hon. Friend will hang on just a tick. I have only got 10 minutes, and time taken now will shorten someone else’s time.

We really do not need this project. What we need is for the pinch points to be relieved and some of the capacity bottlenecks to be relieved, and we could get the whole capacity increase we need on that line. Centro, which is responsible for the west midlands portion of the line, has said that it desperately needs that to be done now. That is the way to do it, not to wait until—

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Robinson]

I will give way in a moment, but I know what my hon. Friend is going to say because he represents a Birmingham constituency. I take those points too, but on the argument about this being a regional policy, let me say that any remotely sensible study that has been done on it says that 75% of the jobs are going to be created in the south-east, so we should forget the idea that it is a regional policy: that does not stack up. It is a convenience for certain metropolitan centres in the north, and the idea is that if ever it gets up to Edinburgh and Glasgow it could be a spinal cord that unites the country despite the tensions we feel at present—so why not start it up there? Why not start it from Leeds or York? That is what needs doing—and urgently—but of course they will not do that, because everyone knows that the subsidy for that area would be enormous and could not be justified. It can be justified only for the small London-Birmingham stretch where the subsidy will be highest, and it will not benefit ordinary travellers in any sense. It will be subsidised to a massive extent by the taxpayer and, by those businessmen, and others—

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Robinson]

I know that my hon. Friend has been trying to get in, so I will give way just this once and then I will make progress.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Some of his points about where the benefits would flow with high-speed rail are important, but surely what he is assuming is that people would just build the line and there would be stations but nothing else would happen. The whole point is that high-speed rail offers opportunity for much more comprehensive economic planning built around a high-speed rail network. It is not just a high-speed railway and stations on their own; it is part of a much wider approach that is required.

[Mr Robinson]

I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend talk about economic planning. I think that, sadly, that went out in 1966, when the Labour Government ditched the national plan. Let us be hard-headed and realistic about this. HS2 will have some benefits, and certainly it will help businesses to travel more quickly to London, but that is about all we can say. If I were a Manchester MP I am sure I would be supporting it, but below there it does not make any sense at all.

[Julie Hilling]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Robinson]

I am running out of time, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend once.

[Julie Hilling]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, because I want to challenge his view that there is no benefit for Birmingham. I would much prefer the track to start in the north, but the reality is that the capacity issue is on the bottom part of the line and that if we do not do something to free up capacity there—and the bodged bits that people are talking about doing would not be adequate in the future—we will not have local trains running either.

[Mr Robinson]

I do not accept that at all, and the hon. Lady should look at what Centro and others have said. There is a capacity problem. The Government’s capacity projections are way over the top, just as they were for HS1, which was the biggest flop ever. Their capacity projections said that the minimum would be a fifth of the maximum, but they could not even get the capacity up to that level. It lost money from day one, and it was flogged off recently to someone in Canada who has no interest in it at all, at a whopping loss of £2 billion or £3 billion. That is the truth.

[Richard Burden]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Robinson]

No, I will not give way any more.

[Richard Burden]

You are talking about Birmingham.

[Mr Robinson]

I live next door to Birmingham; I know all about Birmingham.

[Richard Burden]

Would you like to hear from Birmingham at all?

[Mr Robinson]

I just mention in passing that when I was being selected—those few years ago—

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Robinson]

I will give way in a moment—no, I will not give way, sorry.

As a prospective Coventry candidate, I was told, “You’ve got to remember one thing, Geoffrey: the only good thing that comes out of Birmingham is the Coventry road”—but I will leave that there.

In all seriousness, with £33 billion of capital expenditure, this is the largest capital project that this country will ever have engaged in. That money could be better spent elsewhere. Dealing with the capacity problems between London and Birmingham and increasing capacity by 47% can be done now. The plans are there; they are shovel ready.

[Julie Hilling]

That will not solve the problem.

[Mr Robinson]

It will. Taking a realistic view of capacity, of course it will solve the problem, particularly if we are set back by a 16% output gap, thanks to the recession. Even the Government have had to revise their plans. Does my hon. Friend really believe that we will have more than a 50% increase in capacity in the next 10 years before the project comes in? We need an increase now. We can get 50% by lengthening platforms, without the huge tear-up in London and elsewhere, or the cost that HS2 would involve.

I will mention a few other points that I think are relevant. I happen to agree with those who feel that HS2 would involve the unnecessary tearing up of some of the most beautiful country that we have. This morning, Mr Speaker, your constituents were waxing lyrical about their village. I feel for those who will have their houses smashed and repossessed—all for no good. If we were at war and had to move ammunition, as we probably did in those days, there would be a case for HS2. There is no case now. As I have said, it is not the best way to increase capacity. That could be done in the shorter term and much more cheaply. It will not benefit ordinary people, and it will not help the north-south divide.

Above all—I say this in all seriousness to my colleagues from Manchester, Leeds, York and others who are here today—I fear that the real danger is that the line will not get built up there. They will find that the cost of getting the line to Birmingham will be blown up beyond all the estimates. Everyone will heave a sigh of relief and say, “We don’t have to go on. This is the profitable part.” In all likelihood, that is what will happen.

As for the environment, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire made it quite clear that even the Government, and now Greengauge and the other lobby action groups in favour—paid by the Government, of course, or by the company itself—have admitted that HS2 will not do anything for the environment. One is at a loss to know why the Government are doing this. The whole cover was blown by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), who said that the Government reached a deal to oppose the third runway at Heathrow and have HS2 instead. It was a £30 billion election bribe. Whether or not it won them any seats I do not know, but the cover was blown earlier, in that intervention on the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire.

I put it to the House that I do not think that many hon. Members are in the mood to listen the arguments today. It is perfectly legitimate for them to seek to push their constituency interests, but let us go from legitimate constituency interests to a sane, objective assessment of the problems of the capital project, and the hon. Lady exposed the myths that lie behind that project.

16:09

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

That was a touching cameo of the brotherly love between Birmingham and Coventry Labour Members of Parliament. I am sure that if we had the opportunity to attend parliamentary Labour party meetings, we would see it displayed every week.

Time is short, and I do not intend to repeat what I have said in previous debates on High Speed 2. If hon. Members or others are interested, they can find what I have said previously on my website—I am not one of the Twitterati, but I am catching up with websites—at www.tonybaldry.co.uk/tag/hs2. As the House will know, the Transport Committee is undertaking an inquiry on the principles of HS2. I hope that it will pay regard to two points. The first is capacity. It is unclear to me whether the purpose of HS2 is to enable more people from cities such as Manchester and Leeds to travel by rail to London and back, or to allow people to travel faster to London at greater expense. All the statistics show train use increasing. That is probably not surprising, given the ever-increasing cost of petrol. Like other Members, I frequently take long-distance inter-city trains to see family members or, increasingly, as part of my other duties in the House, to visit cathedral cities. Nowadays, irrespective of the time of day at which I travel, the trains are always full, so it strikes me that what is needed on our rail network is greater capacity.

Greater capacity may mean somewhat unglamorous improvements to services that we already use—improvements such as longer trains, extended platforms and improved signalling. Rail campaigners in my constituency argue that if we need a new railway line for capacity, we should

“make the line compatible with existing rolling stock so it can be used to ease congestion on the whole network when required. The stand-alone design, (of HS2), means that if the West Coast mainline gets blocked, for some reason, you will not be able to reroute trains down the new line”.

The second issue that I hope the Select Committee will consider with great care is the business case for HS2. This is obviously a matter of concern to everyone.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the work of the Select Committee. It has not yet reported on High Speed 2, so I do not feel that I am in a position to give any conclusions—they are not there yet—but I can confirm that the issues that the Select Committee is considering very carefully have to do with capacity, impact on the economy and environment, and value for money. There are a wide variety of views on all those issues, and the Select Committee is looking at all of them in the round. We will report in due course.

[Tony Baldry]

Of course, and as one of those who argued strongly that the Select Committee should undertake the inquiry, I have absolutely no doubt that the Committee will deal with the issues with great diligence. I am sure that the House looks forward to debating the Committee’s report and the Government’s response to it. I hope that the debate can take place here in the main Chamber, and not in Westminster Hall, which is where such debates are often held.

As the hon. Lady says, clearly one of the issues that the Committee has to look at is the business case. A considerable sum is being spent, and of course the money spent on HS2 will not be available for investment elsewhere in rail infrastructure; £30 billion is a very substantial amount, and we all need to be confident that the business case will stack up. Conservative Members who entered the House when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, as I did, always had a very high regard for the advice of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Over the years, it has readily embraced new ideas, so it is sobering that its verdict on HS2 is that

“There is a significant risk that High Speed 2…will become the latest in a long series of government big-project disasters”.

The business case for HS2 appears to be based on a number of assertions, such as people do not work on trains. I hope that the Select Committee will investigate those assertions. I understand that there are suggestions in official documents that the effect of HS2 will be to benefit London and the south, in terms of jobs and growth, rather than cities such as Manchester and Leeds. The contribution of the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) demonstrates that many Members representing inner cities are concerned about the differential regional impacts of HS2. I hope that the Select Committee will call for and examine those papers, as it is in a better position than most of us to challenge and evaluate the evidence on HS2.

[Angela Smith]

The Northern Way did a lot of work on this and pointed out that the economic benefit of HS2 would be as great for the north as it would be for London and the south east. The key point is that the economic benefit is the sum of the whole and that UK plc will be the beneficiary. The other important point about HS2 is that it will help to rebalance the economy.

[Tony Baldry]

It is really important, for the benefit of the whole House, that the Select Committee should consider all these issues. None of us has had the benefit of hearing all the evidence and there is a slight danger—as with liquorice allsorts—that Members will pick only the evidence they want. If we as a nation are to spend £30 billion, I am concerned that it should be money well spent. I am sure that the Committee will diligently consider all the evidence and report back to the House. The hon. Lady represents a Manchester constituency—[Interruption.] I apologise. She represents a Sheffield constituency—[Interruption.] Well, it is a Yorkshire constituency. She clearly has a preconceived view that HS2 will somehow benefit her constituents. I hope that she will reflect on all the evidence submitted to the Committee. She shakes her head. I hope that she will not dismiss it and that the whole House will have the opportunity to consider the matter in the round.

Even if the nation’s finances start to improve substantially after 2015, as we all hope they will, £30 billion is still a very substantial sum. We have a collective duty to ensure that such a significant sum is spent in the best possible way. My concern is that the project started very much as a vanity project. The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), went up to Birmingham before the general election to announce the project in the hope that it would win him a few votes there. I simply do not think that that is a good way to start such a massive project.

[Richard Burden]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the Select Committee looks at all aspects of this and follows the evidence—that is what Select Committees are for. He mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) who used the word “we” rather liberally when referring to the west midlands. I should point out for the benefit of the House that my hon. Friend’s views are not universally shared in the west midlands, in Birmingham, or even in Coventry.

[Tony Baldry]

That demonstrates the divisions in the Labour party in the west midlands, but I think we all agree that the House should listen carefully to all the evidence.

16:18

[Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

Many people are using public transport more these days, particularly the railways, despite the extortionate fares that train operating companies extract from customers for the cheap but not very cheerful service they usually get, particularly on commuter lines. I very much welcome the increased use of public transport, because it reduces carbon emissions and is generally better for the environment.

Two acts of monumental folly have affected the railway industry in the past 50 years. The first was the decision in the early 1960s by the Conservative Government of the day to let Dr Beeching butcher Britain’s network of branch lines, which had linked communities across the country. The second was the decision by another Conservative Government to privatise the railways in the early ’90s, a decision that even the arch-privatiser, Mrs Thatcher, had the good sense not to pursue. Of course, this has meant that the taxpayer has been paying vastly more in subsidy to train operating companies and to the network than was ever paid pro rata to British Rail. I hope that the coalition and the Minister will not, over this decision, make it three monumental follies in a row.

The coalition proposes that we spend £32 billion by 2026 on a new rail project from London to Birmingham, which then goes on to Leeds and Manchester by 2032, allegedly saving 30 minutes’ travelling time from Birmingham and 50 minutes from Manchester. The fact that business people invariably travel first class and can use their computers and communications networks while travelling, while others will remain in Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester and hold meetings using video conferencing facilities, is dismissed by the vested interest groups, which see a massive tranche of public money that they would like to access.

At a time when ordinary people are facing massive reductions in their living standards, living under threat of losing their jobs and watching their community services such as libraries, Sure Start centres and centres for elderly people being axed, we are prepared to commit £17 billion, the estimated cost of the line from London to Birmingham, in order to get business people from Birmingham to London 30 minutes sooner—always assuming that there are no high-speed leaves on the line and the high-speed signalling equipment actually works.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Godsiff]

Time is limited, so my hon. Friend must forgive me.

No wonder an online survey by the Birmingham Post showed that 75% of respondents were against the project.

What other inflated claims are made for the project? It is said that it will help to diminish regional inequalities and promote growth, but there is no evidence of that. If we look at what has happened in Japan, Spain and France, we find that the high-speed connections there have benefited the hub much more than the outer communities.

What about the effect of the project on towns and cities that High Speed 2 will bypass? The deputy leader of Coventry city council says that the plans for High Speed 2 send a clear message that

“Coventry is not a place to stop.”

Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said about Birmingham, I suggest that that might not be a bad idea.

Where high-speed trains do work is in countries with large land mass, but in other, smaller countries they take resources from humbler but more needed schemes, such as the upgrading of existing networks, signalling and infrastructure. Unfortunately, however, we all know as politicians that unveiling a new signal box tends to appeal less than inaugurating a futuristic new service. The project’s other exaggerated claims have already been dealt with.

[Hugh Bayley]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Godsiff]

Time is very limited.

[Hugh Bayley]

It gives you extra time.

[Mr Godsiff]

All right.

[Hugh Bayley]

Does my hon. Friend realise that the project is not a zero-sum game? As in any business, if one invests in a new product, one gets new customers and generates economic growth. We need investment in the current network, for sure, but that is no reason not to go ahead with High Speed 2.

[Mr Godsiff]

I am all in favour of infrastructure investment, but I can think of a whole host of infrastructure investment on which £32 billion could be spent in my constituency, my hon. Friend’s constituency and many other constituencies. This project is not good value for money, and it has not been thought through.

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

Surely it is a zero-sum game, as was said earlier, because, at a time when we in constituencies that are not directly affected by this railway project are nevertheless having to fight, for example, to save hospitals from closure due to cuts, it seems sheer madness to look at this level of investment instead of at saving our services.

[Mr Godsiff]

I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because I agree.

Putting aside my views on the subject, I shall share with the House the views of a Manchester-based businessman who came to London on Tuesday for a meeting of the Surface Engineering Association, an excellent organisation that looks after the interests of companies operating in that segment of manufacturing industry. I asked him how long it had taken to travel down to London that day, and he said “Two hours, eight minutes.” He asked why I wanted to know and I told him about the upcoming debate on High Speed 2. He responded that getting to London from Manchester 50 minutes quicker did not really bother him because he used train time to work on his computer and to make calls. He ventured the opinion that if the Government had that sort of money to spend, they should do something about the bottlenecks on the M6, as well as improving the transport infrastructure in many of our cities.

Those views are similar to the majority of those expressed to me by business people in my constituency. Not one business person has come to me and said, “Thirty minutes is going to make the difference between my company succeeding or not.” It is a fallacy to believe otherwise. However, over the years, plenty of constituents have come to me and said that there should be better public transport facilities within Birmingham—an underground system such as the one in London, a tram system such as those that operate in European cites, improved bus services, or new or reopened train lines and stations within and around the city. Those are the types of improvements that the people of Birmingham want, not a vastly expensive link between London and Birmingham.

People have expressed a great deal of concern about the damage that this will cause in the Chilterns and Warwickshire. The impression has been given that only people who live there are concerned about those areas. In fact, many people living in Birmingham travel to the countryside, especially elderly people in my constituency who have enjoyed the benefits of the free or concessionary fares introduced by the Labour Government. They enjoy the countryside; they are certainly not part of the “carpet the countryside with concrete” brigade, and neither am I.

We have had many vanity projects in this country that have been a disaster. I hope the Minister will think again about this project, because I believe that if she goes ahead, it will be a disaster.

16:26

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

The temperature of this debate is running high. In a densely populated country such as England, it will never be easy to come to a decision about transport infrastructure going right the way through the country. That said, just because a decision is hard and opposition is loud does not mean we should shy away from hearing the points made and coming to that decision.

I have listened to a lot of what has been said about the differences between the north and the south, with Members saying that High Speed 2 will not help—but it will. I come to this debate as an MP from the north-west and, in particular, as an MP from Merseyside. This, to us, is infrastructure we need. We are not going to develop because of this infrastructure, but without it our growth will be stymied. As Government Members, we have all voted for a redistribution of wealth—a change from dependence on the public sector to the private sector. We in the north-west need this infrastructure to allow our private sector to grow so that we stop being overly reliant on the public sector. To all intents and purposes, High Speed 2 was meant to aid the decentralisation of that economic power base.

Let me turn to the figures. Yes, the cost of High Speed 2 at £30 billion is a huge amount of money. However, the fare revenue will bring down that cost to £17 billion. Private sector investment is expected to cover a lot of the cost on key parts of the network such as station developments. In response to a recent question of mine, the Secretary of State said that High Speed 2 in its entirety will bring in £44 billion. The latest review from KPMG puts tax receipts alone at between £6 billion and £10 billion per year. That means that High Speed 2 will easily pay for itself. We have not heard about any of that today.

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

The previous three speakers said that one of the disadvantages of the project is that it has come out of a political agreement among the three parties. I think that that is a massive advantage. It is because we do not have political agreement that we have the lowest motorway density in western Europe, a lack of airport capacity where we need it, and in the north-west a railway system running on timetables worse than in Gladstonian times. The country will benefit from this project because the three parties agree with it. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Esther McVey]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We need cross-party support and we also need cross-country support.

I appreciate that infrastructure is not an end in itself, but it is a means to an end. It opens up areas to opportunity and it is for those areas to seize upon that opportunity and capitalise on it. In considering the High Speed 2 development, we must look at the northern hub and connectivity across the north. We must look at the Y shape of the line and link in not just Manchester and Leeds, but Liverpool.

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

I fully support high-speed rail, as does my hon. Friend. However, in the context of connectivity, does she accept that the forgotten English region is the south-west? Although one can support this project, it must be accepted that any available funds elsewhere need to be funnelled in that direction and to the west of England to ensure that we have the connectivity that she is describing.

[Esther McVey]

I do not disagree at all. I believe that we need greater connectivity across the board. Equally, this project is not starting until 2017 and will go on for two decades. I would like that to be brought forward, not just for the north-west but for the south.

I want to look at where Merseyside needs to develop and what development we are stopping. Official figures for 2009 recorded that 48 million UK day visitors went to Liverpool. It was the sixth most popular destination in the UK. The number of visitors is projected to grow to 55 million by 2013. With overcapacity on the trains, that will not happen. This is not just about speed; it is fundamentally about capacity.

There is also the Liverpool super-port freight development, which is being led by the private investors, Peel. It is set to develop a £300 million in-river berth, which will increase port capacity from 700,000 containers a year to 3 million, creating more than 4,000 new jobs. We need connectivity, warehouse storage and logistics. We want to grow all of those things. This is about rebalancing the economy. Of course there will be jobs in building the infrastructure, but there will also be key jobs in freight and movement. Liverpool should be positioning itself as the port of the north. I have always said that without our ports—whether the cruise terminal or the freight port—we are only a 180° city or half a city. We need to open up links to our waterways to ensure that we are a 360° city.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I just make the tiny point that HS2 will not carry freight, because freight would make the trains too heavy to stop from high speeds. I just wanted to check that my hon. Friend was aware of that.

[Esther McVey]

No, there will be increased freight capacity, and that is key. There has been a 56% increase in the amount of freight over the past eight years. We have to accommodate that and develop the capacity that we have.

In conclusion, High Speed 2 is vital, as are the northern hub, the connection with Liverpool, our ports and opening up the UK as a whole. There is a financial argument, which people have made. I have given the latest statistics from KPMG. High Speed 2 is about uniting the country, and about spreading wealth and opportunity to areas that desperately need them. My only concern is that it should happen sooner rather than later.

16:33

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Besides being the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, I am the Member for King’s Cross and Euston. I feel like I have been here before. About 20 years ago, the sort of people who are now proposing HS2 were proposing that the channel tunnel link should come into a vast concrete cavern to be excavated under King’s Cross station. Many local people opposed it, and when the project team asked what I suggested, I said, “You could use St Pancras, it would be a much better idea.” That was denounced as ridiculous for a time, but in due course St Pancras International was opened and is probably the most magnificent station in the whole world.

Now we have the proposition of HS2. I say to those who are in favour of it that to bring it in to Euston is just about as stupid as the King’s Cross concrete box idea. Euston is already overcrowded, and getting to and from it by either bus or tube is extremely difficult. There are no proposals to improve that. Also, Euston is not on the Heathrow Express line and is not going to be on Crossrail. In recognition of that, the people behind HS2 are proposing the parkway station at Wormwood Scrubs, hereinafter to be known as Old Oak Common, which is on the Heathrow Express and will be on Crossrail. That suggests that they accept that it would be a good idea to have that station as the terminus if HS2 is built. I say that from a strategic and passenger point of view, but I do not pretend that it is my basic point of view. I try to represent the people in the constituency that I have represented for 30-odd years, which I am proud to do.

The proposal involves the demolition of the houses and homes of more than 350 of my constituents. Their attitude, and mine, is not nimby—“not in my back yard”—but “not through my front room”, because that is what is being proposed. If HS2 is to be built, it would be totally unacceptable from a local point of view, and silly from a national point of view, to bring it into Euston.

[Graham Stringer]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Frank Dobson]

No, I shall not, because I want other people to get their speeches in.

I am particularly concerned to end the planning blight that now afflicts the people who live in the area affected and those in the area behind it, Primrose Hill, who may also be disturbed by the developments. I therefore wrote to the Secretary of State asking what guarantees he was willing to give about suitable alternative accommodation for the people affected. I asked whether it would be in the neighbourhood; whether they would remain tenants of the council; how soon such alternative accommodation would be provided; whether people would have to live in temporary accommodation while permanent accommodation was built; what security of tenure they would have; and what the effect would be on their rents and service charges. I got a letter back from him saying, “Oh, all that will need to be looked into in the fullness of time.” As far as I am concerned, that leaves 350 of my constituents on planning blight death row, and we have to do something about that. There is absolutely no reason why the Minister could not say today that she can offer all the guarantees that those people want, and that those guarantees will be one of the conditions of any agreement if the mad proposal finally goes ahead and HS2 comes into Euston.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Frank Dobson]

No, I want to sit down as quickly as I can so that other people can get in.

I believe that Euston is a stupid place to use as the terminus, even from the point of view of those who favour High Speed 2, and that it is a disastrous proposition from the point of view of the people I represent.

16:38

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

It is a great honour and pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing it. She has allowed everybody who has a point of view the chance to make their case, expose the arguments of the other side and put forward their own.

In the last Parliament I was fortunate enough, along with the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), who is in her place, to be part of the shadow transport team who were the first authors of a major high-speed rail debate, and indeed of a high-speed rail policy.

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) is absolutely right that there is a principled case for opposition to the scheme. My constituents are affected, as are those of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). What is not a principled position, however, is to say that there is no economic, environmental, financial or travel case for high-speed rail. There clearly is a case, although its merits might differ according to differing points of view.

I have read both the rail package 2 study and the “A Better Railway for Britain” study, the proposals in which are often referred to as an alternative to high-speed rail. I shall briefly examine—because I want to move on to the positives, rather than the negatives—the proposals in the latter study for overcoming the capacity issues on the west coast main line. It proposes to introduce 12 car trains, grade-separated junctions and an additional track south of Nuneaton. It claims that the costs, at best, would be £2.06 billion, but it takes that figure from another, flawed document. I do not know whether those who produced the study have ever spoken to any of the rail operators, but it will be extremely difficult to integrate 12 cars into 11-car sets.

[Paul Maynard]

Does my hon. Friend agree that rail package 2 plus and RP2 both admit that they do not tackle the peak-hour demand, which is the crucial concern of many of us travelling on the west coast main line?

[Stephen Hammond]

Absolutely. However, so much in “A Better Railway for Britain” is mere assertion. The good points, though, are like that television programme from so long ago, “Not Only… But Also”. Not only do we need to do the things mentioned in RP2, but also we need high-speed rail. The case for high-speed rail is clear. It revolves primarily around capacity. Official sources say that the west coast main line will be full by 2020, although some say 2026, while unofficial sources say 2015. The question, then, is about how we add capacity. We either build a classic new line or we build one that uses some of the new techniques and signalling. The latter is called high-speed rail.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Does my hon. Friend accept that if we are going to make the case for “not only but also”, as he described it, the case for HS2 needs be made after the “not only”? In other words, if we are trying to make an economic argument, we have to add on the incremental improvements to be made and then justify HS2 expense on top of that.

[Stephen Hammond]

There is one fallacy with my hon. Friend’s argument. Simply speeding up the current network and alleviating some minor problems is no substitution for high-speed rail. It is clear that high-speed rail would at least double capacity, and on certain parts of the route, the capacity increase would be significantly more than that.

The Y-shaped high-speed network across the UK would bring a benefit-cost ratio of about 2:6. For the London to Birmingham section, the ratio would be 2:0. That shows that the case for going further north becomes more compelling and adds to the economic benefit. The proposals in “A Better Railway for Britain” would have a benefit-cost ratio of 1:4. Those ratios prove that high-speed rail is significantly better than some of these hotch-potch alternatives in “A Better Railway for Britain”.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that between the two iterations of the business case in March 2010 and February 2011, the Government had to slash their estimate of the benefit-cost ratio by 40%? That was the first time that the business case was prodded. If another 40% comes off it when it is prodded again, it will be proven to have been economically unviable.

[Stephen Hammond]

When the business case is re-examined, the key thing will be: what happens if it improves? The more important point is that the benefit-cost ratio for HS2 is overwhelmingly ahead of any of the other proposals. That is true.

The economic case is overwhelming. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) eloquently set out some of the issues in the north, but the point is that in the construction phase alone, high-speed rail will generate 40,000 jobs along the route. That does not include any calculation of the ripple supply-chain effect, which will certainly be felt. More than that, the combination of HS2 and the northern hub, which has already been referred to, will create a new economic conurbation in the north and allow much quicker access between the north and London. That connectivity is hugely important.

When the business community criticises politicians, it says that all too often one of the reasons why it does not invest and why there are barriers to growth is that we, the politicians, have not put in place the appropriate infrastructure. This scheme is the appropriate infrastructure for the 21st century.

The environmental impact cannot be understated. The Department for Transport currently estimates that the project is carbon-neutral, and I absolutely accept that. However, I am aware that the Campaign for Better Transport is doing some new research into the impact of taking extra freight by rail, which, when combined with the transference effect from railways, I am led to believe points to the conclusion that the carbon footprint will be significantly reduced.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Hammond]

No, I am sorry; I have only a minute and a half left.

There is a myth that local services will suffer as a result of High Speed 2. That is not true: local services are already at capacity. We need to do other things, but high-speed rail is not part of that argument. That is a diversionary tactic. There is also a myth, which has been brought up time after time today, that there is a £30 billion cost. Yes, of course the scheme will cost £30 billion, but Crossrail is currently costing us £2 billion a year. Crossrail will have a huge impact on London and create huge benefits for the commuting area of London and the south-east. If we look at the cost of Crossrail against the annual cost of High Speed 2, we see that they are actually a substitution for one another. It is quite clear that we can invest the £2 billion a year in rail infrastructure that the Government have costed for without affecting other investment.

The case is a good one and there are overwhelming reasons for it. The network is at capacity, the economy will benefit, the scheme will be at least carbon-neutral and, given that it does not start until after 2017, High Speed 2 is affordable.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In view of the level of interest in this debate, I must inform the House that after the next speech the time limit for Back-Bench speeches will be reduced to four minutes in order to accommodate as many contributing colleagues as possible.

16:47

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on introducing it. We have had debates on the subject before in Westminster Hall, and I shall have to make some of the points that I made in those debates again, because they are significant.

I am a passionate believer in railways and have been for decades. Even when railways were unfashionable, I believed that they were the transport mode of the future, and so they have proved to be. Indeed, there is absolutely no doubt that we will have more railways in future. I believe that we should invest heavily in railways and in additional routes, but I remain a sceptic about HS2. I applaud in particular the speeches by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry)—who has just left the Chamber—and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff), who made many important points that I will not necessarily repeat.

The scheme is expensive, but if it was worth while I would support that expense. It also has an opportunity cost: we should be doing things now, not in decades to come. As the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire said, even getting on a train to Milton Keynes is a problem now, let alone finding a seat, and the same is true elsewhere. We need heavy investment in all sorts of railway schemes, but not necessarily this one, which will come a long time in the future, not now. However, it will not be necessary even in the future. The point has been made about Britain being a densely populated country, and many towns that need to be served by high-speed trains would not be. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) is quite right that he would not benefit at all from HS2. Indeed, getting to and from the station is a much more significant problem for those living even on the outskirts of Birmingham than getting from Birmingham to London.

We need more capacity, but for that we need to upgrade existing routes. For example, there is no question but that the east coast main line needs to be upgraded; indeed, I had a long talk about that with the chief executive at our recent conference. However, all we need is an additional viaduct to quadruple the track at Welwyn, a passing loop at Peterborough and a crossover at Newark, and then we will have no problem at all with 140 mph trains running from London to Edinburgh. To build a high-speed line carrying no more than two or three trains a day that far would be nonsense. We have the capacity now, provided we upgrade the route a little.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman. The same train line goes through our constituencies. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) that we should be looking at many other areas in which to invest. We could move many more passengers around the country. The hon. Gentleman is making a perfect argument for looking at this matter again.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support. We have neighbouring constituencies and share the rail route that runs through our towns.

In the end, the problem comes down to the west coast main line, which needs the signalling to be upgraded to the most modern standard, more train paths, and to get the freight off the line. Freight and passengers do not mix. Freight trains move more slowly, and they damage the track more than the lighter passenger trains, so we need to invest in a dedicated freight line running up the backbone of Britain, from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, linking all the major conurbations. I have supported that scheme for a long time, and it would take 5 million lorries a year off the roads, as well as removing all the freight traffic from the east and west coast main lines. The passenger routes need to be separated from the freight routes and upgraded to improve capacity. I believe that that is what we need, and that is why I am sceptical about the HS2 scheme.

That freight route could be built in four years for as little as £6 billion, and it would cause no environmental difficulty because it could use existing under-utilised routes and old track bed could be brought back into use. That, and a couple of tunnels, would make the whole thing work. I have made this case time and again in the Chamber over the past 14 years, and I have mentioned it to the Minister of State. I have presented a paper on it to the Transport Select Committee. I also know engineers who have worked on the scheme and worked the details out. It just needs to be done. Fifteen of us had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport in the previous Government to put our case for the scheme, but the Department was so hostile because a small section of our proposed route overlapped the route it wanted to use for HS2. Even if HS2 is built, the lines could be paralleled at that point. There would not be a problem.

We need a freight route that is capable of taking full-scale lorry trailers on trains. That could never be done on existing routes without incurring the prohibitive cost of raising all the tunnels and bridges throughout the network. We need a track that has the capacity to take double-stack containers. Most of our existing routes cannot even take standard 9 feet 6 inch containers. We also need a track that has the capacity to take continental trains, which currently cannot get through our platforms because they are too wide, the gauge is too big. We need to be able to accommodate trains travelling from, say, Rome to Birmingham carrying San Pellegrino water.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument for a major extension of the rail network. Given that one of his reasons for opposing HS2 is its cost, will he give us an estimate of the cost of all the various improvements and new lines that he has just described?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Some two or three years ago, we had lunch with some people from Bechtel, one of the train manufacturing companies. We were talking about a cost of £4 billion or £5 billion at that time. We talked about an outside figure of £6 billion, but the Bechtel representative looked at the scheme and said he could do it for £3 billion. That would be a fraction of the cost even of Crossrail, which I support. This is not about cost, however; it is about whether HS2 is necessary. I think that we could achieve the desired result by doing it differently. We could upgrade existing routes to serve all the intervening towns, and we could provide the necessary capacity by getting all the freight off those lines and on to a new freight route. I ask the Department for Transport to take our scheme seriously, because that is what we need for the future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind hon. Members that the four-minute limit on each Back-Bench contribution now applies.

16:54

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

We in the Liberal Democrats have long supported high-speed rail, and we are delighted that the Government of whom we are part are going to deliver on that commitment. A sustainable transport system fit for the 21st century was at the heart of our 2008 policy paper, “Fast track Britain”, our 2010 election manifesto and now the coalition agreement. We need increased capacity on our railways. Over the past 50 years, the length of our rail network has roughly halved, but since 1980 the number of passenger journeys has doubled. Quite predictably, that has fuelled overcrowding and led to eye-watering price hikes.

The extra capacity that the HS2 project will provide is not a luxury; it is a cold, hard necessity that we cannot afford to ignore. Network Rail estimates that by 2024 the existing line to Birmingham and the north-west will be full. Serious congestion on commuter services at the southern end of the line is already harming passenger welfare. Unfortunately, the key issue of capacity crisis has been obscured by an obsession with journey times. Yes, speed is important, but capacity and the number of trains is as important, if not more so.

High-speed rail will release huge amounts of capacity on existing lines: demand will no longer outstrip supply on parallel train routes. We need that capacity. The only alternative to building the high-speed railway line would be to build the same line, but for trains to run at slow speed. That would save us a small amount—about 9% of the construction costs—but we would not get the benefits of high speed.

We have heard that there is no need for a new line, that the few shortfalls can be tweaked and that we can cope with the inevitable increase in traffic. That is simply not the case. These proposals do not take proper account of the decades of upgrade work that would be required, with no alternative train line that could be fully used, or of the huge impact on reliability. If every possible train path is used on a line, there will be no capacity to cope if a single train is delayed: it throws everything out of whack. We need that capacity. Having massive infrastructure works on an already overcrowded line is not an option. It is not even a quick fix; it is completely unrealistic.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point. Would not the undoubtedly massive disruption be a major negative economic factor to be included in the business case on the consequences of a high-speed line or of trying to upgrade existing lines?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point; indeed, those consequences should be taken into account.

Hon. Members who oppose High Speed 2 should be aware that they are arguing for increased overcrowding on the west coast main line, increasing the chances of delayed commuter services, committing themselves to a disruptive and ineffective infrastructure programme, and delaying by only a matter of years the inevitable construction of a second line through the country.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Huppert]

One last time, yes.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I feel that I should declare an interest as a regular user of the west coast main line who hopes to get home before midnight tonight. Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituents who strongly support this scheme, because although it does not extend to Scotland it will bring significant benefits to Scotland? Ultimately, we will need to go further; once this Y-shaped network is in place, we must have high-speed rail to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

[Dr Huppert]

As ever, I am delighted to agree with everything my hon. Friend says. Her constituents will benefit and the scheme will eventually need to continue, and I hope that it will be sooner rather than later.

There have been debates about the economics of High Speed 2, and I think we all agree that it is absolutely right that we scrutinise them. The solution to our chronic capacity problem must deliver value for money. We have heard debate about the exact facts and figures. The ones I have seen place some reliance on or about the generation of 40,000 jobs and £44 billion for the economy, but the real economic impact of high-speed rail lies in changes that are harder to quantify. For far too long we have focused on London and the south-east, and it is key that high-speed rail helps to address that problem. High-speed rail will enable businesses in our major cities to compete with those in the capital and south-east. It will provide larger talent pools and more potential clients, improve domestic tourism and help us to rebalance our economy away from the City.

We also need to look at the issue raised by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey)—rail freight.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I am afraid not; I do not have enough time.

The number of container freights on a north-south axis has grown by 56% in the past eight years, leaving freight services, particularly around Liverpool, in a complete bottleneck. There are companies that would like to use rail freight much more, but simply cannot find the space to put the containers on the railway. We constantly have this tricky balance between keeping commuter services for those travelling to London and ensuring that businesses in the north have access to the freight services they need. We need both. In an advanced country that cares about sustainable growth in every region, this is not the trade-off we need.

I wish I had more time to talk about the environmental consequences, but I would hope that all hon. Members agree that decarbonising domestic transport is a crucial measure that needs to be taken and that modal shift is important in achieving that. A shift of 6 million air trips and 9 million road trips on to rail is definitely a significant step forwards.

High-speed rail is not some idealistic dream based on shaky, long-term assumptions; it is a logistical imperative. High-speed rail is vital for the long-term sustainability of our country’s infrastructure. The arguments for it heavily outweigh those against it, and I am delighted that the Government are taking it forward. I look forward to working closely with the Department for Transport, the Minister and other stakeholders to ensure that this project goes ahead and provides value for money for taxpayers and passengers alike, as well as providing the sustainable and efficient transport infrastructure that Britain is desperately lacking.

16:59

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

I support the extension of high-speed rail north of London, not just because I believe that it is in the best interests of my constituency and of Scotland but because I believe that it will benefit the whole United Kingdom in economic, transport and environmental terms. It makes sense for many reasons, including the need to increase capacity, which other Members have mentioned. Incidentally, the idea that the only people who use long-distance trains are rich businessmen will come as something of a shock to those who regularly use east-coast and west-coast lines. The development will, in fact, benefit many people throughout the country.

The existing network needs to be modernised in various ways, but it is ridiculous to suggest that it is possible to solve the capacity problem throughout Britain simply by modernising and upgrading it. As I said in an intervention, trying to replicate high-speed lines on the routes of existing lines would lead to decades of disruption and economic disbenefits. It is cheaper to build new lines, and, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, if new lines are to be built anyway, they might as well be high-speed lines if possible.

I do not support high-speed rail just for the sake of it—just because I want trains to travel as fast as they can. I accept that, in some localities, lower speeds may be acceptable for environmental reasons on the wider network. The fact remains, however, that reducing travel time between parts of the United Kingdom will create a number of benefits. Moreover, extending the line not just to Birmingham, Manchester and other parts of what, to me, constitutes southern England, but further north to Edinburgh and Glasgow, will produce the maximum economic and environmental benefits. The longer the journeys involved, the greater the possibility that passengers will travel by rail rather than air, and the more will be saved through high-speed rail. It will be possible to make significant cuts in air travel from Scotland to London if journey times can be reduced to less than three hours, and the same applies to road travel between Scotland and the north of England.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In 1992, having freed up the line, British Rail ran a test train from King’s Cross to Edinburgh at 140 mph, and did it in the same time as HS2 is proposing for its trains.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I think that that makes my point about capacity. Obviously, the line could not operate like that every day, because a fair number of trains would be running at the same time.

Many of the business cases for the extension of the line to the midlands and the north of England do not take account of the economic benefits in business and tourist travel that would result if it were extended to Glasgow and Edinburgh. The increase in passengers would generate economic benefits, and the best business and economic case will be produced if there is agreement that the line should extend to Scotland, ensuring that we are not excluded from the system.

My only worry about the current proposal is that we in Scotland, and indeed those in the north of England, would be at risk if the line extended no further than Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester. Trains cannot start at every part of the country at the same time, but we certainly do not want them to arrive at Birmingham at 2026, at Manchester or Leeds at 2033, and then—if we are lucky—at Edinburgh or Glasgow at 2050. That would be extremely damaging to our relative economic prosperity in the UK.

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

Would it not be useful if Transport Scotland conducted a feasibility study on a third phase of HS2, working from north to south?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I see no reason for not doing that. The Scottish Government have already expressed their willingness to make some contribution to such work. I think it would be sensible to start the planning now and to include in the development phase the idea that the line should start from Scotland as well as from the south of England. High-speed rail is not a panacea for all our ills, but it does provide opportunities to create economic and environmental boosts. It will also provide jobs, not in the next five or so years, but nevertheless for a long period, and it will provide a major boost to our economy. In the long run, it will help the economies of many parts of the UK.

If this high-speed rail line is built but nothing is done around the stations—if there is no integrated transport or planning development around these rail hubs—we will not get the full benefits from the project. However, if local and central Government, and regions and cities, plan, they can make sure that high-speed rail brings major economic benefits, especially if it extends beyond Birmingham to the north of England and beyond. I support this project, therefore, and hope that we move ahead as quickly as possible, but Scotland must not be left at the end of the line.

17:05

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing the first debate on high-speed rail to be held in the Chamber. This is, however, the fourth debate that we have had on the subject since the election. We debated it in Westminster Hall on 23 November, 31 March and 13 July, so we have discussed it every four months or so. I notice that the period between debates is becoming ever shorter, so by the time HS2 delivers any value, we might be debating it every day.

Contrary to certain assumptions, I am the only Buckinghamshire MP whose constituency is not affected by the high-speed rail proposal. I know that your constituency is affected by it, Mr Speaker, and that your constituents have very strong views and that you submitted a substantial response to the consultation. The Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), responded robustly to the consultation on behalf of her constituents, delivering seven files of objections and evidence against HS2, which will cut a deep scar through the middle of the area of outstanding natural beauty in which her constituency sits. The Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), and the Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), were present earlier, and I know that their constituents are implacably opposed to HS2. Many other members of the Government also have objections, including the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who also has strong views.

Although my constituents are not directly affected, they oppose HS2 on a number of grounds, but before I go on to explain my opposition, I wish to welcome the Government’s noble intentions. Whether in seeking the rejuvenation of the economy, the revitalisation of the north or the protection of the environment, or in trying to attract international inward investment, their intentions are indeed noble, but I regret to say that I do not support the means by which they seek to meet those ends.

The Secretary of State reflected on capacity, carbon and international competition in his evidence to the Transport Committee. On the question of the economics, as we have already learned in this debate, it is possible to refer to the titles and authors of reports both for and against the proposal. I am afraid that for every economist who comes down on one side of the debate, there will always be another economist on the other side. The Economist magazine came out against HS2, and when I put that to the Secretary of State, he was quick to rebut it and explain that he was about to write a letter.

The truth is that this project is awash with entrepreneurial risk. It is impossible to get hold of any hard facts showing whether it is a good idea. There is certainly an economic case, but I am afraid that it is ethereal: the moment we grasp it, it seems to disappear.

[Paul Maynard]

My hon. Friend claims that there is no economic case, but does he recognise that there may be a strategic case?

[Steve Baker]

I enjoy serving on the Transport Committee with my hon. Friend, but I am not saying there is no economic case; rather, I am saying that we cannot nail down that case because of the entrepreneurial risk. In my view, when very large sums of capital are being allocated in an environment of entrepreneurial risk, entrepreneurs should bear that entrepreneurial risk.

I asked an international investor, “What do you think of HS2?” The answer was, “It would be wonderful to arrive fresh and relaxed in no time at all.” I then asked, “Would you invest in it?” The response now was, “That’s unfair. Of course I wouldn’t invest in it.” The market would not deliver high-speed rail, and that would be a market success, because to do so would be a misallocation of capital.

I put it to the Secretary of State that this project would socialise risk and privatise profit. He explained that that was to be expected, and we had to be realistic about it. I do not share that sense of “realism” on that point; I think that in reality this will be loss-making, in any commercial sense of the term. The whole point of loss is that it directs entrepreneurs to do something else with their capital, because if they are making a loss they are destroying value, not creating it.

I shall now deal with the carbon implications of this line. Something profound is going on in relation to carbon. The Secretary of State talked about the need to keep going until we were absolutely sure that we would decarbonise the roads. There is a vision at the heart of HS2 that we have not yet fully grasped. Given that I have 30 seconds available to me, and others wish to speak, I shall just refer to a letter that I sent shortly after I arrived in this place. I said that the Government could not afford high-speed rail, that they would not be able to afford it, that it would be a disaster if they did this—my basis for saying that was David Myddelton’s book “They Meant Well: Government Project Disasters” —and that the Government should not do it in any event, because it should be left to entrepreneurs. Nothing that I heard during the Select Committee on Transport inquiry has changed my mind.

17:10

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

It is a pleasure to be able to contribute briefly to this debate. A number of points have been made by other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), and I will not repeat those. However, I wanted to have the opportunity to make a couple of other points, particularly about Scotland.

First, I want to make the point clearly that better transport links have many and varied benefits for business and the wider economy, and that is as true in Scotland as it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. Sectors of the economy that are particularly important in Scotland—finance, tourism and the food and drink industries—respond positively to improvements in transport links. That is part of the case being made by business organisations, trade unions, Glasgow city council and Edinburgh city council, and a range of bodies in Scotland that very much support HS2. The hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) is no longer in her place, but I accept her point that a high-speed network alone does not draw business to the UK, and is not the complete answer. However, it is an important part of the answer, for Scotland as well as for the rest of the UK.

I wish to discuss the points made by the hon. Members for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about the 40,000 jobs that would be created across the UK during the construction phase. I think I am right in saying that they both intimated that those jobs would be in the south-east of England. I say to both of them that that is not my experience of the jobs associated with other projects. For example, London 2012 work has gone to construction firms based in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Carlisle, Manchester, Newcastle—and, no doubt, many other places.

[Phil Wilson]

It is not just the route and its construction that are important; the rolling stock is important too. Hitachi, which is going to build a rolling stock factory in Newton Aycliffe, in my patch, has already said that it will bid to make the rolling stock for this route. That means that the north-east would benefit even before the route actually got to the north-east of England and created thousands of jobs.

[Tom Greatrex]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I thank him for his intervention. What he says is also true of other firms—for example, those in my constituency that make the toughened glass for the windows of the rolling stock. A range of other supply chain benefits will accrue to a number of industries and companies, and will help to increase employability and skills in the economy.

Secondly, I wish to discuss the environmental impact. I do not want to talk about the number of trees that will be planted along the line, but there is an environmental impact and benefit through getting people to shift from air to rail. From my constituency it is about a 90-minute flight between Glasgow and London, and I have to admit that I fly more often than I probably should. Even when we take into account the time taken getting to and from airports, flying is still quicker than using the fastest of the trains on the west coast.

[Dan Byles]

The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that reducing the number of short-haul flights will somehow result in a carbon saving. Does he agree that it does not take the brains of an archbishop to work out that if those slots are freed up at the airports, they will be filled by long-haul flights, which will produce higher CO₂ emissions?

[Tom Greatrex]

The point I was about to make is that the number of people who fly from Glasgow or Edinburgh to London—they then perhaps stay in or work from London—is many more than those who then fly on somewhere else. The important point is that we may be able to move me, and some of the people I see every week—or on the weeks that I use the plane—because we would use the train more often if it was quicker. That is one of the benefits of extending high-speed rail into Scotland that we should not miss out on, although that may happen long after I have gone from this place. We should also remember that, as others have said, this is not necessarily just about business travel. Tourism and leisure, particularly in Scotland, will also be impacted on beneficially if we can get more people using rail instead of air.

Obviously, my constituency concern is in Scotland, but I am also concerned about how it relates to the UK as a whole. The Minister for Housing and Transport in the devolved Scottish Government gave evidence to the Transport Committee—some members of the Committee are in the Chamber this afternoon—and he intimated that he had some commitment from the Government that in the event of there being a separate Scottish state, the English Government would build up to the border. I am not sure where that statement came from, and I wonder whether the Minister will be able to inform the House when she responds.

The project could benefit the whole country, and the benefits for Edinburgh and Glasgow from the eventual extension of HS2 are tied up with the existence of the United Kingdom as one entity. It is interesting to suggest that a separate Scotland would need to build only from the border northwards, with the remaining English Government building up to the border. I am not sure how the economics of that would add up. I would be interested if the Minister could respond on that point or, if she is unable to do so today, if she could do so in writing.

HS2 is an important project with potential for economic development, environmental benefit and economic advantage for the central belt of Scotland. I accept completely that there are many questions about some aspects of it, but I do not think that those objections are strong enough to derail the whole project. It is important for the whole country, and extending it so that it brings real benefits to Scotland is very important. That is why I support HS2.

17:16

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

As a north-west MP, I wish to represent the concerns that my constituents have expressed to me both in correspondence and at meetings. The area of Cheshire that my constituency covers lies some 25 miles south of Manchester. Over recent years, journey times to London by rail have improved and the area is now well served, with a journey time of less than two hours from Euston. On the basis that stops reduce journey times, a new HS2 track is likely to run through or near my constituency but with no HS2 stops or links. An area that is currently well served might find not only that HS2 bypasses it, but that existing services become fewer and slower. Services from Crewe and Stoke-on-Trent, both of which serve my constituency, could suffer considerable disadvantage. Passengers from London using a new HS2 line could have to travel north to Manchester, then make a connection and return south on a local line. It is difficult to see how there would be much, if any, time saving on a journey from London.

Let me turn now to the economic regeneration argument. The north-west is a wide area, and although HS2 might benefit the area immediately around Manchester—assuming that is the key north-west HS2 stop—it is questionable whether such benefits would radiate across the north-west region so as to benefit constituencies, such as my own, that are further afield. There is the additional concern that the flow of economic regeneration could be towards London and away from the north-west, so a project designed to bridge the north-south divide could have the opposite effect.

The cost, some £32 billion, is perceived by many of my constituents as an inordinate amount of money at a time of severe economic pressure for the questionable benefits they will gain, particularly the many who do not use train travel at all. Several transport pressure points in my constituency are of far greater concern to them, and attention to those would immediately bring clear economic benefits to the area and the region, including freeing up not just local traffic but the M6 traffic flow from Birmingham up to the north-west.

Notably, those would include opening up to passengers the Middlewich rail link, which is currently used only for freight, improvements to junction 17 of the M6 at Sandbach, and action to protect the Holmes Chapel community from the excessive speed and volume of vehicles that they constantly endure. All those issues could be resolved at a fraction of the £51 million that I understand would be the cost of HS2 to my constituency.

When it comes to international travel, it is unlikely that an HS2 line north of Birmingham to Manchester would make much material difference to residents in my constituency, living as they do half an hour from Manchester and only a little further from Liverpool airport.

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

May I clarify something? On the one hand, my hon. Friend is saying that living near Manchester airport is a good thing for her constituents—but is she also saying that living near the Manchester hub for high-speed rail would not be a good thing for them? I do not see how the two ideas run together.

[Fiona Bruce]

I am saying that to travel from London to the north-west by HS2 would not benefit my constituents materially. Nor would it benefit them to travel by HS2 down to the continent, because it is quicker, and certainly more economical with the current fares, to go from Manchester or Liverpool airport.

I agree that there is a strong case for enhancing the capacity of our inter-city rail network, including the west coast main line, but there are a number of solutions that could be achieved at a fraction of the cost of HS2 to my constituents. Many of those solutions have already been mentioned, such as improving provision for freight transportation or signalling. Others include improving the integrated regional network to take communities out of their cars in the north-west, increasing the number of platforms at Manchester Piccadilly to improve the commuter trains that are available, and increasing track numbers between Crewe and Manchester. I accept that the route of the extension from Birmingham to Manchester has not yet been specified, but I want to assure my constituents that if it runs through any part of my constituency, with the attendant environmental and other damage to farmland, residential areas and communities, they can be assured of my vigorous opposition to any such plan on their behalf.

17:21

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

I am worried that some Members on both sides will not have time to speak, so I shall be as brief as I can. I should be a prime advocate of this high-speed rail scheme, because I have in my constituency a railway estate that was constructed by the railway companies and then taken over by British Rail, which houses railway workers, and also because I have worked with the rail industry and its unions—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, ASLEF and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—for nearly 40 years to promote rail and every railway scheme.

As was mentioned earlier, as part of our campaign against the third runway we used the argument that we should invest in rail as an alternative. However, I have been absolutely alienated by the way in which the Government have handled this issue. Every other Member in the House is able to calculate the effect of the scheme on their constituency one way or the other—the advantages or disadvantages—but my constituents cannot, because of the way in which the Government are consulting on it. They are consulting on the route, except for the route into Heathrow, so my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) are living in a no man’s land of blight, because we do not yet know that route. We have had various indications and options but no direct consultation by the Government. Things are being done in two stages, and the second stage is meant to start in December, or any time now, but I believe that may be delayed as well.

What my constituents do know is that they face a continuing life of blight until this decision is made, because the vague options put forward by Arup impact on their homes and on a large amount of the social capital in the area, in terms of parks and open spaces. They also have relatives in the north of the London borough of Hillingdon who are losing their homes, and losing social facilities such as the excellent Hillingdon outdoor activities centre. There are also further threats to green belt land in the north of the borough. My two colleagues in Hillingdon who are members of the Government are unable to speak today, but they have worked hard behind the scenes as best they can to relay to the Government the uncertainties, the blight and the threat to people’s lives that the proposals are forming.

I urge the Government to publish the proposals on the links to Heathrow as rapidly as possible, so that my constituents can know where the future lies for them and so that we can have a proper consultation. I also urge the Government to start looking at some of the details of the route, and at the blight and damage it is causing, to see how they can obviate some of the threats that it brings.

We should consider not just the link into Euston, but HS2’s impact on north London overall. There is a wider debate to be had about whether the route is the most appropriate one, because the concerns about environmental damage are mounting up to such an extent that I am becoming increasingly convinced that the economic arguments do not outweigh the environmental damage threatened by the route.

I welcome the Transport Committee’s examination of the proposal, but I find it difficult to know how it will examine the proposal when the Government still have not told us what their proposals are for the links to Heathrow. The Government should learn the lesson that it is not the right way to handle a scheme or a consultation when one of the prime elements of the scheme is not published or consulted on comprehensively in a way that links the whole scheme together. The Government have completely mishandled the scheme—and I speak as one who would be a natural advocate of the advancement of rail in this country.

17:25

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

Given the time constraints, I do not know about high-speed rail, but this will be a high-speed speech. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on initiating the debate. We have had numerous debates on this issue. Although we do not agree, we always end up with a smile at the end. I suppose that there is a danger of repeating what other hon. Members have said, so I will try to keep my speech as brief as possible, but I want to give a Yorkshire perspective, as hon. Members from many regions around the country have spoken.

I am 100% in favour of High Speed 2. Not only is it needed, but it is inevitable and crucial if we are to be ready to compete in the future. Furthermore, if we do not face the realities of our transport infrastructure now, we will simply grind to a halt. We need to think about where we are now. It is worth reflecting that the railway industry’s success has been unprecedented in recent years, with a doubling of passenger numbers, as has been mentioned. Pressure on the west coast main line is so severe that it is expected to be restricted at the very latest by 2025, despite huge upgrades already having taken place in recent years.

There are two routes to the north, not just one, and the problem at Leeds is equally bad. The capacity pressure at Leeds station is predicted to increase by another 40% in the coming years. Obviously, I travel from London to Leeds every week, and I am lucky if I find a seat between here and Peterborough in rush times. I have not got the luxury of switching on my laptop, because I have nowhere to sit.

I hear from those who oppose the scheme that the money could be spent on other things. Frankly, we have to take those measures anyway. That is why the Government have announced a raft of measures, including the lengthening of trains and extra carriages, to help us build up the capacity that we need. Frankly, just to do that alone would be like trying to fix a broken leg with a sticking plaster. This is not an either/or. As the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) said, we have to do both.

The west coast main line took years to be upgraded, causing massive disruption, and is already creaking at the seams. The problem is much bigger and requires us to think bigger and prepare for the future. We have heard lots about business. I was delighted when I heard the Government go for the Y route, which recognises that the north is an important part of our economic prosperity, and not to do so would stifle the prospect of growth.

[Karen Lumley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that HS2 will bring many more jobs to the midlands, because it will relieve air congestion in London and make Birmingham international, which is under capacity at the moment and an amazing airport to travel from, accessible for a lot more people to use?

[Stuart Andrew]

Absolutely. The benefits for the whole country are evident. The north-south divide is a problem that has faced successive Governments. Clearly, we are not arguing that HS2 will solve that alone—of course, it will not—but greater connectivity between our cities, such as Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, to the rest of Europe can only help.

I want businesses in my constituency to enjoy having access to markets across Europe and the rest of the world. Transport links are crucial to making that happen. Too often, today’s network cannot cope. I recently went to Airedale International in my constituency. It is a high-tech industry that has just created a training centre. It is begging for high-speed rail, because it has a lot of business down here, but it has the skills up in the north. Why cannot we help it to expand to have both?

We often hear that High Speed 2 is a white elephant, but studies have shown that it will bring about £44 billion of economic benefit and 40,000 jobs, which is not to be sniffed at. I did not see that white elephant when the Thameslink benefit-cost ratio came in at 2.2:1, or when Crossrail came in at 1.92:1.

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

Can my hon. Friend say how much of the money found for the project will be public money, and how much will be private?

[Stuart Andrew]

I would have to get the exact figures from my right hon. Friend the Minister. My point is that what we get back from HS2 will be far greater. If we look at the Jubilee line, the original benefit-cost ratio was 0.95:1. When it opened, that became 1.75:1, which shows that Governments are usually conservative in their estimates of the benefits that we can get from infrastructure. I did not hear about the white elephant when all the infrastructure projects I mentioned—southern infrastructure projects, funnily enough—were suggested.

I understand why Members are supporting and standing up for their constituents—of course they will do that—but they have sent confused messages. They say that they are against HS2 on environmental grounds, yet some of them say, “Build more roads instead.” They say that they are against it on business grounds, yet they never opposed Crossrail or the Jubilee line. They say that they are against it because no one will use it, yet huge investment is needed in Euston station because it will not cope. We need to plan ahead and be bold, or in 10 years’ time Members of Parliament will complain in the Chamber that we did not make the decisions now to bring about the modernisation of Britain’s railways.

17:31

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I warmly welcomed the proposal for the High Speed 2 Y route when it was first introduced by Lord Adonis, and I congratulate the coalition Government on committing to the project. To be frank, today we have heard a lot of “economic” arguments presented by people who are really making political points about their constituency.

I say to the Government that some economic studies, such as that by PricewaterhouseCoopers, suggest that within three years of completion, the Government will be able to recoup their entire investment plus an extra £6 billion or £7 billion by passing the railway on to the private sector, but there are other economic cases that say exactly the opposite. Instead of clutching at straws, the Government have an obligation to come up with some sensible costings that are convincing.

I grew up in the Chilterns, and I understand the arguments that people from that region are making, but as someone who has not lived there for decades—I live in Yorkshire in the north of England—I have to say that the argument going on within the Conservative party about its heart and soul will be read as a debate between, on the one hand, one-nation Tories who want to invest in the future of the whole country and link it through new, modern, infrastructure, and, on the other, short-sighted southerners who frankly could not care less whether a railway goes beyond their county.

[Angela Smith]

I am still traumatised about having been described as a Manchester MP, because of course I represent a seat on the right side of the Pennines. The important point that my hon. Friend makes is that HS2 will help to bring the economies of the UK closer together. It will bring labour markets and businesses closer, and in that sense it is a catalyst for economic change and development. The points about economic cost are completely erroneous, and rather short-sighted and conservative.

[Hugh Bayley]

My hon. Friend has been a great champion of improving the rail infrastructure in Yorkshire and the north of England, and for connecting the north to jobs and markets in the south of England. We as British citizens have every bit as much right to be connected to our country’s capital—and, through the capital, to Europe—as people living in the south of the country.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Hugh Bayley]

I give way to the hon. Lady, as she proposed the debate.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. If HS2 is such a fantastic project, does he think that the private sector will finance it?

[Hugh Bayley]

That is a really good question, which I ask the hon. Lady to think about. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) made the same point, suggesting that the only test for whether there is an economic case is whether private investors would undertake a project on their own without substantial Government investment. Had that argument been applied to the building of the M40, the connection between his constituents in Wycombe and London, Birmingham and Oxford, it would never have been built. Exactly the same could be said with regard to the link between the hon. Lady’s constituency and London via the M1.

Big public transport infrastructure projects need political backing and leadership from Governments, and this project had it from the previous Government and has it from the current Government, which will give investors confidence. However, it will not get that investor confidence without Government cash. Had we not had the public investment in motorways in the ’60s and ’70s, just think out of the box about the economic state that our country would be in now. There are some local interests to be protected, which I understand, but the real test for the Conservatives now is whether or not they are going to speak for the whole country. I remind hon. Members that the Conservative manifesto stated:

“A Conservative government will begin work immediately to create a high speed rail line connecting London and Heathrow with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. This is the first step towards achieving our vision of creating a national high speed rail network to join up major cities across England, Scotland and Wales. Stage two will deliver two new lines bringing the North East, Scotland and Wales into the high speed rail network.”

I wish to make several points in the short time remaining. First, it is important that the high-speed wing of the “Y” that goes to Yorkshire and the north east leaves the line south of Birmingham, so that it can connect the three great east midlands cities of Leicester, Derby and Nottingham, through the Sheffield city region, to Leeds.

Secondly, it is essential that that line joins the existing east coast main line, which for some time will remain the link from Yorkshire to Scotland, south of York. The reason for that is partly self-interest—I am speaking as a York Member—and partly because York is a rail hub and the most interconnected station in the north of England, at least east of the Pennines. If we are to get feeder services, good connectivity with York is important.

Thirdly, the link to Scotland is extremely important, and the most viable first link should be from Leeds to Edinburgh and on to Glasgow, because that would provide connectivity with Tyneside and Teesside on the way, whereas pushing the line north from Manchester faces the environmental barrier of two national parks, and there are very few people, but many sheep, between Lancaster and Motherwell. I ask the Government to plan for the connection first to go through the east coast corridor.

Finally, it is not a case of investing in either the current infrastructure or High Speed 2. The country needs both and the Government must commit to both.

17:38

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

I understand that I must sit down promptly at 5:40 pm, so this will be a super-fast contribution. I should make it clear that, although I serve on the Transport Committee, the comments I am about to make are entirely my own, as the Committee is yet to conclude its inquiry and produce its report.

I have looked at a huge amount of evidence on high-speed rail, from the UK and overseas. My conclusion is that I am in favour of high-speed rail but not yet convinced of the specifics of High Speed 2. I agree that there is a case for a new strategic north-south railway line in this country. As other Members have mentioned, the capacity on the west coast main line and other strategic routes will run out at some point, even with upgrades. It is a false choice between upgrading those lines, which we need to do anyway to address the immediate capacity problems, and building a new high-speed line. Both are required. I do not think that we can defer a decision for another 10 years, because we will be having exactly the same debate then and enduring severe overcrowding for passengers and freight.

I would argue against just upgrading the existing line, which could be done effectively only at the exclusion of those intermediate stops on the line for commuter services to places such as Milton Keynes. Both are necessary; we cannot just look at upgrading.

I am not going to get through anything like what I wanted to say, but there are a number of areas where High Speed 2 has not been looked at in the round. At the weekend, we saw the proposal for a new “Heathwick” high-speed line to connect Heathrow and Gatwick, but that has not been appraised in the overall—[Interruption.] My Whip tells me that I must sit down now, so I shall conclude my remarks.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the Front Benchers that a very brief winding-up speech from the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) would be a courtesy and is customary on these occasions.

17:40

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

This has been a lively debate. We have had excellent contributions, with both sides of the argument coming from both sides of the House, and with opposite ends of the country making different cases.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing this debate and on the tenacity with which she contributed and intervened. She has crystallised one part of the “anti” argument, and on both sides a range of arguments has been played out throughout the debate, which has gone on for a number of years and will continue to rumble on. The hon. Lady crystallises the arguments of those on the “anti” side who simply do not accept the economic case and, if I may say so, will probably not accept any economic case that is made. Indeed, economic facts and figures are simply being talked past each other, and that is one of the problems that we have got ourselves into.

We have heard from Members, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who have expressed a genuinely held fear about the impact that the development may have on their communities, and we have heard from others, such as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), who raised fears for the natural environment, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said, they are not nimbys: if they stand up for their own areas, they do so because that is absolutely what they have been sent to Parliament to do.

On the other side of the argument, however, we have people making a compelling case and stressing the overwhelming benefit that the project may bring to UK plc. Scottish Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), stressed the importance of the project to Scotland, even on the existing proposals, and it was good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) make the case for the manufacturing opportunities that the project will bring at a parlous time for train manufacturing in the UK.

The hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) crystallised the vital argument about capacity, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) pointed to the studies that dispel the fear that the project will benefit primarily the south of England, stating absolutely rightly that it can bring the local economies of this great country closer together.

Labour in government delivered the country’s first high-speed railway. The Y-shaped route of High Speed 2, which would link our cities, is a Labour initiative, and I can state clearly today that that vital lifeline of economic growth will be built by a future Labour Government and backed by Labour in opposition. Provided that the Government’s nerve holds, we will work across the Floor of the House to secure parliamentary approval for the legislation needed to deliver the scheme, and if their resolve fails, we will be on hand to bring them to their senses.

We looked at our commitment afresh in opposition, and we were right to do so. This project will require sustained and substantial investment at a time when public finances will unquestionably be tight. We looked at the business case again, examined the counter-proposals, and listened to the sincere and heart-felt objections expressed alongside the views of passionate advocates of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Secretary of State, has travelled the proposed route talking to and listening to the communities that will be affected. Our conclusion is that the business case stacks up.

Of course we should debate the relative benefits of reducing journey time, though we believe they are clear, and of course we must continue to scrutinise the precise route. However, the capacity issues on the existing main lines are so great that we believe there is no credible alternative to building a new line. Closing existing lines to carry out improvements would bring chaos to millions of journeys and could be a real economic drag throughout the long and costly process. It is vital that we learn the lesson of the west coast main line modernisation programme. We will be failing future generations if we pass up the opportunity to employ the most advanced technology available.

It is because we have looked afresh at the programme that we can reaffirm our commitment to it as one that we began in government and will follow through. I look forward to the day in 2018 when—under a Labour Government, of course—we cut the first sod of earth on the project.

A consensus across the House is important to boost confidence, but we will continue to press the Government on serious concerns. First, of course, there is the route. The Government must listen carefully to concerns about the exact nature of the route and treat with respect the genuine objections raised, making accommodations where feasible and adequate compensation where not. Secondly, we must address the problems of connecting to the line, many of which have been raised today. I hope that the Minister will explain, for example, why the potential need for extra capacity at Euston has not been acknowledged. There are many issues on which I do not necessarily agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but he was right to question why Heathrow is being dealt with in a second stage and to raise the unsatisfactory nature of that approach for his constituents and for people wanting to know how these things will connect up.

Thirdly, there is a need for certainty about the line going all the way up to Leeds and Manchester. If the Government are genuine about extending it beyond Birmingham, they should not delay legislating on Leeds and Manchester until the next Parliament. We need one hybrid Bill covering both phases of the line. Yes, that Bill will be larger, but construction need not be delayed by a single day. We need certainty for investors and for the travelling public, and a single Bill would give greater certainty, not less.

Fourthly, we must ensure that the whole country benefits from high-speed rail. I have been encouraged by how businesses right across the north, including Barrow shipyard in my own patch, have been lobbying for this investment to happen. Finally, we must make this a high-speed line for the many, not the few. The Government need to put their cards on the table. What sort of railway do they want High Speed 2 to be? Labour Members are clear: we cannot have a railway for the wealthy few where sky-high fares deter the majority from being able to travel.

I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire for securing it. I have been pleased to restate Labour’s deeply held, unequivocal commitment to this project, and we look forward to working across the House to make it happen.

17:49

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

I welcome the extensive support across the House for the Government’s proposals and in particular the clear expression of support from Her Majesty’s official Opposition. My time is too short to refer specifically to everyone, but I would like to make special mention of my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who are in their places. Their exacting scrutiny of the Government’s proposals has been effective and I welcome their robust input into the debate. I also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), who is also in his place and who strongly supports this scheme.

I first emphasise that the Government fully recognise the legitimate concerns of communities along the preferred route about the potential impact on their local environment. That has been raised by Members such as the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson). About half of the preferred route that we inherited has been changed. In the sensitive Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, all but two miles of the preferred route is in a tunnel or deep cutting, or follows an existing transport corridor. I am confident that we can and will make further improvements as a result of the consultation responses that are under consideration as we speak.

I am also conscious of the enormous importance of getting the right answer at Euston. We will, of course, scrutinise carefully all the representations made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson).

[Dan Byles]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

I will not just yet, because my time is short.

HS1 is an example of how high-speed rail can be designed in a way that mitigates and minimises the impact on local communities. Equal care will be needed in phase 2 with the link to Heathrow. Again, we will be careful to listen to the concerns of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and his constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) spoke about the predictions of passenger growth for HS2. The consultation document forecasts that passenger demand will roughly double for long-distance services on the west coast main line, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). That projection is over 30 years and is based on modest growth rates of about 2% a year. If anything, those numbers are cautious when one takes into account the fact that demand between London and Manchester rose by almost 60% over the four years to 2008 and that overall long-distance demand has grown every year since 1997 at an average of 5% a year. There is a wide-ranging consensus, which has been echoed by many Members today, that the southern end of the west coast route will be completely full within 10 to 15 years, or possibly sooner as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond).

[Christopher Pincher]

Will the Minister say why she persists in using version 4.1 of the “Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook”, which Sir Rod Eddington says offers wildly inaccurate demand predictions? Why does she not use version 5.0, which is waiting on her desk for her to sign off? It offers much more reasonable demand projections and would allow her to pursue options other than HS2.

[Mrs Villiers]

We believe that version 4.1 gives a more robust analysis of passenger demand forecasts. I am confident that whichever methodology one uses to predict passenger demand, we face a capacity time bomb on the west coast main line. Even our efforts in undertaking the biggest programme of rail capacity improvement for 100 years will not be enough to meet our long-term capacity needs.

We desperately need additional inter-city transport capacity, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). No responsible Government can afford to sit back and ignore this problem. High-speed rail provides the best way to meet that pressing economic need. Contrary to the allegations of its detractors, HS2 is not and has never been a project designed to shave a few minutes off the journey time to Birmingham; it is about delivering the inter-city transport links that are crucial for the future success of our economy in this country, in both the north and the south.

[Dan Byles]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

No, I will not.

No upgrade of the existing railways is capable of matching the increase in capacity that HS2 will deliver. A fundamental problem with the alternative schemes is that they rely on upgrades of the existing line. By definition, they cannot release any capacity on the existing network. The release of capacity is a fundamental part of the benefit that can be provided by HS2. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey pointed out, the alternatives are simply sticking-plaster solutions. Of the alternatives formally considered, only one had a positive benefit-to-cost ratio. The solution put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire of tinkering with first and second class is simply not credible; nor are the 51m proposals, which have not been adequately costed, do not take into account the massive cost of signalling remodelling and cannot deal with a peak-time crisis. Furthermore, trying to defuse the capacity time bomb with any kind of work on the existing line would involve extensive disruption, as was pointed out by the shadow Minister, and that would come not long after the people on this route had to put up with a decade of disruption for the last upgrade of the west coast line.

Concern has been expressed that our analysis does not take account of the fact that time on a train can be used productively. However, stress-testing our business case figures shows that factoring in productive time on trains actually slightly strengthens the case for high-speed rail. The additional capacity provided by HS2 would enable more people to get a seat and get some productive work done on a train. What is more, failing to deliver a new line would lead to ever more serious overcrowding problems, making it even more difficult to work on a train. The fact that Stop HS2 keeps making the point about work demonstrates the overall weakness of its argument.

[Dan Byles]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

No.

A fundamentally weak point put by the opponents of HS2 is the claim that it will disadvantage the regions that it will serve. That is startling when one thinks of the vigorous campaigns fought around the world by towns and cities desperate to connect to the high-speed rail networks that their countries are building. It is no surprise to hear of those campaigns when one takes on board the fact that Euralille has the third largest office complex in France, beaten into second place by Lyon’s Part-Dieu TGV station with its 5.3 million square feet of office space—economic development that would have been entirely impossible without the high-speed rail network in France. Survey work undertaken in relation to the TGV network clearly showed that the regions it served, rather than Paris, had experienced the greatest boost in their economies. It is simply not credible to claim that the north and the west midlands will be disadvantaged by high-speed rail, as evidenced by the strong support for the project in those areas.

If we need evidence of the startling benefits that transport links can bring, we have only to walk 30 yards from the Chamber to Westminster tube station and get on the Jubilee line extension. Now one of the biggest financial centres in the world, Canary Wharf simply would not exist without the Jubilee line extension. The benefits of high-speed rail will be felt right across the north and midlands, with a boost to the whole country’s economy.

I reiterate that our assumptions about the viability of HS2 and the expected fare box do not factor in or depend on a premium for high-speed services. Our appraisal is based on fares in line with the existing services. In response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire, the level of fares on Southeastern has absolutely nothing to do with HS1; neither do the performance issues on that route.

It is clear that in the longer term, the benefits of high-speed rail will exceed its construction costs, but the reality is that if we examine the scale of the project and average out the cost over the years it will take to deliver it, we see that it is by no means out of line with projects such as Crossrail. The claim that the rest of the rail network would be starved of funds if HS2 went ahead is undermined by the fact that the Government are committed to delivering the largest and most extensive package of rail capacity upgrades since the Victorian era, a number of which will carry on into the period during which HS2 is expected to be under construction.

Finally, I refer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), who rather let the cat out of the bag. If arguments such as his had been accepted, we would never have built the channel tunnel, HS1, the Jubilee line extension or the motorway network. Not even the Victorian railways on which we still depend would have been built, because although they were built by the private sector, the people who built them lost their shirts and largely went out of business.

The Government’s two most important goals are to address the deficit and to secure economic growth. Improving our transport infrastructure has a central part to play in delivering those goals, and we believe that high-speed rail can and should have a central role in our transport plans for the future.

17:58

[Andrea Leadsom]

I congratulate the many colleagues who have spoken in this debate, and I am sorry for those who wanted to speak and did not. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles), who was instrumental in securing the debate. I am sorry that we did not get to hear from him.

I reiterate that I think we can all agree that there is a massive capacity problem not just on the west coast main line but across our entire rail network, and it is absolutely right that the Government should consider ways to improve capacity, rail infrastructure and economic development across the UK. However, I go back to the fact that HS2 is not a “build it and they will come” project. We should not look at a £32 billion expenditure as something that we can just do on the hoof and expect the return to come. There has been plenty of anecdotal evidence today—so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that—but I have heard no hard evidence that HS2 will be good value for money. This is not our money; it is the taxpayers’ money. As my right hon. Friend the Minister so eloquently said, let us hope that we, like the Victorian railway owners, do not go bust and lose our shirts over it.

18:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Business without Debate

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

Business of the House (19 October)

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 19 October, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motions in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day; proceedings on the Motions may continue, though opposed, until the moment of interruption and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply—(Bill Wiggin.)

Anchor Housing Association

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Bill Wiggin.)

18:00

[Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this debate and thank those organisations, particularly Age UK, that since the schedule was announced have sent me a good deal of relevant background information.

At a time when figures show that those aged 65 and over in our country number 10 million and that the figure is set to grow to well over 16 million by 2035, the consensus seems to be that long-term care in this country is in crisis and has been for some time. We see continuing concern about Southern Cross and more generally about how we get funding right for a group with considerable needs and to whom we owe an obvious duty of care. The Government recognised that when they committed a further £7.2 billion to the delivery of social care in the four years to 2014-15. I know that the Government intend to release a White Paper next spring and have before them, among other evidence, the recommendations of the Dilnot commission, the Law Commission and the Health Select Committee regarding failings in the Care Quality Commission. However, following a recent experience in my own constituency, I would like to add one more small set of recommendations, to place alongside those weighty reports, as the Government wrestle with this extremely difficult set of issues.

After boundary changes before the 2010 general election, I inherited an area of Dewsbury where Anchor housing association has run a sheltered housing complex for more than 30 years. Barnfield houses 51 elderly—in some cases, very elderly—people, the vast majority of whom express themselves as happy to be there and say that they want to stay in what they have been led to regard as their home for life. Throughout the past three years, for instance, occupancy rates have been over 96%, which seems to underline how popular a place it is. Several of those 51 residents have lived in the complex for the whole 31 years of its existence.

At a week’s notice, however, in the middle of August, residents were called together and told that Anchor was reviewing the future of the complex in view of the projected capital expenditure needed to bring facilities up to modern standards. The truth is that Anchor wishes to wash its hands of the establishment and, by definition, of my 51 constituents. Two options were outlined: first, closure and, secondly, the transferral of ownership to another social landlord. Although the latter was very much its preferred course of action, residents were left in no doubt that if efforts along those lines failed, they would have to be found alternative accommodation. I was not at the meeting, but I am reliably informed that many residents started to weep at this news. Resident Mike Neville described the meeting addressed by Anchor’s Andrew Railton, the charity’s head of operational transitions—whatever that means—as

“without warmth, concern or compassion. A shocking way to do things. Anchor’s slogan is ‘happy living for years ahead’. This is meaningless marketing language to the people of Barnfield”.

I have since met the residents of Barnfield three times. They remain shocked and angry, especially as Anchor gave itself until November—three whole months —to tell them of their fate. However, having overcome the initial shock, residents have not taken things lying down. The estimable Mike Neville approached my office and, with Chris Allinson and Sandra and Ken Garfield, has liaised with us throughout. Residents presented a statement to Anchor outlining their wish to remain in situ and, with varying degrees of success, have attempted to contact members of the Anchor board and senior management. They have been supported throughout by local clergy—in particular, Rev. Tom Hiney, Rev. Ann Pollard and Rev. Lisa Senior. Residents have also continued to benefit from the support of the live-in warden, Jan Crabtree, and her husband. As an Anchor employee, Jan has been placed in an invidious position as a result of a decision in which she had no part. Residents have told me how much they continue to value her care and attention.

When I finally met the chief executive of Anchor, Jane Ashcroft, she was happy to apologise for any distress caused to my constituents, but felt that the meeting—which she had not attended any more than I had—had been properly conducted by her colleague and could give no assurance that residents would not have to move out if a buyer for the complex could not be found. At my request, she later provided me with financial figures and supporting documentation that convinced me even more that Anchor’s decision to leave Barnfield had nothing to do with its stated reasons for review. The complex has high occupancy levels and appears to be self-sustaining financially.

We must ask, therefore, why a charity and the largest social landlord in the country should treat its residents—including some who suffer from mental health problems—in such a fashion, putting their well-being and perhaps even their life chances at risk. Why are the very people whom the charity claims to be serving the very last people to be considered? Indeed, many questions need answering, some of which were put in a hard-hitting article by our campaigning local newspaper, The Dewsbury Reporter, not least of which was: where has the money paid in rents and service charges over 31 years gone? That is especially important because as recently as May this year, couples such as Mr and Mrs Thorne were being admitted to the complex. As a couple in their 80s, they then had to spend more than £4,000 of their savings to have the property rewired and brought up to liveable standards.

Anchor refused to answer any of those questions, but did produce a statement pointing to its responsibilities as a charity—responsibilities, it would seem, to everybody except my constituents, the very people whom Anchor is supposed to be in business to serve. However, in using the word “business” we are perhaps beginning to get to the nub of the problem. I have no doubt that Anchor has taken a strategic decision in the interests of its business to pull out of establishments such as Barnfield. We may never know when that was decided or by whom, but it was certainly before the matter was broached with Barnfield residents on 9 August.

The decision also appears to have been taken without the benefit of any consultation, and not just with residents but with our local authority, Kirklees, with which Anchor is supposed to work in partnership on such matters. The strategy may make perfect sense for the charity as a whole—although some openness about its real objective would have allowed us to know that—but what is unacceptable is to achieve that goal at the cost of enormous worry and uncertainty to that group of vulnerable elderly people. In the absence of being consulted or considered, they are owed much more than a rather easily produced apology; they are owed an explanation.

Based on this experience, which I have no reason to believe is unique, may I put it to the Minister that charities and third sector organisation should be judged by the results of their actions, just as the management of Southern Cross should be? They appear to need every bit as much regulation and oversight as those that are engaged in this sector primarily to make money. It would appear that, if they are not careful, charities and not-for-profit companies can become just as divorced from the people they are supposed to serve as the most rapacious money-making outfit, and, in this regard, I think size matters.

In my view, organisations such as Anchor have long since reached the tipping point beyond which their prime considerations, while perhaps understandable by their own lights, have less and less connection with the needs and wishes of their own residents. They exist for the good of the charity as a large and complex organisation with a turnover of millions of pounds per annum, and not necessarily for the good of those to whom they provide services.

I want to ask the Government to consider capping the size of social landlords, preferably at about half the size of Anchor as it is constituted.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Wood]

I will not, at this moment.

Will the Government also place a responsibility on the reformed Care Quality Commission to work especially closely with providers that, through longevity and acquisition, have long since lost sight of whom they operate to serve? Will the Minister also ensure that social landlords make their strategic plans public, so that they are open to scrutiny and can be tested by the CQC, the Charity Commissioners, local authorities and, most importantly, residents and prospective residents and their families?

In essence, we need elderly people to be treated with respect. My constituent Lawrence Tomlinson, the owner of Ideal Care Homes, has shown that first-rate facilities can be provided in the care home sector while ensuring a good return for the owners of those homes. I saw that for myself when I visited Lydgate Lodge in my constituency only last week. But, as with the other elements in our care of the elderly, provision is very patchy. As recommended by Dilnot, we must get rid of the postcode lottery and establish a national framework for eligibility, as favoured by the Law Commission.

Lastly, I believe that we should examine seriously the case for a Cabinet Minister for older people—ironically, as advocated by Anchor in its Grey Pride campaign. The care system is in crisis as the size of our elderly populace grows, yet I must point out, without being too unkind, that the responsibility for improving the situation is spread haphazardly over several Government Departments. It is unclear whose job it is in Government to defend the interests of elderly citizens, just as it was unclear who was responsible for looking after the good of the residents of Barnfield in the vast charity that was supposedly helping to care for them.

The Minister is not yet the Minister for the elderly—[Interruption.] He appears to be making a bid for the job, and I would certainly support such an appointment. I hope that he will be able to give me at least an initial view on these few practical suggestions for improvements in the care for our elderly citizens that we all want to see.

18:14

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) on securing a debate that is important both for general policy and for the specific concerns of his constituents. I also congratulate him on the careful and thoughtful way in which he presented his case. By responding on both those points, I shall endeavour to do the best justice I can to it in the time available.

I would like to start with the more specific issue of the position of Anchor. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, Anchor is a large provider—one of the leading providers of housing for older people. It has met those people’s needs for some 40 years, delivering a variety of products. As has been said, it is a registered charity, which makes it independent and non-profit-making. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is responsible for making its own business decisions, so the scope for Government intervention is generally constrained by the law relating to charities. Equally, however, Anchor must adhere to Charity Commission guidelines and, as a private registered provider, to the guidance of the social housing regulator—the Tenant Services Authority.

As I understand it, and as the hon. Gentleman fairly set out, Anchor has come to a view about its involvement with Barnfield for the future and has set out options for the residents. Its preferred option is to find another provider to take this development on. Let us hope that that is the solution; it would be for the best, enabling Barnfield residents to remain in their homes. It is worth noting that Anchor will need to apply to the regulator for consent to do so. That will not remove the uncertainty that I appreciate is playing on the minds of the residents. If it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, I had a similar case with a much smaller charity in my own constituency before the general election. It had been going on for some time. I understand people’s feelings, because I met the constituents involved in that case.

Anchor is required to obtain the regulator’s consent before disposing of the property. It is up to the regulator to decide to grant consent, and it is normal policy to withhold consent for the disposal of property unless that disposal is to another social housing provider or to the tenants. There are some safeguards; one cannot prejudge any particular case.

In view of the hon. Gentleman’s comments, it is worth observing that the regulator also requires providers to engage in meaningful consultation with the relevant local authority and with tenants before seeking consent for a disposal. Housing associations registered with the regulator are also required to consult tenants if it is proposed to change their landlord or make a significant change in the management arrangements. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents might wish to consider that in the context of contact with the TSA.

There is also a regulatory requirement to have in place a procedure for dealing with formal complaints. If, having completed that process, residents remain unhappy, they have the right to raise a complaint with the housing ombudsman. It then becomes a matter for the ombudsman to deal with. Areas of maladministration that fall under the ombudsman’s remit include, for example, failure of a body to apply its own procedures, failure to comply with legal obligations or codes of practice, unreasonable behaviour, or having treated the complainant personally in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner. That might be relevant; I, of course, have to be independent.

That is the position, so it is worth reflecting on the fact that steps have to be gone through before a disposal can be taken. I understand that Anchor is contacting residents at regular intervals, and I hope that is the case. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is closer to the ground there than I am.

The broader point is well made, given that we all get older. Whether I would be better qualified to be a Minister for elderly people by virtue of my greater experience in comparison with other hon. Members might have been the cause of some merriment. I believe we all want to maintain our independence and to keep our own home. I have an 87-year-old mother, and I know exactly what her view is.

[Tracey Crouch]

I recently initiated an Adjournment debate on older people in Westminster Hall, during which I drew attention to the acute pressure on housing for our older generation. Given that that pressure will become a great deal worse, will the Minister consider the constructive suggestion that some flexibility should be applied to the new homes bonus? That might well give developers an incentive to ensure that older people are catered for specifically in the future.

[Robert Neill]

That is an interesting idea, and this is not the first occasion on which I have heard it raised by my hon. Friend and by people in the sector. I will convey it, along with a number of other suggestions, to the Minister for Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who will consider what is the most appropriate action.

The complexity of the system often makes choices difficult, but the Government are helping by supporting the provision of information and advice. In May I announced funding of £1.5 million for FirstStop, which offers expert advice to older people, their families and their carers on housing and associated care and money issues. It is a national service, delivered in partnership with specialist providers and local partners. One of the coalition’s aims is to give people access to better information. “The Coalition: our programme for government” includes the commitment to

“help elderly people live at home for longer”,

which may involve their staying in the family home but may also mean a move to more suitable accommodation.

We must ensure that there is enough suitable accommodation, and to that end we have embarked on a number of policy reforms. We expect to deliver up to 170,000 new affordable homes between 2011 and 2015—an increase on our original estimate of 150,000, including 80,000 under the affordable homes programme. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), we have also introduced the new homes bonus, which is a much more transparent incentive. We want to ensure that local authorities have sufficient flexibility by “un-ring-fencing” funds in response to local needs.

We have announced that we will raise right-to-buy discounts to make buying more attractive to tenants who want to stay put. However, we are determined not just to fulfil residents’ aspirations for home ownership, but to ensure that every home bought under the right to buy will fund a new affordable home, over and above our existing plans. That, along with a number of other matters, will be included in the housing strategy. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take a particular interest in the way in which it deals with the sector that he has raised tonight.

We know that we must encourage the provision of a wide range of accommodation to suit the changing needs and circumstances of older people. The hon. Gentleman has made a number of thoughtful suggestions. As I have said, there are examples of good practice among charities of varying sizes, but we must nevertheless be alert to risk, and I think that the Charity Commission and other regulatory bodies provide the appropriate means of dealing with that. We want results that will ultimately benefit those receiving the provision.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that capping size is not necessarily the answer. What is important is ensuring that charities are responsive. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has expressed a desire to encourage greater transparency in the social housing provider sector as a whole, and I hope that that will deal with the hon. Gentleman’s specific points.

Question put and agreed to.

18:24

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Thursday 13th October 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 13 October 2011

Home Department

Thursday 13th October 2011 Ministerial Corrections

British Nationality

[Mr Offord]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints against British citizens alleged to have been active Wachmänner guards during the Second World War her Department has received in the last five years.

[Official Report, 5 April 2011, Vol. 526, c. 809W.]

Letter of correction from Nick Herbert:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) on 5 April 2011.

The full answer given as follows:

[Nick Herbert]

We have no record of any such complaints being received.

The investigation of criminal offences, including those under the War Crimes Act 1991, is an operational matter. Arrangements are in place within the Metropolitan police service for investigating allegations of war crimes in liaison with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and other agencies as appropriate. All agencies take the investigation of war crimes seriously and these arrangements remain under review to ensure that they continue to be effective.

The correct answer should have been:

[Nick Herbert]

In the last five years, the Home Department has received one complaint in respect of alleged Wachmänner guards.

The investigation of criminal offences, including those under the War Crimes Act 1991, is an operational matter. Arrangements are in place within the Metropolitan Police Service for investigating allegations of war crimes in liaison with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and other agencies as appropriate. All agencies take the investigation of war crimes seriously and these arrangements remain under review to ensure that they continue to be effective.

Petition

Thursday 13th October 2011 Petitions

Thursday 13 October 2011

Spring Gardens Care Home (Otley, West Yorkshire)

Thursday 13th October 2011 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Leeds,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that Leeds City Council should act now to stop the closure of Spring Gardens care home in Otley; notes that the home is the only council run home in the Otley catchment area; also notes that most of the residents are in their 80’s and 90’s and the closure of the home would severely disrupt their lives;

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Leeds City Council to take the necessary steps to stop the closure of Spring Gardens care home

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Greg Mulholland, Official Report, 12 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 860.]

[P000956]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Health:

The issue referred to is for the local council concerned and I am asking Leeds city council to ensure that the views of the petitioners are taken into account when making their decision.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 13th October 2011 Westminster Hall

Thursday 13 October 2011

[Mr Mike Weir in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Thursday 13th October 2011 Westminster Hall

The Riots

Thursday 13th October 2011 Westminster Hall

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

14:30

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

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

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing me to secure the debate. The riots in early August took place in many parts of the country, but the images that many will long remember—the House of Reeves furniture store on fire, Monika Konczyk jumping from a first floor window—were images of my home town. It is good to see the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) here. We represent different parties in this House. He may not agree with everything I have to say today, but we are united in our determination to uncover the facts about what happened on that night, and to see something positive come from the ashes at Reeves Corner and along the London road in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) has asked me to put on record his apologies for not being here; he is abroad on Foreign Affairs Committee business.

On 11 August, the House had just over four hours to debate what happened in many parts of London and in some of our major cities. Many hon. Members, including some whose constituencies were affected, did not get to speak. Although the work of the Riots, Communities And Victims Panel and the Metropolitan police’s own internal review are still ongoing, two months on we have a much clearer picture of what happened, what the appropriate lessons are for public policy and what still needs to be done.

I want to start with the issue of who, or what, was responsible. Much media coverage in the immediate aftermath of the riots featured the term, “feral youth”. The implication was of a lot of teenagers on the rampage. There was also a lot of discussion about whether this was a direct result of the very difficult decisions that the Government have made in relation to public spending.

Talking to my borough commander, and having had the opportunity to review much of the CCTV footage in Croydon, it is clear that there was a significant degree of organisation—it was not just a spontaneous protest. According to figures from the Prince’s Trust, 19% of those in London who have been arrested are known gang members. Undoubtedly, a number of others who were arrested are involved in gangs, although that involvement may not yet be known to the police. Data published in September by the Ministry of Justice showed that, of the 1,715 who came before the courts by midday on 12 September, 73% had a previous caution or conviction, and the average number of offences that they were guilty of was 15.

On the age of those responsible, the Ministry of Justice figures for the whole country show that 21% of those who came before the courts were under the age of 18. Some 52% were under the age of 21. The figures that I have obtained from the borough commander in Croydon show that the age profile of those involved in the offences in Croydon is significantly older. Just 15% of those arrested are under the age 18, and only 38% are under the age of 21. The picture given that it was just teenagers who were responsible for these offences is therefore highly inaccurate. I think that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to regret the demonisation of a whole generation of young people.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is building a powerful case. Does he agree—he has already presented some figures—that those involved in the riots in London, as with the disturbances in Gloucester, were mostly people with previous convictions or warnings? Although there is much to be done to highlight opportunities, especially employment opportunities, we should not confuse the treatment of one with work on the other. Responsibility is key.

[Gavin Barwell]

I agree. Both are issues, but we should start with the individual responsibility of those involved. I will come on to develop both of those points during my speech.

The first lesson is the importance of tackling gang culture. My starting point on the issue is that this is not just a matter for the police. We cannot simply enforce the problem away. We also need to offer a way out of gangs to young people, many of whom may have felt pressured, in terms of their own safety, to get involved. We need to work with the local communities that are suffering from this problem to ensure that they are involved in bringing peer pressure to bear on those who are involved. There is a lot in the Centre for Social Justice report, “Dying to belong”, which was published in February 2009.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is talking about breaking gang culture. Does he agree that young people tend to be drawn to gang culture largely because of a lack of good role models in the community, a poverty of aspiration and the lack of social mobility in our country?

[Gavin Barwell]

Those are all factors. We could also look at family breakdown, and particularly a lack of male role models across the piece. As I said, the CSJ report has compelling analysis about what leads people to get involved. I look forward to the Government’s statement, which, the Minister may confirm, should be made in a couple of weeks’ time, on how they intend to respond.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I commend the role that he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) played during the disorder. As he knows, the Home Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry and is coming to Croydon on 21 October. Has he had an opportunity to look at the evidence that Bill Bratton and the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner gave to the Select Committee on Tuesday, when there was a comparison between gang culture in this country and in the United States? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that could be helpful, as we try to fashion an acceptable way of dealing with the problem?

[Gavin Barwell]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I have not had a chance to see that evidence. When I leave the Chamber, I will look at it. It is important to look at what has been achieved elsewhere in the UK and abroad to deal with these problems. I will now try to make a bit of progress, because I want to allow all the hon. Members here to contribute to the debate.

The second lesson is one that the Secretary of State for Justice has set out clearly: it is about changing how our prisons operate in order to tackle the issue of reoffending. Clearly, many of the people who were involved in these disturbances had been through our prison system, and it did not do anything to change their pattern of behaviour.

On the police response, the briefing that all London Members have received from the Metropolitan police tells us that there were 3,380 officers on duty on the Saturday, 4,275 on duty on the Sunday, 6,000 on the Monday when the disturbances in Croydon took place, and 16,000 on the Tuesday. It then, with commendable honesty, states:

“Were adequate resources deployed”

over the weekend and on the Monday?

“With the benefit of hindsight the answer would have to be no.”

I think that all hon. Members who represent London constituencies would share that judgment.

The third lesson for the Government is clearly that police numbers matter. Yes, the police cannot be exempt from the need to save money to deal with the deficit that we have inherited. Yes, we can do much, much more to ensure that more police officers spend their time actively and visibly on patrol on our streets. At the end of last year, however, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said:

“I don’t think anyone…would make a simple link between the increase in the numbers of police officers and what has happened to crime. There is no such link.”

When the riots broke out, the response of the Government and the police was a two-and-a-half-fold increase in the number of police officers on the streets—and it worked. The Government are right to say that numbers are not the only game in town, but they are clearly an important part of it.

The performance of the police from Tuesday 9 August onwards was significantly better. I had the pleasure—on the Tuesday, when the Mayor of London came to Croydon—to meet the person who is now the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and was enormously impressed with a pep talk that I overheard him give to a number of officers who went through a very difficult time the night before. A much more robust approach from the police, in terms of breaking up groups of people who were attempting to form, is what prevented further disturbances from happening. It has also been enormously important to see police officers proactively going out, knocking down doors and arresting suspects in the early hours of the morning. It is important that the people involved in the disturbances do not feel, and their friends and neighbours do not feel, that they won—that they beat the police. The robust approach that we have seen since then is important.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

I ask this question as the chair of the all-party group on retail and business crime. A lot of retailers feel that crime against their shops is seen as a victimless crime. Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot of people who were committing these crimes felt that they were committing a victimless crime because in the past sentencing had not been robust enough?

[Gavin Barwell]

I will come on to sentencing in a second, but anyone under the illusion that those crimes were victimless should consider the experience in Croydon. As I am sure the right hon. Member for Croydon North will say, the devastated shops were not those of the major multinational businesses but of small businesses—family businesses on one premises—often owned by members of the black and minority ethnic community. The crimes were absolutely not victimless.

As of 10 October, 2,819 arrests had been made throughout London and 1,700 people charged. The cost of that operation so far to the police in Croydon is £1.4 million. Clearly, the police face a difficult time on budgets, so who will pay for that? On 11 August, the Prime Minister said on the Floor of the House:

“the bill for the Metropolitan police force for the past few days will be large and, if they continue to deploy in those numbers, it will get larger and the Treasury will stand behind that.”—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1065.]

There is still uncertainty in the Metropolitan police about where the money is coming from, and I hope that the Minister will provide reassurance.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

As well as the policing costs, under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 responsibility for uninsured losses falls on police authorities. Even if insurance claims are paid, the insurers who have paid may recover their loss from the police authorities. Two days ago, in the House, that figure was estimated to be £330 million. Does that not add some force to my hon. Friend’s point?

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend has real expertise in the area and he makes a powerful point. We need reassurance on both those issues. I will now make some progress, if hon. Members will permit me, because I want to allow time for everyone present to speak in the debate.

The Metropolitan police estimates that in London alone there are more than 20,000 hours of closed-circuit TV to view. That gives rise to a lesson and to a question. The lesson is the importance of CCTV. There are legitimate civil liberties concerns—no Member would want our country covered in surveillance cameras—but CCTV has played a crucial role in bringing people guilty of offences to justice. I was much encouraged that on 11 August the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary made more positive noises about the contribution that CCTV can make. I understand why the Government wish to ensure that, when a system is introduced, the proper checks are made, but I will be grateful to hear from the Minister that the Government recognise the important contribution that CCTV can make to deterring crime and catching criminals.

My question concerns the police estimate that it will take nearly 12 months to review the remaining evidence. The Government must ask whether it is reasonable for such a review to take that long. If not, the Met police will need assistance from outside London, not to patrol the streets as they did in the immediate aftermath of the riots, but to get through all the evidence.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Barwell]

I will, for the last time, but then I must make progress.

[Heidi Alexander]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing the debate.

In Lewisham, the borough commander tells me that he has a team of 25 police officers currently reviewing some of that CCTV footage and investigating the riots. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the potential impact on other policing in the borough, given the amount of resource dedicated to that?

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. For a few weeks after the riots, the public understood the need to concentrate all resources on the operation but, clearly, carrying that on for a whole year would impact on other areas of police work.

The next issue I want to refer to is the crucial one of intelligence. Crimestoppers has made a great contribution. The police will say that they were receiving intelligence from people who would not normally provide it. In the two weeks before the Conservative party conference, however, I visited every school and sixth-form college in my constituency, to talk to young people about their attitudes. On the vast suite of issues, their views were similar to those of my middle-aged and more elderly constituents, but on one issue there is a difference: their attitude towards the police. Young people of all backgrounds, but in particular young black men, do not have confidence that the police are there and on their side. I am in my late 30s, and it seems to me that the police have moved on a long way from the situation when I was growing up, but it is clear that a significant problem remains. The police must ensure that they win the respect and trust of the people they are policing. Policing in this country is based on the principle of policing by consent. At the moment, that consent is not there from crucial sections of the community that they need to police.

In Croydon, as in many other areas of the country, there was a huge public response, which was seen in the clean-up afterwards and in donations of money to help rebuild the House of Reeves store and some of the other damaged properties. Since the riots, I have seen more than 60 people in my surgery who have had ideas for projects to work with young people and to stop such events happening again. Government and local government must ask how we co-ordinate that upsurge of good will and ensure that some of those projects come to fruition.

I also wish to touch on the issue of bringing those responsible to justice. First, I want to praise the courts for the speed of their response. Court staff, some of whom may well be made redundant over the coming months as a result of the savings being made, went above and beyond the call of duty to ensure that the courts processed cases quickly. There must be a question for the Ministry of Justice about whether that swifter process of justice can be maintained so that those who have committed violent crimes are taken to court sooner, rather than after often long delays.

The Ministry of Justice research tells us that those who committed offences during the riots were more likely to receive an immediate custodial sentence and a longer sentence than if they had committed the same offence a month earlier. I spent much of the summer defending that sentencing approach against various eminent lawyers on TV and radio, because it has done much to restore faith in our criminal justice system. I quote what his honour Judge Andrew Gilbert, QC, said when sentencing defendants at Manchester Crown court:

“The people of Manchester and Salford are all entitled to look to the law for protection and to the courts to punish those who behaved so outrageously. It would be wholly unreal therefore for me to have regard only to the specific acts which you committed as if they had been committed in isolation...Those acts were not committed in isolation and, as I have already indicated, it is a fact which substantially aggravates the gravity of this offence. The court has to pay regard to the level and nature of the criminal conduct that night, to its scale, the extent to which it was premeditated, the number of persons engaged…and finally…the specific acts of the individual defendant…For the purposes of these sentences, I have no doubt at all that the principal purpose is that the Courts should show that outbursts of criminal behaviour like this will be and must be met with sentences longer than they would be if the offences had been committed in isolation.”

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

I entirely agree with those sentiments, but does my hon. Friend accept my view that sentencing should and must remain an issue for an independent judiciary, whether courts or magistrates? The bigger concern was that some of the exemplary sentences in the immediate aftermath were being egged on by the political class or the press, and it would be a retrograde step for justice to be meted out in that way and not left firmly in the hands of those who are experienced in sentencing matters.

[Gavin Barwell]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Decisions on individual sentences must be for judges and magistrates. It is reasonable for us as Members of Parliament to reflect in generality the views of our constituents, but the individual decisions must remain with judges and magistrates.

I wish to comment on some figures from my borough commander about the impact on crime resulting from that sentencing approach. If we compare Croydon in the period of 17 July to 14 August—including the day when the riots took place—with the period of 15 August to 11 September, property crime is well down, as we would expect because a huge number of property offences were committed on 8 August, but violent crime is down by more than 20%. That seems to show clearly that we are offered a false choice on crime and punishment, between those who argue for a tough punishment and that prison works and those who say that it and rehabilitation do not work and that people come out and reoffend. It seems to me that both those things are true: removing dangerous, violent people from the streets gives a break to the law-abiding and leads to a reduction in crime, but we must also reform our prisons so that they do a more effective job of rehabilitating people and changing their pattern of behaviour.

Finally, I want to turn to some of the underlying issues and come back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). It is important that Government and Opposition politicians reflect on some of their long-held views. When I listened to the statement and the debate on 11 August, some argued that the disorder was purely a matter of criminality and moral failing, while others argued that it was all about inequality and unfairness in society. It seems to me, again, that both arguments have some merit.

Clearly, there are issues about parenting and a lack of fathers. As a man, I certainly feel that there is a real role for making the case for the responsibility that men have, if they were present when the child was conceived, for the rest of that child’s life.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gavin Barwell]

I need to make a little more progress, because I am conscious of time.

Clearly, we need to be careful about generalising. Several of my friends were brought up by single mums who did a great job, so we must not demonise any class of parents. There is, however, an issue about a lack of fathers and definitely an issue about people witnessing or experiencing violence at home. The WAVE Trust report in 2005 pointed that out strongly. There is a great community group in Croydon called Lives Not Knives, which works with ex-gang members, and I sat in one of its seminars about a month before the riots and listened to four ex-gang members, all of whom had either personally experienced or witnessed traumatic violence at a young age. There is a clear link between that and violent conduct later in life. I welcome what the Government are doing to address problem families and community budgeting. More could be done to promote fostering and adoption to take young people out of the care system, and clearly we must address educational disadvantage, exclusion and truancy.

I shall end by mentioning three issues to which I do not have a solution, but are relevant to the debate. On youth unemployment I obtained figures from the Library showing the trend in general unemployment versus youth unemployment over the past 20 years under Governments of all political complexions. In 1992, youth unemployment was two thirds higher than general unemployment. By 1997, it was double general unemployment; by 2001, it was 140% of the general unemployment rate; and in 2005, it was 165% of the general unemployment rate. We must address the other factors that are making it much harder for young people to find work in our society, relative to the general population.

We must also address the culture of materialism in society, which is one factor behind the behaviour we saw. It is clear from the situation in Croydon that there is an inextricable link between gang culture and the drugs trade. We must address the issue of how we deal with illegal drug use in our country.

I do not pretend to have answers to all the problems, but the emerging evidence of what happened throughout the country in early August has clear lessons for public policy. I look forward to hearing the contributions from other hon. Members.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

Order. As many hon. Members want to speak in the debate, I encourage brevity.

14:51

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on a subject that has rightly attracted a great deal of attention and comment. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing the debate, and on his speech, which demonstrated a thoughtful, serious and insightful analysis, almost all of which I agree with—I hope that that does not embarrass him.

The three issues that I intend to cover are the causes of the riots, the immediate response by the police, emergency services and other public authorities, as well as the general public, and longer-term considerations, including measures that might help to prevent a repetition.

I shall start with the causes, and the factors that contributed to the worst outbreak of civil disturbance that the country has experienced in at least 30 years. In the immediate aftermath of the riots, we heard some over-confident and sometimes simplistic analyses of the causes. The hon. Gentleman rightly illustrated the fact that the extent to which people wanted to blame it entirely on criminality, or entirely on social and economic factors, was wide of the mark. Clearly, some people involved were criminals with previous convictions, and some of the activity was straightforward criminality. The extent to which many criminals descended on a retail parade in Charlton when they received a message that it was unprotected and open seemed to suggest straightforward criminality. It was certainly an orgy of looting.

That leaves the question of why the outbreak of theft should have occurred on that particular occasion. What was the trigger that prompted the multiple incidents in London and other cities during the period 6 to 9 August? Similarly, it is too simplistic to attribute the riots only to social and economic factors, even if it remains true that in general the more deprived areas bore the brunt of the rioting. In my constituency, Woolwich probably has the greatest deprivation, and it was the epicentre of the rioting, whereas more affluent areas such as west Greenwich were largely unscathed.

In trying to understand why the riots occurred, I spent some time reviewing the evidence, including some revealing CCTV footage from Woolwich town centre. I watched it with our police borough commander, Richard Wood, and I suspect that I went through a similar process as did the hon. Gentleman, who undertook a similar review of the evidence with his borough commander.

The CCTV evidence from Woolwich makes it clear that the incidents that occurred in the early part of the evening of 8 August, while groups of youths were gathering in and around General Gordon square, which is the heart of Woolwich town centre, could be categorised generally as antisocial behaviour. However, from around 8.15 that evening, the mood changed, and within a short time a police car had been attacked and set on fire, a public house had been looted and set on fire, and a large-scale riot had begun to take root. It caused extensive damage to other premises in General Gordon square, as well as adjoining Powis street and further away on trading estates along the Woolwich road into Charlton as far as the Greenwich peninsula.

In my view, the change from a potentially problematic display of antisocial behaviour to a full-blown riot occurred when the group of young people who had gathered in the area realised that the police did not have the numbers or capability to stop them. Within a very short time, from their understanding, the police were powerless to prevent disorder, and the situation in Woolwich and the surrounding area was out of control.

I want to stress four specific points. First, the London borough of Greenwich had not suffered the disturbance that had affected other areas, such as Tottenham and Lewisham, on the previous days, and there had been no serious incidents or riots early in the evening of 8 August in Woolwich, so under existing procedures—within the Metropolitan police in London and more widely with other police authorities—for mutual aid, some officers were withdrawn from the borough of Greenwich to provide assistance elsewhere. That is why police numbers in Woolwich were inadequate to cope with the riot when it took place. I want to make it clear that that was not a local failure, but it reflects on the arrangements applying throughout the Metropolitan police area because there were simply insufficient police to contain the riot when it kicked off in Woolwich.

Secondly, I referred to the people gathered in and around General Gordon square as youths. That does not mean that they were predominantly young people. Yes, some juveniles were involved, and some young people under 18 were arrested and charged, but in my judgment the majority of those involved were over 18, and were probably in the age bracket 18 to 25, although some were older. There were some shocking images of people who should have been exercising a mature influence clearly egging on other rioters and benefiting from the chaotic situation.

Thirdly, those involved in the riots, and those who were consequently charged with criminal acts, came from different ethnic backgrounds. The Greenwich and Woolwich constituency is a diverse community with representatives of many different ethnic groups. That diversity applied equally to those involved in the rioting. It is not the case that one single ethnic group was responsible or even disproportionately involved.

Fourthly, those involved in rioting did not seem to come disproportionately from one location, one part of London or one particular type or tenure of housing. It is important to understand that.

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

Has my right hon. Friend given some thought to the suggestion that some people should be evicted because of their involvement in the riots? I know that his borough has taken a particular stance on that, and I wonder whether he has any comment to make on it.

[Mr Raynsford]

I entirely understand that if someone has been guilty of trashing their home, their estate or the area immediately surrounding where they live, it would be appropriate under normal procedures for action to be taken to seek possession of their property because of their behaviour, but a different issue arises if people who have been charged and even convicted of a criminal offence are then deprived of their tenure when they would not be so deprived if they had been convicted of such an offence outside a riot. In the example that I gave, if someone stole some DVDs or videos from an electronics shop during a riot and was, as a result, subject to possession proceedings, it would send an odd message if that applied in that case, but not in the case of someone who had been convicted of stealing videos from an electronics shop in other circumstances. That seems to be the nub of the problem. Tenancy laws must be applied, and they must be applied in relation to the tenancy and its surrounding area, not used as a second means of punishing people who should be punished under the proper processes of the law.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, in some cases, councils have talked about using eviction laws to punish a whole family where just one person has been involved in rioting? One case, which was announced soon after the riots, involved a mother and her younger son being threatened with eviction because the 17-year-old son was involved in rioting some distance from the home. The mother and her younger son were entirely innocent, but the younger boy was going to be made homeless as a result of something his older brother had done.

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend raises an important and complex issue. I hope she will understand that so as to keep my remarks brief I will not go into detail, although she may wish to refer to it in her speech. It is clearly problematic if an attempt to use tenancy law is applied to a wider range of people, including the family of the tenant in question, who have to respond in relation to a particular criminal activity perpetrated by one individual. That area requires thoughtful, rather than knee-jerk, reactions.

[Mr Mark Field]

rose—

[David T. C. Davies]

rose—

[Mr Raynsford]

I see that I am not succeeding. Will hon. Members please accept that I wish to be brief? I do not want to take up too much time because other hon. Members want to contribute. I have said as much as I wish to on that particular subject, and I will move on because I have other points to stress.

As I said, there was no indication to suggest that the rioters came from one particular location. However, the hon. Member for Croydon Central, and his colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks), might be amused at one potentially misleading piece of evidence that I gathered quite early on. I came back from my holiday on 9 August, and one of the first things I did was ask my borough commander for evidence of who was responsible for the disturbances and where they came from. Having checked the people in the cells in Woolwich, he told me that a disproportionate number appeared to come from Croydon. There is a simple explanation for that. Croydon is not full of criminals who converged on Woolwich; rather, their presence reflects the fact that the riots in Croydon occurred earlier in the evening. Once the cells in Croydon were full, the police—quite properly, given Met procedures—used custody suites in neighbouring areas, and cells in Woolwich were used to accommodate a number of people from Croydon.

That is an important lesson in the potential misuse of statistics, and I cite it for that reason. One should be careful to dig down beyond initial, superficial statistics, and understand what lies behind them. I hope that the hon. Member for Croydon Central will forgive me for casting that aspersion on his constituents.

Let me turn to the immediate response to the riots. The situation on Tuesday 9 August was transformed by the deployment of large numbers of police officers in Woolwich and the other parts of the capital affected, and in other areas of the country. Throughout the day, I was bombarded with texts predicting all sorts of problems and threats to various places. I was told that the O2 Centre and Greenwich park were to be attacked, and that various other landmarks in the area would be targeted. That was a measure of the electronic media world in which we live; communications are fast and such rumours can spread quickly. However, although the rumour mill was working overtime, in reality none of those places was trashed or attacked. The presence of large numbers of police completely transformed the situation, and on 9 August, and on subsequent days, there was calm in London. It was not calm elsewhere, and I am aware of problems in other cities, but in London the deployment of the 16,000 police officers, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, had the crucial impact of deterring further trouble. I hope that the review being conducted by the Metropolitan police will reflect on that and make appropriate recommendations.

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

My right hon. Friend is being generous with his time. The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) made a point about the immediate response to the riots being inadequate in terms of police numbers. Those of us who represent constituencies in Manchester and Salford were particularly annoyed that not only were police numbers inadequate to respond to the disturbances on that Tuesday evening, but 100 of our best trained officers had been sent to London. That was one of two major mistakes. The second was that our riot police—in Manchester, the tactical aid unit—are geared up not for highly mobile rioters, but to defend space and property. They need retraining for a different kind of riot.

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and that issue needs to be considered fully in the evaluation of what happened and in the police review. I hope that the review by the Metropolitan police will reflect on the deployment of appropriate numbers of officers with suitable skills and the ability to cope with such situations, and ensure that we are never again exposed to the risk of a rerun of the events of 8 August.

In Woolwich, and throughout London, we saw the determination of large numbers of our fellow citizens to reclaim their streets. In Greenwich, the local authority, police and other emergency services acted swiftly and efficiently to clear the mess, shore up and secure buildings damaged by fire and looting, and get back to normal as soon as possible. In Woolwich last weekend, we were proud to welcome the 2nd Battalion, the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment on parade in General Gordon square as a clear symbol that Woolwich is back to business as normal. I hasten to add that the military was not there to enforce law and order; it was a purely ceremonial parade by a regiment that is based in Woolwich, and we are proud to have it with us.

What about the longer-term implications of the disturbances? I am not one of those people who fears that we may experience more riots in the immediate future. Apart from the obvious lessons to be learned about police numbers, we should reflect, as the hon. Member for Croydon Central has done, on the effectiveness of CCTV. Those images played a hugely important role in identifying many of those involved in the riots and providing evidence to support prosecution.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that those who are nervous about the civil liberties implications of the use of CCTV should reflect on that position. CCTV has played a crucial role over the past two and a half months, and continues to do so. The certainty of conviction is a powerful deterrent, and all those who have seen the number of people identified, charged, brought to trial and convicted as a result of that evidence should reflect on the likelihood of the same thing happening again should the disturbances be repeated.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I support the right hon. Gentleman’s comments as CCTV has played a fundamental role in the detection of those terrible crimes. I have been involved with the police in looking at crime in my constituency of Stourbridge, and it has been incredibly difficult to obtain CCTV coverage for any area, despite criminal activity being quite high in a particular location.

[Mr Raynsford]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point about her constituency, but I hope she will forgive me if I do not respond because it is clearly a different situation from that in Woolwich.

Although to some extent we can be satisfied at the degree to which those responsible for riot, disorder and theft in early August have been brought to justice, we cannot be complacent and we should not ignore warning signs for the future. As I have stressed, we cannot simply blame what happened in August on economic and social factors, but it would be foolish to ignore the truth that widespread unemployment among young people creates a climate of despair and alienation in which those affected may be more vulnerable to influences placed on them and pressures to get involved in criminal or gang activity.

As I have described, in the lead-up to the riot in Woolwich, we saw a gathering of young people who clearly had nothing better to do than hang around the town centre. That powerful image sends a message about the importance of finding more constructive activities for young people in our society. The Government must give the highest priority to reversing the disastrous rising trend of unemployment among young people.

Yesterday, I attended the annual awards ceremony for the Young Builder of the Year. We heard inspiring stories of young people from difficult backgrounds who had overcome huge obstacles to learn the skills and the work ethic necessary to train and succeed in the construction industry. We need to do far more to extend such activities, but sadly, as one of the Youthbuild UK sponsors at the event pointed out, the scope for taking on more young people and extending those training opportunities that have proved so successful is severely limited in the present climate. In particular, he highlighted the loss of the future jobs fund, which has been a major source of opportunities for such people. There are therefore important lessons for the Government to learn from this.

We must also improve opportunities for young people under 18 through youth and sports clubs, so that they can get involved in constructive and healthy activities, rather than possibly being sucked into the fringes of gangs and criminal groupings. Earlier today, I spoke to Councillor Jackie Smith, cabinet member for children and young people in the London borough of Greenwich. She emphasised that the council is seeking to maintain youth services in Greenwich against the background of deep cuts in its budget.

The importance of that issue cannot be over-emphasised, and one point that I want to make in conclusion really reinforces it. Today, I spoke to Naomi Goldberg, who runs Greenwich Action for Voluntary Services, the co-ordinating body for the voluntary sector in Greenwich. It recently conducted a survey among voluntary organisations in the borough, which highlighted a stark difference between organisations working with young people and other voluntary groups in their perception of their relations with the police.

Twenty years ago, the borough had a serious problem with racist crime, which culminated in the killing of Stephen Lawrence. It has been a long, hard fight to improve community relations and relations between the police and ethnic minority groups, but there has generally been significant progress. Relations between adult groupings and the police are generally much better, but as Naomi Goldberg told me today, there is no such confidence among organisations working with young people.

The hon. Member for Croydon Central made the point, which I strongly reinforce, that if we allow young people and the organisations working with them to continue to feel that they do not have a constructive relationship with the police, we will store up all sorts of problems for ourselves. Against the generally positive background of improvements in relations between the police and the community, that is a stark reminder of the importance of tackling this issue, and I hope that the review of the riots being conducted by the Metropolitan police will pay attention to it.

We all have lessons to learn from the rioting in early August. I hope that the debate continues to reflect the wide-ranging experience of different Members and is informed by real understanding of the causes of, and the factors behind, the riots, rather than by some of the rather over-simplistic rhetoric that we heard in the immediate aftermath. If so, I hope we can really tease out the lessons to be learned and ensure that there is a constructive response.

15:12

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing the debate. When we compare the contributions so far with the debate in August, it is clear that they reflect a different mood and the thought that has gone into the issue since the riots.

I am conscious of the time, so let me briefly profile the two evenings we experienced in Enfield. I was fortunate—that might sound odd—to witness first hand much of what happened on the first evening. The damage on the Sunday—the first so-called copycat riot—essentially affected the main high street in Enfield town. We should have a clear understanding of what the borough of Enfield is like, because it is not, in its entirety, a typical old-fashioned suburban area. Indeed, some wards have the highest levels of deprivation in Europe. Equally, and strangely, however, many of the incidents took place in the market town area of Enfield town, which is regarded as more prosperous. The high street was completely damaged, and we lost many of the retail stores that one would usually expect to see, including, sadly, a department store that had been trading in the area for more than 35 years, which had its whole frontage damaged.

The arrest data originally pointed to a 50:50 ratio between people from inside and outside the borough. I am, however, conscious of the need not to mislead Parliament, and I should say that this is still a moving picture. Indications suggest that the ratio between people from inside and outside the borough is more like 60:40. However, it is an interesting dynamic, and perhaps the most notable journey undertaken by someone who came for the riots was from Twickenham, which is, of course, on the other side of London.

The youth and adult data are becoming particularly prominent in our discussions. Based on the arrest records, it looks as if about 22% of the offenders who were arrested in Enfield were under 18, but I will say more about that later, if I may.

On the cost, there was not just the immediate cost of the damage. Parts of the borough, which saw riots early on, on the Sunday, closed down early for the following 10 days out of a fear of repeat damage. That meant that traders experienced an extended period of lost business. However, the biggest damage was to our reputation in Enfield. The one thing many people will not forget is the damage to the 250,000 square feet Sony warehouse in the north-east of the borough, which burned for more than a week after the riots. Sadly, that has put at risk up to 250 jobs.

The good news is that the community response to the riots has been nothing short of spectacular. In my discussions with Sony, it has demonstrated a genuine commitment to try to stay in the local area, using its skilled work force. Given the crisis management that it would have needed after the riots, that demonstrates a remarkable leap of good faith, and we hope that it will be successful in its plans to stay.

As regards what we saw on the streets of Enfield, I was enormously impressed by the response from the community. Enfield actually opened for business while riots were still going on in other parts of the country. As a result, community cohesion benefited. I was enormously impressed with the community’s leaders, who came together to work with and support the police in the aftermath of the riots. The general relationship between the police and the public, who were very much in evidence in the morning following the riots, has proved a real bonus to the town.

I should draw attention to access to finance, and I have a question for the Minister. Can we have an update on how much finance victims of the riots, including the businesses that suffered, have accessed? The proportion of victims in Enfield who have accessed finance is currently extremely low. Our neighbourhood and business community showed grim determination in getting on with things and opening as quickly as possible, although I accept that, aside from what we saw at Sony, the damage we suffered was nothing like that suffered in the constituencies of Members representing Croydon. However, it would be useful to know where we are on access to finance.

I may be agreeing with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), and I hope that will not embarrass him. I have shifted my opinion slightly. I was firmly in the camp that saw these events as pure criminal behaviour, and I hope Members will understand why. Anyone who stood with residents on the streets and witnessed gangs of marauding thugs trashing the town and people’s gardens before jumping into their souped-up cars clutching their loot to drive away and cause more damage elsewhere would understand people’s intense anger. I shared that anger, and I believed that what we had seen was nothing less than pure criminal behaviour, but I accept that, when one looks at these things in context, there are other issues to address. Indeed, I will be happy to address them shortly and, I assure Members, briefly.

In my discussions with the police, we identified three types of rioters. There was the G8 rioter—the person who was, as far as we could tell, probably behind much of the social media organisation. They came simply to trash the corporate stores and lay waste to businesses, however small or large. The police tell me that there was also an element who were simply there for a fight with them, and that is what sparked the serious events, such as the overturning of a public disorder van carrying a number of police—actually, they did not quite overturn it, but they certainly trashed it. Then there were the looters. However, among those were many people who were caught up simply because they were present. Gracia McGrath, the chief executive of an early intervention charity, Chance UK, said:

“Let me put it in context. If you are 10 or 11 years old, and you go out on the streets not knowing whether or not to join it, and you see adults, some of whom you know (mothers, learning assistants and postmen have been amongst the people arrested so far) setting fire to property, looting and throwing stones at the police, why would you think it was wrong?”

I thought about that comment, and I think there is significant truth in it. Young people who were involved were initially entirely demonised but, considering the context of what they witnessed being done by so-called responsible adults, I have tempered my views, and I believe that we have much more work to do in early intervention programmes to secure the future for some younger children than I first thought. I acknowledge that.

Nevertheless, hon. Members will understand that I welcome the stiff penalties that were given. There is no question in my mind but that anything less would have been an invitation to do more of the same. I accept the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) that it is entirely up to the courts to undertake the sentencing process. If hon. Members feel that some sentences were extreme, the due process of appeal will deal with that. It is not for politicians or others to interfere.

I am a school governor and have seen that there are children who have a family background that would not be recognised by anyone in this Chamber as a family. I have become acutely aware of the link between such backgrounds and the growing trend for youngsters to get engaged in gangs. It does not surprise me that there is evidence to suggest that some co-ordination, rioting and looting happened in areas affected by gangs. At the moment, gangs will sometimes look to primary school children who have no sense of order, boundaries or discipline in their homes—such as they are. The gangs offer an alternative environment for them. The work that the Government are now focused on, to deal with gangs in early intervention programmes, will bring major, significant improvements to our country in the next few years.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interesting and thoughtful analysis of some of the root causes of the summer riots. We were grateful that there were no riots in my constituency, but I urge hon. Members not to forget that many of the factors identified as underlying causes of riots are still present in places that did not riot. Early intervention and other programmes should be considered on a nationwide basis, and not simply in reaction to events.

[Nick de Bois]

I thank the hon. Lady; it is all too easy to focus on areas where there were riots, and not to recognise that there may be issues elsewhere.

I welcome the work of Enfield council, where a cross-party team has been put together to try, essentially, to answer the question “Why Enfield?” Why was Enfield one of the areas hit by riots? Why did the participants choose to riot, and what was the make-up of the group of rioters? The youth offending service is undertaking excellent work with those who have offended, by talking to them and asking them those simple questions—not remotely or on paper, but in one-to-one interviews. That information will be made available to the Enfield council cross-party group, which I am sure is looking forward to seeing it.

I still think we must be patient to understand fully what went on. There was tremendous unwanted and criminal behaviour, which should have been punished. The context—and I welcome the tone of today’s debate—is that we are right to examine a little deeper the causes of what happened.

15:25

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) for initiating the debate, and for the manner in which he made his remarks. I, too, agree with most, though not all, of what he said, and I am sure that that does not embarrass him. It is a good thing that the House can come to some agreement about the issues.

I hope that hon. Members will recognise that for the constituency of Tottenham this has been the most disturbing of summers, and I want to make my remarks in the context of what the riots mean for our country as a whole. For any constituency to experience two riots within a generation is a major tragedy—not just for that constituency, but for the country. When I was 13, I was growing up yards from the Broadwater Farm estate, and for me it has been poignant and stressful to represent the constituency 25 years later. I know what it is for someone to grow up in Tottenham, and to fill in double the number of application forms, because they must fill in the N17 or N15 postcode and are worried that they will not get an interview as they are from Tottenham. A huge stigma attached to my constituency for many years. Indeed, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) ran against me when I was first selected for the constituency and she will recall that in 2000 that stigma remained.

I think that, despite much deprivation and poverty, before August this year most people, when they thought of Tottenham, thought of the football club and whether it was staying or going, not of the riots, so it is particularly tragic for the constituency that they happened. Many people have asked me whether things have changed and are moving on. Of course, there is tremendous resilience in the people of Tottenham. I might say, as a son of Tottenham, that there is tremendous resilience in me. However, there is obviously deep frustration, anger and fury that the riots should have happened. It is right to express my constituents’ concern that the riots might not have needed to happen, which brings me to the incident that started the summer of unrest—the death of Mark Duggan in the Tottenham Hale area of my constituency.

If there has been any success in policing in our country, and in most developed countries, in the past 20 to 25 years—this is a matter beyond party allegiance—it has been down to the innovations behind community and neighbourhood policing. I am proud of my party’s record in bringing that forward, but it is something that, across political parties, we cherish and want to encourage.

The real tragedy of what happened at the beginning of August was a total breakdown, it seems to me, in community policing. We had an Operation Trident incident that the local police did not know about. A young man lost his life, and his family found out about it on television. All of us who are parents know that there is that fear—

15:30

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:45

On resuming—

[Mr Lammy]

Before the Division, I was talking about community policing—its successes, but also a breakdown that I think happened in this case. A Trident operation was taking place in Tottenham Hale in my constituency. It is not clear at this stage what that operation was about or why it chose to enter into what led to firearms being discharged in a busy traffic area at the height of commuter time on the Thursday evening before the riots.

I am deeply concerned that many London MPs—indeed, MPs across the country—have got used to a scenario in which they tend to be more comfortable with local police with local intelligence and connections. However, if police come into their area for any kind of operation, they are far more nervous. Often, when things do not go according to plan, that involves officers coming into the area. In looking at the matter—I know that there are several inquiries—we need to reflect on how operations beyond a local area can use local knowledge and intelligence. I do not know the circumstances of the operation or why it took place, but clearly it led to the death of Mark Duggan.

[Mr Mark Field]

I accept some of the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman has put into mind. We all appreciate in London that community policing needs to be by consent, and there were clearly issues in the case. However, another aspect of communication was lacking in the Tottenham case, something he might come on to.

A deep concern for many of us present is that, almost at a mendacious level, the Metropolitan police, through its communications department, put out only part of the story. The rumour that went round was that there had been an exchange of fire, which clearly was not the case. If that had been an isolated incident, we might have put it to one side, but as we all know, there were similar issues regarding the death of Jean Charles de Menezes on 22 July 2005. That is a deep concern, beyond the usual suspects of those who might be concerned about police behaviour. There is a sense that, all too often, the police try to get across a communication with a spin approach in relation to activities in which tragic deaths occur. That all too often begins to unravel rapidly, with the terrible results that we saw in August.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. With great sadness, I say that, for the first time in many years, there is a strong sense of “them and us” in communities such as the one I represent. It seems that the Metropolitan police is unable not to close ranks or not see briefings on a particular incident filter out before the facts have been properly and independently assessed. Of course, for those who were looking on at the incident—this was in a place with busy traffic, and many people were in the local area—the account that they picked up in the initial radio and television broadcasts and the papers the next day did not accord with what they themselves had seen. Immediately, in the hours that followed, there was a trust deficit and a breakdown of the sense of policing by consent, whereby the community and the police work side by side and recognise that, in any organisation, things can and do go wrong, and individuals can make the wrong judgment. Of course, I do not pass judgment on what happened.

Then we had the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which has sought to apologise for its press office briefing in which it was said that Mark Duggan had fired a gun. It turned out that that statement was wholly premature and wholly untrue. My community needs to believe in the IPCC after the catastrophe that was the Police Complaints Authority. Mistakes such as that statement are catastrophic for that trust.

All of us who are parents know that feeling when our children leave the house: we have this paranoid sense that something is going to go wrong and we think: “They are not going to come back. Somebody is going to knock on my door.” Every parent who experiences the death of a child deserves a better service. The fact that things did not happen in the appropriate way is surely something that shames us all. This family found themselves stuck in the middle. The local police say, “It is not our responsibility. We have to back off now.” The national organisation says, “Is this our responsibility? Are we meant to do this?” The following day, after the liaison has not gone appropriately, people find out from the television what has happened, and rumours begin to circulate because of a disjunction between what communities saw and what is being briefed and said. There is a peaceful protest outside the police station, which is not unusual in the context of my constituency and other constituencies in London when someone dies following police contact. The appropriate senior officer is not there. It takes some time to get someone there, then answers are not forthcoming in the way the family expect and want. We know what happens as a consequence.

The Metropolitan police understand that there must be an inquiry on the matter to see what led up to the riots. The IPCC is also inquiring into those initial few hours and what role they played. The consequence of the actions has been huge.

I, too, have sat with the deputy borough commander and looked at the footage of what took place in Tottenham on that night—that was at my request. The scenes that I saw were some of the most depressing I have ever witnessed. I have sat with families who have been victims of knife crimes and I have done some inquest cases that involved some horrific things, but the scenes that I saw were depressing. I expected to see anger and frustration on the faces of some of those who were attacking Tottenham high road, but instead I saw joy and happiness. That is why it was so depressing.

I was categorical in my condemnation of what we saw in Tottenham on that Saturday night and Sunday morning. There can be no excuse whatever for the large-scale arson that we saw in London. The fact that no one is dead as a consequence is truly amazing. We saw 56 properties burn to the ground and 50 families lost their homes and all their possessions. Young children are still experiencing nightmares as a consequence of what happened and independent shopkeepers, the vast majority of whom have migrated to this country, again face financial ruin as a consequence of riots. That is totally unacceptable. People who get up every single day to go to work had their businesses burned to the ground. I caution those who rush to make excuses for this kind of behaviour because it is wholly unacceptable and we must remain firm on the choice that people have to make.

We had a debate earlier this week about some of the underlying causes of gun violence. I remember a difficult period in the late 1970s and early 1980s when young people such as me had a choice about whether to get caught up with the mob. I made my choice back then and I stand by it now. I will not, 25 years later, change my mind about the difference between right and wrong when it leads to such loss for ordinary, decent, hard-working people. The attack on the community and the police was ferocious. I saw scenes on the video that looked a bit like Grand Theft Auto. Young people were lining up trolleys to barricade themselves away from the police. Extinguishers were thrown at the police and a gun was pulled on them. We saw people casually setting fire to buildings.

When I was rung by the police on the Saturday evening and told that a car was burning outside the police station, my first response was to wonder why the car was left in the way that it was by the police. I then hoped that the fire would be put out quickly. A second car was set on fire, then a bus was set alight. I wondered why the initial policing was not there, because Spurs were playing and there was a huge police presence in the area.

What took place across the rest of the country in the days ahead was mirrored in the London borough of Haringey. The Tottenham retail park was looted for hours and no police were present. When the manager of Comet showed me the photographs and the CCTV footage of what took place, it was clear that there were more people in his shop that night than are ever there during the day. Although the lights were off, it was like Christmas day because the lights from people’s mobile phones could be seen. People were looking for goods and helping themselves. The place had nothing left in it by morning, and that is one of the biggest and most successful Comets in the country. We do not need to talk about JD Sports; that had the same image in the Tottenham retail area. Wood Green, one of our important shopping areas in north London, was totally ransacked for hours and hours.

What happens when good, hard-working people who live in those areas see no policing? Bad news is the consequence. Young teenagers who may never have been involved with the police get caught up. The same is true of those who are in their 20s, which was the profile of many of those who were arrested. This cannot be the formula for proper policing by consent. As MP for Tottenham, I understand the consequences and issues of that night. I have to raise million of pounds to regenerate the area. Who will provide that money?

I am pleased, of course, that the Mayor of London has allocated initial funds for the riot area, but the irony is that the two areas of London that were bidding to become enterprise zones were Croydon and Tottenham. The reason that we spent most of last year fighting each other to get an enterprise zone, and demanding of the Mayor that we get one, is that the scale of regeneration necessary in Tottenham, even before the riots, was on a par with that in other parts of the country that have seen far greater regeneration. I am talking about Salford and parts of Manchester, parts of Birmingham and the Olympic area. Tottenham will need a far bigger story than the neighbourhood renewal that is being proposed. I believe that the community in Tottenham deserves that regeneration. We need jobs. I need the other half of the BBC. I need some major back-office Departments or quangos. Tottenham deserves that, Edmonton deserves it and the wider north-east London area deserves it. I hope that the community will now get it.

[Katy Clark in the Chair]

There has been some suggestion that if Spurs stay in the local area and renew their ground, that will be enough. Of course it will not be enough. I want Spurs to stay in the area, but a football club cannot possibly be the anchor of regeneration in an area that is struggling so much, such as Tottenham. There are big questions about the policing, and therefore about what the regeneration response will be as a result of the damage that was caused.

I want to raise a couple of other issues in relation to the broader issue of policing with consent. The first is that I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to police with consent if the police do not reflect and look like the community that they serve. I hope that hon. Members will understand that I am not talking now in a sort of old-fashioned, socialist, equal opportunity kind of way. I am talking about pragmatic policing and how to police a busy urban area. It cannot be acceptable that, despite the advances that have been made, we have 32,441 police officers in the Met and only 867 of them are from a black or black British background. Just 4.7% of the police officers in the country are from ethnic minorities.

We all know London and we all recognise that there are boroughs in London, such as my own, where more than half the people in the community are from an ethnic minority background. If we are not to walk down the road that America has walked down—with armed police—and if we are to maintain our model of policing with consent, what does that consent really feel and look like? And how can we accelerate this process? It will take a lot more than good will and fine rhetoric. It will take some serious, positive action to get a move on with the kind of numbers that we now need if we are to protect the integrity of a police force that does not routinely carry guns.

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It might surprise him to know that a lot of police officers—maybe even the vast majority—would thoroughly agree with him on that point and would desperately like to see black and Asian members of the police force, as I would myself, but some of the responsibility lies not with the police, who have thrown open their arms and said that they want this change, but with leading and influential members of the black community in parts of London. We need to encourage them to go out and say, “The police force would welcome your application and it really wants you to join,” because that is the reality. The police feel that they are not getting support from those influential members of the black community. I hope that we will get it soon.

[Mr Lammy]

This debate is rather circular, because the hon. Gentleman will understand that the kind of summer that we have had and the run-up to it have not done a great deal to encourage the very young people I need to join the police force to go out and do so. Nevertheless, I lay bare the scale of the problem.

Many of us here today will have landed in cities in America, looked at the police force and the local community, and thought, “Wow! I wish we had that here!” If it can be done on the streets of New York, it can be done here. That is what we need to learn from Bill Bratton, who has come to town. The same thing must be done here or I am afraid that our whole policing model will become very hard to maintain.

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

I agree entirely with the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. However, in relation to New York, does he know whether there is evidence that the better representation of black and minority ethnic communities, for instance in the police force, automatically leads to more effective policing by consent?

[Mr Lammy]

Of course, serious issues remain for all police forces, particularly those policing urban areas, but at the heart of the discussion, as other hon. Members have said, is trust. I was a very young man and lawyer when the first round of debate about stop and search happened, and here we are—25 years later—still having that same debate. When will we put it to one side?

Let us look at the figures. Young black people are stopped and searched at seven times the rate of young white people, and some are stopped at 27 times the rate of young white people, particularly where there is a section 60 order in place. There is a section 60 order in place in my constituency. That issue is very real. I am not suggesting that we should abandon stop and search. It seems to me that those who argue for the abandonment of stop and search need to stop and think. The No. 1 issue that young people are raising in London is knife crime, and against that backdrop of course we must have stop and search. It is patently obvious that to keep young people feeling safe on their way to and from school, we must stop and search, but we must do it intelligently and with a police force that the broader community trusts. That is why the figures that I have cited in relation to the ethnic minority profile of the police are so crucial.

In addition, I am hugely critical of the decision effectively to downgrade stop and account, and stop and search. I still believe that when a police officer stops and searches someone, they should put down the name of the person that they stopped and they should certainly put down whether there has been any injury or damage as a consequence. I sat on the delegated legislation Committee dealing with the changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code and stop and search, and I listened to the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice make arguments about bureaucracy, but I say to the Government that those are precisely the issues that undercut trust in the fact that stop and search can be done intelligently. That is leading to real antagonism among young men, particularly young black men in London.

I have been stopped and searched. I was stopped and searched during the last general election.

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

Wasn’t your rosette a giveaway? [Laughter.]

[Mr Lammy]

I was not wearing my rosette on that occasion; I had taken it off. I was stopped and searched. I was not happy about it, but I understood. Obviously, I opened my mouth to speak, although I did not say who I was because I wanted to see how it would pan out, and it was okay.

Stop and search is a reality of communities such as mine, but it must be done with trust. I am also concerned about the officers who are doing it. If we are to have a Met, I want young people—I do not care what their colour is, actually—who have grown up on the streets of Hackney, Peckham, Camberwell, Tottenham and Kensal Rise in our police force. I do not want a police force that effectively consists of young men and women who have grown up anywhere but in London. I must say that too many officers come from far-flung areas, which means that the relationship-building process with communities is problematic.

[Gavin Barwell]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what is wrong is not the policy per se, but a lack of empathy and understanding on the part of young people of what it is like to be a police officer and to have to approach a group of young people and stop them? More importantly, as he says, there is a lack of understanding among police officers who are not local to a community about what it is like to be someone who is stopped every time they go out at the weekend and to see a lack of respect in the way that that is done? The problem is not the policy per se, but the way it is being applied.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman puts his point well. In a civilised country, a burden always lies on the majority, and some of what we say in such a country relates to how the minority are treated. I have met young men—good young men—at university. I asked two young men who run the youth group at my local church whether they had been stopped and searched. One had had a good experience; the other had had several experiences that were not so good and had left him embarrassed and demoralised in relation to his local community. The differentiation that one needs to make in a complex, multi-layered, multicultural, multiracial London of subcultures takes local knowledge and understanding, and we need to face up to that truth.

There are questions about why the rioting took place on the scale that it did, against the backdrop of 460 people having died as a result of police contact since the IPCC was set up and not one police officer having been convicted. I ask hon. Members to think about those statistics and about why a community such as mine finds it extraordinary that, following Mark Duggan’s death in August, measures were not put in place to anticipate the worst, given current levels of unemployment and the fact that too many young people were out on the streets with nothing to do.

It is important that I qualify my use of “young people”. When I speak to my secondary schools, not one of their young people has been arrested, and when I look at the profile of arrests, there is a tiny proportion of under-18s.

When someone gets well into their 20s, I believe that they account for their own behaviour, so the caricaturing of young people that I saw this summer and some of rhetoric about race made me deeply ashamed to be part of this country. It was so sad to see us slip back to the sort of discourse we saw in the 1980s. I was disappointed that major national shows such as “Newsnight” could get their presentation of the issues so badly wrong. Let me say in this House to David Starkey, “How do I sound? I sound English because I am English, thank you very much.” For one of our historians to be allowed to question me in the way that he did was a disgrace, and it undermines the importance of the debate and the 20,000 young people sitting at home in my constituency, wanting to do what is best, but worried and anxious about what is going on. It is for those young people that I hope we all play our part in properly regenerating Tottenham, ensuring that there are opportunities and a growth strategy. We cannot have a constituency with the highest unemployment in London left to sink when bankers and others are bailed out.

[Katy Clark (in the Chair)]

The previous Chair asked Members to keep their contributions brief. The Member who has just spoken took more than 30 minutes, so I, too, ask Members to speak for a shorter time.

16:13

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

I will endeavour to follow your strictures, Ms Clark.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing this important debate, and I want to say that it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who so effectively articulates his community’s frustrations about what happened there.

I wish to use this opportunity to again express my condolences to all those who lost loved ones in the rioting. The rioters’ behaviour was unacceptable and without justification, much of it driven by gratification, or greed—the right hon. Member for Tottenham said that he saw smiling faces during the events. Much of the rioting was conducted with total disregard for people’s safety. I had the chance to visit Croydon shortly afterwards, and the arsonists there clearly had no regard whatever for the people living above the shops to which they chose to set fire. They had absolutely no idea whether people were in the flats, and I hope that they are severely dealt with.

I commend the performance of individual officers and of the emergency services generally. I am sure that Members will have received briefings from a range of organisations. The Local Government Association briefing refers to the London fire brigade’s receiving nearly 2,200 calls from the Monday to the Tuesday of the riots, which was about 15 times its usual rate. The fire brigade had to attend fires in many places around London; the clear intention of the arsonists was to draw the brigade in, with the police to back it up, so that they could then move on to commit their crimes elsewhere.

I commend also the work of local authorities, many of which responded immediately and were able to clear up the damage to such an extent that people walking through the streets the following morning were not so aware of what happened the night before and, finally, I commend my local police. My borough commander, who is about one year from retirement, never expected to be leading a baton charge down Sutton’s High street. He effectively dispelled those who intended to cause trouble in our town centre.

Many aspects of what happened rightly need to be subjected to scrutiny. The right hon. Member for Tottenham mentioned the initial incident involving Mark Duggan and its handling by the Metropolitan Police Service and the IPCC. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to say more about that incident because it is under investigation, but one aspect of it that distresses me is that there does not seem to have been a great appreciation of the history in Tottenham. That history seems to have escaped many of the parties that one would have thought would have been aware of it and more sensitive to the need to deal with the matter very carefully.

The availability of officers with level 2 public order training needs to be looked into. In London, just four groups of 18 officers are trained to deal with this type of incident. The Met also needs to look at scenario planning. It was clear that the service was not set up to deal with this number of incidents, or with this scale of disturbance. I am sure that lessons will be learnt about how it can ramp up the number of officers much more quickly. I say that with the benefit of hindsight. I do not think that the Met or anyone else could have anticipated what would happen on that first night and in the days that followed.

There are also lessons to be learnt about gangs. Perhaps I was guilty at the beginning of saying that there was heavy gang involvement; the figures suggest that it was only 13%. Perhaps the G8 anarchists were the main instigators, but we will find that out only later. Perhaps they were involved in, or responsible for, the most serious violence.

I welcome the Government response as it stands, with the £20 million allocated by the Department for Communities and Local Government to help recovery and regeneration. I know, having seen the impact in Croydon and reflected on how many different parties will have to agree to work together quickly and effectively, including the local authorities, the insurance companies and businesses affected, that great commitment and co-operation will be required. If that work does not happen quickly, some people will walk away from their businesses, particularly those who have costs. I was talking to a dry cleaner who said that £70,000 was needed simply to buy the equipment again, so swift action is needed.

On the criminal justice response, I have written to the Secretary of State for Justice to see what lessons were learnt about how the courts responded. They responded quickly, but there have been concerns that they did not get the information they needed, such as probation reports. Was that the case? There may be lessons to be learnt about courts operating overnight, although, as I understand it, magistrates who are volunteers may not be enthusiastic about the prospect of working through the night as a matter of course.

On the criminal justice response, as I have stated already, serious crimes were committed and they will receive serious sentences. The riots were an aggravating factor but, in my view, some of the sentences were still disproportionate. Members will know the case of Ursula Nevin, a mother of two children, who was sentenced to five months in prison for handling stolen goods, although she was not personally involved in the riots. The appeal judge in that case clearly felt that the sentence was disproportionate, the aggravating factor of the riots notwithstanding. One consequence, according to UNICEF, is that the child prison population has risen by 8% since the riots, which is of concern to us all. Of those charged, 65% were remanded in custody, whereas normally only about 10% are.

An opportunity was missed to use restorative justice as part of the rehabilitation revolution. It would have been an appropriate response to force low-level offenders to sit down with victims, if the victims wanted it, in order to apologise and make reparations for what they did. Restorative justice is effective. Home Office research shows that it leads to a 14% reduction in reoffending, which we all want. It could also have been an opportunity for intensive community sentences. Projects were set up under the previous Government, and I hope that they will be evaluated, as I believe that they will prove at least 10% more effective than short-term prison sentences in reducing reoffending. Again, if we are serious about reducing reoffending and reducing the number of victims in the longer term, we must consider such measures.

On restorative justice and community sentences, in the words of the chief inspector of prisons, it stands to reason that someone paying back to the community on a supervised scheme, and someone who has to pay bills and behave responsibly, is more likely to go straight than someone locked up and sleeping through their sentence. The Government intend, rightly, to ensure that prisoners cannot sleep through their sentence and are encouraging work in prisons, but that is a long-term ambition on which we are working.

On the local authority response, I thought that today’s debate would involve a stronger push for eviction of tenants and withdrawal of benefits. Some speakers, particularly one speaker who may come after me, may push that agenda, but we will see. On the eviction of tenants, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) rightly pointed out that some anomalies will be involved. One anomaly that he did not mention is that, if a private owner-occupier was involved in the riots, they cannot be evicted from their property, so distinguishing between tenants and private owners is a challenge. Also, there are problems associated with evicting tenants for offences committed in their area but not tenants who committed offences in other areas.

[Mr Mark Field]

I suspect that most of that would fall foul of human rights legislation, which will not be removed from the statute book any time soon. However, there is a fundamental distinction between a private tenant and a tenant of a local authority, in terms of the responsibility that a local authority has to act on behalf of all local residents. Although I accept the grave concerns expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), do they not see that the community out there feel strongly that lessons must be learnt? If we do not use a range of different tools to make it clear how much the incidents have distressed the community, the perpetrators will be seen to have got away with it.

[Tom Brake]

I agree that the community wants to see lessons learnt and appropriate action taken. At the same time, I hope that the community feels that it was disproportionate for Wandsworth council, for instance, to proceed with the eviction of an 18-year-old—I will not mention his name, because I do not feel it appropriate—his mother and eight-year-old sister from their home in Battersea. That was a disproportionate response to the sins of the 18-year-old, who said:

“It’s not that I regret anything”—

personally, I think that he should regret a lot—

“but I am appalled that they’ve put”

his mother

“in this position because of me. She has nothing to do with this. These are the consequences of my actions, not hers.”

I agree entirely with the latter half of that quote.

[Gavin Barwell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Brake]

I will give way once more, and then I must conclude.

[Gavin Barwell]

I do not wholly disagree with the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but if that 18-year-old repeatedly behaved antisocially in the area where he lived, surely the tenancy agreement into which his parent entered would state that that could be grounds for eviction? Ignoring the whole business of the riots, when one person in a family continually behaves in an antisocial fashion, that is clearly legitimate grounds for removing that family from their tenancy. On involvement in the riots, the key point, as I hope all Members can agree, is proportionality and whether the involvement was in the locality. If both those tests are met, that is reasonable grounds.

[Tom Brake]

It is about proportionality. We must all decide where the line in the sand must be drawn, but I add that the rest of the family were apparently involved in the local church and in volunteer groups. We all know from personal experience that sometimes it is necessary to take action against whole, dysfunctional families, but equally, in some families, one individual is completely out of control while the remainder of the family do their best to ensure that that individual does not act in that way.

We discussed youth services at some length during the debate earlier this week on gangs. The Government have a responsibility. Undoubtedly, we have decided to reduce budgets for local authorities, but equally, local authorities cannot hide behind that entirely when it comes to some of the decisions taken to withdraw excessively large percentages, or indeed all, of the funding available for youth services. Local authorities can exercise some degree of prioritisation, although I acknowledge that they must do so within a more restricted funding envelope.

It is also important for Government to ensure that the justice system treats children differently. It is important, even if we abolish the Youth Justice Board, that the justice system should still recognise that children are different and should be treated differently.

[Katy Clark (in the Chair)]

I will call for the winding-up speeches to begin at 5.15.

16:28

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

It is the first time that I have spoken under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. Welcome to the Chair.

We have had an interesting debate. I intend to be brief, so I will skip over some of my comments rather than repeat the contributions of others. I echo other Members in supporting the comments made by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), particularly about not demonising young people. I found it hard to disagree with nearly everything that he said, but I am angry that the Secretary of State for Justice has spoken about feral children and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has spoken about ghettoes. That is a slur on my constituency and many others, and on many of my friends and neighbours and the friends of my children. I hope that the measured comments made by the hon. Member for Croydon Central and most colleagues here are more reflective of the reality of the Government’s thinking than the knee-jerk reactions to media headlines.

We need to be aware of stereotypes. The pictures and the arrest record—I have seen the pictures myself, as have other Members—show that a number of older people wearing work clothes were involved in looting. There is still work to be done. We are analysing the figures in Hackney to see exactly who was involved—the figure keeps changing, so I will not quote anything now. CCTV has been instrumental in solving this, and I am pleased to hear a strong feeling from all parties in the House that CCTV is here to stay and has a role to play. When people talk about civil liberties, I simply ask whose civil liberties they mean. My constituents want more, not less.

The majority of those involved in Hackney—on Clarence road and the Narrow way, which is in the heart of my constituency and was at the heart of the troubles—were over 18 years old. About 16 businesses were very badly damaged. We were very fortunate that we did not suffer the same problems as Croydon and Tottenham. That was largely down to the very good work of the fire service, which sat in our excellent CCTV centre and ensured that any dangerous fires were dealt with quickly and that others were allowed to burn out. That was really important and shows that, with good co-operation across the emergency services, some of the worst aspects that hit other places can sometimes be prevented.

I agree that race has been subject to an unfortunate stereotype. I echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). The comments of illustrious academics and the way in which they were made on “Newsnight” were very unhelpful, have caused great ill feeling in my constituency, and do not reflect the general people whom I represent, whatever their colour or background.

I know that the Minister does not represent the Home Office, but he is a representative of Her Majesty’s Government, so I point out to him that they need to look at the issue of police numbers. Surely it is time to rethink. We had issues about the number of police available in Hackney on the night of 8 August. They were able to hold a line but no more. The fact that it took two to arrest people meant that it was impossible to do the arrests while maintaining the line and preventing further damage and looting to property in my borough. That meant that people such as Siva Khandian, a shopkeeper whom many will have seen pictured in newspapers, had his shop completely ransacked and looted. Others suffered similarly. Residents in Clapton square were scared stiff because cars were burning outside their homes. I do not blame the police, but it meant that there were real challenges. If this is a time for cross-party consensus, we should pause for thought and look at the numbers of police available in London. I join the Mayor of London, with whom I agree on this occasion, in saying that we need seriously to make sure that we have the policing numbers available to tackle such problems and, crucially, to deal with our ongoing community issues.

I want to touch on the issue of stop and search. I do not have time to develop my arguments, because many other Members wish to speak. My right hon. Friend raised some interesting points. I, too, am not against stop and search, but I think that attitude is an issue—the attitude of the police, in terms of courtesy and respect as they carry out a stop and search, as well as the attitude of those who are stopped and searched. I hear strong views from young people and their parents, who feel aggrieved that their children and they themselves are stopped frequently. There are also young people who tell me, “I’m glad that I was stopped, because I know that a person carrying a knife or a gun will also be stopped.” In Hackney, when there have been serious complaints about officers and they have been identified, some have been dismissed from the service of the Metropolitan police because of their attitude during stop and search. The Metropolitan police need to publicise that more. I urge the Minister to take that back to his colleagues at the Home Office, because parents and young people come to me so often to raise their concerns and it is difficult to pinpoint what action to take. I am not pinpointing individuals—I am sure that there are confidentiality issues—but it is important to say that the police have standards and where they have the evidence they will act and remove bad apples from the cart.

It is also important that the community makes complaints that are specific and not generalisations. I am sure that many Members have attended meetings in which people rail against the police in general terms. When I and others, including police officers who are present, ask them for specifics, they respond with nothing. As a Member of Parliament, I need those specifics—I am happy to be a third-party reporting body and pass them on, and I do when I get them—but I rarely get them. They are important.

We are short of time, so I will ask some particulars of the Minister. The Riots Communities and Victims Panel is visiting a number of areas in which riots took place, but, as I understand it, Darra Singh and his team do not, at present, intend to visit Hackney. Why is that? I do not necessarily expect an answer, but will the Minister at least write to me to explain why that is the case? We could then look at getting Darra Singh and his team to visit, which would be helpful, because I think there are lessons that we can pass on to other areas.

The Home Office has agreed to meet me, as the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. I am concerned that, due to personnel changes in the ministerial team, that agreement has slipped. The Government report on this issue and gangs in particular is due out at the end of this month, but we are already halfway through it. I hope that the Minister will take that concern back to his Home Office colleagues.

Has a Communities and Local Government Minister met with key groups in Hackney that are doing interesting work? The trading places scheme is funded by the council through the Crib youth group, led ably by Janette Collins and her colleagues. It gets young people to trade places with key professionals, including police officers, to do exactly what I think the hon. Member for Croydon Central suggested—getting people to understand each other’s points of view. That is proving successful and lessons could be learned for other areas. It is important that it is looked at and replicated, if necessary.

On evictions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) talked about knee-jerk reactions, about which we must be wary. Evicting people because of riot involvement sounds easy, but we need to beware the law of unintended consequences. Let me be clear: those involved in these riots deserve punishment. My constituents are clear about that, too. However, at two recent Clapton conferences in my constituency Hackney residents demonstrated a real understanding of the complexities of the situation. They were talking about wider issues than the riots alone, but they recognised that, in some cases, antisocial behaviour, particularly by the youngest, is a result of chaotic family backgrounds and situations. Under the proposals that some have made, those differences would not be highlighted and people could be evicted and more problems created as a result. Where do these people go? Will they be put into the private sector, unable to pay and keep up with rent? What would that do to other members of the household?

Hackney council supports the same tough approach as I do to crime and antisocial behaviour. Prior to the events of 8 August, it had already begun a wider review of tenancy agreements that included possible changes to conditions relating to antisocial behaviour, gang activity, domestic violence and irresponsible dog ownership. The council is also discussing similar proposals with other large landlords in Hackney. The issue, however, is more legally challenging than it is made out to be. I do not have time to go into that, but a legal definition of “locality,” for instance, limits what can be done. I am all for eviction, where necessary, under the current tenancy agreement, but to say that people should be evicted just because of the riots is an issue that needs to be addressed. Issues relating to home owners versus tenants are also important. We all also need to bear in mind the many intergenerational households in my constituency and elsewhere as a result of the shortage of family homes. That could mean three generations of a family being put out with nowhere to go.

In a debate yesterday, I talked about the impact on young people of the cuts to education maintenance allowance and so on, so I will not go into that, but it is worth highlighting some good news stories and how the community rallied around. Residents raised more than £20,000 for Siva Khandian, who owned the convenience store in Clarence road that he saw his neighbours looting. Street sweepers worked through the night, clearing up as the riots continued around them. Council officers put in extra unpaid hours, to support businesses in particular. Police slept in the corridors of the police station, because it was not worth their while to go home—they wanted to be there and cancelled their leave. Residents came to clean up the next day. Residents and businesses joined forces for a street party in Clarence road on 15 August. Jamie Cowen, the managing director of Your Square Mile, contacted me and said that he has some money that he wants to make sure goes to the riot-affected areas. People across the board—I have named only a few—have made a big difference.

I do not have time to go into the issues surrounding gangs, but I am sure that we will have time to debate them again. I emphasise to the Minister that we have good experience of what integrated gang intervention can do. Gang violence dropped by 59% in six months after our joint multi-agency gang intervention unit, based in Hackney town hall, was formed. There are some lessons to be learned there. Early intervention is vital. Important youth work is taking place with younger children from the age of eight onwards. In the schools that I visit, there is a real issue with eight and nine-year-olds getting hooked into gang culture. A small number of people are involved in gangs, but the wider fear is my big concern—the parents who take their children out of school and to different areas, and the fact that young people are afraid to walk the streets.

Of those involved, young people were not in the majority. However, if these events mean that we focus on gangs, the fear of walking down the street and other fears that young people have, some good can come out of the terrible events of that weekend in August.

16:39

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

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), I watched the dreadful and, at times, terrifying scenes of disorder that took place in so many of London’s shopping centres. My first thoughts were often with the business owners whose livelihoods had been destroyed. Those very hard-working folk are supporting not only families, but our neighbourhoods. They are often the very glue of our local communities and deserve not only our deepest sympathy, but the fast-track help that has been promised by the Government, which I hope they have already received in relation to insurance claims and the like. If there is any problem with that, I hope we will be made aware of it, so that we can collectively do our best on their behalf.

As a father bringing up two young children in central London, I fervently hope that families living in the areas that were directly affected by the riots will not give up on this wonderful city. I love London—not just the historic six square miles that make up my constituency, but the collection of villages that have spawned a whole range of suburbs that most Londoners know only from a cursory glance at the tube map. Those are the districts I love to walk through because their variety and communities never cease to amaze me.

Coincidentally, it was only four days before the riots began that I ambled from the City of London in my constituency through Hoxton and Haggerston and into central Hackney, Clapton, Stamford Hill and Stoke Newington. It was a hot summer’s day as I walked down Clarence road. With all its lovely little bistros, that street is very unlike the common perception of Hackney. I walked down Mare street and to the edge of the churchyard of St John’s, Clapton. Little did I imagine how, within a few days, the area would turn into a front-line riot zone televised across the UK and the world.

To pick up on one or two other contributions, many of the areas affected by the riots have changed beyond recognition in the 30 years since the race riots of the 1980s. Huge investment has taken place in the public realm and gentrification has progressed apace, while the ethnic and cultural mix has been transformed. I am not naive enough to suggest for one moment that certain parts of the areas that were subject to the riots do not have some deep-seated problems. However, the sense that, for example, Hackney is some sort of lawless ghetto enveloped in hopelessness is well short of the mark, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) rightly pointed out.

I am afraid that a lot of what happened was opportunistic criminality. I am slightly concerned not about the idea that the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 should be invoked—of course it should be invoked—but about the idea that the police should get full compensation back. There needs to be an incentive for the police to do their best to maintain law and order, even in some of the most difficult circumstances. If the Metropolitan police were to have full reimbursement of the £300 million concerned, there would not necessarily be an incentive for it to act rapidly if such events occurred in the future. For many people, the most terrifying thing was the sense of utter lawlessness, particularly in areas around Clapham Junction and Lavender Hill. It was interesting that when one heard people being interviewed, there were young yuppies saying, “What the hell is going on?” The whole place had been enveloped by opportunistic criminality.

There is so much more I would have liked to say today. I shall talk a bit about youth violence specifically in my area of Westminster, which thankfully was a part of London that was not particularly badly affected, apart from on a slightly ad hoc basis. The local authority is doing what it can and I want to put some of that work, which I hope will be emulated in other parts of London, on the record.

It is right not to consider the issue to be entirely a youth problem but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) rightly pointed out, we must consider early intervention. As we know, the Government have pledged to tackle some 120,000 problem families before the next election. We should not necessarily be wholly driven by such targets but, none the less, I hope that that figure will focus minds. Inevitably, local authorities will be at the forefront of local solutions to meet that challenge.

In the last full year, 2010-11, Westminster saw a 49% increase in serious youth violence incidents, rising from 197 to 309 incidents. Already, we have seen 133 incidents for the first few months of this financial year. Under the leadership of the cabinet member for children, young people and community protection, Nickie Aiken, pioneering work is being done on tackling gangs, so that the problem is nipped in the bud. Only 48 hours ago in this Chamber, we had a discussion on that issue. It was rightly pointed out that, for too many young gang members, gangs are a surrogate family because they are often living in very chaotic households, which thankfully are alien to the experience of probably all of us here today. In Westminster, we have developed a “Your Choice” programme, which builds on the principles of early intervention, information sharing and personal responsibility.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that family intervention is key to dealing with the matter and that those programmes work because they take in the whole family together, look at the root cause of the problem and try to find a long-term solution?

[Mr Field]

Very much so. The pure economics of the matter show that if you can reach that small number of families, huge amounts of money can be saved. Otherwise, if we do not reach those families, there are wasted lives that will be put to shame.

The focus of the “Your Choice” programme is on having key transition stages from primary to secondary school. However, it has also developed targeted gang exit programmes, cross-border gang mediation to try to break down the postcode rivalry that lies at the bottom of many of the problems surrounding gang culture in London, and support to get young people into sustained employment and training. We all appreciate how difficult that is, and I fear it will be for some time to come as elements of the economy continue to deteriorate. We also need intensive support to be given to parents and families in the holistic way that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) described.

We want to try to provide families with a real choice: take the services on offer and become real members of the community, or face a range of enforcement options. That choice is based on evidence of what works, including tried and tested programmes in Westminster, such as the successful gang exit programme. Only 5% of youngsters on that programme received a conviction compared with 42% before the strategy began.

[Meg Hillier]

Does the hon. Gentleman have any experience of gang injunctions in his constituency? We have had great difficulties getting them to work in Hackney. Has he had any conversations with people in his borough or with other Ministers about them?

[Mr Field]

We have not had any in my constituency. As I mentioned the other day, one of the issues surrounding the Churchill Gardens estate in my constituency is the worrying sign that we are getting close to a tipping point and that the gang problem will become much more intense than in certain parts of the northern end of the borough, which the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) represents. That is clearly not something I am entirely aware of.

I appreciate that other hon. Members want to speak, so I will just say a couple more things. It is important to recognise that turning around the lives of what are regarded as problem young people and families takes time, patience and, inevitably, resources. All too often, local authorities have to rely on one-off funding pots, which often fail to deliver an impact or may deliver that impact only in the very short term, with the problem ultimately reoccurring before too long.

The programme that Westminster is trying to develop requires a sustainable funding stream to ensure that the council can intervene early and support young people to make the right choices in their lives. If we can secure sustainable funding, we will aim to intervene early and support children as young as the age of five through that programme. Westminster city council has secured funds to deliver the bulk of the programme for the current tax year, but it wants to be able to deliver a sustainable programme over three to five years. I have made representations on that and, as I mentioned the other day, I am someone who believes in getting the deficit down and who has tried their level best to recognise that that means not standing up, even at a constituency level, for programmes when cuts are being made. This is probably the only exception. We need to look at the provision of youth services. If we are to have a genuine long-term impact, one of the legacies of trying to ensure that the riots do not happen again must be that we examine those services.

In Westminster—I am sure this is replicated in all London boroughs and, indeed, in boroughs outside the capital represented by hon. Members here today—we have had a substantial reduction of some £828,000 from the funding of our youth services as a result of the emergency Budget in June 2010. That was followed by a further £513,000 reduction in the current tax year. In the light of the rioting, all local authorities will be keener than ever not only to secure money for their programmes but, I hope, to ensure that we can improve the lives of the most vulnerable. As is so often the way in life, the prevention will end up being considerable cheaper in the medium and longer term than the cure that will otherwise be before our eyes.

16:49

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing such an important debate.

As has been widely reported, Ealing was subjected to violent rioting on the Monday night of 8 August and in the early hours of Tuesday 9 August. Ealing Broadway town centre, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), was very badly hit. What is less known and less reported is the fact that West Ealing town centre, shared between the hon. Lady and myself in Ealing, Southall, was also hit very hard by these terrible acts of wanton lawlessness. Related criminal actions also took place in Hanwell and Southall, but to a lesser extent.

Let me place on record my total condemnation of the mindless criminals who ran amok on the normally peaceful streets of Ealing, terrorising innocent bystanders, attacking residents enjoying an evening meal in our many restaurants, threatening shop keepers and their staff, and even threatening residents in their own homes. Their brazen criminality left one man dead, and others are homeless after their homes were burnt down. Dozens of shops and businesses have been seriously damaged, and scores of cars were burned or smashed. It is difficult to find words to condemn strongly enough the actions of this feral minority who literally brought anarchy to the streets of my constituency and those of other hon. Members.

I place on record my thanks to the Ealing borough commander, Andy Rowell, and to his police officers who heroically tried to stem this tide of evil on our streets. Unfortunately, they were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of mainly young adults intent on inflicting this sickening violence on our community. The police were responding to numerous roaming gangs who were clearly using mobile phones and social networking sites to communicate with each other and were thus very mobile, co-ordinated and difficult to pin down and stop.

We have to address the lack of sufficient available public order police as back-up in this situation, and the question of police numbers and resources. In Ealing, 44 officers with riot training and equipment were deployed earlier in the evening to other parts of London. Only a similar number of officers, without training or equipment, were left to try and deal with a mob of more than 200 rioters until reinforcements finally came hours into the riot. In the days that followed, police from all over the country—Cleveland, Sheffield, Berkshire and many other places—patrolled the streets of Ealing to prevent a repeat of the rioting and to provide reassurance to my constituents. It is a sobering thought that the number of 16,000 police officers who were deployed on the streets of London after the riots is the same number of police officers due to be cut. God forbid that we have a reoccurrence of the riots after police numbers have been cut. I urge the Government to halt the current cuts to the Met police in the capital and to the police across the country.

I pay tribute to the emergency services and to Ealing council, which worked throughout the night to provide CCTV pictures for the police to try and track these criminals, and to prepare an emergency response and clean up in the morning. The council, having picked up via Twitter during the night that local residents wanted to take part in the clean-up in the morning, arranged for them to be provided with materials to do so. Hundreds of local residents turned up in the morning to take part and very quickly had both Ealing and West Ealing cleared up. The council had extra street sweepers and refuse collection vehicles on the streets from 5 am and also repaired the roads, which had been damaged by burnt out vehicles, in very quick time. It was a tremendous effort, especially by local residents, who showed the real spirit of community and pulled together in difficult times.

I would like to address a number of issues relating to the aftermath. Obviously, the work to bring the perpetrators to justice is ongoing and I urge my constituents who have any information that would help in this regard to contact the police. Local businesses have provided the police with their CCTV footage and any other evidence that will help to bring about convictions. Ealing council is working closely with the police to use its extensive CCTV footage to bring the full force of the law down on these criminals. It is imperative that all those who committed these outrageous acts are brought to justice and not given the impression that they can get away with wanton law breaking.

On the Tuesday night, all was quiet across Ealing, but there had been warnings that Southall, in my constituency, might come under attack. Having met the police, the local faith, business and community leaders arranged to have volunteers outside places of worship and businesses to protect them. This was a powerful and united community response that received praise from the Prime Minister. However, we all have to make sure that such actions, or other responses by citizens seeking to defend themselves, do not lead to vigilantism. Given the tragic death of the three men in Birmingham who were trying to protect their business, we also need to guard against any inter-racial community tensions. In Southall, all law-abiding religions, races and creeds stood together against the lawless.

Finally, it is vital that as much help as possible is given to local businesses and communities to recover from the impact of these terrible events. In Ealing, the council used a £250 million fund from reserves to provide each affected local independent business with a £1,200 civic disturbance payment, interest-free repayable grants of up to £20,000 for more affected businesses, free weekend parking during September in Ealing and West Ealing, and individual advice to affected businesses through an assigned regeneration officer. One month’s business rates relief has also been given to those affected businesses and one week’s relief to businesses in the affected areas. There are still issues around claims for loss of business and ongoing levels of insurance premiums that the Government need to help with.

Everything needs to be done to stop a repeat of these disturbing events. I call on the Government to consider the impact of making such large cuts to local council budgets, and the effect that this has had on youth services provision at a time when young people so clearly need support and guidance from the community around them. We must be confident that we can protect our streets should such events occur again. I call on the Government to halt and review the cuts to police numbers and resources. There can be no question that the cuts, as they stand, decimate police numbers and have a significant effect on their ability to deal with events like those we saw in August.

16:58

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a serving special constable with the British Transport police. Because of the time and my own interest in policing, I want to frame my comments around that.

I congratulate hon. Members on both sides of the House. The debate has been thoughtful and has done away with a lot of the generalisations that were made at the time. For example, I cannot tell the House how much I welcome the fact that nobody has talked about single-parent mothers. If there is one thing that I personally loathe, it is the demonisation of single-parent mothers in generalised fashion. Instead, we have heard, rightly, about the problems of families. We have heard about the issue of absent fathers: it takes two people to create a child, and if one of them is absent it is often the father, so if we are going to demonise anyone let us start with them rather than the mothers. Thank heavens we seem to have moved on from demonising the mothers.

I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) interesting, and I was surprised how much I agreed with much of what he said, although I see things from rather a different perspective: to me, the issue was not a race one at all. In following the riots on the television and, on one night, with a mobile support unit, they did not come over to me as a black issue—it was definitely a black and white issue. I did not notice anything with the Asian community, but perhaps that was a misconception. Certainly I and the police officers I worked with on the Wednesday night, when things had gone quiet, did not see it as a black issue at all, but as very much a problem for black and white communities. In fact, on that Wednesday night, our first response to a 999 call was to do with a group of white extremists—members of the English Defence League or something—in south London. As it happened, on the way to that call, because the Met had already taken over, we were diverted to deal with black youths in Lewisham. Perhaps that is my misconception though: I did not notice it in the press, but the right hon. Gentleman did, so I must take that on board.

The right hon. Gentleman made an important comment about getting more black and Asian people into the police force. I served for a while in Stockwell and have policed in Brixton. I was not comfortable with the fact that, often, the only police officers on duty were white, but a lot of police officers felt the same way. If we asked, the vast majority of police officers would answer that they really wanted black and Asian people to join the police—they really want the police to be representative because it makes their lives easier. I have spoken to black and Asian people—I spoke about this recently to a DJ who I imagine is quite influential—who say that they still do not trust the police. I gained an impression a little from the right hon. Gentleman that he felt the same way. May I just say this? In any organisation consisting of thousands of people, one will find some idiots—there is no doubt about it—but the vast majority of police officers are not racist and do not judge people by the colour of their skin.

Furthermore, in any station, police officers do not want to get into a situation in which half of them are sitting on one side and half on the other, whether because of skin colour, religion or something else. That is not a good idea for a police officer. If police officers have to press the orange “help urgently required” button, they do not want to think that half the other officers will not come because of things they have said or done in the police canteen earlier. Believe me, and I think that I speak for most officers, when I am in the police canteen I want all those officers to be my friend because I want to feel that they will come for me if I need their help, and vice versa. There is not as big an issue as perhaps there was 20 years, and I urge anyone in the black and Asian community, and in particular in the Black Police Association which had a policy of actively discouraging black and Asian people from joining the police, please, to get behind the police. If there are problems, black and Asian people can change them by joining the police and being part of the police service—it would help us all very much if that happened.

Various speakers have talked about stop and search. I have stopped and searched a lot of people over the past five or six years. It is embarrassing to stop and search people if they are not found with anything. I have always attempted to do stops and searches with as much courtesy as possible, and in an apologetic way, but there may be officers who have failed to do that, which is highly regrettable. They are making their jobs and those of their colleagues much harder if they fail to stop and search people courteously. I find it hard to believe comments by the right hon. Member for Tottenham that officers are no longer obliged to note down if someone gets injured in a stop and search. As well as a stop-and-search form, an officer is expected to fill in his personal notebook, and any officer who failed to put in a personal notebook that someone had received an injury would definitely be in breach of duty. That notebook is inspected by inspectors regularly.

Getting rid of stop and account was a good thing because, frankly, if someone came up to me and asked for the time and I answered them, technically they could demand a stop-and-account form, which led to all sorts of spurious cases in which officers were filling out long forms because people were trying to waste their time. There is no reason why police officers should not be able to go up and speak to someone. I agree, if they are going to undertake a search of any sort, that there ought to be some record, and there still is.

One of the great problems, however, is that it is quite difficult to stop and search people outside section 60 or section 44 areas. I can think of numerous instances, such as one in Liverpool street when I stopped someone for committing an offence for which I would not expect to carry out an arrest—begging, in this particular case. I then did a police national computer check and the person had a long record of carrying knives, violence and drugs. Under the circumstances, a quick stop and search might seem quite reasonable—not a strip search or an invasive search but an airport-style pat down of the people in question, just to check that at that moment they did not have a knife or drugs on them. Police officers, however, are not allowed to do so and, because of that, many people are walking around London with knives and guns because they know that it is actually difficult outside section 60 or section 44 areas for the police to stop them. The first time I was able to carry out a search—I will not go into the details, but the set of circumstances allowing me to do it were strange—I found a handgun on the 16-year-old involved, which made me think that there must be a lot of other 16-year-olds walking around with handguns who were pretty safe from being caught.

There has been some mention of tactics. One of the criticisms of the police has been that they did not get involved—when the car was on fire or whatever—at an early enough stage in the proceedings. Again, I look at it from the police officer’s point of view. They feel the pressure from politicians in rooms such as this. We have seen a number of riots over the past few years, and outbreaks of mass disturbance. After some riots, we have seen police officers criticised for their use of force. When people talk about robust policing, let us not mince our words: what we are talking about, at the extreme, is the police officers rapping their batons and walking forwards in an aggressive and forceful fashion. That is how they are trained to do it; they are trained to look forceful because at the moment that the baton comes out nothing less than an aggressive approach will work and remove people. The problem with that is that, as the police officers are walking forwards, they have their batons up and are getting ready to strike, and that is the photograph that will appear in the Sunday papers the next morning: the great British bobby looking out aggressively, probably shouting, and with a large metal baton ready to strike someone. The police officers might actually be quite scared as they are doing it; they do not really want to be in that position and they do not want to strike anyone but, once they are in that position, they do not really have much choice other than to go forwards. Yet, opening up the Sunday papers the next day, members of the public in suburbia and Members of Parliament see the picture and say, “This is an outrage! How dare the British police officer go for them! Look at how aggressive they were!” The police are trained to be aggressive: we spend two days a year training to look aggressive, because we hope that the aggression will put a person off and get them to move backwards. But no one sees that, just the photograph. Police officers therefore come under incredible criticism.

After one of the riots, a police officer was prosecuted for obeying exactly the instructions that we are all given: tell people to get back, if they do not go back, push them back, if they still keep coming forward, strike them with a baton. It does not matter whether the person in front is a large male or a small female—believe me, a lot of police officers have been assaulted by small females, and we are not trained to make that differentiation. If at all possible, we will protect ourselves from anyone, and rightly so.

[Tom Brake]

Is the hon. Gentleman at all reassured that, in relation to the policing of the riots, I am not aware of anyone having made any complaints about how they were handled?

[David T. C. Davies]

We will wait and see what happens.

I want to make the point that the use of force in that way is a necessary option for the police, and one for which they have been criticised. The police then moved on to use what the press call kettling—the police call it something else—in which, basically, they keep a line and keep everyone within that line. They have been criticised for that, by Members—

[Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Some of us want to talk about the riots.

[David T. C. Davies]

If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will wait until the Chair has a problem. I am answering remarks made earlier on.

Police have been criticised for kettling, and the point I am making—this is why it is relevant to the riots—is that the criticisms of the police that they stood back and did nothing are totally unfair because Members of this House, in all parts, have in the past criticised police for using tactics that would have dealt with those riots in the first place.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham also spoke about specialist police forces coming into an area from outside. With the sorts of operations to which he referred, such as firearms units, the police officers would necessarily have to come in from outside, because of the level of training required to carry out such operations. I think it would be unwise to try to pass judgment on such a matter before a full report has taken place.

I congratulate hon. Members on the way in which they have addressed the matter. If I were them, however, I would think carefully about making general criticisms of the police without a full understanding of the pressures that they are under. I hope that all hon. Members in the House will do their best to encourage their communities, particularly black and Asian communities, to persuade their members to join the police, hopefully to ensure that such riots do not happen again.

[Katy Clark (in the Chair)]

Order. The wind-ups will start at 5.15.

17:10

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

The riots happened because they could, and there is a real issue about how the police handled London on those few nights. There were simply not enough police officers available, and there seemed to be little direction from the centre. I am sure that all the borough services did what they could, but there seemed to be no overarching direction on how to deal with anything.

By 3 o’clock in my constituency, everyone knew what was going to happen. We had phone calls to our offices, the police knew, we knew about the BlackBerry messages, and some of the young people who were demonised turned up at Mitcham police station asking the police to look at their BlackBerries to ensure that everyone knew what was going to happen. However, unfortunately Croydon went up first. Understandably, the officers at Mitcham went to Croydon. It was rather like young boys learning to play football. There are 22 players on the pitch, and when the ball goes to one end, all 22 follow. That is precisely what happened.

I say that not to criticise anyone in particular, because what has happened has happened, but to provide a tool for the future. We have a new regime at New Scotland Yard, and I hope that it will learn. There is an issue about shift patterns, and availability at weekends and in the evenings, which must be addressed. My police force, under Mr Wolfenden whom I regularly criticise, deserves no criticism at this point, but I want to share a story that is symptomatic of what happened in my constituency and, I am sure, in all the constituencies represented by hon. Members here today.

The police went back to Wimbledon police station because they had no riot-trained officers, who, understandably, were in Croydon. They got together what bits of old kit they had to make up protective gear. They went out of Wimbledon police station, but they did not have a bus or a car to travel in, because they were all somewhere else, so the police marched the 2.5 miles from Wimbledon police station to the Tandem leisure centre. When they got there, there was nothing they could do because there were so many people rioting and looting because they could, and because the police were not there to defend anyone. The consequence was that people were frightened.

I have underestimated the fear felt by residents who were not involved. People were worried that rioters would march up their street and set their house on fire. Elderly people could hear the noise, but did not know what they would do if people came towards them. The mums and dads of young men and women were worried that their sons and daughters would go out and become caught up in the riot. The fear was represented in every community.

We as MPs must deal with that fear, build relationships with the community, and work in our communities. If I had the opportunity, I would tell people, whatever their party, that the consultation on individual electoral registration closes tomorrow, so they should look at the document, and say what they think about it. If we lose young people in London from our electoral register because of those judgments, our position will become much worse.

17:14

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I want to make four brief points. First, I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who referred to the importance of elected representatives reflecting on some of the things that have been said, whether descriptions of feral underclasses—I completely disagree with that—or some of the things that we may have said. Some of us were raw at the time—I was a victim in the riots—but we all have a huge responsibility to think carefully about the words that were used, and to challenge when appropriate. At a meeting in my constituency, young people said that it is fine to burn Argos because local people do not run it. No, it is not fine to set Argos alight. Local people are employed there, and some people were very frightened.

Secondly, I agree with much of what has been said about the police. We must think about numbers, the ability of the police to surge numbers when necessary, police tactics, and how many people are trained to deal with riots. Thirdly, on the criminal justice system, I believe that in August it was necessary to send a clear message that people would not get away with rioting. Some of the sentences that have been dished out have been disproportionate, but we must not forget that it was necessary to send out a clear message at the time.

Fourthly, on the wider Government response, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is entirely right to talk about the need for the Government to think about regenerating some of the communities where the rioting took place. The riots did not take place in Witney or Tunbridge Wells; they took place in areas of significant deprivation where there is high unemployment. We need to put the matter right, and the Government must come up with a policy that addresses some of those fundamental issues.

17:16

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure, Ms Clark, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. This has been an excellent debate, and largely consensual. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing it, and on his measured speech. He set the tone for those who spoke after him.

Everyone in the Chamber and throughout the country was shocked and appalled by the scenes that they witnessed on the streets of our towns and cities in August. The Leader of the Opposition has made our position extremely clear. He said that nothing can excuse or justify the acts of violence that we witnessed in those terrible days a couple of months ago. It is right that people who engaged in riotous behaviour should face the full consequences of their actions, and that has been reflected in the contributions today.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) made an important point. He said that it is clear that there were complex reasons behind the riots, so it is important not to look for a quick fix and easy answers to what happened. It is important to examine those complex reasons in full detail, so that we understand why the terrible scenes occurred. He also stressed the importance of CCTV. There is a debate at the moment about its use, and whether it is valuable or should be reduced. He made the point extremely well that it has been invaluable in bringing to justice some of the people who were involved in the riots earlier this year.

The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) highlighted the spirit of his constituents, and that was reflected in all towns and cities that were affected. We saw the best and the worst of human behaviour. I was pleased to hear him say that his opinion had shifted since his early response, and I welcome his support for early intervention. He also stressed the need to understand what went on, and to get to the bottom of it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) made a passionate speech, and stressed the importance of people, whatever their community or background, understanding the difference between right and wrong. I totally agree. He also stressed the importance of neighbourhood and community policing, and said that something had clearly gone wrong with community policing in his constituency. That is regrettable, and there is a real need to re-establish trust in the police. It is essential to take that forward.

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) commended the work of local authorities. Local authorities come in for a lot of criticism and receive a lot of brickbats, but their clean-up operations and responses were magnificent. I welcome his recognition of that, which was important to get on the record. I also share his view about the need for proportionate sentencing. Yes, people need to face the consequences of their actions, but the sentences must be proportionate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) stressed the importance of avoiding stigmatising entire groups—another important point with which I agree. She said that we must emphasise the need for respect, both within the community and for agencies that work on our behalf, including the police. She said that we should avoid a knee-jerk response, and highlighted the fantastic attitude in her constituency from the community, the general public, council workers and the police, who all responded magnificently. I welcome her putting those comments on the record.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) highlighted the opportunistic nature of much of the criminality in which people indulged, and he referred to the need to look at early intervention. He pointed out that local authorities will be at the forefront in dealing with the consequences of the riots and in finding solutions to prevent them from happening again. He stressed the importance of a sustainable funding stream. Investing in prevention is more cost-effective and far better than dealing with problems after they have happened.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) spoke about the impact of the riots on his constituency and stressed his concerns about inadequate police numbers. He mentioned the difficulties the police had in responding to the problems and riotous behaviour until more police were deployed from outside London to bring some order to the streets. He was worried about the reductions in police numbers, and called on the Government to rethink their proposed cuts to the number of police.

The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) made a point about the use of language and said how important it is to avoid demonising single parents. I agree with him; that point was absolutely spot on. He reinforced the call from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham for more black and Asian recruits to the police force, which will help to ensure a more sustainable and measured response. The hon. Gentleman also spoke from his own personal experience about the difficulties of policing, particularly the practical difficulties of more robust policing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) also spoke about inadequate police numbers and the need to learn lessons about deployment. She noted how police were deployed in Croydon, which meant that it was difficult to deal with the outbreak of rioting in her own area, and she stressed the fear and anxiety felt by her community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) spoke about the importance of being careful with the language that we use. We must be cognisant of police numbers and the tactics that were used. We all agree that it was important to send the strong message that people cannot get away with riotous behaviour. It is vital to regenerate those communities affected by the riots but, as hon. Members have pointed out, those areas that were not afflicted still have some of the underlying problems of the communities that were affected. We must be aware of that and ensure a measured response across the country.

It is important to look at how we can prevent a repetition of what happened in August and the appointment of Louise Casey to the troubled families unit is a welcome step in the right direction. I know of her work and have met her. She is a tremendous public servant and will do an excellent job in driving the agenda forward. We must also understand why such events happened, which will help to prevent a repetition.

As hon. Members have said, last month, we saw the best and worst facets of human behaviour. I believe that we must find a way of instilling a sense of civic pride in our communities and particularly our young people. It is difficult to understand how people can feel that it is acceptable under certain circumstances to smash up their own communities. If we can instil that sense of civic pride and hope, and give people a stake in their community, we will go a long way towards preventing a repetition of the awful scenes that we saw in August.

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend has picked up on an important point that I would have liked to mention in my earlier comments. It is about the presence of hope and the belief in a positive future, which stopped many people from taking part in the riots. That is one of the key things that we must get right. In some of our inner-city areas, young people, people in their 20s, believe that they have real opportunities.

[Chris Williamson]

I totally agree; my hon. Friend is spot on. It is essential that we achieve that objective, but the question is: how can it be done? There is a significant role for the youth service, and we must give young people hope through providing employment opportunities and adequate training. If we can do that, we will have a chance of instilling that sense of civic pride and hope that is the way forward.

All right hon. and hon. Members will have received a briefing note from the Children’s Society. It has made a few observations that are worth putting on the record. On youth services it states:

“We are concerned that the funding available for youth services has been cut substantially. The Early Intervention Grant, the main grant available for local authorities to provide services for children and young people, has been reduced in real terms by around 23% both this year, and for 2012/13…Market research conducted for The Children’s Society in April this year indicated that services for young people will be among the hardest hit with over a quarter of the local authorities responding stating that cuts to youth services were likely, as well as cuts to services for youth crime prevention and support for NEET young people. This is further compounded by the scrapping of the Educational Maintenance Allowance and the Future Jobs Fund. Youth unemployment has already hit record highs over the last year and over a third of 16 and 17-year-old school leavers are currently without a job.”

Those are real issues for the Government to look at, and in many ways they were reflected in the contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber. I hope that the Government will think again about the way they are reducing funding for local authorities, particularly in key areas such as early intervention and youth services. Will the Minister give the Chamber the benefit of his thoughts on how we can ensure that local authorities commission early intervention services, which are under real threat? How will he prevent funding cuts from impairing local authorities’ ability to prevent a repetition of the riots and to respond effectively if there is—we all hope there will not be—another outbreak of riots next year? I ask that because police numbers and firefighter numbers are being reduced, and that will create real pressure if we are not careful. Bearing it in mind that local authorities are seeing reductions in their funding, I would be interested in hearing comments from the Minister on how we can ensure that those reductions will not impair the ability of those public services to respond effectively in the event of an outbreak of riotous behaviour in future.

17:30

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. This has been a very interesting and important debate, and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on securing it and on the very thoughtful, measured and constructive tone he adopted, as did the other hon. Members who spoke. I recognise that not every hon. Member has had the chance to say all that they would wish to, but I will do my best to do justice to the comments that have been made. If I run out of time and do not manage to do so, I will write to hon. Members to deal with any outstanding matters.

As hon. Members said, we are some two months on from the riots and it has rightly been observed that they were on an unprecedented scale. Some 4,700 people had been arrested by the end of September. That compares with 82 arrests after the 1981 riots in Brixton. All of us will have seen shocking scenes, the details of which were relayed by hon. Members today. The whole country has rightly expressed its abhorrence of what happened, and hon. Members are right to do so today.

Some 1,800 businesses were affected during the four or five days of the riots, and 174 residential properties were affected, resulting in 167 households being displaced. Some 16,000 police officers were deployed on the streets of London alone from 9 August. That demonstrates the ability to surge the numbers—an increase of 10,000 officers from the day before.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a commitment in his statement to the House of Commons that the Government would

“help you repair the damage, get your businesses back up and running and support your communities.”—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1053.]

I shall tell hon. Members how we are seeking to do that. By working with our partners, we want to help communities and businesses to get back to normal, restore footfall, restore pride in high streets as shopping and leisure areas, and help those most seriously affected.

The day after the Prime Minister’s statement, Ministers from the Home Office, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Ministry of Justice and I updated hon. Members on the Government’s multi-million pound support package to overcome the immediate recovery issues that those affected were facing. That was followed up with a “one month on” update sent to all English MPs, which was placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Ministers visited hard-hit areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government spoke by telephone to the mayor of Hackney. I have had one subsequent meeting with him, and our chief executive has met theirs and they will continue to meet. I was in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), seeing the businesses affected there. I went to see the 38 affected in my own constituency, in the town centre of Bromley, and like many other hon. Members, I viewed the CCTV footage. An inter-ministerial recovery group, chaired by the Secretary of State, has been set up to support business and community recovery on the ground.

[Jonathan Evans]

The Minister knows that I mentioned that I chaired the all-party group meeting with leading figures from the insurance industry two days ago. They were concerned that the insurance industry should be involved in the regeneration efforts. That was successfully achieved in Cockermouth, where communities ended up with something better than they started with. That would go some way towards meeting the objective to which the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) referred.

[Robert Neill]

Yes, the involvement of the business community, including the insurance sector, has been discussed. We are in contact with them, and I am sure that we will be able to take that forward. For example, the quality of shutters that are put up by way of replacement can be an enhancement. That is one thing that has already been very much on the agenda.

Hon. Members have talked about how the riots occurred. I hope that they will forgive me if I do not go into too much detail about that but concentrate on the response. Whatever the circumstances surrounding the death of Mark Duggan, to which the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) referred, and whatever the circumstances that led to that, I think we all agree that what happened later had little to do with it and was fuelled overwhelmingly by greed, deliberate thuggery and opportunistic or sometimes—I have to say, having seen the videos from my area—planned criminality. There is no excuse for that. Sadly, lives were destroyed, along with homes and livelihoods. We have heard about instances of businesses that had been going for years being put out of business. The loss of life—five lives in all—can be fairly connected with that.

It is good to be able to say that a response is already taking place. The fancy dress shop in Battersea that was ruined in the riots is now trading next door to its original building. Duncan Mundell, the proprietor, is opening an additional outlet in the Debenhams store opposite. He is building up his Hallowe’en trade.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

I see my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) here. I will certainly give way to her, because she has been instrumental in galvanising her community to try to achieve an holistic response.

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend the Minister is too kind. I am very pleased that he has mentioned the Party Superstore, as I certainly wanted to draw attention to it. It is co-operating with Debenhams, which is a nice example of a small retailer and a big retailer working together. May I use this intervention to make one point and a plea? Wandsworth council has very successfully set up a one-stop shop for local businesses to go to for all the form filling, hand holding and so on. That has worked a treat, particularly for small businesses. It has enabled them to negotiate the minefield of forms and legislation, and is a model for how we should make our response.

My plea concerns the riot funds that the Department for Communities and Local Government controls. We need the deadline to be extended beyond Christmas, so that we can use the run-up to Christmas to let imaginative ideas for using some of that funding to regenerate high streets take root.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is right about the first point; I shall come to the second point in a moment, if I may.

A tribute has already been paid to the emergency services. For reasons of time, I have not repeated it in detail. The strength of it is none the less undiminished. Remarkable bravery and professionalism were shown. In terms of specific Government activities, the DCLG and Business Link have set up web pages providing advice and information. Wandsworth and many other councils have taken the steps that have been referred to.

To look on the positive side, and perhaps to put things in perspective, for every person arrested, 15 people followed the “Riot Clean Up” Twitter feed. There is a good side to this, which we should not forget. We have ensured that the faith communities have been closely involved throughout. Reference has been made to appropriate and condign sentencing. That will continue. It is a matter for the courts, but the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice are also looking at the means of increasing the rate of recovery of fines for those who are not sentenced to custody; I think most people think that right and proper.

The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 is of course an important route for compensation. That has been referred to. We extended the claims deadline from 14 to 42 days. There is a helpline and website linked to a claims bureau at the Home Office to give further advice. Thus far, there have been 775 calls and more than 1,000 claims, in addition to claims made by insurers direct to police authorities.

On the same day as the Prime Minister’s statement, the Government announced a £10 million recovery scheme to help local authorities with their immediate costs. That operates on a similar basis to the Bellwin scheme, but does not have the qualifying threshold of 0.2% of revenue budget. That makes it easier for local authorities to receive support. Above the threshold, the Bellwin scheme has been activated.

We have offered advice and support to all the local authorities affected; they have dedicated contact officials at the Department. Some 35 local authorities have registered for the £20 million high street support scheme, which was set up specifically to support small and medium-sized enterprises affected.

We have listened to local partners and extended the payment deadline to 3 January, and extended the deadline for local authorities to submit claims to 31 January. That seems appropriate, so that local authorities can try to get going in the run-up to Christmas. It is also worth paying tribute to the business community. A £3 million charitable “High Street Fund” has been set up by Sir William Castell and the Wellcome Foundation, with a £500,000 donation from the Mayor of London, to offer immediate recovery grants. Business in the Community and the British Retail Consortium have also played an active part.

Inland Revenue has handled some 1,286 calls and agreed to some 162 time-to-pay agreements for customers whose cash flow is affected, worth about £3.4 million. We have also set aside £1 million for a homelessness support scheme to deal with the immediate re-housing costs of those who were directly made homeless. Every household that approached their local authority for assistance has either been re-housed or provided with advice and assistance. In Haringey, we have provided £35,000 for two caseworkers to support families in the River Heights estate. I, along with the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), held a recovery advice surgery for MPs from affected constituencies, which a number of hon. Members present attended.

We have set up the Riot Communities and Victims Panel, chaired by Darra Singh. I will check whether it has been to Hackney, but it is carrying out a number of visits around the country. I am sure that its objective is to meet as many authorities as possible. The panel will publish an interim report in November and present a final report to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition in March 2012.

It is worth highlighting the community response, such as the “Love” campaigns in Manchester and Salford, “Liverpool Clean Up”, and the work done by Haringey’s community assistance centre, Tottenham Green leisure centre, and the volunteers in Vauxhall. In the medium term, we are providing £20 million through the London enterprise fund for the regeneration of Tottenham and Croydon, which will be administered alongside the Mayor of London’s £50 million recovery fund.

[Mr Lammy]

Does the Minister recognise that £10 million for Tottenham will simply not be sufficient for the needs of the poorest constituency in London?

[Robert Neill]

That is specific targeting that goes to Tottenham and Croydon, in recognition of their circumstances, which no others receive. In addition, the Mayor has announced taskforces for Tottenham and Croydon. The one for Tottenham is headed by Sir Stuart Lipton, and that for Croydon by Julian Metcalfe, the entrepreneur behind Pret A Manger. It is not the end of the story.

I welcome the support from the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) for Louise Casey and her work in the problem families unit in my Department. The unit is working to deliver early interventions to 120,000 problem families. We are consulting on the question of evicting antisocial families. I know that different views have been expressed in the debate, but we think that that is a legitimate tool that should be in the box, and authorities of all political complexions have viewed it as an appropriate option. Ultimately, such matters are decided by the courts.

Finally, the Home Secretary is leading a cross-Government review with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the problem of gang violence, which is a huge issue that we certainly need to tackle. Powerful points were made in the debate, and I am sure that they will inform the work of that review. I hope that I have given hon. Members an indication of the serious steps that the Government have been taking to deal with the issue.

17:44

[Gavin Barwell]

With the leave of the House, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I think that when my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), coming from their different perspectives, can agree on the need to diversify our police force, we are reminded that, sometimes, less separates us than we sometimes acknowledge in debates in the main Chamber.

I apologise to hon. Members who have sat patiently through the debate, but who have not had the chance to speak. I hope that the Government will reflect on the need for further debates on the issues. I want to thank the Government and the Minister in particular for his response, and for the work that he and the Mayor of London have done. A lot still remains to be done.

I want to end with a simple thought. If my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth will forgive me—everyone else who has spoken in the debate represents a London constituency—I will say that our city is a great city—in my opinion, the greatest in the world—but it still has profound problems. What happened in early August is a reminder of them. I want to end by saying thank you to the public servants who went above and beyond the call of duty to support Londoners over those few days, and to the residents of our city for the response that they have shown—that we will not allow what happened to set our city back, and that we will rebuild, and rebuild stronger. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

17:44

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

Thursday 13 October 2011

Civil Service Training and Development

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing further steps in reforms to make civil service training more modern, efficient and cost-effective.

For too long we have relied on expensive residential and classroom-based training, duplicating effort across Departments. The new Civil Service Learning will focus on work-based approaches including e-learning and will directly involve managers in the training process.

The reforms in training will save around £90 million per year and at the same time improve the quality and impact of training. It will also create greater flexibility by sourcing much of the training from external providers including small and medium-sized enterprises.

As part of these reforms, the National School of Government will close on 31 March 2012. Until then the school will remain open for business and provide a range of products to support Civil Service Learning.

The changes will:

ensure that we get the best value when we buy training through improved procurement—moving away from Department-based procurement to a civil service-wide approach leveraging economies of scale;

ensure consistency in civil service skills development and enable better evaluation and control of training effectiveness and value for money;

ensure civil service training is delivered in line with modern practice in other organisations, move away from expensive residential and classroom-based training and focus more on work-based and supported online learning;

ensure that by 1 April 2012, all Government training and development spend will be channelled through one operator—CSL.

Neighbourhood Planning Consultation

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

Neighbourhood planning is central to the Government’s decentralisation, localism and big society agenda. With greater decentralisation of planning powers, people are being given the opportunity to shape and influence the places where they live and they have more reasons to say “yes” to sustainable development.

The Department for Communities and Local Government is today launching a consultation, which seeks views on the Government’s proposed new regulations governing the process for establishing neighbourhood areas and forums, the requirements of community right to build organisations, and the preparation of neighbourhood plans and orders, and community right to build orders.

The consultation sets out how the Government propose to take up the regulation-making powers in the Localism Bill for neighbourhood planning and community right to build. The regulations proposed set out the minimum level of requirements that would ensure a nationally consistent approach to designating neighbourhood areas and neighbourhood forums, and the preparation of neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development orders. The consultation asks for comments on whether the regulations as proposed are workable and proportionate.

The closing date for responses will be 5 January 2012.

I am placing a copy of the consultation document and the draft regulations in the Library of the House.

Continuity of Education Allowance

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

I am now able to announce the conclusions of the review I led into continuity of education allowance (CEA).

CEA costs the Department about £180 million a year to support the 7,900 children of about 5,500 service claimants; about £70 million of this is to settle the tax liability that would otherwise be incurred by claimants serving in the UK. Parents are also required to contribute a minimum of 10% of the school fees; many pay much more, as the maximum allowance covers less of their chosen school’s fees. The 7,900 service children are distributed across about 440 schools, 25 of which are state boarding schools, and they represent about 11% of the total number of children in boarding schools in the UK. The review found that CEA contributes to operational effectiveness by supporting family mobility and accompanied service. It is greatly valued by claimants; but it is expensive, complex to administer and has had a weak governance structure. The challenge for the review was to develop an approach that would increase value for money and save costs, while still supporting mobility, within the context of service life as we expect it to be in the future. Moreover, we had to ensure that the interests of service children were fully protected. I believe we have achieved this.

First, and of paramount importance, I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to support service personnel and their families. As the recent Ofsted report on children in service families made clear, the combination of deployment of a family member and regular moves of home and school can cause anxiety and stress for service families whether living in the UK or overseas and education is disturbed. While this pattern of mobility remains, as it still does for many of our personnel, it is only right that support should be available to minimise the disruptive effect of frequent moves on family life, including support for those service parents for whom continuity of education for their children is best met through boarding school provision.

We have consulted the service community—claimants and non-claimants—both directly and through the service families federations. We have consulted the principal associations representing boarding, independent and preparatory schools and we have compared our practices with those of other major employers in the public and private sectors and our major allies.

We have exhaustively considered a wide range of options for reshaping CEA and how it is delivered. The main options considered were: different ways in which the Department might contract, or pay, for the service; greater use of state boarding schools; increasing the minimum age to exclude the primary stage of education; reducing the maximum age for child eligibility to the end of year 11; restricting entitlement to those serving abroad and with no access to suitable schools; ceasing entitlement for new joiners; increasing parental contributions; transferring the tax liability to claimants; alternative remuneration/allowance packages; and improvements to governance. Many of these options would bear heavily on claimants and their children; and could not be implemented without allowing reasonable time for adjustment.

Against this background, for at least the near to medium-term, we have decided to maintain the core principles of CEA and restrict changes to those that have merit in their own right. We will maintain current parental contribution rates to overall school fees and the eligibility age range for children, though we will remove eligibility for initial claims for years 12 and 13. There will be no changes in our provisions for special educational needs or day school allowances. Parents will continue to be able to choose the most appropriate school for their children from the current wide range of state and independent schools on our accredited list, but as overall numbers of CEA claimants decline we will encourage those who still need boarding education to use state boarding schools, where the tuition fees are already met by the state. Improvements to governance, rule-tightening and clarification of existing entitlements are being introduced. We will develop a centralised payment system to pay fees direct to schools. Any liability to income tax will not be paid by individual claimants.

In the longer-term, we expect the terms and conditions of service of our personnel, and their living patterns, to be different. Withdrawal of units from Germany, concentration on fewer bases and the expectation that many more of our personnel will have less mobile careers, allowing greater stability of home life, will change the requirement for CEA. We will need to do more to encourage and support stability. The new employment model (NEM) programme, which is due to report in the summer of 2012, aims to define how this will happen and, while the project is pursuing a balance between a wide-range of potential benefits, we will set a clear target that it should reduce expenditure on CEA by at least half by 2020, compared with the pre-strategic defence and security review baseline. In designing the NEM, we may well find that reduced mobility will enable us to achieve the challenging reductions in expenditure without major changes to the allowance itself. But, in addressing this issue, the project will also have to look more radically at the best ways to support personnel and families within future resources, given the high costs of boarding education and the relatively small numbers of personnel who could be expected to be eligible for CEA by the end of the decade.

I believe that this is a good outcome for service families and the taxpayer, balancing the need to support service mobility at present with longer-term structural changes, in a measured and progressive way that takes account of financial constraints, improves value for money and avoids adverse impact on service children.

Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

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

In June 2009 the previous Government announced that a feasibility study into the establishment of a defence and national rehabilitation centre (DNRC) would be undertaken. I am today announcing the outcome of that study and the next steps that will be taken. But I wish to do so in the wider context of what is being done for members of the armed forces in the field of both rehabilitation and recovery.

Rehabilitation is primarily clinical treatment for medical conditions arising from illness, wounding or injury. The Defence Medical Services (DMS) are responsible for the provision of rehabilitation. Defence relies upon the availability of medically fit and healthy personnel in order to generate forces for operations. A tiered structure of rehabilitation is provided for all personnel who need it, whatever the cause of their injury or illness. The DMS run local primary care rehabilitation facilities in barracks and stations in which minor cases can be treated. More significant conditions are referred to one of 13 regional rehabilitation units (RRU) in the UK and two in Germany.

In the operational theatre, a deployed rehabilitation capability is available to treat personnel with minor injuries, so avoiding the need to repatriate them. The most seriously wounded are treated first in the theatre of operations before aeromedical evacuation and admission to the military ward of the Queen Elizabeth hospital, Birmingham. When their injuries are sufficiently healed, most such patients start a rehabilitation programme at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court in Surrey, which treats complex or persistent cases regardless of how they are caused.

Let me turn now to recovery. Recovery is primarily a non-clinical activity, which may involve individuals taking rest periods during their rehabilitation treatment programmes. Recovery activity ensures that wounded, injured and sick personnel have access to all the key services and resources needed to help them return to duty or make a smooth transition to an appropriately skilled civilian life. This care is delivered across the defence community by the combined efforts of the services and the service charities, responding to carefully tailored individual recovery plans setting out a recovery pathway.

Single service recovery provision is co-ordinated by the defence recovery steering group (DRSG) and collectively forms the defence recovery capability (DRC). The Army’s wounded, injured and sick are managed at brigade level by 13 regional personnel recovery units (PRUs). The naval services, including the royal marines, are supported at each Royal Navy base but have special facilities at Devonport with Hasler company. The Royal Air Force has a recovery flight as part of their recovery pathway which is followed by all RAF personnel who are unable to return to duty after sickness or injury.

A programme is under way to support the DRC by the creation of personnel recovery centres (PRCs). These centres are already being built in garrison towns in Colchester, Catterick, Tidworth and, in the case of the naval services, at Plymouth. The Pathfinder Centre, opened in Edinburgh in 2009, supported by Help For Heroes for the first two years, is now being run by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and supported by the Royal British Legion and Erskine homes.

The PRCs and other facilities are being built by Help For Heroes in Tidworth, Colchester and Catterick and by the Royal British Legion in Sennelager in Germany. This has been made possible by the generous initiatives of Help For Heroes and the Royal British Legion. Long-term funding will be the responsibility of the MOD. Additional support is being provided by many other charities and Government agencies to ensure that the DRC is able to deliver effective and co-ordinated support from regional support hubs.

The Battle Back programme provides adaptive sport and adventure training opportunities to wounded, sick and injured personnel at all stages of recovery. The programme will be further developed through a defence adaptive sport and adventurous training centre at the Sport England Centre of Excellence at Lilleshall. Funding for this Battle Back centre is being provided by the Royal British Legion and wider Battle Back activity is supported by Help For Heroes through the PRCs.

This partnership between the MOD and the service charities is a long-standing tradition. This multimillion pound programme, using funds raised by a generous and benevolent British public, is already supporting wounded and injured personnel. Once completed, the DRC will provide a comprehensive support network to both serving personnel and their families, and to those who leave the services through injury.

Rehabilitation medicine is advancing rapidly in terms of how technology can help people recover and the extent to which modern medical science might offer new possibilities in the rehabilitative field. While the existing defence rehabilitation facility at Headley Court, established in 1947, is widely admired for achieving remarkable results for those injured in conflict, it is important that defence is in a position to benefit to the maximum degree from advances in technology and science. Realising the full benefits of such advances will not be possible in the medium to long-term because of the physical constraints of the Headley Court site and will therefore require purpose-built accommodation and facilities. It was for this reason that the feasibility study into the concept of a DNRC was conducted, involving the possibility of establishing a new facility in the midlands and looking at how the whole issue of rehabilitation should be developed in 21^st-century terms.

The study involved the MOD, the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It was conducted during 2010 and 2011 and is now complete. It took evidence from a wide variety of sources including many of the practitioners at Headley Court. It concluded that there is convincing evidence that a DNRC would build on the remarkable achievements of Headley Court by offering substantial “betterment” in virtually all areas, providing an assured level of future care that will surpass that which is offered by Headley Court’s current and planned capabilities. The MOD’s surgeon general considers that the degree of “betterment” is shown to be compelling and very significant in terms of scale, quality, design, patient flows and future-proofing. It presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop the nation’s rehabilitation capability in partnership with the MOD, which builds on defence’s acknowledged lead in this area. This defence “core” of a DNRC has been defined in considerable detail and will include specific provision for neurological and complex trauma patients as well as “back to life” facilities.

The study also revealed widespread support for the notion of civilian rehabilitation benefiting from close association with the defence equivalent. Although less developed at this stage, the study concluded that significant national benefits could come into play. The urgent need for improvement in the nation’s approach to getting injured people back to work is well known—the cost to the taxpayer of lost working days was estimated in 2006 to be over £60 billion. A combination of defence and civilian medicine, university-led research and development, and national disabled sporting facilities in one location could provide a combination unique in the world. The focus on work-related interventions, looking at what people can do, rather than what they cannot, has the potential to bring huge benefits to the nation through reducing the social and economic costs of ill-health in working-age adults. Professor Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer of the Department of Health and the NHS in England, and the surgeon general in the MOD strongly support the development of a DNRC, and the trustees of the Headley Court trust also support the project. The next steps will be to develop further the concept for the national elements and to embark upon acquiring the necessary capital through a fundraising campaign. During the study a test site in the midlands was identified as able to accommodate both the defence military establishment and allow space for national facilities to be developed over time. The test site allowed the development of robust costs on the basis of designs to fit the MOD’s clinical brief.

With his permission, modestly given, I am able to tell the House that the benefactor behind this project is the Duke of Westminster. The initiative was his from the outset. Since then, the Duke of Westminster has been working on the project quietly behind the scenes for two years, and it was he who generously funded the feasibility study. His generosity has now extended to the acquisition of the test site so that, as a first step, a dialogue with the planning authority can take place to explore the site’s DNRC potential. He will also fund the necessary work to process the planning application. If the decision is made to proceed with a DNRC, it is the Duke’s intention to donate the site to the project. He will now lead the major donor fundraising campaign and make a very substantial donation to it beyond that which he has already given.

Nevertheless, I can assure the House that no final decision on the future of Headley Court has been made. I expect to be in a position to announce progress on these next steps towards the end of 2013. Should the decision be made to proceed with the project, the outcome would be a new defence establishment, opening in 2017, which would ensure that the spirit and achievements of Headley Court are carried forward into the 21st century on a new larger site, purpose-built to continue to do what Headley Court has always done so well.

Meanwhile, development of the defence recovery capability will proceed and by the end of 2012 the full capability is expected to be in place.

The Government are committed to providing the best possible care for our wounded and injured service personnel. A DNRC offers the clear and compelling opportunity to realise the full benefits of future advances and we should seize it for the medium to long-term. For now, I can assure the House that we shall continue to invest in Headley Court so that it continues to deliver to the best possible standard. A project to increase capacity and sustain infrastructure is planned to start at the end of this year.

FCO Review of Export Policy

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I am today announcing the outcome of a review of UK defence and security export policy in the light of events in the middle east and north Africa.

On 16 March 2011, I told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the Government would review policy and practice with regard to the export of equipment that might be used for internal repression, in particular crowd control goods, in the light of events in the middle east and north Africa. Government colleagues with responsibilities in this area, in particular the Secretary of State for Business, Innovations and Skills who has responsibility for our export licensing systems and operations, have been consulted in the course of this review.

The review concluded that there are no fundamental flaws with the UK export licensing system. But the review identified areas where our system could be further strengthened to enable Ministers to respond rapidly and decisively to the outbreak of conflict, instability or unpredictable events in other countries. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is already a mandatory criterion for all export licence decisions. The changes announced today will increase our confidence that UK-origin goods will not be misused for internal repression, and that our controls are being applied in an orderly and systematic way, informed and influenced by our values and interests. This will complement the Government’s efforts to build Britain’s prosperity by increasing exports and helping UK companies succeed in international markets.

The Government propose to introduce a mechanism to allow immediate licensing suspension to countries experiencing a sharp deterioration in security or stability. Applications in the pipeline would be stopped and no further licences issued, pending ministerial or departmental review.

We also propose the introduction of a revised risk categorisation, based on objective indicators and reviewed regularly, that keeps pace with changing circumstances; enhances our assessment against all export control criteria, including human rights violations; and allows specifically for ministerial scrutiny of open licences to ensure that the benefits of open licensing can be maintained while keeping the associated risks to acceptable levels. This will increase oversight by Ministers, including of individual licence applications.

As a result of these changes the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will ensure that export licensing policy is more responsive to rapidly changing circumstances, particularly political instability; bring more structure and consistency to the gathering of export-related information, provide more information on the human rights situation in country, including through following new security and justice assistance guidance and undertake end-use monitoring of controlled military goods, bearing in mind both the practical and resource limitations.

The Government will continue to work to improve public information on defence and security exports, including enhanced transparency of routine export licensing decisions and how we respond during a crisis. We welcome the scrutiny of the Committees on Arms Export Controls and will continue to assist in their important work.

The Government have also considered how we can strengthen our decision making when we provide security and justice assistance overseas. We must provide assistance to international partners to tackle threats such as terrorism, serious organised crime and conflict prevention. In doing so, we will ensure that this assistance supports our values, is consistent with our domestic and international human rights obligations, and seeks to promote human rights and democracy. To this end, guidance will be issued for all HMG officials on assessing the human rights implications of our overseas security and justice assistance. We will make this guidance public later this year.

We are committed to robust and effective national and global controls to help prevent exports that could undermine our own security or core values of human rights and democracy; to protect our security through strategic defence relationships; and to promote our prosperity by allowing British defence and security industries to operate effectively in the global defence market.

The Government are determined to learn the wider lessons of events in the middle east and north Africa. I believe that this package of improvements is the proper response to the lessons of this year. This does not preclude additional measures or further strengthening of the system.

European Union Act 2011 (Statement)

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

A statement has been laid before the House today, 13 October, and copies are available in the Vote Office. This has been made pursuant to section 5 of the European Union Act 2011 as to whether the decision made at the European Council of 24 and 25 March 2011 to amend article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union falls within section 4 of the EU Act.

The statement and forthcoming Bill to approve the proposed treaty change before the UK can ratify will be the first application of the EU Act 2011 and the enhanced public and parliamentary scrutiny that this provides.

“Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A Call to Action on Obesity”

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The Government are today publishing “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A call to action on obesity in England”.

The public health White Paper “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Our strategy for public health in England” sets out the coalition Government’s commitment to improve the health of the nation, and to improve the health of the poorest, fastest. It describes the radical shift that we are making in the way we tackle public health challenges.

The White Paper committed us to publishing a number of follow-on documents on how we will address specific public health challenges. The call to action is the second of these documents, and sets out how our vision for public health will enable us to achieve a new level of ambition in addressing overweight and obesity.

England has some of the highest rates of obesity in the developed world. It is a major risk factor for diseases such as cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes and costs the NHS more than £5 billion each year. Alongside the serious ill health it can lead to, it can impact on employment, self-esteem and mental health.

Such a pressing issue calls for bold action—by Government and across the range of partners with a role to play. Our White Paper underlined the importance of taking a life course approach to public health issues, and the call to action reflects this by setting out two new national ambitions to achieve a downward trend in overweight and obesity in both children and adults by 2020. Given that more than 60% of the adult population is already overweight or obese, we must tackle the major problem that we already have as well as continuing to focus on prevention.

Our approach to obesity is based on the latest scientific evidence, including advice from a group of independent experts which has estimated the extent of our over-consumption of calories. Being overweight and obese are a direct consequence of taking on more calories through food or drink than we need. We need to be honest with ourselves and recognise that we need to make some changes to control our weight. For most of us who are overweight and obese, reducing the amount of calories we consume is key to weight loss. Increasing physical activity can also be helpful alongside calorie reduction in achieving weight loss and sustaining a healthy body weight, as well as improving overall health.

In setting our new national ambitions, we are clear that it is for each of us to make our own decisions about how we live our lives. But it is important that people are equipped to make the best choices for themselves and their families, and that the healthier choice becomes the easier choice. Everyone has a role to play in this—including businesses in the food and drink and physical activity sectors, employers who can support the health of their work force, and local NHS staff in talking to people about overweight and obesity and its consequences.

We are also calling on business to play a greater and leading role (alongside Government and others) in supporting the population in reducing its calorie intake by 5 billion calories a day to help close the crucial imbalance between energy in and energy out. It is important for business to reduce the calorie content of everyday foods and drinks, making our environment less likely to lead to weight gain, as it is for each of us to avoid eating too much.

As set out in the White Paper, localism is at the heart of the new approach to public health and local leadership will be critically important in preventing and tackling overweight and obesity. Local authorities will have a new enhanced role, supported by a ring-fenced budget, and will bring together local partners with a role in providing effective interventions—including the NHS. The call to action sets out the opportunity that this will bring and the way in which it will help to ensure that action on obesity is tailored to meet the needs of different communities and address health inequalities, rather than imposing a top-down approach.

As reducing levels of overweight and obesity is “everybody’s business”, it is important that everyone with a part to play to knows what progress is being made. The new national ambitions provide a clear goal to aim for, and a new national ambition review group for obesity will draw together a wide coalition of partners to assess progress.

The Government invite all those committed to preventing and tackling overweight and obesity to respond to this call to action and play their part.

“Healthy Lives, Healthy People. A call to action on obesity in England”, as well as the Change4Life marketing strategy—also published today—have been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Asylum Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The Government have decided not to opt in to the European Commission’s amended proposals for asylum procedures and reception conditions directives.

The Government have grave concerns about the way in which the provisions in the amended reception conditions directive would allow asylum seekers to work after six months if a decision at first instance has not been reached and would place stringent restrictions on member states’ ability to detain asylum seekers in exceptional circumstances. These restrictions are unnecessary in a system such as ours where detainees have the right to apply to the courts for release on bail, or to bring a legal challenge against their detention.

The amended procedures directive would place restrictions on accelerated procedures, and on the making of asylum appeals non-suspensive (where a right of appeal can be exercised out of country only), which would endanger a number of systems that the UK operates to manage straightforward asylum claims effectively—in particular our detained fast track which provides speedy but fair decisions for any asylum seekers whose claims are capable of being decided quickly.

Unfortunately, rather than giving us the correct means by which to consider asylum claims effectively and to deter abuse, both directives subject member states’ asylum systems to unjustified regulation and focus excessively on enhancing the rights of all asylum seekers whether their claims are valid or not. This would have significant cost implications for the UK.

The Government will continue to approach forthcoming legislation in the area of justice and home affairs on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration.

Informal EU Transport Council

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

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

The Polish presidency of the EU held its first meeting of EU Transport Ministers in Luxembourg on 6 October. The UK was represented by officials.

There was a policy debate on a draft regulation amending regulation 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending regulation 561/2006. The UK reiterated our support for measures that reduce burdens on business and expressed doubts that the costs and benefits of the Commission’s proposal had been fully assessed. The presidency noted that discussions were at an early stage and that consideration would continue at official level.

The mandate for enlarging the geographical scope of the existing Interbus agreement was not discussed at the Council.

The Council agreed two negotiating mandates in the area of aviation external relations:

The first was to negotiate a high-level agreement with the European Organisation for Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL).

The second was to open negotiations on a comprehensive air transport agreement with Azerbaijan.

The Council adopted conclusions on the Commission communication on “The EU and its neighbouring regions: A renewed approach to transport cooperation”. A number of member states intervened in support. The conclusions have taken on board the UK’s key concerns and are set broadly to maximise the opportunities for trade liberalisation, economic integration and regulatory convergence.

A lunch time discussion on trans-European transport network was held. The UK stressed the need for realism on the TENs budget in the current economic climate and emphasised that decisions on which projects should be developed and invested in on national networks should remain with the member states concerned. Legislative proposals for all trans-European networks (transport, energy and digital communication) are expected to be published on 19 October.

Among AOB items, discussions were held on the Emissions Trading System (ETS) for aviation. The presidency noted that the European Court of Justice had published an advocate-general’s opinion which concluded that the aviation ETS directive was compatible with EU law. The Commission provided oral information noting that the situation was getting highly political and would require a united EU approach to face off third countries’ opposition. The UK intervened to reiterate its commitment to the inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS and its support of the advocate-general’s opinion.

Traffic Signs Review

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

Great Britain has one of the safest road networks in the world and the quality and clarity of our traffic signs make a significant contribution to this. The Department for Transport has now completed the most significant review of traffic signs for over 40 years to ensure that this traffic sign system continues to meet the needs of road users now and in the future.

I am pleased to announce that the Department is today publishing the policy document, “Signing the Way”, which sets out the findings of the review. This document provides a framework for a new traffic sign system which retains national consistency, but reduces central Government involvement in local decisions, reducing costs and giving local authorities the flexibility to respond to local needs. It also sets out our proposals for streamlining the traffic regulation order process which would reduce costs and time.

The review recognises that our travel behaviour is changing and that people are being encouraged to cycle and to walk where practical. The traffic sign system needs to reflect these changes and this review will ensure that our traffic signs meet the needs of all road users.

Traffic signs also directly affect how much clutter there is on our roads. While road users require traffic signs to undertake their journeys safely and legally, too much signing creates an untidy, unattractive and confusing environment. The review sets out measures to reduce the number of signs on the road and provides advice to local authorities on removing unnecessary signing.

The review requires a major update of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and the Department is proceeding with this work as a priority. In the interim, we will deliver changes where possible through the Secretary of State’s traffic signs authorisation process.

Pensions

Thursday 13th October 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I shall today table Government amendments to the Pensions Bill 2011, including one that caps the maximum increase in women’s state pension age at 18 months, relative to the legislated timetable.

The amendment to clause 1 will ameliorate the increase in state pension age for around 245,000 women and 240,000 men and reduce total savings from the increase to 66 by around £1.1 billion (in 2011-12 prices). It maintains our policy to equalise the state pension age for men and women in 2018 and increase to 66 by 2020.

The Government will also table three other amendments to the Pensions Bill 2011. These amendments respond to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court and protect members of pension schemes from unclear or unfair pension saving charges.

The first amendment clarifies what is meant by a “money purchase benefit”, to ensure scheme members are protected appropriately. The second extends an existing reserve power to cap charges for deferred members, which would enable Government to protect all scheme members from high charges, not just active members. The third is a technical amendment to protect individuals who become automatically enrolled into a personal pension scheme when their employer closes a defined benefit or hybrid scheme to new members.

Grand Committee

Thursday 13th October 2011 Grand Committee

Thursday, 13 October 2011.

House of Lords

Thursday 13th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 13 October 2011.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Burma

Thursday 13th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked By

[Baroness Cox]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Burma regarding their protection of the human rights of ethnic Burmese people.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, our ambassador in Rangoon regularly raises our human rights concerns about Burma's ethnic people, most recently on 19 and 20 September, with the Ministers responsible for border affairs, agriculture and irrigation, home affairs, and labour and social welfare, and with the President's office. He urged the Government to start a genuine dialogue towards national reconciliation and to address accountability for past and current human rights abuses. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials made the same points to the Burmese ambassador in July.

[Baroness Cox]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Does he agree that some recent developments deserve a cautious welcome, such as more meaningful dialogue between Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese Government; the announcement of the release of more than 6,000 prisoners, some of whom may be political prisoners; and the decision to suspend the construction of the Myitsone dam in Kachin state? However, does he also agree that serious concerns remain over military offensives against the Kachin and Shan peoples, many tens of thousands of whom have fled for their lives and are now hiding in conditions of terrible deprivation in the jungle? Will Her Majesty's Government raise with the Burmese Government concerns over these military offensives and can the Minister say what help can be given to those who have been forcibly displaced?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I agree that there have been recent developments that we should welcome. We are encouraged by the steps taken by the Burmese Government, including dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and the creating of greater space for political debate. We also welcome news of the release of 206 prisoners so far—that is the number we have a record of—and we look forward to seeing news of further releases and progress on other important issues.

As to the other concerns that the noble Baroness rightly raised, we agree that there are grounds for very serious worry over conflict in the ethnic regions, including in Shan, Kachin and Karen states. We will continue to raise these issues with the Burmese Government and press for an immediate end to hostilities and for the start of a genuine process to build long-term peace. The Department for International Development has agreed funding that will reach displaced Kachin people. UK aid is reaching people in all ethnic states, including Shan and Kachin. Most is delivered through nationwide programmes for health, education, rural livelihood and civil society. DfID also provides cross-border aid where that is the only way to reach vulnerable people, including £1.5 million a year for Burmese refugees in Thailand. As for forcibly displaced people, we are getting strong wording into the upcoming UN resolution on that matter.

[Lord Avebury]

Does my noble friend think that the Burmese Army’s military offensive against the Kachin armed opposition was because of their obstruction of the Myitsone dam project? Since the indefinite suspension of that project was announced last month, does he think that there is scope for the UN to respond to the appeal by the Kachin independence organisation for help in stopping the conflict and achieving national reconciliation?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, I do think that there is scope. We are striving at this moment. As my noble friend knows, there is an upcoming annual resolution by the third committee which will survey the whole human rights scene in Burma. We are putting forward very strong texts to be included in that resolution to meet precisely the points that my noble friend has mentioned. As for the decision to suspend the Myitsone dam project, it is important that the Burmese Government listen to the needs and interests of their people in deciding the future of this project. We note that Aung San Suu Kyi supported the President’s decision to suspend the construction during her meeting with the Burmese minister of labour on 30 September. We welcome this further stage of dialogue and urge the Burmese Government to ensure that it continues.

[The Lord Bishop of Chichester]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his Answer to the original Question. Of course we take comfort from the fact that there have been some releases, some of them of political prisoners, but presumably the Government are aware that there have been many occasions previously when the Burmese Government have made token releases of prisoners. Can the Minister give some assurance about the confidence that can be derived from this being a rather more successful long-term process?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. Of course this is in a sense just a beginning, an opening. There have been abuses, and a long history of political imprisonment which is totally unacceptable. We are again trying to put all these points into the strong text in the UN third committee resolution and we shall press them very hard indeed.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

Does the Minister agree that the progress that Aung San Suu Kyi has made with the Government in Burma represents a great deal more than window dressing and that she should be given every encouragement to continue the dialogue that she is now engaged in? Does he also agree that the reregistration of the NLD is an essential step if Burma is going to move towards any form of democracy?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, I agree with both those things. We strongly support and welcome the Aung San Suu Kyi dialogue and believe that it should be encouraged and supported at every stage.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

Does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding these tentative and welcome steps, there are still 2,000 political prisoners in Burma, some who have been sentenced to 65 years in prison? Given that some 40 per cent of Burma is comprised of ethnic minorities, has he had a chance to consider the impact of the talks with Aung San Suu Kyi and the regime on those minorities, not least because of the recent reports from the Shan state by Amnesty International that troops are using innocent civilians as human shields and minesweepers and are using systematic rape, including the rape of a 14 year-old girl?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

These are deeply worrying developments, and although we welcome the release of these initial prisoners, there remains a great deal to be done. The noble Lord’s comments indicate what challenges there are and where we have to seek major changes and major improvements. We are currently working to secure the toughest possible resolution at the UN General Assembly which we hope will repeat calls for Burma to release all political prisoners and to start working towards national reconciliation in a nation that is obviously deeply divided and riven by ethnic problems of all kinds. As the noble Lord knows, a famous book by Martin Smith on Burma’s ethnic problems reminded us of that long ago. There are many problems ahead.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

Does the Minister agree that the very limited prisoner release announced by the regime in Burma yesterday is merely cosmetic? Is it not clear that the Government are in fact a legalised dictatorship and that they are undertaking action in an effort to get sanctions lifted, not to advance democracy in Burma? Will the Minister give an assurance that the UK will strongly oppose any relaxation of European Union sanctions, especially when there is clear evidence that, as the Minister said, the regime has increased the use of torture, rape and other unspeakable abuses against ethnic nationalities in Burma?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I can give an assurance that we will not review or dilute the sanctions yet, and indeed it is the view of Aung San Suu Kyi and others that we should not do so. The noble Baroness is absolutely right about that. I would take a slightly different tone from that which the noble Baroness uses in her comments. It is, of course, only the beginning. There is a horrific past, and horrific atrocities, to be accounted for, and people held to account for them. There are many problems ahead. However, this is a step that Aung San Suu Kyi herself recognises could lead to a more constructive dialogue with the Burmese Government. We should not do anything to discourage it at this stage, while keeping an eye open that there are many more difficult problems ahead.

Multiple Sclerosis

Thursday 13th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:15

Asked By

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to improve the United Kingdom’s international standing in relation to patient access to new treatments for multiple sclerosis.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, a number of treatments for multiple sclerosis are available to UK patients, supported by the multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance and Scottish Medicines Consortium advice. Our priority is to ensure that patients have access to new and effective treatments. NICE’s forthcoming review of its clinical guideline on MS will bring together up-to-date advice on the best treatments for patients, as part of the overall package of care.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl the Minister for that reply. It is true that the prognosis for many patients with multiple sclerosis has been transformed by the use of these immunosuppressive agents since interferons were introduced. Is he aware that recently a new and effective remedy called fingolimod, which is available by oral administration instead of injection, has been introduced? It has been licensed but has been rejected by NICE for the moment purely on cost grounds. At the moment, evidence suggests that about 60 per cent of patients with this condition in the United States, 30 per cent in most of Europe and only 17 per cent in the UK are receiving this type of medication. Is it therefore not likely that this is the result of restraints on prescribing largely on financial grounds?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is quite right about fingolimod. Since the publication of NICE’s draft guidance, the manufacturer has proposed a patient access scheme for the drug, and the department has agreed that this can be considered as part of NICE’s appraisal. The noble Lord raises a very interesting point about cost. Professor Mike Richards’s report, which came out last year and looked at the extent and causes of international variations in drug usage, outlined a number of potential explanations for the relatively low uptake of some treatments. In the case of MS, one of the reasons identified was caution among some neurologists about the benefits of particular treatments, but also tighter clinical guidelines on the use of MS treatments in the UK compared with some other countries. It is important to stress that in treating MS, medicines form only part of an overall package of care, which of course can consist of access to neurology services and specialist MS nurses.

[Lord Monks]

My Lords, referring to what the noble Earl just said about the Richards report, that report ranked the UK 23rd out of 25 EU countries, with only Slovenia and Lithuania more restrictive on access to new treatments than the UK. The NICE guidelines will not be revised until 2014, having last been done in 2003. For sufferers of MS, a horrible disease, that seems a very long time to wait. I hope that in the reviews that are taking place, the Government will do everything possible to accelerate this work and ensure that NICE gets on with it, and that the Government give priority to MS research in future.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I take the noble Lord’s point. NICE is reviewing its clinical guideline. That is not due to be published until 2014. Although we strive to ensure that there is national guidance on the most commonly used medicines and treatments, there will always be instances where decisions have to be made locally. Under the NHS constitution, patients have the right to expect local decisions about the funding of medicines and treatments to be made rationally, following proper consideration of the evidence. We are emphasising to PCTs that they should do just that.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

My Lords, one of the great problems—

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

I know that my noble friend has been trying to get in and I think that we should let her.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have a daughter who has had MS for 30 years. Recent research announced in Russia indicated that they believe they are developing an answer to rebuilding the myelin sheath, which would be great progress in multiple sclerosis treatment. Can the Minister assure us that when that research is available we will follow it here and introduce it at the earliest possible time?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, new and innovative treatments for MS are being developed in a number of countries. It is quite clear that any new treatment of this kind should be subject to the rigours of the regulatory system before it is made available to NHS patients. Many of them will not have been fully tested to ensure efficacy and safety, but we will of course examine every novel and innovative treatment that has the potential to benefit patients.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

My Lords—

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

The Minister will be aware that the move from the large-scale commissioning of health services to smaller-scale commissioning carries a danger for those who will be deemed on the smaller scale not to have sufficient critical mass numbers to command attention. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that conditions such as MS and other chronic conditions are not endangered by that move to small-scale commissioning?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. Commissioning by clinical commissioning groups does not mean that individual groups will have to commission every service. They can commission collaboratively across larger populations if that makes sense for them. Additionally, some services for less common conditions, including some neurological conditions, fall within the scope of specialised commissions and will be commissioned subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill by the NHS Commissioning Board.

I understand that in Europe the neurological commissioning support, which was developed with the support of a number of neurological charities, including the MS Society, has been well received by commissioners and is doing very good work.

International Year for People of African Descent

Thursday 13th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:22

Asked By

[Baroness Howells of St Davids]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to mark the International Year for People of African Descent.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the Government have no specific plans to mark the United Nations International Year for People of African Descent. However, we strongly support its aims to combat racial discrimination, xenophobia and racial intolerance. The Government remain fully committed to tackling all forms of racism, both domestically and internationally. A recent examination by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination highlighted the solid progress we continue to make on fighting racism.

[Baroness Howells of St Davids]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Since 1959, the UN has designated 53 international years in order to draw attention to major issues and to encourage international action to address concerns which have global importance and ramifications. Will the Minister say how many of those years have been ignored in the UK?

The UN declaration said that the international year must become a milestone in the ongoing campaign to advance the rights of people of African descent. It deserves to be accompanied by activities that fire the imagination, enhance our understanding of the situation of people of African descent and act as a catalyst for real and positive change in their daily lives. One of the complaints of the disaffected youth in this country is the claim that there is a lack of respect afforded to them. The Government’s desire for community cohesion could have been greatly enhanced if they at least paid some attention to the year. Is this the way in which the ethnic minorities, especially those of African descent, can expect the Government to deal with the years that are dedicated specially to their service?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, there is a great deal of wisdom in much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, has said. However, it is not right to say that the Government have ignored these matters. On the contrary, there has been massive, continuous and growing commitment to these issues. The only matter here is whether it is a practice in this country to recognise all the various UN days marking many issues over the years. That is not our practice, although we fully recognise all the aims behind these things and work at the United Nations to further the activities of the UN in all these fields. I would not for a moment dispute the analysis or the line of thinking that is in the noble Baroness’s question, but merely not marking these days in this country is not in any way connected to a lack of very strong commitment to all these causes.

[Lord Crisp]

My Lords, as your Lordships will know, the NHS benefited enormously from a great number of people of African heritage, particularly in the early days. Would it not be a good idea to use this occasion to celebrate this in some way and partly thereby contribute to improving the morale in the NHS?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right about the contribution and the value. He urges celebration, which should be in all our words, aims and activities, but whether a specific day is necessary as well I am not so sure. However, I make absolutely clear that we recognise everything that he said as being extremely valid.

[Baroness Benjamin]

My Lords, October is black history month, which reminds us of the many Afro-Caribbean war veterans who fought for king and country and happily stayed on to help rebuild Britain after the war. British adverts in the Caribbean, which implied that the streets here were paved with gold, encouraged people to come and do the same. Faced with terrible racism and rejection, those people established the Notting Hill carnival to celebrate their culture. It is now the largest carnival in Europe and brings in vast tourism revenue, but I believe that the carnival is now endangered. Can the Government assure the House that they will support and encourage, and try to find ways to celebrate, the contribution of Afro-Caribbean people to this country, giving hope to black youngsters who often feel excluded from our history?

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, my noble friend is right that the past has not been perfect. We should constantly see ways of re-emphasising out gratitude and the value that the various communities contribute. As to the Notting Hill carnival, I must confess that I had a lot of things covered in my brief today, but the Notting Hill carnival was not one of them. Personally, I have always thought that it was a terrific show. The carnival went wrong once or twice, but over the years there has been considerable improvement in the way that it is managed and organised. Frankly, my personal view is: long may it last, continue and flourish.

[The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells]

My Lords, given our colonial history and the distinct contribution that people of African descent have made to our country, is this not an opportunity in educational terms to develop the policy that you have articulated to enable role models to be clearly exemplified, perhaps in the production of DVDs or literature, to nurture in our schools a respect for those who have come here and are part of our story?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I say to the right reverend Prelate that, yes, that is an utterly admirable aim and one we should certainly strive to fulfil.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, is it not rather sad that, on the previous occasion when international recognition was given to the situation of people of African descent, it was in connection with the abolition of slavery, where people of African descent appeared to be the passive victims of an historic process? Does not my noble friend’s excellent Question suggest a more positive way of looking at the role of black people in history?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, and I am happy to report that slavery is covered in my brief this morning. To make it absolutely clear, because there should not be any doubt this, we deplore the human suffering caused by slavery and the slave trade and its consequences for many communities around the world. More than deploring it, our focus should be, and is, on working to address the historical legacy of the slave trade and educating future generations on the evils of slavery. I agree with the noble Lord that all opportunities should be taken to bring that message home very strongly indeed.

War Memorial Gardens

Thursday 13th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:30

Asked By

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will introduce legislation concerning the use of war memorial gardens for entertainment purposes.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government have no plans to introduce legislation concerning the use of war memorial gardens for entertainment purposes. It is for local authorities to take decisions on such matters where they own the land. In doing so, we would expect them to take into account the sensitivities of the local communities involved.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. This Question arises from an application for two months of corporate events in Trinity Square Gardens, a memorial in the City to the many hundreds of thousands of merchant seamen who lost their lives in the major wars. As noble Lords will know, this has generated widespread disgust. I congratulate the mayor and Tower Hamlets Council on rejecting this application in the past 24 hours, but can the Minister offer an opinion on whether it is appropriate that those who caused the financial crisis, often got bailed out by the taxpayer and are still awarding themselves mouth-watering bonuses should ever be allowed to dance around memorials like this?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, first, I should remind the House of my interest as I am still a serving officer in the Territorial Army. This is a Question about war memorials, not regulation of the City. But what I would say is that, when opposing the proposed event at Trinity Square Gardens, the Deputy Master of Trinity House, Rear Admiral Sir Jeremy de Halpert, wrote this:

“It is the tranquillity and character of the entire garden that delivers the respect and atmosphere for quiet contemplation and reflective memory of loved ones and comrades. There are only a few places which mark the selfless sacrifice of so many in the cause of the freedom we now enjoy”.

Few could have expressed our sentiments better.

[Lord Cope of Berkeley]

My Lords, I am a trustee of the War Memorials Trust and of course I deplore any inappropriate use of gardens and war memorials. At the same time, I am sure that it is not a matter that should be the subject of legislation. It is one for the custodians of the individual memorials, for local authorities and so on. That, after all, has brought the right decision in this case.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I agree entirely with the sentiments of my noble friend. It is important to understand that nothing has gone wrong here. An event was proposed, it was considered and, quite rightly, it was determined that it was inappropriate.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Merchant Navy Association and president of the Merchant Navy Medal. At the annual service for seafarers at St Paul’s yesterday, a large number of Merchant Navy and former Merchant Navy personnel spoke to me. I think that we have come to exactly the right conclusion about this affair.

Do the Government have any plans to celebrate appropriately the 70th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic in which 25 per cent of the Merchant Navy sailors involved were killed, an unbelievably high percentage, and something that I fear is often forgotten by the nation?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord’s question about the 70th anniversary, but I will write to him. I have an interest to declare in that for five years after the end of the war, my father served in the deep sea Merchant Navy. Even then, he still had plenty of exciting stories to tell.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, would it be possible to encourage a national programme in which schools adopt their local war memorial, thereby making youngsters more aware of our history and of the sacrifices made, as well as helping with maintenance?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, that is a very good idea. I am sure that schools can do so if they wish to. One of the gratifying things that I see on battlefield tours in Europe is coach loads of British schoolchildren doing what they should do and learning from the mistakes we have made in the past.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, does the admirable self-denying ordinance of my noble friend the Minister in terms of yet more legislation represent a turning point? Might it be a model for the future?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, as a good Conservative, I recommend legislation and regulation only when absolutely necessary.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to agree with me that the War Memorials Trust and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission do the most magnificent job for the people who fell in the world wars, those who lament the loss of their loved ones and also for us? It reminds us of the evils of war but makes us proud that we continue to look after the graves and war memorials.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I could not possibly agree with the Leader of the Opposition to any greater extent.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that thanks to the late Fred Cleary there are approaching 250 gardens within the City of London? I acknowledge that some of them are in horse troughs and window boxes but there are a large number of alternative gardens which could be used for the purpose of the original application.

[Earl Attlee]

I am sure that my noble friend is correct.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 13th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Announcement of Recess Dates

11:36

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a word about recess dates for the coming year. As ever, a note of all the dates that I am about to announce is available in the Printed Paper Office. I understand that my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons is now making a Statement on the same subject to another place.

First, there will be a long weekend in November to break up the autumn, given that there will not be a prorogation this autumn. We will therefore rise at the end of business on Wednesday 16 November and return on Monday 21 November.

I have already announced the dates for the Christmas Recess this year. We will rise at close of business on 21 December and return on 10 January. Subject to the progress of business, and at this stage provisionally, the House will adjourn for a week in February from the end of business on 16 February and return on Monday 27 February. We will rise for Holy Week and Easter from the end of business on 28 March and return on Monday 16 April.

The recess that is variously known as Whit and Spring is very special next year. The Whitsun Recess will be combined with the public holidays to mark Her Majesty the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. We will rise at the end of Wednesday 30 May and return on Monday 11 June.

Next summer may seem a long way off, but may I also announce those holiday dates too? We will rise at the end of business on Wednesday 25 July and return on 8 October, the week of the Conservative Party conference. At present, I propose that this House should not sit in September 2012. As is always the case on these occasions, I must stress that these dates are subject to the progress of business and I shall need to keep under review the feasibility of the February Recess, but I hope to keep to these dates. The practice of announcing recess dates in advance, which I believe is a convenience to all Members and also to the staff of the House, can work only when we make reasonable progress with business.

Business of the House

Thursday 13th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

11:40

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the debates on the motions in the names of Lord Rooker and Lord Giddens set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours.

Motion agreed.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Thursday 13th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

11:40

Moved By

[Lord Henley]

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 15, Schedule 3, Clauses 16 to 18, Schedule 4, Clauses 19 to 24, Schedule 5, Clause 25, Schedule 6, Clauses 26 to 29, Schedules 7 and 8, Clauses 30 and 31.

Motion agreed.

Planning

Thursday 13th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Debate

11:40

Moved By

[Lord Rooker]

To call attention to the Government’s consultation paper on proposed changes to the planning system; and to move for papers.

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, in contemplating the consultation document on planning reform published by the Government, I start by saying that in principle, and in general, I am actually with the Government on this issue, although I may differ on a few points—the two most important being brownfield and on how local the decision-making should be. I am pro-development and if I do not always use the prefix “sustainable”, you must add it in. To me, it means the water, the transport, the density, the schools, jobs and GPs; for housing, it means mixing the tenures and affordability. In fact, it is about what has been discussed in the Localism Bill—sustainable communities and how to plan for them.

Ministers have had a torrid time from their friends at the Daily Telegraph, the owners of which are not really entitled to a view on this issue from their offshore island. There has been much misleading hype from the National Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. I do not think they believe everything they put out. As Planning Minister, I had disagreements with them, but they did not feel they had to resort to hype on the current scale. We have to realise that it is a draft policy framework and we do not always need to blame the communications—sometimes we need to look again at the message. In this respect, I have some helpful advice for Ministers. Cut out the petty party points and do not insult those who oppose you. Above all, do not ignore what has been done before by other political parties.

When I was at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2002-05, with the then Deputy Prime Minister, we set about delivering a genuine policy for growth which was controlled and sustainable. The principles were set out in the February 2003 communities plan. We were, as we said at the time, able to build on previous work by John Gummer—now the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in this House—who had the courage to rework the policy regarding out-of-town retail developments in order to encourage city centre growth and prevent sprawl; and on that of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who had created the Thames Gateway. Both were visionaries, and we said so at the time as we promoted our communities plan. The Minister could well take a look at the ideas, content and explanations in the plan published by the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. It is not perfect but they can learn from it. Indeed, I suspect that many of the same civil servants who worked on that plan are still around working for the Minister.

The policy is about England. So, let us get the facts. Over 90 per cent of the land of England is not built on. National parks account for 9 per cent; designated areas of outstanding natural beauty account for 15 per cent; the green belt accounts for 13 per cent; urban developments—the roads and everything—are 9 per cent. That is a total of 46 per cent. From memory, when I was at the relevant department, the land that was thought needed for development—housing and other infrastructure—was about 1 per cent. So, what on earth is the problem? That is all we are talking about in terms of the scope of the land of England for proper development. The last Government managed to leave behind more green belt than they inherited, two new national parks and sustainable development—even though I do not think there was enough of it.

The draft planning policy nowhere near seeks to destroy our countryside, areas of outstanding natural beauty, the green belt or our vast open countryside. Those are the facts—it cannot do that given the amount of land that is required. We need to get real on this matter. I accept that we have to be very careful in the use of land. There was a time in the south-east—the region most deprived of brownfield sites; I will come back to that—when dwellings were averaging only 22 per hectare on greenfield sites. That led to a density directive stipulating a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare, although I think that that is too low in any event. There are countless examples, set out in publications, of very high-quality housing in this country at much higher densities, indeed more than double that rate. This should not lead to room sizes so small that living space is compromised and specially made small furniture needs to fitted in the show houses as a disguise.

The green belt, which is what a lot of the debate is wrongly about, is what I sometimes used to call—I know people got annoyed about it—rubbish land. It is the collar around the urban areas to prevent sprawl. That is what it actually is. The urban fringe is not nice in most areas. By definition it is touching up on the urban areas. I know farmers who suffer on the urban fringe from the dumping of rubbish, even supermarket trolleys, in fields about to be machine-harvested.

In the communities plan we took the view that to obtain sustainable growth it is sometimes necessary to have the odd incursion into the green belt, but with a commitment to designate more than was taken. That can easily be done now. You might, for example, need a new bridge over a river or a railway line to get access to land for development that would not otherwise be available. It builds on what is already there in communities—it is not necessarily greenfield, open-span development; it is adding to towns and cities.

In fact, we had a specific plan, which I do not see anywhere in this policy, for greening the sustainable development. It was quite separate. I was reminded of it earlier this week when I got an invitation to celebrate the first 20 years of the Forest of Marston Vale in December. That was a project high on our greening list of areas to green as we were also intensively developing them.

City centres need to be vibrant places for people to live, work and play. We do not want any closed-off areas and no-go areas at weekends and in the evenings. But you need planning and management to achieve that. You also need to restrict out-of-town greenfield growth, and, in my view, you need to do it for both retail and offices. It needs a very positive approach to maintain our city centre areas. I recall on one occasion—I have never visited the site—when an Ikea was built on top of its car park rather than waste the land alongside for the car park. It did not happen by accident, and it was not the first choice, but it was a solution that prevented taking too much land.

Much of the debate has been about rural areas and I suspect that we will get some of that this morning. I do not see rural areas like the lid of a chocolate box. That is not to say that I want to concrete over them, far from it; but I do not have that romantic view. These areas are where millions of our fellow citizens live. There is a lot of hidden deprivation in rural areas with job losses, poor transport and everything else.

Small towns and villages die and become residential dormitories if they are not replenished by encouraging the reuse of old buildings and allowing new activities to replace older ones. We should not have to wonder why the shops, the banks, the schools, even the pubs go. You lose what you do not use. Young people are forced away to start a life and a family in the big cities and therefore these places die. You lose the children, you lose the school. It’s not rocket science.

This does not mean that villages need to be swamped by massive new additions. They sometimes need no more than a handful of new homes for local people, maybe just by infilling the boundaries of the small villages and towns. I recall going to see the leaders of one area to push for growth—it was in Buckinghamshire but I will not mention the town; it certainly was not my political area, I went there as the Minister. I had to sell them growth. To my surprise they had embraced the planned growth because towns to the south of them in the M4 corridor were taking off in growth and their town was dying.

We pumped capital into the town to pump prime and developers did the rest at the outer edges of the town. The town grew considerably. This plan in turn was used by the leaders—which was a surprise to me, and I used it elsewhere. They said, “We’ll grow our town because if we have a plan for growth we can oppose the developments in 100 villages in our county that are way beyond what is needed. We can go to planning appeals and say that the growth is there in our county because we are deliberately growing our towns. We can stop the pepperpotting among the villages”. I thought that that was a very positive approach to development because it meant more sustainable growth and a lot less commuting.

One of my central points—and I do not think that it is in the policy; there is too much hope in the policy—is that growth has to be driven. I do not think that the issues will be addressed by the locality. Sustainability will not come from local decision-making. Nobody at that level sees the big picture when you are planning growth—and you have to plan, otherwise the infrastructure does not appear. That is one of the key issues. Large new housing without infrastructure is bad. We have done it in the past and we know where the failures are. Has anybody ever wondered why parish councils do not do planning? It is self-evident. The answer is there. So do not force the local decision-making so low that you get a complete log jam. You have to have discussion, co-operation, partnership and sensitivity. That is crucial in a modern democracy. We are not like France, which has a different planning system; the Government decide what they are doing and it gets done. Nothing will happen if the decision-making is too close to the developments. That is an area where some work has to be done on the policy.

I shall deal just briefly with agricultural land. Ministers could again learn from the past; they would do very well to dig out in Defra a web-based report on barriers to diversification by farmers. The key barriers were identified as planning and business education. So we need a presumption in my view on the reuse of redundant buildings in the countryside, with a limit—maybe double the floor area—to allow new developments for jobs and enterprise. It is no good planners saying, “Use the old building as it is, or not”, because the “not” will win out and you will get no development and you will get dereliction. The level of planner interference sometimes knows no bounds. A farm with holiday cottages and physical activities for city folk, such as climbing frames and skateboarding down hills, fell foul of planners because of the roof shape of the shed used for storage. It was at the bottom of a slope 30 feet below the road, where it could not be seen because of the hedge. The farmer put a sloping roof on a 10x10 shed, and the planner said, “Oi, you’ve got to get that off—I want a pitched roof!”. It is ridiculous the way that planners interfere with their personal views at this level.

One final area that I raise on the countryside is on the permanent show grounds around the country. They are used for shows other than agricultural shows, but they have an inbuilt infrastructure and, in my view, there should be a presumption for building indoor recreation and sports activities as a norm on such sites. Sometimes they are alongside a golf course, so why should you not have indoor sports facilities on some of these grounds? They have the infrastructure; it helps to make them viable and sustainable, because the infrastructure already exists.

Finally, I turn to the subject of brownfield, which is referred to in detail in the impact assessment. There must be a policy that encourages brownfield on previously developed land. I agree that the policy for housing targets on brownfield, first established in 1995 and carried on till the present day, is too rigid. It does not fit all the circumstances in the country. I was once a factory manager in Surrey, and there ain’t a lot of brownfield land in Surrey born out of our industrial revolution there. Ten years ago, the National Land Use Database identified 66,000 hectares of brownfield capable of redevelopment. Remediation was at about 1,000 hectares a year. I simply do not see how that can have dried up, as has been claimed, given the amount of land that was there 10 years ago. Of course, greenfield is cheaper, but brownfield is virtually always more sustainable given its location. We know that there are developers who have made a real business out of developing brownfield, and with affordable housing, including the Berkeley Group and Urban Splash, which are leaders and innovators regarding redundant buildings such as waterworks, offices and factories for new homes. As an aside, I do not think that ex-factories and ex-offices should have to have planning permission to be converted to housing. By definition they were occupied by hundreds or thousands of people in the past; the road infrastructure and everything is always there. It is a bit different for sewer works and waterworks, and things like that, but I think that people should be able to get on and do it. Brindleyplace in Birmingham was built without planning permission, right in the centre, with offices, shops and everything, because it was that kind of zone, which was designated. So it can be done.

The Minister has to find a middle way between the two extremes. The final policy has to include encouraging the use of brownfield. It will remove a major plank from the sometimes misleading opposition to the draft policy. It is a draft—and what draft cannot be improved? But the central thrust should remain a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It is not a plan to concrete over our manmade countryside or destroy the quality designated areas. Those who claim this are plain wrong, in my view.

I encourage the Minister to look again at the work of the three noble Lords in the past. Things go off the boil as Ministers change and civil servants come and go. Things need driving, and I discovered that as one of the issues relating to this area of policy. If you do not drive it forward from the centre—it is not all top-down—it goes off the boil locally, and then you are at the behest of the personal views of planning inspectors and planners, who have caused us major problems in stopping sustainable development in this country.

We do not need to start again. Use the work of others. Find a way to explain and communicate. The principle of planned growth is right, and I applaud the fact that the Government have continued to do this. But they have got to change some aspects of the policy level, and use some good ideas from previous Tory and Labour Administrations. There were some good ideas, so you do not have to start again with a clean sheet of paper. I beg to move.

11:55

[Viscount Goschen]

My Lords, there are a great many planning experts in this House, many of whom demonstrated their great skills and experience during proceedings on the Localism Bill over many days. Many of its amendments and debates focus on areas that are closely related to the current consultation on the national policy planning framework. We have heard an impassioned speech from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who invited the Minister to choose the middle ground between two extremes. My view would be exactly the same. While I agree with some of his detailed points on conversion of buildings in rural areas and so forth, I have one principal point to make today, which is one of balance.

I certainly welcome the Government’s focus on streamlining planning regulations. The current morass of regulations is certainly overcomplex. When there is overcomplexity in government policy, it leads to that policy perhaps not being given the degree of respect that it requires. The Government should therefore be commended in attempting to make sense out of the situation, to make the system more comprehensible, and thus better respected by those it affects.

It is certainly also true that the current system is unduly cumbersome, particularly with regard to the delivery of major infrastructure projects. There are many to look at, but one has only to look at the length of the planning inquiry into terminal 5 to realise that there is too great a gap for companies and the Government to be able to plan major infrastructure developments in this country. It just takes too long.

However, like many others, I am concerned about the nature of some of the proposals set out in the consultation document that we are considering. In my judgment, the way in which the document is phrased is very one-sided. It states one objective, which is promoting development. I cannot recall seeing a statement of government policy addressing sensitive and complex issues which takes such—one might say “definitive”—an approach.

Throughout the document, from the very beginning, the Government set out their stall with admirable clarity. Paragraph 9 states boldly:

“The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”.

I am not at all sure that this is the case; or, at least, not without qualification and the exclusion of other priorities. For someone who is very definitely not one of the planning experts that I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, it could be argued that the purpose of the planning system is quite the opposite; that is, to act as a check and balance against an unrestrained charge for development. The authors of the document take comfort behind the term “sustainable” to qualify development. I was interested in the debate that took place yesterday, and would certainly agree that the term has been so overused as to lose any meaningful impact, as we have heard in recent debates. What is “sustainable development”? Today’s definition of “sustainable” may well not be tomorrow’s.

I was struck by the force of the Government's determination to support one side of this debate, particularly with regard to housing. The consultation paper is packed with strong statements to remind the reader of the Government’s one-dimensional view. Paragraph 14 states:

“At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development, and approve all individual proposals wherever possible”.

That strikes me as an exceptionally bold statement, which could have been drafted in the dreams of those who might seek to benefit from the conversion of muddy fields into sparkling new dormitory towns. I urge the Government to think carefully about the balance between development—a great deal of development could be sustainable and very welcome—and conservation, the requirements of the rural economy, the preservation of open spaces, the importance of farming and biodiversity, principles which have led and guided the planning process for so long.

In paragraph 28 the document directs that local planning authorities should plan for the scale of housing supply necessary to meet demand. I question whether that is not a naive aspiration. The demand for housing is not quite infinite but it is certainly very large indeed. In my submission, an attempt to satisfy this demand would lead to housebuilding on an unprecedented scale, which would fundamentally alter the fabric of the country. I certainly understand the motivation behind this policy. We want to arrive at a balanced state of affairs whereby planning does not act as an unreasonable check and hindrance to development and boosts the economic capability of this country, for example, through industry. The Government are looking for any means of unlocking growth. However, I suggest that to put the emphasis so much on the need for development, as the consultation does, and attempting to promote development wherever possible is not going to achieve that. I am also interested to know where the funding is going to come from for all this proposed new housing stock. Debt financing is, of course, the answer. I wonder whether there is a need for a new mountain of borrowing.

If a country with extensive tropical rainforest assets had put forward a planning document suggesting that logging should take priority over all other considerations wherever possible, I suggest that environmentalists, and perhaps policy-makers in the developed world, would be up in arms about that. I think that there is a comparison to be drawn with what is proposed in this document. No doubt I will get “roughed up” by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but in fact I agree with a lot of what he said about the need for balanced, sensible and well considered development. However, whatever we say at this stage, there is the law of unintended consequences. If this becomes the policy framework, those who are keen to sponsor large-scale housing development in large and, in my view, unsustainable dormitory-type schemes will have those schemes approved over and over again. I urge my noble friend to take account of the voices raised to counterbalance the gung-ho attitude of the Government.

12:03

[Lord Hart of Chilton]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for introducing this debate and for enabling us to make representations direct to the Minister without having to fill in a consultation form.

It is not surprising that the draft national policy framework has caused controversy. Planning decisions necessarily involve balancing competing objectives—policy and politics, legal issues, public and private interests and above all the making of choices which can directly affect villages, towns, cities, the countryside and those who live in them.

Such decisions are often controversial. They frequently attract passionate opposition, from professional and lay or local opinion, quite apart from organisations representing sectional interests. They are sometimes regarded as unfair or just plain wrong. In a relatively small country with finite land resources, the third highest population density in the world and the population rising fast, it could scarcely be otherwise.

Those who approach the subject, therefore, should do so carefully and in a consensual mood; not as some have done recently in an intemperate manner because that only creates antagonism and leads to the conclusion that the only thing wrong with the planning system is the people who operate it. I am not complacent, but there is no substantial body of evidence to substantiate the claim that the planning system is broken, or that it can legitimately be made a scapegoat for a lack of economic growth.

For example, in my own local area there is at least one extant permission for a large housing development in suspense; not because of problems in the planning system, but because of the financial problems of the developer. I am quite sure that this is replicated by many other examples across the country and the statistics seem to indicate that. I am not opposed in principle to the framework. I want to make it better, but today I wish to draw attention to three issues that I fear will give rise to potential legal difficulties. I must declare an interest as one who, for many happy years, used to practise in this area.

First is the framework itself. Any reduction of policy guidance from 1,300 pages of statements, guidance and correspondence down to 52 pages comes with a risk of challenge by way of judicial review. I say that because simplicity of language does not necessarily make things simple. Sometimes it is quite the opposite because quarrels over interpretation and nuance inevitably lead to delay at the very time that the human resource in each local planning authority required to give effect to this policy is at a low ebb, with cutbacks making things worse.

Policy guidance is, of course, a matter for the Secretary of State. It is a material consideration in deciding planning applications. However, like all material considerations, it is also a matter for the courts to construe if invited to do so. Of course, the weight to be placed upon each material consideration is for the decision-maker, but it is not possible to avoid the courts construing whether or not something is a material consideration.

In several respects, the framework lacks clarity. I am rather on my own here, but I very much regret the cancellation of a number of the planning policy statements, some of which were published recently, and in practice I found them exceedingly helpful. I do not believe that short, summarising sentences will adequately replace the detail contained in, say, planning policy statement 5, dealing with the historic environment and the setting of listed buildings. There are others, too. I am not saying that there is no room for cutting out repetition and out-of-date material, but much of the recent guidance has been extremely useful and I will be sorry to see it go.

In future, practitioners will refer back to the cancelled statements and track the wording. Where the wording of the new framework is unclear or open to more than one interpretation, battle and consequent delay will commence; leading, if the stakes are high, either to more and more planning appeals or more and more litigation by way of judicial review. So I believe the framework should be rescrutinised and, where necessary, added to or provided with supplementary guidance.

My second point relates to the term sustainability and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It cannot be the Government’s intention to leave a policy vacuum while developers leap to take advantage, but I fear that it might happen. The concept of sustainability has been around since at least 1994 with the parliamentary Command Paper Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy and has given rise to considerable debate. The framework does not contain a full definition in the glossary of terms and it should. I believe that the current definition is inadequate because it contains insufficient environmental balance and concentrates on the short term.

The Government, of course, argue that if you read the document as a whole, the balance is there, but the tone is otherwise. It is almost as though one can hear the dog whistle from the Treasury. Some have said that there has been sufficient controversy—I believe this—about the current attempt at definition to make one believe that it is absolutely necessary for the draftsmen to go back to the drawing board.

Paragraph 14 of the statement raises concern because it requires planning approval to be granted in accordance with the framework “without delay” and,

“where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date”,

and applies,

“unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policy objectives in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole”.

There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. That needs clarification in the context of other material considerations and statutory obligations imposing duties on the Secretary of State and the local planning authority which may be inconsistent with the new presumption, quite apart from the separate obligations to produce environmental impact assessments and to comply with European directives.

To a lawyer, presumptions and statutory duties, and each and all of the phrases that I have mentioned, carry with them issues of interpretation and require greater clarity and guidance to avoid litigation. For example, what is “indeterminate” or “out of date”? What is “significantly and demonstrably”, which is a new planning concept?

On the text itself, where is the presumption in favour of using brownfield land before greenfield land so that developers are prevented from seeking cheaper land in the interests of growth? Why have office developments and cultural activities disappeared from the sequential test in the section on town centres? What will be the implications of that and where does one find a long-term strategic view for the future? How can it be right when almost all major developments involve significant traffic issues? Should it be said that there should be no refusal unless the impact is severe?

Thirdly, I turn to the development plan, which I link to the presumption. Since 1947—strengthened in 1990—it has been the position that planning permission should be granted for development which is in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The plan itself has undergone serial major changes which continue under the Localism Bill. This is not the first time that the development plan has been subject to complaints of being responsible for delay and harming the economic well-being of the country. It has been a recurrent theme over the past 30 years, as has the desire to involve the public in the planning system.

Currently, however a large number of local planning authorities are consulting the public on core strategy draft documents, which constitute part one of the new local plan. In my own area, consultation lasts until 2 December this year. To maintain confidence, public involvement is of critical importance. It is, therefore, extremely alarming to see the draft statement refer to a default position whereby, in the absence of a plan or where relevant policies are said to be out of date, the presumption will be in favour of development. That cannot possibly be the right way to go because, although plans are in the process of formulation, they should be allowed to continue to a conclusion and there should be no framework presumption until that has happened. To do otherwise will undermine public confidence in the plan-making process. In any event, the plan must conform to the policy framework. As a result, further time and delay will be taken up in achieving this and, of course, no community order can come into play until it conforms to a local plan and hence the framework. In this respect localism will be in suspense.

Although I understand the natural desire to encourage economic growth and speed up the planning process, I do not believe that any action should be taken that brings the risk of increased litigation or an increase in the number of planning appeals, which is the very opposite of the coalition’s intention. So much more work is needed and it almost makes me want to go back into practice.

12:14

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a member of a local planning authority and the local development control committee in Colne, which is the Colne and District Committee. Perhaps I should think about retiring.

I sometimes complain that your Lordships’ House does not spend enough time talking about important nitty-gritty things I am interested in, such as planning, but at the moment we are discussing that almost every day. We were discussing it yesterday in the Localism Bill, we will discuss it again on Monday in further debate on that Bill and here we are again today. Perhaps I should be careful what I wish for.

My initial reaction when I read this draft national planning policy framework was that a lot of the language is wrong. It does not fit neatly into a planning framework; it is written more like a manifesto and there is quite a lot of sloppy wording. Sloppy wording is something that must be avoided here; otherwise it is a recipe, as the noble Lord, Lord Hart, said, for lots of appeals, judicial review and lots of money for rich lawyers. My second thought was that a lot of it is internally inconsistent and it needs sorting out. Whatever message the Government want to give in this document, it has to be consistent. My third problem is what it misses out and that is inevitable when all the PPSs are being condensed into a shorter document. I hope that the Government will not get hung up on 50 pages, but if they do, I would say that it needs increasing a bit and perhaps they will have to use a smaller typeface. Nevertheless, I understand the purpose of the document. My final concern is: what does it really mean? This leads us on to the meaning of “sustainable development”.

Last night, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, pointed out that the Government are often in a state of confusion between the meaning of the word “development” and the phrase “sustainable development”. They are not the same thing, but they seem to be being used interchangeably. The absolute minimum, from our point of view, is that a definition of “sustainable development”—an explanation, if they do not want a definition in this document—must recognise that it consists of three pillars: economic, social and environmental. That is absolutely fundamental. Planning decisions and planning policy-making have to involve a balance between those. A reading of this document suggests that the balance is not there. If the Government wish to set a great premium on growth—and I understand why they may—it must be within the context of those three pillars and the balance between them. In particular, it must be set within clear environmental limits.

The noble Lord, Lord Hart, has already referred to paragraph 14, which has caused a lot of the problems. It reads:

“At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development”.

That is fine.

“Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development”.

That is fine, but then it says,

“and approve all individual proposals wherever possible”.

At the very best that is such sloppy wording that it cannot be allowed to remain. All things are possible. Then it says,

“approve development proposals that accord with statutory plans without delay”.

Again, it is sloppy wording. Of course there should be no inefficiency, no unnecessary delay, but as a member of a planning committee for very many years and the former chairman of one, I know that planning applications very often require negotiation, discussion and attempts to reach consensus. Simply because a proposal, whether it is small, medium-sized or big, is in accord with the plan does not mean that there are not lots of details that require sorting out—things such as access and the implications on the local highway network; whether it requires changes to and support for local bus services; the detailed design of proposals. These are absolutely crucial and yet do not necessarily follow automatically from what is in the plan. All those things and a lot more require time. It is better to spend some time getting it right because, for people who live in or visit an area, what is done very often will last for many years—perhaps for hundreds of years. Spending a bit more time getting it right is absolutely vital. Planning is for the lifetime of people who live in an area. Developers looking at the wording of parts of this document may well feel that Christmas has arrived. They may think that it is wonderful—but planning is for life, not just for Christmas.

The final bullet point states that local planning authorities should:

“Grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date”.

The point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hart. It leads to a discussion that we will have on Monday when we return to considering the Localism Bill and debate amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and myself about transitional arrangements in local plan-making and decision-making. There is a concern that the Government did not think this through as well as they should have done when they wrote the Localism Bill and drew up the draft national policy framework. Some of us feel that clear transitional arrangements for the local plan-making system and how it will adapt to the new policies should be set out in the legislation, along with guidance on how planning applications should be dealt with in the mean time. I am aware that the Government are considering putting this instead in the national planning policy framework. I do not mind where it is so long as the system set out is the right one. We need to understand how the process for local planning authorities to get their local plans in line with the new system will work in the absence of regional strategies and planning policy statements, and with just the new NPPF.

Initially, Ministers said that local authorities would have six months to sort themselves out. It is absolutely clear that six months is totally inadequate. A period of 18 months is now being talked about—and probably even that is not enough. The context is that some councils do not have new core strategies in place and still rely on old-style local plans that predate the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Some have new-style local development frameworks and core strategies in place, based on the 2004 Act. Some are moving towards it: they have core strategies, key diagrams and proposal plans that are moving towards the process of inspection and of being adopted. However, seven years after the 2004 Act, what we were told was a new, wonderful, streamlined planning system that would sort everything out clearly has not worked. None of us wants to see that kind of delay applied to the new system.

If the local authority has an approved core strategy, it must still go for its statement of conformity under the new system. How much change will that involve, how long will it take and what procedures are in place? If the authority does not have a core strategy under the 2004 Act but it is moving towards it—perhaps it has submitted it for inspection or is about to do so—how much work will it have to do to take it back, amend it, get new evidence and check it against the rules of this new document? How long will that take and what procedures will be in place? If the local authority is nowhere near this, what on earth is it going to do? What weight can it still take from its existing local plans, at whatever stage they are, to apply to a new planning application? If the answer is that after a certain period of time, perhaps six or 18 months, these are dropped and swept away and it is a free for all, then we are in chaos. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some clear answers to these questions on Monday, but in the mean time they are fundamental to this NPPF and there must be some clear guidelines included in this document, unless the local planning system is simply going to collapse.

12:25

[Lord Reay]

My Lords, this is a timely debate on one of the most contentious issues of the moment, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for introducing it and doing so in an absolutely excellent speech.

It is appropriate that this Motion should be introduced from the Benches opposite. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was one of the great achievements of the post-war Labour Government and has been responsible for the quite remarkable degree of preservation that has been achieved for the British countryside, including specifically its protection from ribbon development and from inappropriately sited high-rise buildings. To that one could perhaps add protection from suburbanisation, although I must be careful of what I say in front of colleagues who come from Surrey.

The result of this cultivation of one of our most precious national assets is widespread international envy and admiration, and a vibrant rural tourist industry. It would be foolish and tragic to throw this away. I have no objection in principle to this attempt in the NPPF to codify planning law in 50 pages, and I understand that economic activity must be permitted to develop and grow and that an expanding population needs to be accommodated in our crowded island, but as the Prime Minister eventually acknowledged in the letter that he wrote to Dame Fiona Reynolds, it is important to balance environmental considerations against social and economic factors.

I regret that the NPPF has dropped the previous requirement that brownfield sites should be developed ahead of greenfield sites, and I am intrigued and delighted that the party opposite has taken up this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said last night in support of the amendment to that effect, such a requirement would also benefit the regeneration of run-down urban areas.

I think it is wrong that where local plans have not yet been drawn up—the case with over half of local authorities—or where they are out of date, development can then expect a green light. This is the issue of transition that was taken up last night during proceedings on the Localism Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Frankly, it would be chicanery to thus trick local authorities out of their rights, given the complicated legal and bureaucratic requirements for drawing up local plans; so this issue must be addressed. Nor do I see why local authorities should be instructed that poor transport links should not be used to justify refusing development plans. Once again, this is unnecessary direction from the top.

Above all, there should be a statement supporting the preservation of the countryside, taking account of its landscape value, outside the designated areas of green belts, AONBs and national parks. After all those areas account for more than half the countryside in England, and without its protection we can expect urban sprawl and the countryside to become scattered with bungalows. That was the purport of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Marlesford last night. The Government may have reaffirmed, and the NPPF may also confirm, the previous protection for designated areas, but to leave out any appreciation of the value and the need to protect countryside outside the designated areas is to leave the impression that all such areas will and should receive no protection.

All these changes could be made with the alteration of just a few words here and there in the NPPF document. Even to add on page 46 after the words “protecting valued landscapes” the words “including non-designated landscapes” might be enough to cater for the inclusion of such areas.

I am not sure whether even designated areas do not require greater protection. In the past two years, there have been two attempts to acquire planning permission for large-scale wind farms six kilometres within the Forest of Bowland AONB. This was undoubtedly a try-on by the developer, and if it had been successful it would have led to a full-blown assault on AONBs nationwide. That suggests that the present protection could and should be improved.

I think there is a tendency for Governments, desperate to produce economic growth, to find in planning policy a scapegoat for the failure of other policies and the imperative of ineluctable circumstance. There is no observable correlation, as the chief executive of CPRE pointed out in a recent published letter, between loose planning regimes and strong economic growth: Germany and the Scandinavian countries having strong planning regimes and economies, Ireland and the Mediterranean countries having weaker ones.

In our small, crowded island, with many precious natural and manmade assets to be preserved as best as possible, it is only right that planning approval should be a laborious process that seeks to find acceptance for a compromise between competing interests. It is the slowness of the process that itself helps to provide the acceptance of the outcome.

There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. We have spent many fruitless hours, and will doubtless spend many hundreds more, bandying about the word “sustainability”. The irony is that there is nothing less sustainable than the Government's entire renewable energy policy. I referred last night to what we saw at the recent Conservative Party conference and to how the leaders of the party are beginning to signal a difference of emphasis with regard to their green policies. They are evidently beginning to be worried about the expense. This expense is, of course, set to rise exponentially and quite unaffordably, so the change in rhetoric will have to be followed by a change in policy, as I said last night, unless we want living standards in this country to be driven back to pre-industrial age levels. That will then make pages 42 and 43 of the draft NPPF, which amount to genuflection before the altar of global warming, entirely out of date.

What will happen then? The Government will have to row back from their instructions to local authorities to pay so much attention to climate change, but that moment cannot come too soon, for the greatest destruction taking place today to our countryside is due to the proliferation of wind turbines, ever larger in size, maintained by subsidies that are largely paid to foreign companies, impoverishing a new generation of consumers, driving large-scale manufacturing overseas so that the carbon emissions are produced abroad but the unemployment is produced at home, enriching a few farmers and landlords but arousing violent antagonism among thousands more. It all amounts to a ruinous tribute to a toppling idol. To give it a final push would do more than anything else to save our countryside and our economy. Is the party opposite not interested in taking up that cause?

12:33

[Lord Rogers of Riverside]

My Lords, I declare an interest in Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners and as a director of the River Café, Hammersmith. I join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Rooker on introducing this timely debate. I will discuss the effect that this national planning policy framework is likely to have on our cities and our countryside, which are two sides of the same coin. In fact, cities need to be contained by a belt—green or other—to optimise the benefits of both rather than letting the city sprawl.

I am a practising architect with considerable experience of planning systems around the world. I have advised presidents and mayors in the UK and abroad and retain strong views on planning for the future. Planning systems exist for the benefit and protection of the public good, and I believe that our existing planning system is one of the very best. However, it needs rationalisation. Economics drive the city, but culture is its heart. The urban renaissance is fragile, and if we are not to return to the failing cities of the 1980s, cities need careful love and attention. The proposed national planning policy framework does not recognise the nature and culture of cities. This is the age of cities. More than half the world's population lives in cities. It was 10 per cent 100 years ago and is expected to be 80 per cent in 30 years’ time.

People move to cities to find jobs, to be creative and to mix. There is a correlation between prosperity and urbanisation. There continue to be strong economic and social arguments for prioritising the intensification of existing settlements over greenfield or otherwise remote development. Surprisingly, there is no mention of the use of brownfield or derelict land in the national framework, even though there is no shortage of brownfield sites. The Department for Communities and Local Government's own figures show that despite substantial reuse, there remains virtually the same quantity of available brownfield land as there was 10 years ago, when I chaired its urban task force.

I believe the only sustainable form of development is the compact, polycentric city, which is well-connected and encourages walking and the use of public transport, where public spaces and buildings are well-designed and the poor and rich can live in close proximity. The intensification of existing settlements is economically efficient because it optimises the use of existing infrastructure and the embedded energy within schools, hospitals, roads and homes. Cities such as Vancouver, Portland, New York, especially Manhattan, and compact European cities are more than five times as energy efficient as sprawling cities such as Detroit, Phoenix and Los Angeles.

The success of retrofitting cities and neighbourhoods has created an urban renaissance that has come about through relatively tight controls on out-of-town retail and commercial development and residential buildings. Over the past decade, the empty gaps in eroded cities and neighbourhoods have been filled in as people moved back into cities. This brings vitality, wealth and security to these cities, but this is a very selective and delicate situation.

Let us take the examples of some areas of Manchester, Liverpool and London. In 1990, there were 90 people living in the heart of Manchester; today there are 20,000. Over the same period, the population of central Liverpool increased fourfold, and London had three-quarters of a million people added to its population, all housed on brownfield land.

The new policy framework favours sustainable development, which I applaud, but it fails to articulate what it is beyond putting economic growth first. I believe that sustainability means social well-being, design excellence and environmental responsibility within a viable economic and legislative framework. Sustainability is about long-term thinking and ambitions. My noble friend Lord Hart clearly defined sustainability in his speech, and I agree with his other points.

The compact city is the only form of sustainable development where poor and rich can live side by side. By cutting over 1,000 pages of proposed legislation to just over 50 pages, careful, detailed advice has been abandoned in favour of generalities. There is a risk that the courts will decide planning applications rather than communities. For example, granting planning on the basis that local plans are absent or incomplete is totally unacceptable and certainly not environmentally sustainable. More houses need to be built, but there is no proof whatever that the fall in the number of dwellings over the past years has anything at all to do with the lack of buildable land. Currently there are 66,000 hectares of brownfield land in England, and this increases every year. Some 330,000 planning permissions for dwellings have not yet been built, and 750,000 homes are lying empty—well enough to meet all our housing needs. Dereliction and the fragmentation of towns where buildings stand empty create no-go areas, which is why we have to start building and retrofitting in these places.

The Government’s attempt to give local councils and communities independence is attractive. However, it needs careful studying and long-term planning, as there will be a need for more decision-making bodies, which in turn will require well-trained specialists who even now are in very short supply. Even in London only a handful of boroughs are actually capable of performing planning tasks.

The good design of public spaces and buildings is critical to improve the quality of life. Bad design impoverishes and brutalises. Much of what we build today will last for hundreds of years. If the framework is not greatly improved, it will lead to the breakdown and fragmentation of cities and neighbourhoods and the erosion of the countryside. To conclude, retrofitting an existing city brings life back to that city, minimises the cost and allows the countryside to be used for pleasure.

12:41

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, while respecting what planning has achieved over the last 50 years, there is no doubt that it can still be improved: to encourage local people to get involved in the decisions that affect their lives; to reduce delays; and, indeed, to deliver the sustainable development that we all know we need. As such, the Government’s attempts to reform the planning system should be welcomed, and I understand the rationale for cutting the plethora of guidance and regulations down to a manageable size, into this new national planning policy framework.

A readable document for committed but time-poor councillors at the sharp end of planning decisions up and down the country seems no bad thing. However, in slimming things down, policies get lost and confusion can—and indeed has—been created. I believe the Government when they say this is a genuine consultation because I have found Ministers receptive to listening to the real concerns over a number of policies that I and others have raised, and for that I am grateful.

Today I would like to concentrate on two overarching issues. The first is the clarity of intent. It is to be welcomed that the national planning policy framework defines the first principle of planning as helping to “achieve sustainable development”. However, the current document is insufficiently clear or coherent in its articulation of what sustainable development is. The reference to Brundtland in paragraph 9 is effectively marooned because the document does not outline any detailed mechanism for its implementation. Part of the reason for this must be our belief in localism—something we Liberal Democrats share with our coalition partners—and that means giving local councils the power to articulate their vision of sustainable development for their area through genuinely sovereign local development plans. However, the lack of any strategic vision means that we will be the only country in northern Europe not to articulate a spatial strategy.

In the absence of such a clear vision from the Government articulating what might or might not be appropriate in spatial planning terms, it is imperative that the definition of sustainable development is clear from the outset about the expected route of travel. If we do not do this, we risk failing to meet the multiple challenges facing us over the next 20 years and beyond: the challenges of a rising population, the need to mitigate the effects of climate change, and the transition to a low-carbon economy. Therefore, it is imperative to revise the draft national planning policy framework to incorporate upfront the definition of sustainable development that is currently used in the UK sustainable development strategy, as has been previously mentioned by Members on the other Benches. Its five widely accepted principles provide a common framework for sustainable development and establish the twin goals of living within environmental limits and providing a just society by means of good governance, social science and a sustainable economy.

Secondly, I would like to comment on the language of the document—or rather, as I see it, its poverty of expression. In the national debate about the future of planning, there is insufficient conformity in the language about what sustainable development means. Throughout this document, and indeed in ministerial statements and comments, the language of sustainable development too often morphs into references to the importance of sustainable economic growth. This lack of conformity leads to a sense that economic imperatives are not equal but superior to social and environmental imperatives.

One notable example is in paragraph 13, the first paragraph under the heading “The presumption in favour of sustainable development”. Its focus on sustainable economic growth, arguing that,

“without growth, a sustainable future cannot be achieved”,

is reinforced with a demand that,

“significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth”.

This sends out an unequal message about the relative importance of economic growth in delivering the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The language of the document needs to be tightened up throughout to indicate that, while economic growth is vital, it does not equate to this Government’s understanding of what sustainable development is.

Recognising that economic growth is vital should not make us fearful of articulating what is special and precious about our landscape. However, gone from this document is the statement of the importance of protecting the countryside for its own sake, leaving a sense that what matters is only what can be counted or how much something contributes to GDP. Of course our natural environment has an economic value. The recent UK national ecosystem assessment found that ecosystem services and the natural environment are worth billions of pounds to the UK economy, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are supported by the natural environment through industries such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, conservation and tourism. Tourists flock to see the majesty of the Highlands and the Lake District, to wonder at the rugged coastline of Cornwall, to travel through the patchwork quilt of Devon fields or indeed the wooded coombes of my native Surrey.

The rallying cry in my local church the other week was, “Beauty is to the spirit what food is to the body”. I am reminded of that as I pause to consider that our country is more than a geographical mass. It is a place where humans interact with nature, where cities reflect our shared history and where our culture and our sense of who we are is often expressed through our sense of place. It should be no crime to want to articulate what makes this country—particularly our countryside—so special. We should not be afraid to say that what makes it special is worth protecting and enhancing so that we can hand on a country to our children that can enrich their lives as surely as it has ours.

12:48

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, the Draft National Planning Policy Framework is well on the way to becoming a sensible and civilised policy document.

It secures a strong role for planning within the new localism. In the future that it envisages—provided local planning authorities have plans, local development frameworks, and provided those plans are up to date—communities will be strongly placed to shape development in their areas.

The document seeks to remove unnecessary barriers within the planning system to the creation of badly needed new homes and jobs, which are needed in rural areas as elsewhere. In doing so, the draft NPPF puts forward a planning regime that would balance economic with social and environmental objectives. It commits the planning system to sustainable development—development which, in the Brundtland definition, meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

It requires that housing development should be planned so as to satisfy the variety of needs for different tenures in mixed communities. It is alert to the needs of disabled people. It proposes an inclusive planning process which would, more than in the past, offer opportunities for people in their neighbourhoods to have their voices heard and indeed to have power to shape the places where they live.

The NPPF is admirable in the importance that it attaches to good design, which is essential to integrating economic, social and environmental objectives, building public confidence and delivering sustainable development. Echoing the Labour Government’s document Better Public Buildings, the Minister says in his foreword:

“Our standards of design can be so much higher. We are a nation renowned worldwide for creative excellence, yet, at home, confidence in development itself has been eroded by the too frequent experience of mediocrity”.

The document wisely gives much weight to design review at the pre-application stage, which provides a more positive approach than reliance on development control post-application. I applaud the insistence that,

“planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes”,

the adjuration that,

“significant weight should be given to truly outstanding or innovative designs”,

and the clear authorisation to planning authorities to refuse permission for development of poor design. Equally, I applaud the document’s ambitions for the historic environment.

So why is there such a row? The policy has been grotesquely misrepresented by the National Trust. On 28 July in the Guardian, Sir Simon Jenkins accused the Government of having,

“sneaked out the most astonishing change to the face of England in half a century”.

He alleged that the national planning policy framework,

“encourages building wherever the market takes it”.

Of the Localism Bill, he said that it is

“a straight developers’ ramp … Pickles and Cable are mere purveyors of building plots to the capitalist classes … This Bill is philistine, an abuse of local democracy and an invitation to corruption”.

As a columnist Sir Simon is free to put forward his personal views, however extreme, although that intemperate tone seems inappropriate. His devotion to the heritage is not in doubt, but in his capacity as chairman of the National Trust a balanced and fair exposition of the issues is expected.

The National Trust, unlike the CPRE, does not provide on its website a link to the draft NPPF; far from assisting its members to become correctly informed about the Government's proposals, it is polemical and misleading. The National Trust’s daily planning blog purveys, without correction or criticism, slurs from elsewhere: the RAC pointing to,

“the traffic chaos that would occur”;

and the Association of British Insurers emphasising,

“the increased dangers of flooding from the concreting of Britain.”

They must have been reading a different document from the one that I have read.

The National Trust does not report alternative views. For example, Colin Wiles, writing in Inside Housing, has observed that,

“if we built 250,000 homes a year for the next ten years only around a third of one percent of countryside would be affected”,

and that,

“the voices of the homeless and badly housed are not being heard in this debate”.

The National Trust’s operation is a case study of the mischief that can be created by unscrupulous digital campaigning. It is aided and abetted by irresponsible media—not just columnists indulging themselves but reporters who think that they have done their job by reporting what people are saying rather than what, on the basis of careful investigation, they believe to be a fair account. Members of the National Trust, who are almost by definition responsible citizens with a deep commitment to the well-being of our country, must be embarrassed by the antics of their normally revered organisation.

The campaign by the CPRE has been altogether more balanced and responsible, but we need, I suggest, less campaigning and more debate. In that spirit, I have criticisms to make of the draft NPPF, which, for all its merits, has serious weaknesses.

The most crucial problem with the policy is that, according to the invaluable analysis by the CPRE, 48 per cent of local planning authorities do not yet have a local development framework. The NPPF states that planning authorities should,

“grant permission where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date”.

This could indeed lead to inappropriate development if the framework becomes operational too soon.

The department is already urging planning authorities to proceed on the basis of the NPPF even before it has become formalised. The Government should not be so impatient. A great deal of anger and grief, and some damaging development, could be averted if the Government would allow planning authorities reasonable time—I think two years are needed—to draw up or update, consult upon and establish local plans. It is not as if in current economic conditions there is a great logjam of viable development proposals, and there are plenty of extant planning permissions. By delaying implementation of the new planning regime we would not be blocking economic activity that would lead us to the growth we so badly need.

The Government should also be realistic about the resources needed to enable planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate to fulfil all the demanding requirements set out in the NPPF. Even before the Government imposed cuts of approaching 30 per cent on local authority expenditure, many planning departments were weak. The Government’s policy should mean a rehabilitation, indeed a renaissance, of planning. But as things are, more qualified planners, so I am told, are employed by developers than by planning authorities. Local authorities are cutting historic environment services—13.5 per cent of conservation officers and 9 per cent of archaeological officers in the past year. It will take time to rebuild planning authorities. A hasty implementation of the new planning policy risks creating new disillusion.

Will the Minister explain how parishes and neighbourhood forums are to have the skills needed for the role that the NPPF proposes for them? How are they to avoid capture by developer interests?

The Government’s approach abandons strategic vision transcending local planning areas. The duty to co-operate is a poor substitute for regional spatial strategies. Policy on transport, other infrastructure and economic development cannot be made satisfactorily by individual local authorities. The willingness to co-operate may not be there. The interests of different communities may be antagonistic. Regional development agencies were able to take a wider and objective view of the public interest, promote co-operation, mediate and reconcile differences.

Why could the Government not bring themselves to reaffirm explicitly the principle of brownfield first? They suggest that that is what they still want, but nowhere in the draft does the word brownfield occur. If they would just reinstate that doctrine, which is universally accepted other than by the volume housebuilders, there would be a huge national sigh of relief.

I have no objection to slimming down the volume of planning regulation. But to reduce 1,300 pages to 60 is inevitably to replace the specific with the general, sometimes the stratospherically general. Why junk the planning policy statements? These were the product of a huge amount of work in recent years by expert and committed people. They represented arduously achieved and invaluable concordats. By all means have a simple overriding statement of planning philosophy as in the NPPF, but support it with more detailed guidance in planning policy statements.

Unless there is greater substance, more specificity, in the NPPF, I fear that the new planning regime will be vulnerable to endless litigation. How are these decent generalities to be interpreted in practice? Feelings run very high over planning issues, where not only investment is at stake but quality of life. The planning framework needs to be clear and robust. The wording on advertising is dangerously vague. How will the concept of sustainable development itself fare in the courts? How much investment will there be if the legal framework is too uncertain? Is there a risk that legal delays will be a greater impediment to development than the so-called bureaucracy of the planning policy statements?

I acquit the Government of barbaric intentions. There is, however, some unrealism in the draft NPPF; a tightening of definitions is needed; and there are important omissions to be repaired. The document should unequivocally and unmistakeably make clear that the purpose of planning is equally to conserve and improve the quality of the environment as it is to promote development. The planning system should not be distorted in legislation to deliver short-term financial gains. If the Government pay heed to sensible representations—there are indications that they will—we could reach a consensus which will serve us well.

12:58

[Lord Tope]

My Lords, I must begin, as did my noble friend Lord Greaves, by declaring an interest as a councillor on a local planning authority. However, unlike my noble friend, I have managed to spend 37 years as a councillor without ever serving on a development control committee, except perhaps for a couple of years when we made the mistake of giving development control powers to our area committees on which all of us have to serve. We quickly learnt the lesson to which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred, as to why it is so obvious that development control powers do not go to parishes.

I am also, I know, the only London borough councillor to be speaking in this debate. Therefore, I feel that it is incumbent on me to remind your Lordships, particularly the Minister, who I am sure as a former London borough council leader needs no reminding, that London will be the only part of England to retain a regional tier of planning and a regional plan, the London Plan. It would be very helpful if the final form of the national planning policy framework document recognises the position of London and the London Plan and has something to say about how that will relate to the local development plans of each of the London boroughs and indeed the City of London and what the relationship will be between those two under the new regime.

At 10 o’clock last night, I was seriously wondering whether I would be able to follow the usual custom of welcoming the debate today and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on bringing it to us. This was because—as my noble friend has also said—we had already spent five or six hours debating planning in the Localism Bill. In my view, a number of speeches would have been more appropriately made today rather than yesterday, except that they would not have fitted within the time limit imposed upon us today. We will return to it on Monday. We already know that we will have another debate on the NPPF on 27 October. However, the quality of the debate today—not least the introductory speech from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—has convinced me that I was perhaps just at a low ebb at 10 o’clock last night and that this has been a very good debate.

The whole process got off to a very bad start. First, we were getting very mixed messages from Ministers. The neighbourhood planning proposals were launched, which were described as a charter for nimbyism, followed not long afterwards by the NPPF, which was described as the charter for developers. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has made reference to the rather extreme campaign launched by the National Trust. I suppose I must now declare an interest as a member of the National Trust, which is a membership that I intend to retain because I like the free visits to its properties. However, I entirely share the noble Lord’s comments about the extremely unhelpful nature of the way in which it expressed its views. It did not help to have a sensible and well informed debate, which is what the consultation process should have been about.

When Ministers come to consider all of this—and clearly they will consider the responses that have been received—I hope that they will also consider the communications strategy that they have followed in the launch of the NPPF. It has to be said that it has not been a success. As I have said, we had a very bad start. I pay tribute to the planning Minister, who has been working very hard and quite successfully to retrieve ground that need not have been lost in the first place.

Part of the problem is that consultation has got a bad name from successive governments and indeed from many local authorities. Consultation is so often believed by those consulting to be simply a formality—necessary to be gone through—whether in order to comply with the law or simply because it is the right thing to do. More often than not, I suspect, the final document and decisions are more or less exactly the same as those in the original consultation. This is often proper and legitimate provision of public information and public debate but it is not consultation. Therefore on this occasion—and on others, but particularly on this one—Ministers and others speaking for the Government have said, “No, no, no—this time it is real consultation”. If we have consultation, all of it should be real. I certainly accept and believe that this is a real consultation. I am sure that when we eventually see the final NPPF, it will be different in a number of significant respects from the original.

The Minister told us during proceedings on the Localism Bill yesterday that there had so far been 10,000 responses. Speaking as co-chair of the Liberal Democrats communities and local government parliamentary committee, I can tell her that by Monday she will have at least 10,001 responses because we have this morning agreed our response. I will not spoil the eager anticipation with which I know she will await the post on Monday in order to read the response, but she will have had a flavour of it from two of my noble colleagues who have spoken today. We will welcome the aims of the NPPF. As my noble friend Lady Parminter says—and I speak as a local councillor—having something reduced to a readable document of readable length is a great assistance to those of us who do not earn our living working in planning law. It is far more likely to be read by councillors, whether on development control committees or generally, than is now the case.

We feel that there needs to be a conformity of language throughout the document. It reads at present as if it has been prepared by a number of different government departments with different priorities. This might be the reality, but the final document needs to be a single government document that reflects those priorities and reflects a proper balance between those priorities. Reference has been made to the three pillars. Unless those three pillars are given an equal strength and recognition, the structure that rests upon those pillars is likely to be slanted and eventually to collapse altogether. We stress the importance of equal priority to all three pillars.

Next is the perhaps difficult question—which many have raised—of having a proper definition of sustainable development, which is in the framework document and which applies and is used throughout it. We believe that we should use the definition in the 2005 UK sustainable development strategy for a very good reason. It is well understood and generally supported. Trying to invent a new one is bound to lead to lengthy argument and dispute and serves no useful purpose at all. I have heard it said that this strategy applies to government as a whole and that it is not wholly relevant to planning. I dispute this. It is based on a number of guiding principles: living within environmental limits, achieving a sustainable economy, ensuring a strong, healthy and just society, using sound science responsibly and promoting good governance. All those principles apply very importantly to planning, particularly promoting good governance. These are important principles and they fit planning extremely well.

Others, particularly my noble friend Lord Greaves, have made reference to the need for a clear statement on the transition period. I know that the Government are working on this. It is an extremely important period when we move from the disappearance—rightly or otherwise—of regional spatial strategies next April through to updated or, in many cases, new local plans. I have not too much sympathy for those surprisingly large number of authorities which, in the five or six years that they have had, have not managed to developed a local plan. All local plans are likely to need to be updated in the light of the new regime; that takes time. The framework document needs to be clear not only on the process for the transition period but also for the length of time to be allowed for that transition period. At our committee meeting this morning we had some discussion on what that time period should be. One council leader suggested that it should be at least two years if councils are allowed to decide for themselves, and at least twice as long if the planning inspectorate and central government get involved in the process. This was not said in jest and I think it very sensible. It may well be that three years—or between two and four years—is about right. Whatever it is, it needs to be there.

We also support the view that “brownfield sites first” needs to remain and be clear in the document. We strongly support the need for more housing but question the need to dictate that local authorities must identify five-year land supply plus 20 per cent regardless of circumstances.

I know that the Minister must be constrained in what she can say in reply because the consultation has not yet closed and Ministers have not had the time to consider the responses. However, perhaps she can set out for us in her reply what is to be the process to be followed in producing the final document from now on—from the close of consultation—and when might we see it.

13:10

[Baroness Andrews]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for having created the opportunity for this debate. As noble Lords can imagine, as a Planning Minister he was a rather difficult act to follow. For a long time, people were obviously disappointed that I was not my noble friend. They would say, “But Lord Rooker said that we could—”, whatever it was. He approached his brief with the same boldness he showed when, as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, he tore up his script. But this has been an excellent debate and I am glad that we are to have another one on 27 October because a lot of questions still need to be raised, and we will have moved a little further forward by then.

I declare an interest as the chair of English Heritage and I shall start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on her speech and the emphasis she put on place. Indeed, place and what that means to us is absolutely central to how we conduct ourselves and feel ourselves to be part of the community. The meaning and wealth of our heritage and the local historic environment are important to our notion of our place in the world and in our society. As a Planning Minister, I often wrestled with the issues raised by heritage and development, but like other noble Lords, I was deeply impressed by the way the planning system was constructed and how it worked, and by the integrity and passion that went into making decent local plans. So I do not believe that the planning system is broken. It can be improved, and I shall come on to say a bit about that.

What I did learn as a Minister was the vital importance of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. It has proved to be one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever enacted. Without it, London would now stretch as far as Brighton. On the whole, it has served us well, with its enduring impact on the necessity for balance in planning, although in effect it has always had a presumption in favour of development. It is important to keep that in mind because the NPPF now sits at the heart of a radically reformed planning system governed by the Localism Bill, along with the changed frameworks and devolved planning responsibilities that it will bring forward. It is indeed a new landscape, and that is why we must take extreme care over what we in this House provide by way of advice to the Minister. The Government themselves need to take care. I think that the Minister has already been given a lot of good advice in the debate today.

The NPPF has been worth waiting for, although we could have done with it at the Second Reading of the Localism Bill. I say that because never during my brief career in planning was I able to arouse much interest in planning. I felt that, with the exception of noble Lords in this House, I was ploughing a lonely furrow as I enthused about its power to create better places and sustainable futures. Today, not least thanks to the National Trust, it is on the front pages in a big way.

I shall summarise what English Heritage feels about the NPPF document as a whole before going on to talk about some of the specifics and the general issues. Many things about the NPPF are to be welcomed. A shorter, integrated document will probably be more accessible, better understood and possibly more effective. However, as other noble Lords have said, in the distillation of so much planning guidance into such a short statement, some of the encouragement to aspire to better quality development has been lost in the staccato instructions of the new document. For example, I particularly regret the loss of emphasis on the positive role our heritage plays in making new places—in its regeneration role. I, too, share the concerns expressed by many noble Lords about the tone of the document, and the NPPF, having established an interweaving of social, economic and environmental strands to create sustainable development at the beginning of the document, then starts to unpick it in subsequent parts of the framework. The frequent entreaties to favour economic considerations over social and environmental ones give the impression of imbalance and inconsistency in the document. That is one of the strong messages that has come across the Chamber today.

I turn now to issues around heritage. The document as it stands is not only a distillation of PPS 5, as my noble friend Lord Hart pointed out, it is also a distillation of what that document did only last year, which was to reduce two massive planning documents—PPS 15 and 16—into one concise paper. It took a lot of effort, but it produced a workable and coherent document. Like my noble friend Lord Rooker, I hope that the Government will learn from the major beneficial achievements of previous Governments, not just the previous Government, and take up and develop what does work.

What I can say, in terms of picking up the key policy points of heritage protection set out in PPS 5, Planning for the Historic Environment, is that the Government have done a good job, but there are still a number of changes to the text as a whole, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and I have exchanged correspondence. Our heritage in this country is extremely fragile and fine-grained because of the country in which we live and our historic market towns. We need to be careful to ensure that our heritage protection system remains robust and resilient. It is, and that must be sustained, which is why the NPPF document is so important. However, one problem is that the NPPF does not contain any policy for decision-makers to deal with proposals where there is moderate or minor harm to heritage assets such as listed building consents. Not only does that make it difficult for us to prevent the accumulation of small damages to the environment, it also makes it more difficult for us to use those buildings and places to encourage regeneration or to alter what is available. It puts a brake on the best sort of development. I would ask the noble Baroness to look carefully at this.

We need also to recognise that the historic environment is a non-renewable resource. In that context, the document misses out one of the powerful arguments for heritage, which is that it does not serve the past, but the future. It is part of the economic and social solutions for the future. We are certainly not interested in preservation for the sake of it, but we want to see the sensational buildings of the past fashion the future. For example, the way in which the wonderful Georgian buildings of the Royal William Yard in Plymouth have been brought back to life will serve the area for the future. At King’s Cross we have the best of Victorian design matched by the brilliance of the best designers in this country. That is what we should be aiming for.

I know that the NPPF has sparked off a general furore and that the Government are looking for accommodations. We are reasonably confident, within the bounds of heritage protections, that our conversations with Ministers are going ahead very positively, but there is still concern across the heritage sector about the unbalanced emphasis in favour of development and the impact of that presumption which, as it stands, seems to pit economic development against social benefits and environmental protections. I welcome the assurances given by Ministers, including the noble Baroness, that there is no intention to diminish heritage protection, but some changes still need to be made to ensure that it will hold up in the context of the whole document. For example, the consequence of requiring local authorities to grant permission,

“unless the adverse impact of allowing development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”

which, as my noble friend says, is a new concept in the presumption, will conflict with the heritage policies in the historic environment section and other environmental protection policies which require that the benefits of development should outweigh harm—there is a contradiction there—that favours conservation where the decision is balanced. We need the Government to clarify the primacy of policy requiring local planning authorities, when considering the impact of proposed development on a designated heritage asset or its setting, to give weight to its conservation. It could be done explicitly by stating that the historic environment policies are to override the generality of the definition of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. I believe that that would be logically unsatisfactory. Much more preferable would be clarity as to the true meaning of sustainable development—development that meets the tests set out in the NPPF. It is that sort of development which we should be presuming. That would resolve many of the objections that have been raised.

In conclusion, I shall speak briefly on the wider canvas. I thank the noble Baroness for what she has done to improve the conditions around neighbourhood planning. We still have an outstanding issue to do with archaeology, as I am sure she knows, and I think that there are questions on the generality of neighbourhood planning issues in terms of the clarity of new plans and development orders: the notion of what an up-to-date plan is and the vacuum that might be created if plans are not in date.

In due course, I hope that we will continue our discussions on sustainable development. We need absolute clarity on brownfield, including the term used in the document. We need the “town centre first” policy restated and not watered down. We also need to see specific protection for the countryside, although possibly not in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, offered yesterday. I believe that there is a way of doing that which seeks to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside and urban areas as a whole and picks up the lost parts of previous documents. I offer those suggestions to the Government.

Let us not forget that all this is happening at a time when local authorities are losing resources, confidence and skills. We have placed a huge challenge in front of them to deliver a planning system that is more responsive, but let us not miss out on some of the absolutely crucial protections that have sustained the balance and made our planning system so successful.

13:20

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I have been so impressed by the quality of the debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Rooker that I want to make one or two comments in this reunion of Planning Ministers. When we first came into Government in 1979, I had that responsibility for four years in the Department of the Environment.

I also wanted to add a voice from these Benches to my noble friend in support of some of the helpful comments that have been made. I particularly thought that the noble Lords, Lord Hart, Lord Howarth and Lord Rogers, made most interesting speeches.

I shall make just three points. First, there must be a presumption in favour of brownfield land. That is not just important because you are saving green fields. It is crucially important for urban renewal—town centre and city centre renewal. It is more difficult and takes a little more time but the benefits are very real. The noble Lord, Lord Rogers, brought that point out very clearly.

Secondly, a point was made that some people had been pretty slow about local plans. Wiltshire, which I know quite well, has formed itself into a unitary authority within the past 18 months. It is now in the process of trying to create its local plan. It has not been dilatory: it is just that it does not have one at the moment. I hope that those points have been taken into account. I do not know whether the period should be one or two years—the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, suggested two years—but it would be intolerable if developers were able to take advantage of the absence of a local plan, perhaps for perfectly valid reasons, to establish quite unacceptable developments.

Thirdly, I understand the enthusiasm of new Ministers coming in when they launch these new policies. It seems a wonderful statement to get rid of 1,000 pages and have only 52. I have a certain feeling that I am probably responsible for one or two of the pages that will now be swept away by the great reformers. I dare to believe that there can now be a period of reflection when we might just draw on—the noble Lord, Lord Hart, made this point—the merit in some of the stuff there. If we do not quite achieve a 52-page outcome, it might be worth while seeing what is really of merit and quality that can be kept.

I particularly welcome the splendid way in which my noble friend has dealt with a very difficult situation. This was not magnificently launched at the start and there were many misunderstandings. I think that we can find our way through to a sensible planning policy that must have continuity and good sense behind it. Some of the arguments have suggested that it does not matter about planning because we have plenty of green fields and areas. After a short break, I went from being Secretary of State for the Environment to Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There are an enormous number of green fields in Northern Ireland but anyone who looks can see how planning has gone wrong there. People have been allowed to build in quite inappropriate places in really wonderful countryside.

Of course we must encourage growth where sensible, but getting sensible planning policies in place on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis is very sensible and I admire very much the way in which noble Lords have conducted this debate.

13:24

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I do not know whether I am the first to do so, but I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on her appointment and welcome her to the Front Bench. I should also like to congratulate, as other noble Lords have done, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who has occasioned this debate and introduced it with his customary brio. He will not be entirely surprised to know that I do not agree with everything he said. In fact, I think he would have been rather disappointed if I had.

In my more charitable moments, and oddly enough I have a few, I am tempted to feel sorry for Ministers, assailed as they have been by the leftist leader writers of the Telegraph, the closet revolutionaries of CPRE and the naysayers of the National Trust—or the national trots as I understand they have been referred to occasionally by Ministers. The case against them has been overdone, although there are serious reservations about aspects of the framework that we need to address.

I am particularly glad that the noble Lords, Lord Rogers and Lord Hart—as formidable a duo in this context as their namesakes in the realm of musical comedy—have demolished the myth that somehow planning has been responsible for the failure of the national economy, the low number of houses being built and the rest of it. That is not the case. Indeed, I heard recently the director of a major building company which develops a number of properties in urban areas agree about that. Some 80 per cent of planning applications are agreed and, as we have heard, substantial permissions are extant but without development occurring. Perhaps that is a matter that the Government need to address, possibly by levying taxes on undeveloped land as an incentive to those who own it and have planning permission to get on and develop.

However, one of the problems with the framework—it is not a particular problem with this document—is that there is no national context. There is no plan for England into which this framework would fit and which would provide a context for planning decisions about such crucial matters as economic growth reflecting the demographic change, the challenge of climate change and the rest of it. This is a framework that addresses individual decision-making but there is no national concept about dealing with infrastructural or overall needs and demands. That is something that the previous Government did not get round to doing and I hope that the present one will look to that.

The difficulty is compounded because there is no longer any regional strategy either, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, made clear. For that matter, there is no sub-regional strategy. These create difficulties for those working in planning.

One of the issues that has been touched on and may reflect problems with the system is the lack of capacity in the planning world in terms of planning officers. That was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. In that context, it is perhaps unfortunate that the Government have abolished the planning development grant which encouraged capacity within the profession and within local government. At some point, that might be worth revisiting.

One of the difficulties with the framework is the lack of definition about what sustainable development really means. The emphasis seems to be entirely on economic growth, although there is actually no definition of that either. Presumably, a petrol station or out-of-town shopping centre could constitute economic growth. That lack of context is worrying. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, suggested, we need get to back to the 2005 code for sustainable development and use that as the basis. We also need to ensure that we reflect adequately the issues around the need to respond to climate change—the mitigation and adaptation—and to promote green development, including, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will be very disappointed to hear, renewables, as part of the combating of climate change, but also, possibly, as an engine itself of the economic growth that we all want to see and which the framework clearly seeks to promote.

However, sustainability is not simply a matter of sustainability in one area. You cannot look at sustainability in one local authority area, any more than you could develop, as Stalin hoped to do, socialism in one country; you have to look at the impact of development in an urban area on its rural neighbour, and vice versa. Sustainability needs to be seen in a somewhat broader context. Many of your Lordships have referred to the need in particular—this is a relevant aspect of the point I have just made—to be very clear about the question of brownfield sites. The Minister did refer to this last night although it does not seem to be in the document. Perhaps, as a result of the consultation, a clearer and greater emphasis could be made on that aspect, as well as on the issue of town centre first, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.

In planning development, one has to look beyond housing development, for which, contrary to the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, there is a clear need. It is not just a question of housing demand; there is palpable housing need, not least in rural areas, although not for large-scale development.

[Viscount Goschen]

I am not sure I said there was no need for housing development. I said I felt there was an almost infinite demand and that to try to meet that substantial demand was probably optimistic.

[Lord Beecham]

That is possibly right, which is why I want to refer to need as the basis of a housing programme. There is also the question of the duty to co-operate, which some of your Lordships have mentioned, and which I entirely endorse. However, there is no actual mechanism, either in the framework or elsewhere, to secure that. I refer, yet again, to what is the planning equivalent of the Schleswig-Holstein question, which is the Stevenage question—an authority wanting, or even needing, to house some of its people outside its boundaries and finding no accommodation with the adjoining authority. In the absence of a regional spatial strategy, there does not seem to be a mechanism to secure that; so that, again, needs to be looked at.

There are significant issues about the presumption in favour of development, in particular where there is no local development plan. As we know, there are no local development plans in a number of areas—that is unfortunate, but it is the case—and we need to look at how we cope with the transition. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to this and he is absolutely right. We will no doubt touch on this further as the Localism Bill goes forward but if the Minister could give an indication of some direction on the question of transition, that would be helpful. There needs to be a general presumption in favour of development, but in favour of planned development. That has been the case until now, and that does seem to be the right way to take matters forward rather than have a simple carte blanche for any sort of development.

The debate today has been an interesting one and we have heard a number of views. A better balance has been struck here in your Lordships’ House than has been struck in some of the media. Nevertheless, there are genuine concerns, particularly—but not exclusively—in the countryside, about the potential impact of the thrust of the new framework. I hope that after the consultation process has ended the Government will be able to reassure people in the countryside that it is not a question of threatening the viability and attractiveness of the countryside but of strengthening rural communities alongside those of urban areas. We have to be careful about the industry, which is always prone to finding someone to blame for its problems and always prone to taking the line of least resistance in terms of where it seeks to develop. We have to incentivise development where it is most needed. Some of that will be to meet the needs of rural areas and communities, particularly in terms of housing for younger people. Much of it must be within the urban core, where, as your Lordships will be aware, the number of people seeking housing, particularly to rent, is growing significantly. As I said yesterday, we have to look in terms of affordable housing; not only in terms of owner-occupation—which of course is very desirable—but also affordable rental housing, whether social or otherwise, for the large numbers of people who are living in unsatisfactory conditions and for whom this national planning framework does not, at the moment, seem to do enough.

13:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, this has been a fantastic and fascinating debate. There is always a depth of experience and wisdom around this House that very many people in other places will be jealous of. We pull together so much here that perhaps it simply gets diffused elsewhere. I am enormously grateful to everybody who has taken part and to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for having taken up the baton and introduced this debate today.

I was slightly diffident as to whether this debate was being held at the appropriate point in discussions. However, I think that I have now come to the conclusion that this debate as well as the one on 27 April will provide—

[Noble Lords]

October.

[Baroness Hanham]

I am always in trouble on this—the debate on 27 October also will produce extra thoughts. I am encouraged by the comprehensive nature of the points brought forward today. However, I shall inevitably not be categorical in responding to any of the points raised today as this is still the consultation period and, as I said last night, the Government are listening carefully to what is being said. I do not think that anyone would deny that this has got off to a reasonably bad start. It has not been helped, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said, by some pretty acerbic and unjust comments from some of the bigger organisations. There has been some criticism of our communications strategies, but to some extent it falls on to the other side as well. If you are going to be controversial and against something then you really must start from a different place to where some of the criticism hurled at us has come from.

These are all practical areas that we are talking about. If ever there was a practical aspect of local government, it is planning. It is very immediate and affects individual people very strongly. As a former member of a planning committee as well as leader of a council, I know that planning is probably the subject that fills one’s postbag most. There will not be many in the country who do not have views on what is being put forth, in addition to the views we have heard today. I therefore welcome the debate very strongly. I can assure you that I will not be able to respond to everyone, although I will try to mention one or two people on the way. However, we have a careful note of what has been said; Hansard will be scrutinised tomorrow; and the points and concerns raised today will be put forward into the consultation. If we have 1,001 contributions by tomorrow, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and add up all the comments today, I am not sure that one is going to be a sufficient justification.

I very much welcome the fact that the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Howarth, welcomed this framework. I totally accept that they did not do so without reservations. Both noble Lords certainly had criticisms, but both also understood where the starting pace for this came from. It is fine to have 1,300 pages of planning policy, statements and guidance, but what that actually means is that only about three people in the country actually know—and one of those may have forgotten—where all the documents and high-level policies are. It also makes it quite unfathomable to ordinary people who want to try to find out what the planning policies are, because they have to find their way through so many documents. We want the national planning policy framework to be accessible to everybody so that they understand where the high-level policies come from, as well as how they are going to be implemented.

The basis for this, as we discussed yesterday and will discuss again on Monday, will be the local plans. They are the generator of all that is going to come about from our national policy framework. We believe that planning is local. It is all about what people like and want to protect about their neighbourhood. It is about how people are affected by what somebody next door to them does and how you make sure you sustain the sort of reasonable life that one hopes for them. We are therefore, as we also discussed last night, proposing within this to have local planning frameworks and local documents and then to pass that down even further to neighbourhood planning. That will require guidance. I fully accept, as noble Lords have said, that it will also require good professional support. The neighbourhood plans will very much reflect what local communities think and need. I am enthusiastic about getting this into the local area.

A number of noble Lords touched on local development frameworks. I think I am right in saying that only some 48 per cent of local authorities have a framework at the moment, but there will be much encouragement for them to develop one and bring it forward. The encouragement will be based partly on the fact that local authorities will not want to have decisions made round them but will want to be fully in charge of the decisions made. We will encourage them to finish the frameworks and get them into a position where they can be used and then to ensure that the contents fall within the national policy framework when it comes forward.

Local government has been slow in dealing with the frameworks and in some ways resistant to completing them. We are adamant that the frameworks should be completed as quickly as possible. We want to get all the issues right—many of them have been raised today—and end up with a framework that we are proud of and that people are relatively happy with. We do not want there to be a sense that something unwelcome has been done or that some factors are missing.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, made a plea about transition from one document to another. That matter is under close consideration and is well understood. It has been made very clear that there should not be a hiatus. We will take careful note of that.

Sustainable development was also discussed last night. As everyone knows, it is dealt with in depth in the framework, in local planning and development. We want to keep sustainable development in the plans, though not the individual plans, as it is currently buried in local development frameworks and neighbourhood planning. The discussion that we need to have now, and I gave a commitment last night that we would, is about where sustainability should be defined. The problem, as we heard today, is that at least three and possibly five limbs of the Brundtland definition are relevant to planning, and last night an extra one was outlined in terms of a cultural and spiritual one. You cannot operate a legal framework like that. We are looking hard to see whether there is a way of putting a statement into legislation that does not end up—as the noble Lord, Lord Hart, said—as a lawyer’s paradise. I can see that he may very well be encouraged to go back, his eyes gleaming at the possibility of £20 notes falling from the sky. We will look to see whether there is a way of putting it in the Bill without getting into legal hazards, or whether it is better, as I suspect, to put it in the national framework definition. We will commit to dealing with that. The principles of the framework are there and we have discussed them. We recognise that we need to have genuine debate about the detail and we welcome the consultation currently taking place.

I want to touch on a couple of other areas. The presumption in favour of sustainable development applies not only to the economic aspect and the growth of business, though that is what has been focused on. We know that there is also a great demand for housing and that we do not want it sprawling all over new greenfield sites. We therefore already have in the framework a strong commitment to the maintenance of the green belt, to ensure that we do not get the sort of sprawl that people are talking about. The presumption in favour of development is not only for business, it is also for housing. Within the local development plans and local development frameworks there will be a clear indication of where local authorities believe they should develop, the areas they need, the housing they need and their expectation for business growth. That will then be translated down into the neighbourhood forums.

We all recognise that there is some slowness in the planning process. Some 80 per cent of planning applications are largely approved, but that takes time. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, some planning applications need time to be discussed and cannot be rushed through. We still think that if you have a local development plan that is in accordance with the national policy and there are no objections to what has been put forward, then you can probably speed up the process so that planning permissions can be given at an earlier stage. That is basically the presumption in favour of development. It is taking down the barriers but against the background of recognised strong policies.

I also said last night that I have never yet known a planning application that aroused even a smidgen of controversy that did not end up with lots of objections and people insisting on having their views taken into account. That would remain the situation. It could go ahead only if there were no objections and there was nothing in the plans that suggested it should not take place. I think that that is straightforward and I hope that it is clear.

The green belt will remain of great importance. There is discussion in the framework about clear commitments to it. The point about brownfield sites has been raised by many noble Lords today, and there is a clear view from the Government that the brownfield previously developed sites should be put to the fore and developed first. The noble Lord, Lord Rogers, pointed out, from the experience of places such as Manchester, that you can get a lot of good development in an area that has been previously developed or just left for some reason. We totally agree with that; it obviously makes sense, because it does not take up new land and does not extend the sprawl. That is not clear in the national framework at the moment but there is a consultation coming and somewhere along the line it will be, because it is very important.

My noble friend Lord Goschen was a little more critical of the plan than some others, but he was talking about housing. Local authorities will have to have an indication of the housing they need, where it should go and what the requirements are, because we will have to develop housing elsewhere, particularly for local areas and local communities. The essence is that we should have sufficient housing, particularly in the country, for people who want to live there and want to stay there; that is something that we very much take into account. There will be areas in the country where you can build small developments and where the community right to build will have an effect, in that people will be able to put forward projects for small developments and thus help to keep local communities alive. None of us wants to see the death of villages or of communities that live in the country. We need farming and we need to keep people in the countryside to do that, but we also need thriving communities that protect the countryside for us, not just farmers but young people, otherwise it will die.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, were critical about the language of the NPPF. That has been heard and we will see, as the plan is produced, whether we can improve on it.

I have not touched on the concerns of my noble friend Lord Reay about the provision of windmills and energy. While there might be some smidgen of sympathy here, the department and anyone else who is interested in windmills may not be quite so enthusiastic.

That brings me to an end. I am grateful for all noble Lords’ comments. I apologise if I have not touched on all the issues, and they will have note taken of them. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who was a very substantial planning Minister during his time, and I very well remember him giving up his brief and saying, I think, “Oh, this is rubbish”. I hope that my brief has not been quite that, and I look forward to the debates in the House on Monday, and I hope very much that we will be able to continue the discussion on 27 October.

13:54

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I am most grateful to everybody who has participated in this debate. The message is one of a revising Chamber; the expertise that you would not have in the other place has been on display here today among everyone, and in particular in the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, with his massive experience around the world as well as in this country, in chairing the Urban Task Force. I am incredibly grateful.

There are two conclusions: one, that the countryside is not under threat and, two, that virtually everybody without exception has taken up the issue of brownfield. It is not mentioned in the document. The abolition of brownfield-first is referred to in the impact assessment; that is where the danger is. But by definition, adopting the brownfield first, without being too rigid, is a lifeboat for the Government and for the policy, because it actually assists in developing cities and in the arguments with those who claim that the countryside is being concreted over. It is not going to be.

Motion withdrawn.

Universities: Impact of Government Policy

Thursday 13th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Debate

13:54

Moved by

[Lord Giddens]

To call attention to the impact of government policy on universities; and to move for papers.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I remind the House that the next debate is also time limited. With the exception of the noble Lords, Lord Giddens and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and my noble friend Lady Verma, all speeches are limited to six minutes.

[Lord Giddens]

My Lords, it is a privilege to introduce this debate on a topic of such importance to the future of the country. This is a Labour-sponsored debate, and I am a Labour Peer, but I speak here primarily as an educator who has spent virtually the whole of his adult life in universities and was for some while the head of a major university institution. As such, I feel deep disquiet about the Government’s policies, as I did about the Browne report on which those policies are based.

Universities are not just an extension of school; they are not some sort of finishing school for a group of privileged individuals to get into good jobs. All universities combine research and teaching; they are centres of creativity and innovation, which have a massive impact on the society at large. This impact is in some part economic; universities in this country have a turnover of something like £30 million—in other words, about one-third of the size of that gigantic institution, the NHS. They create about 750,000 jobs and are often integral to the local community’s economy of which they are a part.

However, I stress strongly that their impact goes well beyond the economic sphere. Universities have an extraordinarily far-reaching impact on our civic life and our culture. They are important for teaching citizenship and diffusing norms of citizenship, for technological innovation and the arts and culture in our society. Universities in this country rank very highly in world terms; according to the Times Higher Education Supplement listing of world universities, we have three such universities in the top 10 and 12 in the top 100, second only to the United States. Our universities are a massive source of attraction for overseas students, in which again we are second only to the US in world rankings.

I stress strongly that the attraction of British universities to overseas students is not simply a matter of economics. Of course, it brings a lot more money into the country, but it is really important to recognise that our large number of overseas students has a tremendous impact on the countries they come from when they go back to them. They carry with them their experience of this country and its institutions. They normally carry with them an affection for this country, and they form a kind of friendly worldwide diaspora. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of the LSE, an institution of which I used to be the director.

My point in saying these things is not simply to praise universities; it is to argue that these points are crucial to understanding the flaws in government policy. Universities are, above all, public institutions with a massive public impact. As with the National Health Service, the Government seem to be carrying out policies of a sort of ill-considered, untutored radicalism that is not based on in-depth research and with imponderable outcomes. In both cases, these are real-life experiments with little supporting research to back them up. No other country will have a health system structured along the lines that are being proposed for the UK. For universities, Britain—or, rather, England, given the exceptions applying to Scotland—will be a global outrider. It will have one of the very lowest levels of public support for the university system in the industrialised world. That includes the United States. When people think of American universities, they often think of the private universities, which are indeed very important, but they educate only a minority of American young people. Public and state universities in the US are very much larger, and have a confirmed and continued public role in American education.

The Government are fond of saying that the Browne report was commissioned by Labour, and then saying, “Ha ha ha, what would you have done?”. Well, I am not primarily a politician, I am an educator, but here is what I would have done; and I hope that, had Labour been in government, it is what they would have done. I would have had four parts to a framework for the future of universities. First, I would have denied and rejected the ideological thrust of the Browne report, which seems quite alien to what universities are all about. Universities are not a sort of supermarket where education can be chosen like a washing powder off the shelf. Students are not simply consumers, making day-to-day purchasing decisions. They will make a one-off decision. The whole apparatus of a marketplace in which you have consumer-led enterprise seems alien to what universities are and should be about.

Secondly, fees should have been increased progressively, not in the big-bang fashion in which they trebled overnight, with dramatic consequences for the young people affected. Thirdly, as a consequence, I would have preserved a larger chunk of state funding, precisely because universities are public institutions with a massive impact that goes beyond the simple experience of learning as such. Finally, if I had been either a petty dictator or in the right position in the Labour Government, I would have given far more thought to the knock-on consequences of university reforms for job creation and growth, as well as for the wider culture of the country.

This leaves me with a range of questions for the Minister, and I hope that she will respond fulsomely to every single one. They flow more or less from the analysis I have just presented. First, there is a convergence between government policy on universities and government economic policy. A cut is not a cut unless you work out its knock-on implications for employment, welfare spending and growth. The same applies to a massive transfer from public to private funding, which is characteristic of the Government’s proposals for universities. I ask the Minister what modelling has been done of these knock-on consequences. If it has been done, where can I find it? Without it, we simply do not know what the consequences of the reforms will be.

Secondly, the Minister for Universities, Mr David Willetts, wrote a justly well regarded book, The Pinch, a little while ago about the relationship between the generations. In it he argues persuasively that the older generation has accumulated most social and economic resources unto itself, and the younger generation in our society is hence excluded from many of the benefits monopolised by older people—the majority of people above age 40 or 50, or the “baby boomers” as he calls them. Will the Minister tell me how the reforms are compatible with this approach? Loading up massive debt on the younger generation seems to be exactly the opposite of what Mr Willetts is arguing that a just society should be: one where the older generation, being more affluent, helps to support the younger generation.

Thirdly, although Mr Willetts denies this, the arts, humanities and social sciences are especially vulnerable as a result of government reforms, and I speak as a social scientist myself. This will be especially true in middle to lower-level universities. It is difficult for me to see that, when you load up fees so quickly, many students will turn away from subjects that do not have a clear vocational outcome, especially in the lower-level universities. The top universities will do all right; most people want a degree from those universities because it confers market advantages. When you get lower down the system, you have to ask whether students will incur a debt of £30,000 or £40,000 to read history at a university that is, say, 75th in the British league of universities. This is very much open to doubt.

I therefore see government policies potentially producing chaotic consequences, and ask the Minister what the Government will do if departments are forced to close. Will they simply accept that? That would involve the loss of an awful lot of irreplaceable expertise. Suppose student fashion changes two or three years down the line. You cannot simply reinstate those departments. What will the Government do if universities are forced to close down, since some such universities are likely to be in poor, multicultural areas? Are the Government happy that they have a business model in which such universities will simply be forced out of business, with all the consequences for those communities? As I have stressed throughout, universities are not simply a form of economic enterprise. They are crucial for business and the economy, but their functions range so much more widely than that.

Fourthly, the Government seek to contain inequality and promote social mobility in the context of their reforms. However, it is blindingly obvious that these reforms, because of their dramatic nature, will have a negative impact on inequality. This is likely to be so both at the bottom and at the top of the university population. It will surely deter a large number of poorer students from applying to university at all. They will not be covered by the policies that the Government have introduced. It also seems equally obvious that it will increase inequalities at the top, because surely affluent parents will pay off the debts of their children up front, thereby further accentuating the very inequalities among the top levels of our society that we see widening everywhere. Does the Minister disagree that this is almost certain to be the case?

Finally and fifthly, the impact of the immigration cap looks to be seriously damaging to universities, not just in student recruitment but by denying the country the very creativity and academic innovation that are the lifeblood of the university system. On 3 October, a group of Nobel prize winners in the sciences wrote a letter to newspapers about the effects of the immigration cap, in which they said that it is a sad reflection of our priorities that it looks as though Premier League footballers might get exemptions whereas high flying academics might not. However, this is a much more serious issue than that statement implies, because if we look at the history of our universities and our national intellectual culture we see that migrants have played an absolutely fundamental role in science and other areas of university thinking and research. If such people can no longer come, we are simply shooting ourselves in the foot. I repeat what the Nobel prize winners said—it is a sad reflection of our priorities.

I hope that other noble Lords will pursue issues that, for the purposes of time, I have not had the chance to cover. There are many of them.

14:11

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, for instigating this debate. However, I take very gentle issue with his memory of the past Labour Government’s higher education policies, given his statement that he was concerned about the speed with which the coalition Government have implemented some of the reforms. It seems to be forgotten that the Labour Government introduced tuition fees in the first place a year after Tony Blair had promised not to do so in 1997, and that the same thing happened again as regards the introduction of top-up fees two years after they had promised not to do so in the 2001 Labour manifesto. They also commissioned the Browne review. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said in March in this very House that had Labour still been in government it would have needed to double tuition fees at the very least, given the financial situation in which we find ourselves.

It is no secret that had the Liberal Democrats won the general election, we would have done things differently. However, I am proud of the coalition agreement which incorporated more than two-thirds of our manifesto pledges. Unfortunately, tuition fees policy fell into an area that remains unfulfilled, not least because of the size of the deficit and the need to reduce it firmly and to get the UK back to financial balance. However, following careful negotiations, the system with which we have ended up is significantly more progressive than the Labour system we inherited. That is not only our view but that of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. There are no upfront fees for students so that should not deter them from applying. Graduates will start to pay only when they can afford to, once they are earning £21,000 and there will be lower lifetime contributions for the poorest group of students compared with the system that Labour left behind. Importantly, there will also be more support for the Cinderellas of the higher education and further education systems, part-time students—now 40 per cent of our undergraduates—who had previously been shamefully shunned by the Government in a system geared entirely towards full-time students.

I always felt it was iniquitous that the previous Government did not provide any access to loans for fees for part-time students, many of whom come from low-income backgrounds and stay at home in order to study. However, there is an anomaly that I have raised with the Minister in the Education Bill where it is proposed that part-time students should start to repay their loans from the April three years after they commence studying, if their earnings reach £21,000. As I said in Committee on the Education Bill the other day, while I think this is probably a fairly small group of students, I know from my experience in higher education that mature students often make the decision to study while continuing to work part time. While an income of £21,000 sounds like a good deal for a 21 year-old, it is not a high salary for someone with home and family responsibilities to juggle alongside their study. I worry that this may deter some excellent prospective students from taking up their places on courses. There is also the fundamental question of equity. A full-time student undergraduate on a four-year course, whether an engineer or a linguist, will not be asked to start repaying until their course ends whereas part-time students are being asked to start repaying at three and a half years, regardless of whether they are close to finishing their course or not.

I had some involvement with Aimhigher in my previous role as the executive director of the Association of Universities in the East of England, and while I regret its demise—it has done some good work—I welcome the clearer direction on universities to actively target students from backgrounds where they may not have previously considered a university education.

For me a surprising element of the White Paper Students at the Heart of the System was the proposals regarding extra places for those HEIs taking students with AAB or equivalent qualifications. It seems to me that this may have a law of unintended consequences, with the possibility of bidding wars, and a real impact on recruitment for some of the middle-ranking universities. I hope that I am wrong. I give an example. Certain specialist courses such as medical or pharmacy courses might well be affected if numbers fluctuate fairly strongly in either direction. We are discovering that it is fairly easy to close down a university department but I know from experience that it takes a very long time to build up expertise, plan and then implement a new department. It is not always possible therefore to respond as quickly as is the case with more straightforward courses at, for example, a further education establishment. The impact on medical and healthcare education could be quite serious.

Today I have received a letter from the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who is unable to be in his place. He writes wearing his professional hat as an academic at Leicester University about the difficulties that universities are having with the UK Border Agency in recruiting international postgraduate students who are partly funded by being employed by their host university and partly by bursary. In a bizarre decision, UKBA is now refusing to accept a university's guarantee that it will be paying that salary and maintenance grant, and so the students are being refused entry visas. This has long been a perfectly acceptable way of making up a package for postgraduate students which benefits both the student and the university in the short and the longer term. As a result, the university now finds itself short of teaching assistants. UKBA accepts guarantees from overseas governments and foreign institutions but not our own class one universities. I hope that the Minister will be able to find out more about this for the House and report back in due course.

Finally, I welcome the coalition Government’s focus on improving and widening participation. Funding provided by the Higher Education Funding Council has already enabled the Open University to attract 20 per cent of its newest students from the 25 per cent most disadvantaged communities. I hope that these priorities, and, indeed, the funding streams that support them, remain in place beyond 2012, as this work in delivering real results for individuals, universities and this country as a whole must continue.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this is a time-limited debate. When the clock hits six you have had your six minutes.

14:18

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords, we are dealing with a world where the giants of China and India are surging ahead. How will a tiny country like ours compete? I have built a business from scratch and I have always tried to focus on core competences and unique selling propositions. Even when I have nearly lost everything on three occasions, when you have had to cut costs to survive and adapt or die, the one thing you never cut is your core competence because that is what enables you to survive, grow and compete. One of the utmost core competences of the United Kingdom, the jewel in our crown, is our higher education system. As we have just heard, on any ranking we have four out of the top 10 universities in the world—after the United States we are No. 1—including Oxford and Cambridge. We have ancient universities and modern universities. I was chancellor of Thames Valley University for five years and proud of it. It is now the University of West London. At the other end of the spectrum, I hold four positions at Cambridge, my old university. We are to elect a new chancellor this weekend.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, for initiating this debate. I agree with a lot of what he said and will reinforce it. This Government’s decision to cut public expenditure is absolutely right. It has been far too high, approaching 50 per cent of GDP.

It is cutting away at the Government’s call for us all to be in this together. The Government are using a broad-brush approach to cutting expenditure when they should be much more selective. Why did they have to cut university teaching funding by 80 per cent? Why, as a result, did they have to force student fees to increase nearly threefold to £9,000? The average fee is going to be £8,200. The Government’s higher education White Paper, Students at the Heart of the System and the review of my noble friend Lord Browne on higher education funding are all very well. My noble friend produced an excellent report, but he was conned. That report was used by the Government as a way of cutting higher education funding, as a result forcing the fees to go up by nearly three times.

There is a basic misunderstanding about the starting point, which is that we as a country spend between 1.2 per cent and 1.3 per cent of our GDP on higher education, while the United States spends 3 per cent. The OECD average is 1.5 per cent and within the United States, as we have heard, public spending is more than 1 per cent. So we should not have cut higher education spending, we should have maintained it, increasing and encouraging more funding from student fees, philanthropy and the private sector. That is what we have not done.

Universities generate £60 billion of revenue, £12.5 billion from foreign students. This is phenomenal. They employ 700,000 people, a workforce that benefits the whole country. It is wrong to say that the public who do not go to university should not pay for those who do go. Those who leave university benefit the whole country and its competitiveness. What the White Paper completely neglected was postgraduate studies, Masters and PhD research. The Government have frozen funding. They have not cut it, although they have done so in real terms. We spend 1.7 per cent of our GDP on research, while the United States spends 2.7 per cent. How can we compete and continue to punch above our weight when this is the situation?

Students will leave higher education with loans repayable over 30 years. It is a noose around their necks. Is this the way to encourage wider access? Is it not going to deter students going to university, particularly as we have heard, those from poor backgrounds? Also, what about the burden of these loans on the Exchequer? Many indications say that the taxpayer would have been better off by keeping funding for university teaching and not providing long-term loans, which are expensive.

We are letting down our universities and the Immigration Rules do not help. I sit on the advisory board of Cranfield School of Management, where I am an alumnus, and we have noticed a drop in foreign students, particularly those from India. Anecdotally we hear comments from students from India, asking: “Does Britain want us any more?”. Do we not want to attract the brightest and the best from the world? As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, there is far more to it than the fees that foreign students bring in. There is also the soft power and the generational links. My grandfather came to university in this country. My mother did and so did I and that will carry on for generations to come.

What about philanthropy? At Cambridge, to celebrate our 800th anniversary, we raised £1 billion. That is what we can do. What about access? Thames Valley University has so many part-time students, and I am delighted that there is to be funding of part-time students. It is wonderful news and I congratulate the Government. The Open University has been doing great work in this area for years.

We are being penny wise and pound foolish, trying to save £2 billion in teaching funding when the cost of running the Department for Work and Pensions, whose expenditure is £200 billion a year, is also £2 billion. I was privileged to write the foreword to Big Ideas for the Future, published by Universities UK and Research Councils UK. This is a publication of more than 200 world-changing research initiatives coming out of our universities, in health, humanities, business, high-tech, energy, food and drink. These are transforming this country and the world. This is what our universities produce and they enable us to be the best in the world: in high value-added manufacturing, engineering, design and creativity. These are the things that put the “great” into Great Britain and come from the foundation of our universities. By cutting university funding and deterring access to universities, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

What about this ivory-tower mentality of trying to create a market? Who are the Government trying to fool? What nonsense is this? We need a balanced education in humanities, science and the arts and in every way. If we are to provide a balanced higher education, we need a balanced economy and society.

We are tampering with something very precious and I urge the Government to reconsider what they have done, not just in the interests of our students, nor of our universities, but in the best interests of this country to enable us to compete in the future.

14:24

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Giddens for initiating this important debate. I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I agree, I think, with every word of his speech and I shall follow some of his themes. I have two non-remunerated interests to declare: I am an honorary fellow of my old college in Oxford and I am also a fellow of the University of Worcester, which in recent years has been Britain's fastest-growing university. There was an interval of 850 years in the start of teaching at these two universities, but each is an important member of the British higher education sector and both are being badly affected by government policies.

I can think of no other part of the United Kingdom economy where organisations are fined for being popular and successful. I wonder how many people realise that not only are the Government next year withdrawing 10,000 people from universities altogether and putting a further 20,000 into a competition, they will also fine universities £3,700 for each student they recruit over the so-called control number. That is despite the fact that more than 200,000 people were unsuccessful in securing a university place both last year and this year.

Quite apart from the distress and disappointment that this policy will cause for individual students and their families who had set their heart on a university career, this is an incredibly short-sighted policy for the British economy, particularly with unemployment for 18 to 24-year olds having reached almost 1 million. The CBI is predicting that by 2017, 56 per cent more jobs will require people to hold graduate-level qualifications, while the demand for people with no qualifications will fall by 12 per cent.

To say that the Government are sending mixed messages is a huge understatement. On the one hand they appear to be saying that student numbers can be switched on and off like a tap, according to national economic conditions at the time. On the other, they are telling parents and young people that a university education is such a great investment that it is worth taking on huge piles of debt to cover the tuition fees that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, are nearly tripling to up to £9,000 from September next year.

The truth is that by investing in students and in universities, you are investing in the country's future. Fewer graduates are unemployed, compared to people without a degree, they are generally more productive, they are more likely to start new businesses, gain professional qualifications, and provide more employment for others and, over a lifetime, they will earn more and pay more tax.

The assertion that there are too many students and too many universities is nonsense. I get very angry when people talk about Mickey Mouse degrees from some of the newer universities. Let me give the House just one statistic from the University of Worcester, still a new university and, as I said, the country's fastest growing. Last year 93 per cent of its graduates went straight into jobs—putting Worcester ahead of its rather grander Russell group neighbours, Birmingham and Warwick. It has even done better in this regard than my own university of Oxford.

I will say a word about just two subjects, nursing and midwifery, although there are others I could mention. Before the general election, David Cameron promised to increase the number of midwives in England by 3,000. He described them as “overworked and demoralised”. The University of Worcester has a really successful nursing and midwifery school. The Nursing and Midwifery Council rated the university's provision as “good”, the best possible grade, in all five areas of its annual monitoring review, particularly noting that the university attracts excellent applicants to train in midwifery. The 30 per cent rise in applications in 2009-10 was followed by another 30 per cent rise in 2011. There are now 40 applicants per place for midwifery and more than 10 per place for nursing.

In partnership with the hospitals, trusts and healthcare providers, the University of Worcester is the only educator of midwives in Herefordshire and Worcestershire. The quality is excellent and it gives thousands of mothers and their babies the best possible professional help before, during and after childbirth. You would have thought that the authorities would wish to build on that success and provide for growth in the number of places, especially given the Prime Minister's pre-election promise and the call by the Royal College of Midwives for an additional 5,000 midwives to be trained. The college says that that is necessary because services are at breaking point and both the quality of care and the safety of mothers and babies are threatened.

What has happened? The number of midwifery places the university is commissioned to offer has been cut by the strategic health authority from 52 in 2009-10 to just 45 in 2010-11 and 47 in 2011-12. Nursery places were reduced by 40, from 228 in 2010-11 to 188 in 2011-12 and the same percentage cut of 17.5 per cent has been applied to nursing for all universities in the West Midlands. That makes no sense at all. Cutting university places is short-sighted and it is damaging the country's economic recovery. The cap on student numbers has to be removed and those universities that wish to plan for growth and can demonstrate that they are popular and successful must be allowed to grow.

14:31

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, for introducing this very important debate on a hugely important subject. I declare an interest as the principal of Jesus College, Oxford.

As has already been said, the UK university sector is an outstanding success. In fact, it has been said that it is second to the United States. Actually, that is not quite right. If you correct for population size and investment—remember the United States invests 15 times as much as the United Kingdom in universities—we have three times the success rate, relative to investment, in the world’s top 20. If you go farther down the league table, the story is the same. In short, our top universities are not just globally outstanding, but, as a whole, our university sector offers unparalleled value for money—three times as much value for money as the American system.

Given that extraordinary success story, it might be thought that the Government’s attitude would be, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, but the university sector is being thrown into a period of unparalleled turmoil, change and challenge. Why is that? One motive, which has already been referred to, is to reduce the deficit in public expenditure by transferring costs from the public purse to the private purse. As has been pointed out in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, the supposed saving is purely an accounting trick to get costs off the balance sheet. There is no long-term saving to taxpayers. The second motive is to create a market—or supermarket, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said—with students browsing as customers and universities responding by diversifying and improving their product range.

I happen to support greater diversity among higher education institutions, but is the market really a market? It turns out that many universities will charge the same £9,000 fee, so the market is not as diverse as the Government had hoped. At the same time, it is not a free market but a tightly regulated market, in terms of price, numbers and the distribution of the customer base. In short, the policy is a muddle.

As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, has already mentioned, the arrangements will have unintended consequences. Let me give you an example. The Government have said that they are keen to encourage more students to study science, engineering and mathematics—the so-called STEM subjects—but do not forget that those degrees take four years to complete and, therefore, the new arrangements with £9,000 a year loans will very likely discourage people from studying them. As I have discovered in my own university, for those universities that charge £9,000, because of the way in which the HEFCE funding formula works and in spite of the premium of STEM subjects, there will be a shift away from funding STEM subjects towards the humanities. I would like to ask the Minister whether those consequences are regarded as positive benefits of the new arrangements for funding.

The White Paper, published earlier this year, is remarkably quiet about graduate students’ education. Another unintended consequence that I can envisage is that students, finishing their undergraduate degree in a STEM subject, with perhaps £45,000 worth of loan, will not be encouraged to go on and take a postgraduate degree, which is essential for many of the jobs that we need to fill in science, engineering and other technical subjects. Does the Minister agree that the new arrangements will have knock-on effects for postgraduate education? Can she explain, more generally, what the Government’s approach to postgraduate education is in light of the new arrangements?

I now want to turn briefly, as it has already been mentioned, to the subject of international students. I speak with a personal perspective here because my father was an immigrant to this country as an academic and went on to win a Nobel Prize. He also contributed hugely to UK scientific research. We have already heard that UK universities are significant contributors to exports—Universities UK estimates a figure of £5.3 billion in 2007-08. In my own university, Oxford, 32 per cent of the teaching staff, 47 per cent of the research staff and more than 52 per cent of graduate students are from outside the United Kingdom. Our fastest growth area is for graduate students from China and India. That mobile talent comes to the UK because of the outstanding reputation of our universities. Not only do they come here to be educated, but, when they go home, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, they exercise great influence in their own countries, which can lead to future trade links of immense benefit to this country.

However, the present immigration controls and settlement restrictions under consideration will do great harm to the competitiveness of our universities. Recent figures from the Russell group suggest drops of between 20 and 80 per cent in the numbers of applicants from Asian countries. Our competitors in other countries are absolutely delighted that we are shooting ourselves in both feet by making it harder for our great universities to attract overseas talent.

I close by quoting from the former Poet Laureate, John Masefield, who once said,

“There are few things more enduring than a University. Religions may be split into sect or heresy; dynasties may perish or be supplanted, but for century after century the University will continue, and the stream of life will pass through it, and the thinker and the seeker will be bound together in the undying cause of bringing thought into the world”.

I hope that the current Government will support, rather than destroy, these enduring institutions.

14:37

[Baroness Howells of St Davids]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. First, I declare an interest as chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire.

Many noble Lords have already touched upon causes for concern about government policies and their impact on universities. I wish to concentrate on two particular aspects central to the White Paper published in June that worry me greatly. These are the proposal to fund through a “core and margin” model and the proposal to relax the criteria for degree-awarding powers and hence university title. We are told that the White Paper will create greater competition for university places and will enable more students to go to the university of their choice, but the reality is very different. The reality is that the distribution of funding for universities will be more closely aligned with the A-level results of students. Universities that ask for A-level grades of AAB will become better resourced than those that provide access for less advantaged students.

The Government are creating a higher education system that will reinforce existing social inequalities. Affluent school leavers from well-resourced schools have far better chances of gaining AAB grades than those from less advantaged backgrounds. The universities they will attend will also now be much better funded than others. Where is the Government's much vaunted goal of social mobility in this proposal?

The “core and margin” model will create a pool of 20,000 student places that only those higher education institutions that charge an average tuition fee of less than £7,500 will be allowed to compete for. This is intended to enable new providers to enter the higher education system and to stimulate competition. It is an approach that acknowledges the price of everything, but the value of nothing. This philosophy of “pile them high, sell them cheap” represents a race to the bottom. This policy will force universities that admit students with lower entry grades to reduce their fees below the level at which the Treasury decided the loans system should be funded. In effect, it cheapens and degrades the prospect of those students who are not fortunate enough to achieve high A-level grades. It provides a take-it-or-leave-it bargain basement. Again I ask: where is the Government’s goal of social mobility in these proposals?

My second cause for concern is that the Government propose to amend the criteria for degree-awarding powers. The White Paper contains a proposal to grant university title to organisations that provide no teaching or research. How can that be? Is it right, and in the long-term interest of our students and our society, to encourage providers that operate in the shareholder, rather than in the public, interest to access UK university title and taxpayer-backed investment?

Let me illustrate the point with my own university. The University of Bedfordshire has a board of governors, all of whom are unpaid, with many from FTSE 100 companies. Like other universities, we compete for UK students and trade internationally, backed by the global reputation associated with the standards and the quality which we must deliver under the current criteria for university title. We undertake near-market research and research that is acknowledged to be internationally excellent, and we promote a knowledge exchange with local businesses and international companies. Some 99 per cent of our students are from state schools; 35 per cent of our students are from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups; 43 per cent of our students are over 24 when they enter university; and 60 per cent of our students qualify for the full state maintenance grant, meaning that they come from families with incomes of less than £25,000 a year. The University of Bedfordshire contributes £300 million to the local economy and, beyond any monetary value, we contribute to aspiration and social cohesion. We do all of these things because we are run in the public interest.

I am not in favour of a closed shop. However, I am in favour of the UK retaining the current criteria for teaching and research degree-awarding powers, and I am utterly opposed to the reputation of the UK’s universities being irrevocably damaged by lowering the bar for degree-awarding powers.

14:43

[Lord Smith of Clifton]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, for this debate. It is very timely, coming as it does 12 months after your Lordships debated the Browne proposals. When I spoke in last year’s debate, I said that the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, would be a further acceleration towards the privatisation of tertiary education. I said that, while it would not be my preference, it is perfectly rational to have a free, untrammelled market in higher education, or to maintain the “mixed economy” that has been the main operating principle followed by successive Governments during the last half of the 20th century. The worst of all worlds would be to have a largely privatised system subject to bouts of ministerial interference.

I predicted that the consequences of the Browne proposals would be the adoption of a spate of rationalisation and consolidation schemes in both top and bottom-tier HEIs. That is already happening: north of the border, Glasgow has announced the abolition of courses in Czech, Polish, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian and Catalan, leaving only Spanish and French as the modern languages it offers. This was reported in the Independent on 24 April. In the Guardian of 3 May it was reported that London Metropolitan University, itself the product of a merger, intended to axe two-thirds of its courses, including history and philosophy. This is only the start of the latest round of closures; previous years witnessed the abolition of many chemistry departments and the total demise of any fully fledged nuclear engineering provision. The process will continue and gather pace in the coming years.

Leaving individual universities to decide what they do means that the overall pattern of English university provision will not be based on any coherent strategy. As I said by way of example, how many departments of palaeontology should there be? At least one, presumably, but that is by no means guaranteed in the current haphazard and fragmented state of decision-making. David Willetts claimed in the Guardian on 20 September last that his policy was in line with,

“all three major postwar reports”—

Robbins, Dearing and Browne. This is an absurd contention: the Robbins committee had a very wide remit to review the entire system across the UK, whereas the other two were much more circumscribed, being limited to financing and fees without regard to any other consequences. David Willetts was not comparing like with like.

Not that that is his only failing; there are many to choose from. First, he forecast that relatively few universities would charge the maximum permitted fee of £9,000, whereas a considerable number have already said that they will, including a number of second-tier ones. Secondly, he forecast that while a proportion of graduates—those earning very low salaries—would not have to repay their loan debts, there would be an overall saving to the taxpayer. Reversing the ratio of costs of higher education from 60 per cent public funding with 40 per cent private, to 40 per cent public funding with 60 per cent falling on the individual will not, it now appears, achieve the savings to the Exchequer originally predicted. Mr Willetts got his sums wrong. With average fees of £8,678 per annum, this will lead to a shortfall of £450 million by 2014, as reported in the Guardian of 21 April. A similar calculation came earlier from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Will the Minister, in winding—I have given notice of this request—please state what the current DBIS estimates are of the savings that will accrue to the public purse by 2014 and will she provide the data that support such calculations? These are crucial statistics that must be updated and published on a regular basis. Furthermore, it is clear that large numbers of graduates will remain in debt for most of their working lives. Mr Willetts was accorded the sobriquet of “two brains” some years ago; a ratings agency might reasonably now reassess this assessment.

There are further problems. First, the rate of return on a first degree has declined. The lifetime earnings premium that went with a degree is now much less than it was. Secondly, the world recession has seriously reduced the prospect of graduates securing well paid careers. It is no wonder that many school leavers are questioning the value of going to university. A decline in HE participation rates is predicted by vice-chancellors and UCAS. Furthermore, today’s newspapers are reporting a significant decline in applications to FE colleges from 16 year-olds. The combination of these new factors will lead inevitably to many university closures, mergers or takeovers and certainly to massive reductions in course offerings across the board.

In response to the emerging chaos, Ministers have come up with a number of policy refinements, if that is not too grand a description of the series of knee-jerk reactions they have been forced to turn to. Ministers continue to assert that the new system of fees and loans will be more equitable than the existing one. The deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right honourable friend Simon Hughes, was co-opted by the Government to improve access. He suggested 10,000 means-tested scholarships of £3,000 per annum to be allocated through schools to bright, disadvantaged pupils, but this will be but a mere sticking plaster. A government advertising programme to explain and promote the new system was also announced, but this and the Hughes proposals will not really tackle the problem. The stark fact is that the new fees/loans scheme is so complicated that it cannot be easily or simply explained and that makes it very bad politics, which further compounds the problems.

The Government need to undertake a thoroughgoing review, on the scale of Robbins, of their HE policies for England, or risk a decline, as many noble Lords have said, in the international reputation of our universities and the quality of the service they give to our citizens. There must also be a radical reordering of our policy priorities, in particular away from military adventurism, so that proper resources can be allocated to our university system. Within the coalition, the Liberal Democrats need to insist on these measures if they are to recover any credibility with the electorate on tuition fees and the costs that fall on individuals who undertake higher education. The chaotic system of English higher education must be addressed and remedial action taken.

[Baroness Northover]

I remind noble Lords that when the clock reaches six minutes—there are many academics here and I am sure that they can work this out—they have reached the end of their time. Otherwise, we risk not leaving enough time for the Minister to reply to noble Lords’ questions.

14:50

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, I will bear that injunction in mind. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Smith. We first met when we were part of the thin red line of vice-chancellors about 15 years ago.

Higher education has been one of the great success stories of modern British history—and God knows there have not been very many. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, how this is demonstrated by the current standing of our universities. The THES table shows that one-third are in the world's top 200. That is three times better than Germany. There are a number of reasons why we have done so well. I am sure that the first is the existence of the block grant. This was a public funding commitment, financed by the Treasury. It gave universities a sense of stability and reassurance, which continued under the previous Labour Government. They introduced tuition fees, but as an addition to funding, not an alternative.

Secondly, universities could plan. They could adapt to changing circumstances. They enjoyed autonomy. The University Grants Committee, founded in 1919 by the greatest of all our Prime Ministers, operated at arm's length, which helped to ensure efficiency of management.

Thirdly, there is a very strong commitment to research excellence. The academic Research Assessment Exercise was overregulatory and had many weaknesses, but it ensured that university teachers kept research as an absolute priority. This has been reflected in our world ratings. One issue I will point out is that the result of ending the binary divide has meant that some of the newer universities have had the same research criteria applied to them that is applied to some of the older universities. I do not believe that to be fair.

The final advantage is a highly personalised teaching system. In my long experience of Oxford tutorials, my average class size was two. Often it was one. By happy chance, that one is sitting in front of me: my noble friend Lord Liddle. I am very honoured that he is there. This is very different from other countries in Europe. We have very much closer contact. I know from my wife's country, France, how remote and impersonal teaching is there.

All these assets are seriously disadvantaged and threatened. The block grant is being substantially replaced by a system of student-based funding, which is alarming and even catastrophic in the humanities and social sciences. No objective test has been applied to show why subjects such as history, the social sciences and foreign languages should be discriminated against in this way. It threatens a fundamental aspect of our universities.

Secondly, universities cannot plan with confidence. The effect of the new system of funding is that universities cannot be sure of the resources at their disposal, particularly when, contrary to ministerial forecasts, almost all are putting up fees to the top level of £9,000. There is deep uncertainty about university finances, though I say to the Minister that universities can also help themselves. The extraordinary stipends paid to vice-chancellors—far higher than anything I ever received—are a disgrace at a time of economic stringency.

There is a serious threat to graduate schools and research. We have heard about many factors, such as the problem of getting overseas students into our graduate schools. We are losing an essential component of universities.

Finally, teaching is being weakened. With cuts in funding, the teacher-pupil ratio is getting worse. I admit that this is not new under this Government; it was happening before. However, it is unfair to students and to some of the newer institutions that are less well financed.

Why is this happening? The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, explained the essence of it. In education, as in the National Health Service, the assumption is that you run a university as a business. You set up a report written by a businessman, and that is what you get. The assumption is that higher education is a market, students are consumers, universities should fulfil business needs and competition will drive up quality. All of these are fundamental misconceptions and not a sound way of determining what universities should teach, how they should mark degrees and the nature of those degrees. It will lead to tension between intellectual toughness and the soft option.

This is the wrong way to promote higher education. When other countries are increasing their funding, we are diminishing ours. Universities are seen as instruments of business and the market economy. It is a crude, philistine approach. We should revert to the policy of all parties—Liberal, Conservative and Labour—for most of the 20th century. We should see university education, as they did, as a public good and the basis of any civilised society.

14:56

[Lord Moser]

My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, for this opportunity to talk about universities. As all noble Lords have said, they are one of the country's greatest treasures. I have been lucky to spend almost all my working life as an academic, university chancellor, head of an Oxford college and, perhaps most precious of all to me, working with Lord Robbins and his committee to produce his great report. Together with the subsequent Dearing report, it gets to the essence of what universities are about. Of course, it was produced in 1963, when only 5 per cent of youngsters went to university. The committee daringly proposed raising that figure to 15 per cent by 1980. Now we are close to 50 per cent; we have mass higher education. To me, that is something of which to be proud rather than ashamed. It follows the American style, and other noble Lords have spoken about some of the implications.

Nothing can justify the spending review’s treatment of the universities. I wonder whether it has something to do with the fact that it did not come from the Department for Education, which is where higher education should be dealt with, along with everything from nursery schools upwards. That is an organisational point. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, and other speakers—above all, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—spoke well about what this means for universities, which are faced with turmoil and muddle from Government and from various reports. There is no doubt that standards are at risk. Some courses and universities will go to the wall, and standards may also face a downward slope from an international point of view.

What makes this doubly unacceptable is that the spending review's cuts came on top of an already underfunded system. It is not as if we were flush and therefore could face it. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, gave us the figures. The essence is that we spend 1.3 per cent of GDP on higher education. The OECD average is 1.5 per cent. The United States spends 3 per cent. It is quite a different world, from which we have much to learn. It was a moment for being positive about universities, on which our future depends in so many ways—the economy, society and so on—rather than setting them on a downward slope. Since others have spoken so well about the finances and the implications and the disquiet that all this justifies, I will confine myself to a couple of other basic points. The first, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, is that within those cuts from the spending review, the priority of cuts—in other words, the negative side—has gone to teaching. Whatever the rest of us may think of the equality of teaching and research as university roles, the spending review authors thought differently. Research has been much more protected and I understand the reasons. I look to HEFCE—where else can one look to?—to ensure that this trend against teaching in universities is halted. It is a very dangerous trend.

Finally, my particular concern is for the humanities, the social sciences and the arts. These are not regarded by today’s leaders as of strategic importance. It may be that they do not earn as much money, and as easily, as the sciences and technology, which I am not going to argue against. Who would? But a lot of people sadly in high places are somewhat anti the humanities and the social sciences and the arts. From the point of view of a civilised country to which I was lucky enough to come many years ago, this is a dangerous trend and I look again at HEFCE to ensure that the humanities are protected.

I still look back—I am sentimental in that respect—to the Robbins days when everything depended on the UGC. I look to the future in which government intrudes much less than now and concerns itself much less with details. Obviously overall funding is a different matter. It is left to HEFCE to ensure that we have a first-class system, as we have now.

15:02

[Lord Bragg]

I declare an interest as the chancellor of the University of Leeds and another as a fellow of my old college. I join others in thanking my noble friend Lord Giddens for securing this debate, and for all that he has said on the economic side, and my noble friend Lord Krebs. There is nothing left to be said there really; the case has been made, so all my stuff for that has been scrawled out. I might make the six minutes.

The British universities, as the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said, have been an extraordinary success since the last war, like the creative industries. They are the two greatest successes in this country, and we meddle with them at our peril. When so much else stagnates or sinks, their success must be supported. That is not being done at the moment. Apart from their academic success and the way they groom this society in the right civilised and cultured direction, they have been social engineers on the very highest scale. They took a 7 per cent intake not many decades ago and turned it into a 45 per cent intake, without breaking down, without disruptions, without strikes and without any of that sort of thing at all. They took it on board. In the process, in my view—from looking round and having something to do with universities—they enhanced the universities; they made the universities better. The great growth that has been talked about by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, has come in the last two or three decades since that happened. This is down to dedicated academics and intelligent management. Moreover, in my experience of 10 years at Leeds, the universities foster well-educated, democratic, young, culturally literate citizens whose contribution to our society enriches it and who totally contradict the glib soundbites about a broken society.

In our near future, the knowledge industry and the creative industry could be just as crucial as manufacturing once was, but it needs to be attended to and not assailed as it is at the moment, so when universities complain in measured and temperate terms we should be careful to heed them. Here are a couple of points from the vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds, who is also the chairman of the Russell group. On visa changes, the Government have changed student visas—as has been said, but this is a specific instance—to remove the right of international students to work for a year or so after they graduate in the UK. At Leeds this has led to a fall already of 30 per cent in students from India, which was a great source for us in all sorts of ways: socially, culturally and economically. Apparently Indian banks are cutting student loans as post-study is no longer available. The estimated loss in revenue to us at the moment is £1.2 million and rising, quite apart from the loss of influence in national prestige and quite apart, as has been pointed out, from the interconnectedness between India and this country from those people coming here and from our students going over there. As has been said, that is a massive plus that we are jettisoning. I cannot see any sense in it, nor can anyone else I know who has anything to do with the university.

On the question of research, the Government have sought to protect research funding from the full force of the cuts, and for that they must be thanked. They maintain the level funding in cash terms. That sounds okay, but this flat cash is equivalent to a loss of 20 per cent in real terms over the life of this Parliament alone. It has been said—and it needs to be repeated, it seems—that countries such as France, Germany, America, not to mention China, are investing more and more in real terms in research and sciences because they know it works. They know that it delivers. They know that it delivers jobs, wealth and new opportunities. They know that it delivers the future. We are cutting back. We are supposed to be the clever country. We started all this a couple of hundred years ago. I cannot understand what we are about. We will fall behind—obviously we will. This is not good for the growth of the economy, or more generally for our international competitiveness.

We have to recognise that widening participation is a complex issue and we have to resist the tendency to blame the universities for a much wider social problem. The solution has to be compound. As well as effort from the universities, it requires improvements in secondary school performance, increasing student attainment, better advice and guidance for school students, particularly at the age when they choose their A-levels, as well as financial support for those 16 to 18 year-olds who really need it. We have a plan and a strategy at Leeds to encourage that in that neighbourhood of Yorkshire, which is proving to be quite successful. We are doing the same at Oxford.

The universities are essential to our future prosperity because of their ability to change, to invent, to reinvent, to engage the serious mind and to engage in those mind games that now dominate world commerce and world progress. Ideas rule and we have to be there, up with those rulers. There is a book of which I am a great admirer. It is written by the father of my noble friend Lord Evans. It is an early masterful work of oral history called Ask the Fellows Who Cut the Hay, and that is what it means. The fellows who cut the hay in the universities are the vice-chancellors, the professors, the lecturers, the researchers. In my experience, they are men and women, as we have heard, of great international distinction. They are public servants. They are not self-serving or alarmist. What they say has real merit. Your Lordships’ House will, I am sure, listen to them and pass it on. These things are far too important to be meddled with confusingly. They deserve close attention and scrutiny from us. The universities liberate our young people into a future that they deserve to have.

15:08

[Baroness Coussins]

My Lords, I want to draw attention to the impact of government policy on the provision of modern language degrees, and I declare an interest as the chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Languages. There might at long last be a glimmer of hope that the Government have grasped just how detrimental it would be to allow the teaching and learning of foreign languages to disappear. I warmly welcome the announcement last month by the Foreign Secretary that the decline of language teaching in the Foreign Office would be reversed. As well as reopening the Foreign Office’s language centre and a 30 per cent increase in spending on language teaching, he announced an increase in the number of jobs overseas for which language skills will be an absolute requirement.

In the business world, too, language skills are increasingly required, but UK-educated graduates are finding themselves at a disadvantage in a global labour market alongside their peers from other countries where graduates are more likely to be able to work in two or three languages, including English. Over 70 per cent of UK employers say that they are not happy with the foreign language skills of our graduates and are being forced increasingly to recruit from overseas.

This year, only 1.5 per cent of the 51,000 applicants for EU jobs in Brussels were British, and the obvious explanation is that they simply do not possess the required working knowledge of a second language. The review of university funding carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, concluded that languages should be a strategic priority for public investment. Yet the changes in the funding system threaten the survival of modern languages degrees at just the time when we need to safeguard and strengthen them. Several universities have already cut back or scrapped language courses, including the University of Westminster, which has scrapped its flagship MA in conference interpreting, which had been a key recruitment ground for the native English speakers sought after by the EU and the United Nations. There is a desperate shortage of native English speakers in these services, and I would like to know what support the Government can offer to British students who wish to train as interpreters and translators.

At undergraduate level, the funding problem relates partly to the fact that language degrees are four-year courses, including a year abroad. Without this year, the quality and value of a modern language degree would be severely undermined. My understanding is that the fee waiver to universities for students taking their year abroad will continue for students who started their course in 2011 or earlier, but that after that there is currently no fee compensation built into the plans. Will the Minister review this situation as a matter of urgency, with a view to reassuring universities and prospective students that the fee waiver for the year abroad will remain? Will she also confirm that the specialist PGCE course for language teachers will continue to include funded teaching practice in a foreign country?

Languages, along with the STEM subjects, are defined as strategically important and vulnerable and, as such, receive some additional support, for example through the funding of the routes into languages programmes and the language-based area studies programme. Will the Minister say whether this additional support will continue and how the Government intend to develop their support for languages, given their status as SIV subjects?

Finally, and despite the fact that the Minister is replying today as BIS Minister, I want to draw attention to the important impact that government policy on the school curriculum has on universities, and to ask the Minister whether she will undertake to speak with her colleagues in the Department for Education about the place of modern languages in the national curriculum. Universities cannot produce sufficient numbers of linguists unless schools are producing enough pupils with a language GCSE and A-level. Numbers here are in serious decline. The English bacc has boosted languages in year 9 to a very modest extent, but we will not see the level of improvement we need unless the Government reverse the current disastrous policy whereby languages after key stage 3 are optional.

Restoring modern languages to the core part of the national curriculum until the age of 16, which I hasten to add is not the same thing as forcing every child to do a GCSE in a language, is also important for social mobility because it is, of course, only in state schools that there is such a dramatic decline in modern languages. This is a very good example of how what goes on in schools has a significant impact on what goes on in universities. About a quarter of those applying to do language degrees are from independent schools compared with only about 9 per cent across all subjects. Can the Minister reassure me that she will set up early and focused discussions between her department and the DfE on the way in which language policies across the school and university sectors can be consistent and integrated?

15:15

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Giddens for having given us the opportunity to have this important debate today. I have the good fortune to be involved in three very different universities: LSE, where I am active as a governor; Newcastle University, where I am a member of court; and De Montfort University, where I do a small amount of advisory work.

I, like others, find the Government’s policy sad and ill-judged. It is diminishing the concept and ideal of a university and, indeed, of education as an end in itself. It has huge implications for the future of the United Kingdom. What had come to be seen as an inspiring public good—my noble friend Lord Morgan referred to this—in which the nation as a whole could take pride is being ideologically changed into the concept of higher education being all about private benefit. Of course there is a balance to be struck, but that balance is now being heavily weighted in the direction of private benefit. More and more is measured by utilitarian, commercial considerations alone. As for the talk of markets and of students as customers, I find it vulgar. What of the aspiration of a university being a community of scholars?

There are contradictions in the policy of opening up a market by stimulating competition on AABs while at the same time stressing the importance of greater access. Of course we should all want more and more people to have the experience of university, but if we are genuine about this, that means that in our admissions policy we must look for potential that may not yet have had an equal opportunity to express itself in AAB terms. We should be looking for the future Einsteins trapped out there in relatively disadvantaged areas, but not just for Einsteins; we should be looking at the many who could make a powerful contribution to the future well-being of the UK if given the chance to develop intellectually. Many vice-chancellors are concerned that the number of students from disadvantaged areas will inevitably drop in the long run.

I am also concerned about perceived pressures, however much it is argued that there is no logical foundation for them, that lead students to pursue studies leading to a demonstrable and immediate material plus in the marketplace as distinct from the studies that they really want to undertake. This is part of shooting ourselves in the foot. A strong future for Britain will need not just scientific, technological, engineering and vocational skills, but intellectual originality, values and ethics and the perspective and wisdom of the humanities, without which all could repeatedly go terribly wrong. Our recent massive economic crisis is a good illustration of this. In any case, as we build material wealth, we surely know that a society worth living in will not be characterised by its quantity of wealth alone but also by its quality.

The Government’s approach to the funding of arts and humanities is myopic, demoralising and dangerous for our future. What has just been said about languages is another good example. The vindictive approach to the social sciences is totally irrational. Technological and scientific advance generates immense challenge in its social consequences and in the organisation of society. The social sciences deserve priority in funding.

Do we believe in informed, critical citizens as central to a global democracy or not? If we do, the quality and wider life of university are crucially important. By the same token, the policy towards university museums smacks of a short-sighted cheapness—“nasty” is a good way to describe it. We need to see ourselves in perspective, to appreciate the diversity of humanity, to understand from where we came and the context of where we are.

The other evening I saw a TV report on the Conservative Party conference in which the Minister, Mr Hammond, made an impassioned speech about the indispensability and imperative of infrastructure for our future. Exactly the same analysis applies to our universities with their world-leading research—indeed, they are part of that infrastructure. The Minister said that we cannot afford not to make infrastructure a priority. Against the price of Trident, for example, just why has the concept of free education at all levels including university disappeared from the radar screen?

I have one last plea: whatever the merits or demerits of all the activity that the present Secretary of State for Education likes to generate, can the Government please take next year to pause, take stock, and analyse the impact and consequences of their ill-chosen route? It is far too important to be left to ideological fundamentalism.

15:20

[Lord Sawyer]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, for initiating this debate. However, I cannot share what I thought was the general pessimism of his contribution. I am the Chancellor of Teesside University and we have to make this new regime work. We cannot afford closures or failures. We have to keep widening access and raising aspirations because the people of our region have a right and a need to continue to grow and develop.

We should absolutely be focusing on ensuring that higher education is funded sustainably; that is, delivering a quality student experience and increasing social mobility. However, there are genuine concerns about mechanisms being proposed that could have very real consequences for universities such as Teesside that are playing the critical role that I have already mentioned. It is of concern to me, as it obviously is to my noble friend Lady Howells, that the “core plus margin” approach might have the unintended consequence of forcing many full-time students away from areas of need and the provision of their choice in high-demand, high-quality institutions, towards provision elsewhere.

We are all aware that there are many complex reasons why students choose the university they wish to go to, yet we are in danger of introducing mechanisms that will vastly restrict this choice through moving numbers to places where there is no evidence of demand. I am conscious of this point particularly in my own area, where Teesside University is the only independent higher education institution in the conurbation. A reallocation of 8 per cent of places leaves nowhere for those qualified students to study. I would add that in areas where moving home to go to university is not an option for many potential students, including many mature students and women returning to study, I worry deeply about this aspect of government policy.

In my Teesside area, we have an excellent further education sector in the context of a partnership with five excellent colleges. It is a partnership of exceptional strength and mutual respect, with a successful track record of providing ladders of opportunity to people across the community served by my university. It is a partnership in which my own university has invested significant sums in building higher education centres on the premises of all the five colleges, and my great concern is that, because of the average fee restrictions such partnerships could be undermined in respect of the founding universities, which have striven to create a genuinely rounded higher education experience in a purpose-built-environment but now will be unable to bid for additional full-time student numbers. I would like the Minister to look at that issue very carefully. I do not believe that that consequence is desired by Ministers, and it is certainly not desired by the principals of the colleges to which I have referred. I would welcome clarification in this regard.

Both Houses have given consent to the new funding regime but my own experience and that of my university is very much that prospective students, their parents and advisers do not yet fully understand that this being free at the point of entry, with enhanced student support and a progressive repayment regime, means that higher education should still be for all those who are qualified to enter. It is my fear therefore that student recruitment in 2012 might not be a realistic indication of the long-term recruitment pattern of a university. I strongly encourage Ministers to ask the HEFCE to maintain student number controls for 2013 at the level set for 2012 so that short-term shortfalls in student participation can be recovered without major and damaging turbulence in the higher education sector.

It is also my expectation that changes in support funding for full-time students will result in a step change in the take-up of part-time and distance learning study opportunities. I hope that the Minister will recognise that significant clarity is yet to be brought to the long-term funding that will support such a crucial part of our higher education landscape.

I want to emphasise that the continued success of universities such as Teesside University in areas of high unemployment is essential, not just for the education of young people and returning learners but also for the economy of the region. In the 10 years since I looked at education with any kind of a serious eye, it has changed dramatically, beyond my expectations. Middlesbrough was a steel town, a shipyard town and full of factories. Now, there are no factories left. In the middle of the town there is now a university, and it is to the university that people look not just for education but for employment.

As the university becomes successful, student numbers will grow and it will get a worldwide reputation. In 2010, it won the award for the best university in the country, against all comers, including, let me say, the Russell group. As it does that, it becomes a focal point for innovation, excellence and jobs growth. We must really understand the importance of these universities for the future. It is about higher education but also about something much more in terms of the economy, jobs and the future of the people who live and work in those regions. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues in the other place will take these things into careful consideration.

15:25

[Lord Bew]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, for securing this important debate. I declare my interests as a working professor at a Russell group university and an honorary fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge. When my noble friend Lord Luce secured a debate on higher education in June 2008, it was before the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the onset of the serious world economic crisis, which is obviously still with us. Even at that date, it was clear that the relatively golden era of higher education financing was coming to an end.

In the early summer of 2008, Professor Geoff Crossick, chairman of the long-term strategy group of Universities UK, had already said that a much bumpier ride was on the horizon. He drew attention to the significant underlying demographic and financial trends that were already in play. Although that was true, we do not speak at the moment of crisis in the success of our higher education system. In figures for the past week in the Times Higher Education Supplement, there is no evidence of a decline in UK standings. We can see, for example, that the UK has almost three times as many universities in the top 200 as Germany; more than four times as many as Australia; and more than six times as many as Japan. All that is while spending only 1.2 per cent of GDP on higher education, which is less than the 1.5 per cent average across the OECD.

I had a private bet with myself that before I would speak today at least one noble Lord would make the comparison not with the countries that I have mentioned but with the United States. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Krebs made the point admirably that if you control for population and expenditure, there is a case for saying not that we are second to the United States but that we have a stronger system in higher education. People in the higher education sector want to make that point about America due to a perception of government policy. To use the words of the Minister, Mr David Willetts, in a brave letter in the London Review of Books earlier this year, it is a “crude caricature” that the Government’s approach to higher education is dominated by market fundamentalism plus an infatuation with the US. The fact is that that is how it is perceived within the higher education world.

To add a personal note, about a year ago, the Department for Education asked me to take on an independent review of a very controversial issue in our schools system—SATs testing. I was told that our teachers are very angry about SATs; that it is a very fraught topic; and that I would find it very hard. I accept that there was much tough debate. But my guess is that our university senior common rooms are probably angrier than I found our schoolteachers to be during that long year of reviewing policy in that area. Let there be no doubt that SATs testing was and is a very controversial issue among many teachers. There is a mood of exasperation in common rooms.

Perhaps I may offer some help to the Government in this matter. In this economic context, there is relatively little to be done. We face a serious crisis in higher education. However, there is a question of mode of address. On one area, which is not dominated by the economic question and has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—immigration of talent into our country and into our academic system—I have nothing to add to what he so eloquently said.

Let me take another issue: the research assessment exercise, now the REF. It is vital to the competitiveness of our system. The Government are quite right to have such a system in place. I know I speak on these Benches on which we have a number of distinguished philosophers, the impact of whose work is in the public domain. However, to ask, for example, certain branches of philosophy to deliver an impact assessment and to demonstrate a broader public impact is fundamentally unreasonable. What it leads to is meretricious behaviour, the puffing out of CVs and bogus claims by academics—all types of things that the Government quite rightly are very sceptical and critical of. These areas of policy are not determined by the economic crisis. Sensitivity to the particular position of academics would do a great deal to improve the quality of debate because frankly I am concerned about the quality of debate that is flowing between academe, universities and the Government at the present time.

15:31

[Lord Parekh]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, for securing this debate and introducing it with the insight and wisdom that we have come to expect of him. When we discuss education policy, we need to ask ourselves by what criteria are we judging it. In the context of this country, two criteria are absolutely relevant. First, is the government policy likely to safeguard the high quality of our university education and research? As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has already reminded us, we are not just second in the international league, but, allowing for the all the variables, we might come top.

The second criterion that we need to take into account is whether the policy makes this high quality of education and research available to whoever is capable of benefiting from it and maximises the use of talent available in the country? These are the two criteria: does the policy maintain and safeguard the high quality of our education and research and does it make it available to all?

Noble Lords have so far concentrated by and large on the first. I want to concentrate on the second because it is in danger of getting neglected. Fifty per cent of the British population belong to a lower socio-economic background. However, they represent just 26 per cent of university students. Obviously, much work needs to be done at the school level. However, financial considerations also play an important part. If fees are to be paid—and fees are fairly high—they act as a deterrent. As well as introducing high fees, the Government are trying to support people from lower socio-economic backgrounds through the scheme of bursaries. A bursary in a Russell group university comes to something like £1,764. In a million+ universities, it comes to be about £714. These amounts are hardly enough to encourage people from lower socio-economic backgrounds to enter university. Either, therefore, they will not enter the university or they will have to do part-time work in order to maintain themselves, which would badly affect their academic achievement.

I am particularly worried about the national scholarship scheme. The Government have set aside £155 million for helping people from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The amount is too small. If the fees are £9,000 a year, the amount will only be able to maintain about 5,500 students. If the fees average at about £7,200, the £155 million would only take care of just under 7,000 students. Contrast this with the fact that last year alone 10,670 students were in receipt of free school meals. The amount of £155 million therefore is not good enough and at best can only guarantee a free first year. I am particularly worried about the impact of this on ethnic minorities, especially Afro-Caribbeans and Pakistanis, because by and large Indians are in a position to take care of themselves.

Huge sums of money have to be repaid as the fees range between £7,000 and £8,000 a year, which comes to around £25,000 for a three-year course. The hope of getting a job and earning around £25,000 a year in order to start repaying the loan is slim in a situation like ours. There is also a great danger that students from the Afro-Caribbean and Pakistani communities might stay away from courses of a longer duration, such as medicine and management. Unwittingly, we may create a situation of occupational apartheid, in that on certain courses you will not see a black face, a face from Pakistan or a Muslim face; that would be extremely dangerous. If we are really concerned to make education available to all and to create a genuine sense of community in our country, those from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds should not have to pay fees at all. If they do have to pay fees, the value of bursaries should be increased, on a rough calculation, to something like £475 million from the proposed £155 million.

As other noble Lords have pointed out, we must recognise that education is a public good. It benefits not only the individual, but also the community at large by raising the quality of life and its consequences in almost all spheres, including which newspapers you read and the television programmes you watch. It is also a prized good in the sense that those who are deprived of it build up resentment and anger, as we have seen from time to time in the kinds of turmoil that have taken place. If it is regarded as a public good and not just as an individual good, and if we see people not just as consumers but as citizens, the public contribution has to be much higher than is currently the case. In the mid-1990s the public contribution to higher education was in the vicinity of 40 per cent to 42 per cent. It began to go down and stands today at somewhere around 32 per cent. If the Government’s policy is carried out, we are told that by 2014-15, the teaching grant to universities will decrease by 60 per cent. That simply cannot be right. If we really value education as we should, the Government contribution must be better than it is.

13:47

[Lord Woolmer of Leeds]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Giddens for introducing this debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the board of governors of Leeds Metropolitan University, and in a former existence I was Dean of the Business School at the University of Leeds, of which my noble friend Lord Bragg is the distinguished Chancellor. It is a pleasure to follow him today.

It seems that the Government have two objectives in their policy, one largely talked about in the debate—the fiscal objective, ensuring that students pay the full cost of their teaching at university, and the objective of increasing competition. It is not entirely clear whether the intention behind that is to drive down price or to improve quality. Before I go any further I shall say a word about Leeds Metropolitan University by way of background to one or two of my comments. It has some 27,000 students and almost 2,500 staff. It plays a major part in and makes a major contribution to the Yorkshire region, and of course complements the strengths of the University of Leeds, which also has a wide national and international reputation. The university is very important to the region and works closely with employers and industry, as well as with professional associations. It offers a vast range of professional and related degrees.

I sense from our discussions that we do not really know what is going to happen. The Government have increased fees by between 200 per cent and 300 per cent. We all have a view on what might happen, but chairing a board of governors is a bit like chairing the board of a company, and the truth is that we do not know; there is an awful lot of uncertainty. What I can say is that in the universities that I experience, people are getting on with the job. They are not feeling sorry for themselves. They are addressing the challenges and uncertainties and they are preparing for potentially very substantial change, but we do not know what the consequences will be. I will turn to one or two of those now.

I will touch only briefly on students from overseas and India because other noble Lords mentioned it but it is so important. The contribution of overseas students —India is a good example but there are others too—is important not only to our relationships abroad and our business relationships, but it is important to our UK students. It helps them to learn in an international, global environment. They learn an awful lot from international students. It is extremely important for the culture of undergraduate and postgraduate learning. I cannot emphasise how important it is. What assessments have the Government made to date—I realise that it is very early in the ball game—of the impact on Indian students’ entry to our universities this year? In the light of that assessment, if it does reveal a major fall, are the Government open to looking again at policy in that area?

On widening access, it is as plain as a pikestaff to anybody that if you almost triple the price it will affect demand. No matter how you dress it up, somewhere along the line people will pay more, whether now or later in life. The people affected will inevitably be those at the bottom end of the income scale and those from low-aspirational households. I will be delighted if that is not true, but good sense says that it is. I ask the Government again, if good sense turns out to be right, what do they intend to do about that? There is a great deal of hypocrisy about the widening access agenda. You almost triple fees and then you say that you want to widen access. There is a conflict in that and I hope that the Government are open to addressing that issue.

Then there is the question of competition and the introduction of the contestable margin of 20,000 students. Have the Government stated clearly what are the objectives of that policy? What are the measurable outcomes of those objectives so that we can assess whether introducing this contestable margin, the marketplace, is successful or not? If those objectives are not met, what is the Government’s intention? Will the contestable margin of 20,000 be stable for four years? As the energy policy shows, what business, universities and long-term institutions need is confidence in the framework of policy. What will happen to the contestable margin? Will it remain for the rest of this Parliament and can universities plan on that? Universities in operation are not sitting back feeling sorry for themselves, but they want the Government to be willing to address success or failure and to be willing to change policy if some of the worst fears are borne out.

15:43

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Giddens for securing this debate, which has given us a long overdue opportunity to discuss the future of our universities. It has been an excellent debate, with expertise, history and passion, including, in the evocative words of my noble friend Lord Bragg, several thoughtful contributions from the men who “cut the hay”, who we are of course adjured to listen to very carefully.

In that context, it is very sad that we have not had the benefit of contributions from the Conservative Back Bench today. That is obviously a huge vote of confidence in the policies that they are pursuing.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, it is a reflection of what a hard time the Opposition have given us over the past three days and the general state of exhaustion on our Benches.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My heart bleeds.

In his contribution the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, quoted extensively from John Masefield. In fact he must have been reading my speech over my shoulder, because I was also going to quote John Masefield, although I was going to use a quotation that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, gave about a year ago. There were additional lines from where the noble Lord ended up:

“There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university: a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, went on to say:

“I cannot emphasise enough that our universities are and must remain centres of free thought and discovery, and seats of learning in both the sciences and the arts”.

She confirmed that the Government would,

“never lose sight of the wider purposes of higher education”.—[Official Report, 27/10/10; col. 1222.]

Given what has been said today in this debate, perhaps the Minister could confirm when she responds that this remains the position of Her Majesty’s Government.

What are our universities for? We know, first of all, that the recent report of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, confirms that we currently have one of the best, and certainly one of the most cost-effective systems of higher education in the world. We can contest exactly where we are in the rankings but we are certainly near the top. As the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said, like the cultural industries, this is one of the things that Britain does best and it is something that we should cherish. So the first question is whether the changes now being proposed will assist us to retain and improve our higher education system. It is hard to believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, reminded us, that the decision to cut the block grant, to cut science funding by 10 per cent in real terms over this CSR period, to curtail overseas student visas and to make university fees three times more expensive is indeed the right way to build on the presently successful system. Indeed, it may get worse.

As my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids said, the Government’s proposals will undoubtedly create three categories of degree-awarding institutions: an elite group, with almost all their students in the high-achieving category, defined as AAB or better, which will charge headline fees of £9,000 and will be allowed to grow; a large number of perceived second-rank institutions, which will charge £7,500 in order to be eligible to bid for those students that they lose to a pool through the “core and margin” reduction mechanism; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, predicted, a third group of private degree-awarding institutions, FE colleges and others, which will bid at very low fee levels to the pool, but which will have to provide a lot more for less if they are going to survive as universities. The experiences that the third group offer, including shorter programmes and minimal contact time, will not begin to match the experience offered at the other two groups.

If that turns out to be the long-term position, I have grave doubts about whether it will build on where we are today. The Russell Group universities—though not all of them—will prosper, but these changes clearly threaten the coverage, resilience, capacity and effectiveness of the sector. Like the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I do not see a growth in the overall contribution that science and technology needs to make to our economy; and it will surely reduce the capacity to civilise our society that several noble Lords mentioned. We cannot rule out some closures of good and long-established institutions, with all that that implies. This strategy could destabilise the higher education sector and damage quality.

Related to this point, several noble Lords have mentioned postgraduate courses, a matter unaccountably omitted from the Browne review and the White Paper. It is of course inevitable that the postgraduate landscape will shift significantly as a result of the withdrawal of most central funding without any compensatory student loan support, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, because of the heavy indebtedness of future undergraduates. The changes in the visa system referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, are also affecting the flow of potential overseas postgraduate students, with a knock-on adverse effect on teaching on undergraduate courses. Urgent work is now needed to develop a response to these pressures, and perhaps the Minister could respond on this point.

My second point is whether the new voucher scheme, which underpins the assertion that students will be at the heart of the system, will deliver a better and more cost-effective system going forward. It may well be that putting the student at the heart of the system—with good information, allowing them to make a rational decisions on what course they want to follow—could create a market in undergraduate course provision, and hence improve standards of teaching. The noble Lords, Lord Giddens, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Morgan and Lord Judd, have rather demolished that canard. Even so, it seems to be based on a wrong premise. According to the supporting analysis provided by BIS, high entry qualifications is one of the two key indicators that many universities try to maximise. High entry qualifications enhance an institution’s reputation, which further attracts entrants with high entry qualifications. The result is a large degree of rigidity in the ranking of universities by reputation and prestige. This in turn creates a large number of small markets, with products defined by entry qualifications and subjects, so that each institution or department is effectively in competition with a very small number of others. It is this product differentiation that restricts competition. Most students, after all, will make only one purchase and will not be able to compare different providers directly, and even an improved information system will not entirely compensate for this. In any case, how are prospective students going to get better informed so that, in the words of the White Paper, they will drive teaching excellence,

“by taking their custom to the places offering good value for money”?

This is cod market orthodoxy. But nevertheless, the more students know about what to expect, the better prepared they ought to be.

However, despite appearing to recognise the importance of accurate and meaningful information, the Government proposals do not provide this. The BIS impact assessment says:

“The Government does not have the resources to develop commercial standard information tools (such as consumer price comparison websites) .... so our long-term strategy is to ensure that relevant student data is made available to third party providers, so that they can turn the raw data into meaningful information, innovatively presented”.

Don’t you just love that “innovatively presented”?

Perhaps we can persuade the Government to think again on this point. I cannot see that British analogues of what is already on the market will take the trick here. Take, for example, the US-produced ratemyprofessors, a website which boasts that it has 10 million student comments, and no doubt a huge hit list. Promoted,

“as a fun way to choose the best courses and professors”,

it includes ratings of a professor’s appearance as “hot” or “not”, and ratings of “easiness”—said to be useful for finding a module which will not involve hard work. David Mease, of San Jose State University, currently tops the list with a 4.8 score out of 5 and, you might not be surprised to know, a chilli pepper for “hotness”. There is no photo so I cannot enlighten the House further, but you get the message. For completeness, Brigham Young University, with an average professor score of 3.62 out of 5, tops the college lists. Surely this is not the way to go.

My third point, which has been widely raised already in the debate, is about social mobility. The new methods of allocating resources and controlling student numbers look likely to reinforce relative disadvantage rather than remove it. The removal of the need to pay fees up front for both full and part-time courses, the provision of maintenance loans, and the bursaries and scholarships that may be available to students from low-income backgrounds, should make participation in higher education a more attractive proposition—I accept that. On the other hand, and crucially, we simply do not know whether, and to what extent, the likely assumption of increased debt will reduce participation in general, and by those from low-income backgrounds, women and ethnic minorities in particular. As my noble friend Lady Howells said, the effect of the “core and margin” system will be very likely to create a race to the bottom, bringing in third-tier institutions that are much less attractive to students, which is where many students from disadvantaged backgrounds will end up, because, as we have heard, they are less likely to have good qualifications and will be obliged to accept a place at a third-tier institution; or if they are unwilling to do that, will miss out on higher education completely.

The impact of Government policies is making the future of our universities very uncertain. As we have heard in this high-quality debate today, the restructuring of university funding, which passes the state’s contribution largely on to the student, undermines the compact between student, state and employers that has long been the basis for our university system.

Universities are not an extension of school or, as my noble friend Lord Giddens said, utilitarian providers for people to receive training in the limited range of disciplines for the workplace. They have other noble missions which, to our mind, requires that the state ought to be a major stakeholder in higher education, not merely a provider of off balance-sheet loans at penal rates of interest.

Whereas the Government’s early rhetoric, and clear ideological preference, was to rely on market forces and students exercising choice to create competition that would hold down fees, these aspirations have had to be emasculated in favour of a much more direct control over the level of fees that are charged. The result is not a proper market but even heavier-handed state control, effectively controlling how much the majority of universities can charge and how many students they can take.

I predict that there will be chaos and confusion as universities have to make up their minds about how to play the game without knowing the rules. Will the Government keep cutting their core? What further changes will they make to the AAB regime? The arrangements they have introduced, removing a large group and a growing number of students each year from the majority of institutions, is hugely destabilising. They clearly have no regard for the health of a vital component of our public realm.

From what has been said in this debate today it is hard not to feel that we are at the brink of a major experiment in social policy. As my noble friend Lord Judd said, so much of what is being proposed is untested and the impacts unknowable and the costs of what is being proposed are still in dispute. Like the health service, a major reform is being pushed through with very little understanding of the impact it will have on individuals, institutions, intergenerational relationships and society as a whole.

In closing, I make a rather unusual suggestion to my noble friend Lord Giddens. This debate has succeeded in covering the ground in this policy area, and it has also revealed a large number of flaws in the arguments that have been made. I know that part of the process in these debates is to withdraw the Motion, but the second part of the Motion also says that it is moving for papers. It would be jolly interesting to see the papers supporting these policy initiatives. I therefore suggest that he might leave the Motion in place.

15:55

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, for giving this House the opportunity to discuss higher education once again. I feel quite a sense of trepidation, being surrounded by so many learned and well versed noble Lords. Clearly, the contributions that we have heard today from our colleagues, and the universities where they serve, serve this House incredibly well.

The first thing that I emphasise is that the Government value the autonomy and excellence of all our higher education sector. Allow me to quote my right honourable friend the Minister for Universities from last week. He said that universities were,

“amongst our greatest national assets”,

and said how we value how they change people’s lives. He went on to say:

“Our universities must always have space for the free spirit, the eccentric, the blue skies researcher … Without that our national life, however prosperous, would be grey and diminished”.

Universities are not just places of teaching and learning. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Giddens. They are world leaders in innovation and research. Their breakthroughs regularly dominate the news. You may have seen the recent announcement on Beneforte broccoli, where research funded by the Government’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council has led to the development of a highly commercial food product that will be both grown and sold in the UK. It will give a real boost to our agriculture, our personal health and, of course, the economy. Then there is graphene, the world’s toughest and thinnest substance, which was developed at Manchester University. To help to capitalise on its discovery, the Government announced earlier this month an investment of £50 million to develop a graphene global research and technology hub to translate this discovery into wealth and job creation for the UK.

Such achievements are vital to the reputation of our universities and the investment that they attract. Indeed, they represent a key export sector, worth around £8 billion, which lures business to the UK as well as the world’s most gifted researchers. According to the most recent international rankings, only the United States has more universities in the top 200, as has already been mentioned, but the UK has a greater impact relative to its investment. For all these reasons, the Government could not allow the financial crisis and the urgency of reducing the deficit to imperil these essential institutions. That is why we are introducing a different funding system.

The universities that we have today are teaching more than 2.4 million students, a substantial increase over the 171,000 students of 1962. From the next academic year, funding and more of it will flow into universities according to the choices made by students. Universities can go a long way to maintaining their incomes, provided that they remain attractive to prospective students—a point to which I shall return in a moment. Some talk as if the shift to student fees and loans will mean a loss of Exchequer support for our universities and, indeed, for beloved subject areas, but that is wrong. Even after 2012, the contribution from the taxpayer to the higher education sector will be very substantial. For one thing, it will cover the upfront fees for the vast majority of domestic students, as well as providing grants and loans. We are looking at around £6.5 billion in tuition loans on top of the £2 billion of remaining teaching grant going to subjects that are costly to deliver. We estimate that the cash going to universities in grants and fee loans combined could be 10 per cent higher by 2014-15 than it is now. We can afford this only because we will get a lot of it back, eventually, from higher paid graduates who will repay their loans.

In addition, the Government will spend £4.6 billion on research programmes every year until 2015 within a ring-fenced budget. We will spend over £600 million on capital for research in 2011-12. Shortly, we will also publish an innovation and research strategy to ensure that we maintain and strengthen our position as one of the most forward-thinking countries in the world. The strategy will set out how the UK can build on its existing strengths to become the most productive research base, globally, and high levels of investment in intangible assets to underpin sustainable private sector-led economic growth.

I return to the teaching mission of colleges and universities, which is sometimes overshadowed by the national interest in research. As we ask students to invest more in their personal futures, universities must focus even harder on the quality of the educational experience that they provide. The Government are introducing reform so that students can select the best institution for them from a sector which offers a greater range of provision, in which institutions are competing for applicants on both quality and cost. It will be vibrant, efficient and responsive—a sector with students at its heart. We want university to be available to the brightest, including those who can demonstrate that they have the potential to succeed. It has always been the case that not every applicant can secure a place. Going to university must remain a competitive process, with institutions retaining their autonomy and continuing to decide who they admit.

At the same time, the Government will always have to control the amount of public funding spent on higher education. In the past, they have done this by restricting the numbers of students each university can recruit annually. This has meant that there are lots of students every year who achieve the highest grades but cannot secure a place at the university of their choice. We want to change that, while ensuring that the overall cost to the public purse remains affordable. For university entry in autumn 2012, institutions will be able to recruit as many students as they can with the AAB grades or better at A-level, or the equivalent in other exams. This will allow more high-achieving students to attend the institution of their choice, and will allow institutions which can attract more of those students to expand. It will not prevent students with lower grades or alternative qualifications getting a place at university. This is simply the first step in freeing up student number controls.

Alongside this, we plan to create a flexible margin of 20,000 places in 2012-13, which will enable FE colleges and other providers to combine good quality with value for money. We know that there are providers which can offer a good learning experience for less than £7,500, and this will offer a wider choice for students.

Before concluding, I turn to some of the points that have been raised by noble Lords. I am mindful of the time, so if I curtail this I will write to noble Lords to whom I have not managed to respond.

In response to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, I agree that some things are yet to be seen through, reviewed and monitored. However, I dispute his point that the universities are becoming marketplaces for the sake of marketplaces. We are trying to ensure that, at long last, students have greater opportunity and choice in the sort of subject matters that higher education institutions are able to produce, and to enable those who have never thought of going into higher education to see it as a conduit to going in with those choices, knowing that their loans and student fees will be paid up front. The noble Lord failed to accept this in his speech. He is stuck with the concept that he has over the years. I am not trying to downgrade the noble Lord’s point. I am just trying to say that the world has moved on. The way in which institutions respond must also be more responsive.

My noble friend Lady Brinton reminded me and the House that I will arrange for her to meet my right honourable friend David Willetts to discuss the repayment of loans and fees for part-time students. I extend that invitation to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today. My right honourable friend is very happy to meet people to discuss part-time students’ repayments.

A number of noble Lords mentioned social mobility. I accept that social mobility has stalled, as I know do most noble Lords. It had also stalled over the 12 to 13 years that the previous Government were in place. That is why we have to introduce this important programme of widening participation. We want to ensure that everybody is able to benefit from the great lifetime benefits that graduates can enjoy once they have participated in further education. The participation rate of disadvantaged young people at institutions requiring higher entry tariffs has remained almost flat over recent years. We need to see progress on fair access, especially at our most selective institutions. That is why the Government have introduced a new framework which places increased responsibility on universities to widen participation. It is extremely important to ensure that no person who has the ability and the potential should be deterred from going to university simply because they feel that they would not be able to afford it. The Office for Fair Access will be strengthened. Annual access agreements have been put in place and there will be tougher sanctions on universities that fail to meet the access targets that they have agreed with OFFA. From the first round of new access agreements for 2012-13, OFFA estimates that by 2015-16 universities will be spending around £600 million on supporting fair access and widening participation.

Noble Lords spoke about overseas lecturers and overseas students. My officials and I are working very closely with the Home Office and the UK Border Agency to ensure that the needs of both the public and private education sectors are fully articulated and their interests are properly represented in all immigration policy-making decisions. We have made good progress on tackling the hurdles that institutions can face in bringing foreign academics over as guest lecturers and external examiners by expanding the terms of the tier 5 government-authorised exchange scheme. We have had success in raising the status of scientists and researchers, many of whom will take jobs in universities. Exceptional academics can apply via the new tier 1 exceptional talent route—a route that takes account of the expert views of the national academies. Ministers will continue to work with the UK Border Agency and with universities on removing obstacles to the essential business of the global intellectual exchange.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, asked about the numbers of midwives and nursing graduates. This is an issue for the Department of Health but I will take it back to that department for him.

Noble Lords talked about postgraduate study. We will continue to monitor the impact of our student finance reforms on postgraduate studies. In cash terms, HEFC is maintaining its research degree programme supervision funding, which will support the next generation of researchers, at £205 million for 2011-12. HEFC has recently consulted on its proposals for reforming the allocation method for postgraduate research funding from 2012-13 and aims to publish its response by the end of 2011.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, spoke about modern languages. I will take back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State her concerns about languages in schools. However, I can tell her that since 2005 in higher education modern foreign languages have been classified as strategically important and vulnerable subjects, which means that via the Higher Education Funding Council the Government have provided additional support to ensure the continued availability of language places. The European Commission’s Erasmus programme and fee waiver provided by HEFC will continue for 2012-13 but we are working on options beyond that. That discussion is still going on and if I hear any further progress I shall inform the noble Baroness.

Noble Lords mentioned the impact on ethnic minority groups and here the Government have a good story to tell. There is a higher proportion of students from minority ethnic communities going into higher education than is represented in the working population. Research indicates that coming from a minority ethnic group seems to have a positive impact on a young person’s aspiration to enter higher education, even compared with those with the same prior attainment. Minority ethnic young people are also more likely to enter higher education than their white peers.

BIS undertook an equality impact assessment of the higher education funding reforms and changes to student finance in November 2010. The overall assessment was that the proposals would not have an adverse effect on minority ethnic groups. Another finding was that we expected the changes to the maintenance packages to benefit those in low-income households. Therefore people from minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to benefit from the more generous packages that we were proposing.

As for how much students will pay and access agreements, the Government have already agreed a £6,000 threshold from 2012, but we have also insisted that institutions do more to promote fair access and widen participation. Those universities wishing to charge up to the maximum threshold of £9,000 will have to work under some stringent and strict frameworks and ensure that they are doing everything possible not to exclude people from poorer backgrounds. We know that OFFA is going to be rigorous in ensuring that this happens, but the Government, as always, will monitor the outcomes and respond if we feel that progress is not being made.

I know there is some concern about arts and humanities. Humanities and social sciences are, in some cases, losing their teaching grant, but funding will flow into arts and humanities courses via student tuition fees and the Government-subsidised student loan. So even when there will be no teaching grant for a discipline, it does not mean that there will be no Exchequer contribution. There are some disciplines that are officially recognised as strategically important and vulnerable and HEFCE is consulting on how the remaining teaching grant should be allocated. We will present final proposals for this in autumn 2012-13.

I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, on his university being awarded the university of the year title for 2010. I will read carefully the questions that he put to me, but I absolutely agree with him that universities change the shape the cultures of communities, and Teesside has shown that. It is a good model for universities to look at when they feel they are under threat. Teesside has changed to meet the evolving needs of the student population, but also that of the community of Teesside.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that I am new to this department, so in some of my responses I might need to beg the patience of the House in taking away some of his questions. However, I agree that rigid equality assessments are needed and if they have been done, I will make sure that the information is passed through to the noble Lord. If they have not, I will make sure that I relay the question to my right honourable friend.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howells, asked about degree-awarding powers and university titles. The White Paper said that we would review the use of the title “university” so there are no barriers to smaller institutions being classified as a university. The White Paper also undertook to decouple degree-awarding powers from teaching in order to facilitate externally assessed degrees by non-teaching bodies. These proposals are currently being consulted on via a new fit-for-purpose regulatory framework for the higher education sector which will be due to close on 27 October. We will then consider the responses.

I say to my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton that the Government will still achieve savings of £36 billion by 2014-15 from the HE budget to contribute to lowering the deficit. The long-term cost to Government of student loans depends on the average amount borrowed by students rather than the fees charged, and additional contributions by graduates who benefit from higher education will result in a long-term saving to the Government.

I have run out of time. I have several responses to get through, but I would like to finish with my conclusion, so I shall read Hansard and respond in writing to the points that I have not answered. Although our reforms are often presented in the context of serious financial challenges, they nevertheless represent a significant opportunity—the opportunity for the student to have a stronger voice. Over the years, universities have had such strong incentives to focus on research that we believe that the role of teaching has been undervalued. That has got to change. Putting financial power in the hands of students will help to put them at the heart of the system. I am sure that no one would disagree with that. It is our ambition to lift the burden of centrally imposed bureaucracy on the higher education system. Freeing up student numbers, for example, will give institutions more flexibility. We are also looking at other ways of removing impositions over time.

This has been a really important debate. Your Lordships have brought real wisdom, expertise and, of course, challenges to the discussion. That is right and necessary. I did not go to university because I was not allowed to. I have fought a lifetime to ensure that those who want to and are able to should be able to go. I hope that we will have constructive discussions in the future so that no one has to be in my position, where culture and not potential stops someone going to university. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, for this debate.

16:17

[Lord Giddens]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. It has been of a level commensurate with the distinguished nature of contributors. I ask the Government to think seriously about their policies on universities, which, in my view, will be seriously damaging and counterproductive for our society as a whole. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Aviation

Thursday 13th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

16:18

Tabled by

[Lord Rotherwick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the range of provisions and facilities available for general aviation.

[Lord Rotherwick]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who are to take part in this debate, and I declare that I am not only a private pilot but a director of the Light Aircraft Association, vice-president of the General Aviation Alliance, and president of the General Aviation Awareness Council, all of which are non-remunerated positions. In other words, I am deeply engaged with the lighter side of UK civil aviation and I am worried. Our airfields and smaller airports are threatened by the new national planning policy framework. Although there is clearly intent to protect them, I fear that protection will be ineffective without changes to the draft framework.

Britain has a great and historic civil aviation tradition, not just airliners, of which we have about 1,000 registered in the UK, but the more than 12,000 active general aviation—GA—aircraft. With the exception of airliners and the military, GA includes everything else. There are an estimated 4.6 million GA flights in the UK every year, more than twice that of airline and cargo flights. GA is important throughout Europe. In 2009, the European Parliament passed a resolution on an agenda for a sustainable future in general and business aviation. It is a well considered document based on discussion and agreement within the European GA community. The considerable arguments for the importance of GA to economic growth are well rehearsed in this resolution, for which the Aviation Minister has recently expressed her support. GA is a significant UK industry worth up to £3.7 billion annually and employs tens of thousands. It is a growth sector, including hundreds of small businesses. The Department for Transport is currently consulting on Developing a Sustainable Framework for UK Aviation, which, although mainly aimed at commercial air transport—CAT—will also have an impact on GA. A sustainable future for GA will see great improvements in the environmental impact as new, green fuels are developed and electric power becomes a reality for smaller aircraft.

The economic activity associated with GA, both at local and national level, directly and indirectly provides thousands of jobs, often in rural areas. British flight schools provide many of the trained pilots whom we need for our airlines. Aerial survey, photography, agricultural applications and pipeline patrols are just a few of the commercial GA operations carried out every day around the UK. Supporting businesses provide aircraft maintenance and many other services necessary to GA. Police, ambulance and search-and-rescue helicopters are based at GA airfields. Most of all, GA is about travel; across the UK and to neighbouring EU counties, GA gives us transport choices. All this activity depends upon the availability of a national network for GA. The UK has a network of several hundred such aviation sites. They range from thriving aviation centres with many associated businesses down to the sleepy grass landing strips deep in the countryside that my noble friend Lord Goschen flies from regularly.

The larger GA airfields are often small airports as well, shared with CAT. In such places GA and CAT support each other to provide a viable economic base, but this is not all about economics; there are real benefits to society and the community from the recreational opportunities GA provides, such as parachuting and gliding. This vital yet fragile GA infrastructure will be threatened by a national planning policy that does not specifically require local planning authorities to consider the national transportation issues for GA or recognise the economic importance of preserving a national GA network. LPAs that do not have up-to-date local plans may find that developers can assert a right to sustainable development unless the national framework provides otherwise. Airfields and small airports are often very desirable sites for developers, but our national interest requires an infrastructure to support aviation.

We have a perfect example before us. Plymouth airport is to close this year. Plymouth is an isolated city of nearly a quarter of a million people. The airport proprietor has announced its intention to close the airport and this has been permitted by the city council. This shows us what can happen when planners consider only local issues. Aviation facilities will be picked off one by one on the basis of localism, weak local plans and a presumption of sustainable development. Many of our GA airfields are on the edge of towns or cities, or identified as brownfield sites set within desirable country areas. What price could be put on an aerodrome such as Cambridge if it was available for housing development? How about Rochester, Leicester, Fairoaks, Redhill, White Waltham or Ipswich? Actually, Ipswich, recently a thriving airfield, has become a housing development.

Currently, several planning documents provide guidance for LPAs considering applications for airfield development. These include PPG13 for transport, and CAA policy documents concerning the safeguarding of aerodromes and wind turbine locations. I obtained assurances from the previous Government that airfields would not be treated as brownfield sites in their entirety. The Government's proposals will replace our extensive guidelines with a short document containing basic principles, so that we will no longer be able to rely on the documents and the protection that they offer.

It is clear that the authors of the NPPF recognised the problems this will cause for GA aircraft. The draft framework transport objectives includes a clause—paragraph 87—intended to provide protection for small airports and airfields by ensuring consideration of their wider economic and business roles, and of their support for the emergency services. It indicates that such considerations should be guided by the principles set out in the draft planning framework, the relevant national policy statements and the government framework for UK aviation. GA organisations have welcomed the intent of this section, but I am concerned that, despite its good intentions, it gives us no real protection.

The draft framework currently provides no relevant guiding principle. Also absent is an aviation national policy statement. No national guidance is available for LPAs considering airfields or airports. The government framework for UK aviation is in flux. It is currently in consultation as a scoping document that asks fundamental questions, most of them about CAT. It cannot help, either. Without a specific statement in the NPPF of the importance of airfields to our national transport network, the framework will not be fully effective in protecting them. Developers will be able to point to the lack of national policy guidance and take advantage of the situation, especially in the transitional period when local plans are weak or absent.

The solution is simple. All GA airfields and small airports should be afforded planning protection in the NPPF such that LPAs would be required to consider the national infrastructure when determining planning applications. This would also protect airfields in the absence of an adequate local plan.

Does the Minister agree that the NPPF must include more protections for the national GA infrastructure to guide consideration of planning applications involving airfields? I hope he will give us assurances and will actively support proposals so that appropriate planning protections for GA airfields are incorporated into the national planning framework.

16:28

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for giving us the opportunity to debate this question. I cannot hope to match his expert knowledge or long dedication to general aviation, but I hope at least to emphasise and perhaps develop some of the points he made so forcefully.

I start by saying that in my 20 years as a private pilot, it has always seemed that the general aviation industry has, to say the least, not been frequently on the radar of government. In some—perhaps even most—respects, this has been a very good thing. The industry has grown up and flourished in an atmosphere of self-reliance and without government subsidy. I hope that this self-reliance and absence of subsidy will continue indefinitely. I also hope that in future the Government will take a greater interest in general aviation than has historically been the case. A greater government interest is necessary because the context for general aviation is changing significantly. I will not repeat the excellent analysis of the aviation industry made by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick, but I will emphasise a few key facts.

The general aviation industry is not insignificant. The last CAA study estimated a contribution of £1.4 billion to the UK economy. A more recent PricewaterhouseCoopers study of 2006 put the contribution at £3.7 billion and estimated 50,000 direct employees. General aviation is a very significant element in flying training. Without GA flying schools, the supply of commercial pilots would suffer significantly. GA flying schools are also a source of foreign income. British flying schools have a long and distinguished record in the training of foreign pilots. This flying school activity and success happen despite the fact, as the CAA noted in 2006, British flying schools operate under a competitive disadvantage compared with schools in other countries, primarily because of the higher UK regulatory charges and higher tax charges.

General aviation is not small and is not all about leisure, although of course there is nothing wrong with leisure. There are around 1,000 flying sites in the United Kingdom, around 32,000 general aviation pilots and over 12,000 aircraft. Research for the General Aviation Awareness Council estimates that 70 per cent of general aviation activity has some safety or some business purpose. I should mention the safety record of the UK’s general aviation sector. General aviation flying in the United Kingdom is between three and four times safer than the European average, a quite remarkable tribute to our training system and to our pilots. I shall return to this statistic a little later in the context of the European licensing regime.

Overall, it seems to me that the GA industry now faces two particular challenges and would benefit from more attention from the Government as they try to deal with these problems. As my noble friend Lord Rotherwick has said, the first problem is to do with UK planning regulations, in particular as they relate to wind farms and at least in one case as they relate to High Speed 2. As things stand, the CAA gives guidance on the siting of wind farms. A problem arises because this guidance can be and is ignored by planning authorities. The result is the siting of wind farms against CAA guidance and in what airfields and aviators consider to be dangerous proximity to active runways. Sometimes commercial opportunities presented by wind farms are irresistible to airfield owners, with the consequent loss of facilities to GA and to the wider community.

I am advised by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association that as of today the airfields at Strubby and at Manby in Lincolnshire, at Fishburn in Durham, at Truro in Cornwall, and at Fearn and at Glenbrittle in Scotland are all at risk of closure because of wind farms. There will be more. What is needed, as my noble friend has pointed out, is for the CAA guidance to be given some force. I hope that the Minister can investigate how this may be done.

The problem is not only wind farms, as I have said. In at least one important case, High Speed 2 may also force the closure of an airfield. Twenty-odd years ago, I started to learn to fly at a flying school at Denham airfield in Buckinghamshire. For a very long time, this has been a thriving and busy airfield with easy access to London. Unfortunately, the proposed route of High Speed 2 shows the line passing too close for comfort to the east end of the runway at Denham. Worse, a possible Heathrow spur appears at the moment to pass directly through the runway itself. It would be very sad to lose an airfield such as Denham in order to be in Birmingham 15 minutes early.

The Question on the Order Paper asks for the Government’s assessment of the provisions and facilities available for general aviation. I beg your Lordships’ indulgence to interpret this to cover also the provision of licences for British GA pilots. The conditions attaching to the provision of British GA licences are essentially now determined in Brussels. The European Parliament has very recently approved by a very narrow margin new and onerous conditions for licences. Specifically up until now it had been possible to fly in the UK, as I do, on a foreign pilot’s licence, even if domiciled here. This arrangement is to be terminated. In future, all pilots domiciled in Europe will be required to have European licenses. As General Aviation notes:

“For many pilots, even those who have been flying perfectly safely for decades, this would mean going back to school and studying at enormous expense for a piece of paper they didn't need”.

The International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Association estimates that this will affect 100,000 pilots in Europe, many of whom are domiciled here in the UK where our safety record is already three to four times better than the European average. This development directly threatens the health of UK general aviation and is completely unnecessary. It is an area where a little more active government help would have been, and still would be, very welcome. I urge the Minister to look carefully at the burdens that EU regulation is imposing quite unnecessarily on this self-reliant and unsubsidised general aviation industry.

I close by once again thanking my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for initiating this debate and saying how much I hope we can convince the Minister of the need to give general aviation just a little more care and attention in future.

16:36

[Earl of Stair]

My Lords, I, too, am very pleased to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, who has brought this Question to the House for debate today. He is a far more qualified man to speak on this matter than I, a temporarily lapsed private pilot’s licence holder. However, I am the operator of a small airfield, such as those described by the noble Lord, which all elements of general aviation are encouraged to use. As such I declare my interests, and also the hope that I can offer some experience to the debate. Although my interest is in Scotland, and planning issues in Scotland are devolved, we are talking about issues that are regulated under United Kingdom and European legislation for general aviation.

The noble Lord gave an excellent description of the scope and extent of general aviation aircraft activity in the UK, of the ratio of 12:1 in active registered general aviation aircraft to the larger commercial aircraft that are normally considered when we discuss aviation and of the incredible range of small businesses associated with maintenance and airfield management, and not forgetting pilot training, which was mentioned by both previous speakers. Aircraft make use of everything from an uncontrolled or licensed grass strip a couple of hundred metres long to an airport such as Prestwick, which has a runway of just under 3,000 metres, full instrument landing systems and controlled airspace, where commercial and general aviation work in total harmony.

However, the general aviation influence goes further, and it is just as important that there are other businesses that also benefit from general aviation, such as pubs, bed-and-breakfast establishments, tourist attractions and even sporting events and golf clubs that gain extra business from short-term, out-of-area visitors. They all benefit from pilots and passengers using the extra transport choice of flight to go further in a shorter time bringing much needed extra income into rural, often remote areas, and helping to support small business. I should also mention the emergency use of small airfields, not only by ambulances and the police but where a familiar and safe landing place can be found for the less fortunate non-professional flyer, who may have misjudged the weather or suffered a mechanical, or even a navigational, failure.

This demonstrates the wide variety of reasons for continued support for a network of active airfields across the whole country. Transport of every sort is essential for the continuation of business, and general aviation operations add an extra element of flexibility for business through helicopters and light aircraft. The training of commercial and military pilots also starts with light aircraft, and from the sport and leisure perspective, flying introduces a degree of skill not found on the sports field. Flying is also one of the more complex sports that can be undertaken by those with some disabilities, as the British Disabled Flying Association and Aerobility have shown so well.

I hope I have managed to give the Minister a small overview of why I think that general aviation deserves the support of the Government and special consideration when draft policies, such as the national planning policy framework, are produced. Post war, there was a considerable resource of airfields throughout the country that were available for general aviation, but they were rapidly put to other uses, such as removal for aggregate production, agriculture or development, which was, without doubt, sensible at the time. Many would probably not have been suitable for long-term use anyway. There may be a need for more development ground and a diminished availability of brownfield land for housing wind farms, but there is still a very great need for aviation use as well.

I look forward to the Minister’s reply and hope that he will endeavour to give an assurance that not only will relevant sections of the draft NPPF be reviewed to allow for the inclusion of aviation considerations in all relevant planning issues but local planning authorities will also be encouraged to maintain and protect the facilities that currently exist for GA rather than allowing them to disappear, as has happened in Ipswich and is soon to happen in Plymouth. I am encouraged by listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, sum up the first debate today. I shall look forward to checking my Hansard later.

The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, worded his question for debate very well by asking what assessment the Government have made of the range of provisions and facilities for GA. Therefore, I very much look forward to an assurance that a government framework for UK aviation or an aviation national policy statement will be produced as soon as possible. I also hope that a policy is published on maintaining a viable network of GA airfields, as recommended by the CAA as long ago as 2006, and that we may have an opportunity to debate it as soon as possible after publication.

16:41

[Viscount Goschen]

My Lords, I too declare an interest as a private pilot and aircraft owner. I do not have quite the degree of technical or operational skill as my noble friend Lord Rotherwick, whom I thank for bringing the debate forward this afternoon. Noble Lords should know that not only is his Lordship a distinguished pilot, but he also creates aeroplanes with his bare hands: a lot of clinking and clanking comes from the shed and a couple of years later a sleek aeroplane emerges, which shows a degree of hands-on knowledge that this House clearly urgently needs in so many fields.

Today we are considering the importance of maintaining the infrastructure necessary to support general aviation in this country. Once facilities are lost, they very rarely come back. An airfield can very quickly become a housing estate, and given the difficulty and expense involved in establishing new airfields, these facilities are very unlikely to be replaced. General aviation—everything apart from airline and military flying—is important. My noble friend Lord Sharkey gave clear indications of the value to the economy of maintaining this sector.

It is also important that we have a large flying training industry in the UK, supplying pilots into the commercial sphere. Despite the weather that we enjoy, as it were, in this country, pilots and would-be pilots come from all over the world, sent here by airlines and governments for the very high quality of training that exists in the UK. The UK is still the gold standard for aviation training, arguably the best in the world. We have that reputation and we must keep it that way if at all possible.

Light aviation in this country depends as much on small, grass airfields as on large facilities. Many long-established operations, some hailing from shortly after the dawn of flying, operate from what to the untutored eye would look like a farmer’s field with perhaps a few nissen huts or hangars. The development value of this land is out of all proportion to the activity and viability of the businesses that exist on it. If it were to be considered to be brownfield land and therefore open for development, the consequences would be very serious. The value of a large acreage of a grass field that is suddenly considered appropriate for development would be very substantial. It is highly likely in that circumstance that the landlords—some of them may be local councils, for example—may choose to do away with the aviation facilities and replace them with housing or a supermarket development, leading to an irreplaceable loss of facilities.

With the degree of regulation in this industry, an area that has been touched on, and the high cost of fuel, these businesses are sometimes only marginally profitable, yet they sit on substantial areas of open space. It is worth remembering that if these businesses did not exist as they do now, they would almost certainly be converted into intensive development if planning regulations allowed that to happen. While some people may have legitimate concerns about living in proximity to airfields, they would be wise to consider the alternative and be careful what they wish for. However, the great majority of airfields go to huge lengths to engage with their local populace and neighbours, and to build good relationships.

We have heard today that it is important for the country to retain a healthy general aviation sector in order to generate employment, training and transport links, and recreation to those who fly for pleasure. But these airfields are under constant threat and speakers have given specific examples of where that has been the case. In a way, there is also threat from the cost of regulation and from the Civil Aviation Authority. The CAA is alive to these general aviation concerns and has shown itself to be keen to listen. In recent years, it has put through an increase in charging for inspection for smaller airfields, which has shown rapid growth in the fees charged. The CAA operates on something of a cost-plus basis. That cost of course is determined by the organisation. The plus is its requirement to generate a return on the capital deployed. From memory, I think that it is 8 per cent, although I am sure that the Minister can correct me if I am wrong. It is, perhaps, even 6 per cent.

European regulation is also important. When we look at the strength or fragility of the airport and GA infrastructure, we should consider the effects that regulation, which often these days comes from Europe, can have. I would be the first to say that we are fortunate in this country in terms of our regulatory regime. The CAA knows a great deal about the field and has shown itself willing to engage in the issues. We have a deregulated regime for vintage and home-built aircraft in the form of the Light Aircraft Association, which is a tremendous privilege. It is a high-quality organisation like the CAA. This regime works very well.

However, we need to be vigilant. This may sound like an esoteric subject for the House of Lords to discuss on a Thursday afternoon but it is important. We have heard from noble Lords who have spoken of much greater figures in terms of the economic scale of the industry—more than £3.5 billion—and the employment that it supports. There are strategic and tactical implications, and it is vital that we maintain this infrastructure.

16:48

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, on securing this debate. However, perhaps I may enter a little caveat about something that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said. I am not so sure that this is an esoteric subject. We have been pressing the Government for an aviation policy for many months now, but we have been told in every answer that the Minister has so ably deployed that we must wait until the government policy is formulated and ready. This is an important debate which helps us to probe the Government, and perhaps also to prod them towards an early resolution of these issues, despite the fact that we all recognise that general aviation is a relatively minor part of aviation policy. That does not alter the fact—as has been amply demonstrated this afternoon—of the significant contribution that general aviation provides. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, who is well qualified as a pilot, also emphasised general aviation’s role in developing the interest of young people in acquiring the skills to become a pilot. There is no doubt that this is a very important dimension of the contribution to our overall success, in circumstances where we must surely recognise our concern about aviation as a whole—a concern that one of the most successful sectors of our economy is, in the current government stance, somewhat being reined in.

I understand the political considerations that led the Government to take their stance on Heathrow—not least during an election campaign when marginal seats in west London were at stake. However, the Government have to face up to the fact that, at present, their record is one of negativity towards aviation. I expect the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to indicate a somewhat more positive response than he has done in questions and debates.

[Lord Deben]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. However, does this mean that the Opposition are in favour of the extension of Heathrow? If so, it is a new policy about which many people will be very unhappy on the grounds of both air quality and the environment.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, as we indicated throughout the whole of the election campaign, there were severe risks to the expansion of our aviation industry as well as potential damage to our economy, particularly a lack of competitiveness against other European airports such as Schiphol, Madrid and Charles de Gaulle. As the noble Lord will recognise only too well, as matters have developed over the past 18 months of this Government’s management of the economy, we can ill afford negativity when it comes to an area where we have previously been conspicuously successful. I wanted to put aviation on the agenda, and general aviation into a context, because it is important. However, I was really responding to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, in seeking to emphasise that general aviation has its part to play in this important sector of the economy.

The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, went on to identify not only the very significant level of employment in general aviation but also the amount of resources that it develops. He also identified some real anxieties. The anxieties in this debate—expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Rotherwick and Lord Sharkey, and the noble Earl, Lord Stair—are about aspects of planning policy. We all have anxieties about planning policy, not least because the development of government strategy at this stage leaves unanswered as many questions as it answers. However, unless local considerations are assigned significance in planning while being balanced with national strategic requirements, the great danger is that the seed-corn of general aviation will be greatly reduced because, as noble Lords indicated today, some airfields could be closed to aviation and other forms of development. That is an important dimension, and I hope that the Minister will give us some assurances on this front.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, made an important point when he identified the safety record of general aviation. We would be in some difficulties if we were arguing about this contribution to national welfare if the safety record was anything other than one of the best in the world, and it certainly compares well with the rest of Europe. That helps to support the argument about the importance of general aviation. While I accept the point made by the noble Lord that no one is looking for a subsidy for the industry at the present time—I am sure that the Government are not looking to give one in their present travails—we should nevertheless expect the Government to take an interest in this important contribution to the economy.

I hope, therefore, that the Minister will respond to the fact that general aviation is increasingly valued by the wider population. Only a relatively small number of people actually train to become pilots, and only a relatively small number are employed on airfields, but people are becoming increasingly aware of the benefit of air support for quite a number of our significant services. I mention the fact that only in recent years has there been an air ambulance service in Hertfordshire, where I live. I do not doubt that public subscription has contributed to it, and Hertfordshire is not the only county. What I do know is how much the air ambulance service is appreciated in the locality, and of course it depends upon the skills available and the opportunities provided.

I accept the point about the anxieties in certain areas of the country over threats to their airfields. There is no doubt that both Cornwall and Devon are two illustrations of the very real anxieties felt in recent years that the airfields they regard as significant to their local economies have been under threat. I hope that the Minister will give an indication of his concern that certain crucial regional airfields are in the mind of the Government in their consideration of their overall strategy.

This has been a most interesting debate. It has asked the Government to come clean on aviation policy. Admittedly it is a relatively narrow area, but it is one of great significance. I hope that the Minister will not be shy in making his points today, as on occasions in the past I have found he has been wont to be.

16:58

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Rotherwick on securing this debate. My noble friend said that he was worried, but he need not be, not least because of his skilful advocacy of general aviation. We have heard about the significant contribution that the general aviation sector makes to the UK economy, and we must not forget the social benefits of GA as well. It provides many thousands of enthusiasts with the chance to enjoy their passion for flying, provides world-class training for pilots, technicians and many other roles, and inspires youngsters to take up a career in aviation. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, rightly mentioned the vital air ambulance services.

The existence of a network of general aviation airfields across the country plays a key role in the success of this sector, linking business centres that are not otherwise served by commercial air services, and providing the basis from which various recreational and sporting aviation activities take place. My noble friend Lord Rotherwick and others mentioned the employment opportunities that can arise. Reference has been made to the current planning system, which, I regret to say, has become unwieldy and complex, making it hard for experts to put into practice, let alone communities to understand. Instead, the Government are committed to putting in place a simpler, swifter system that everyone can understand. This afternoon's debate will, I hope, reassure my noble friend that the policies within the draft National Planning Policy Framework support and maintain appropriate protection for our important general aviation sector.

The draft framework streamlines current national planning policy into a consolidated set of priorities to consider when planning for and deciding on new development. It will help to ensure that planning decisions reflect genuine national objectives, such as the need to safeguard the natural environment, combat climate change and support sustainable local growth.

[Lord Deben]

Did my noble friend notice that the noble Lord the spokesman for the Opposition made it quite clear that the Opposition did not take an interest in the environmental case, which enabled us to say that the expansion of Heathrow was a bad thing, but tried to suggest that it was a party-political decision rather than one of high moral standing?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I try to minimise my party-political comments as much as possible and normally manage to confine them to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham.

Planning decisions should support those national objectives while allowing local councils and communities to produce their own plans, reflecting the distinctive needs and priorities of different parts of the country. The draft framework sets national priorities and rules only where it is necessary to do so. The principle of sustainable development permeates the draft: that the actions we take to meet our needs today must not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own. I will not be drawn any further into defining “sustainable development”.

To help support economic prosperity, the draft framework contains polices on planning for business, transport and infrastructure. To support quality of life, there are policies on housing, design and the green belt; and to help protect our environment there are polices covering climate change, and our natural and historic environment.

As my noble friend Lord Rotherwick noted, the transport polices within the draft framework streamline current transport policy contained within PPG 13 on transport. However, it is important to emphasise that the current core policy approach for planning for airports and airfields has not changed. The draft framework asks local councils to consider the growth and role of airports and airfields, which are not subject to a separate national policy statement, in serving business, leisure, training and emergency service needs. Local councils are also asked to consider the principles set out in the relevant national policy statements and the Government's framework for UK aviation, which is under development. So in answer to my noble friend’s question, I do not feel that specific further protection provisions for airfields are needed in the NPPF if they are to be set out elsewhere.

Reference was also made earlier to previously developed land. On this, the Government want to hand responsibility back to local councils and communities to decide which developable land should be used in their areas. The draft framework still encourages the use of previously developed land for development. It states that,

“plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value”.

That means, of course, using derelict land when considering where to develop in the future. But it also allows restored green space that was once in industrial use, such as urban nature reserves, to be protected.

The reforms will give power back to local communities to decide the areas they wish to see developed and those protected away from the interference of Whitehall. The definition of “previously developed land” within the draft framework remains the same as that set out within PPG 3 on housing. It is defined as land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed-surface infrastructure.

However, in determining the future use of an airfield which is deemed to comprise,

“land with the least environmental or amenity value”,

the local council will need to also consider the role of the airport or airfield in serving business, leisure, training and emergency service needs, and ensure the location of the proposed development is appropriate and sustainable when considered against all of the policies within the national planning policy framework, the local plan for the area and any other relevant material planning considerations.

I note that the General Aviation Alliance has responded to the Government’s call for comments on the draft framework. I can assure noble Lords that during the weeks ahead the Government will consider all the suggestions that have been made as part of this consultation and will ensure that the policy adopted will continue to protect against inappropriate development, while also enabling local people to plan for the sensible and well designed development that provides homes and jobs, on which the future prosperity of their community depends.

I will try to answer as many specific questions as possible. I always look forward to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and I will of course be positive. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that a policy framework for aviation will not be completed in a few months, as he suggested. The noble Lord will also recall that Heathrow, while very important, is not generally involved in general aviation activities, for obvious reasons, so I will resist the temptation to get involved in debating Heathrow.

My noble friend Lord Rotherwick asked about the supporting aviation infrastructure network. The draft NPPF asks local councils to work with neighbouring councils and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of the viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable economic growth. This includes the transport investment necessary to support strategies for the growth of airports. My noble friend also asked about extending the safeguarding to all GA airfields and small airports. This would require careful consideration as there is potential for conflict with other aviation interests and wider government aims. The safeguarding process includes protection against other aviation activity; given the significant number of aerodromes across the UK, there is a real risk of overlapping safeguarding zones. Where this occurred, local planners might be forced to prioritise one aerodrome over another, which may in turn work to the detriment of general aviation.

My noble friend Lord Sharkey asked a number of questions, including one about UK flight training. He will recognise that there are a number of commercial and operational reasons why flight training organisations conduct some or all of their training outside of the UK, despite the observations of my noble friend Lord Goschen about the high quality of UK training. These include increased competition from flying schools in other countries, rising costs—including VAT—and the complications afforded by the weather and congested airspace in the UK. Mitigating some of these taxation issues, even if desirable, could cause considerable problems with the EU state aid rules and the principal VAT directive. However, the UK has implemented the mandatory exemptions for suppliers of education laid down in Article 132 of the principal VAT directive. My noble friend also asked about renewable energy. The coalition Government have made clear their commitment to increasing the deployment of renewable and low-carbon energy across the UK.

My noble friends Lord Sharkey and Lord Goschen also asked about European issues related to pilot licensing and EU regulation. The UK supports the principles of proportionate regulation and the view that new EU regulatory proposals should be supported by a meaningful impact assessment that reflects different types of aviation activity across the sector. A one-size-fits-all approach is not always the best solution. My noble friend Lord Goschen compliments the UK regulatory regime—he should do because he had ministerial responsibility for it at one point.

The noble Earl, Lord Stair, asked about a sustainable framework for aviation. The Government are currently developing a new policy framework for UK aviation. A scoping document was published on 30 March, setting out our priorities for aviation, and the extended call for evidence closes on 20 October. The scoping document asked a series of questions, some of which are specifically directed at the GA sector, including the balance to be struck between conflicting demands such as housing and maintaining a network of GA aerodromes. I can assure the noble Lord that a number of GA stakeholders have already responded and their views will be taken into consideration alongside those of other respondents as the policy development process moves forward. The noble Earl asked about the protection of agricultural land. The policy in the draft framework maintains the agricultural land protections currently set out in planning policy statement 7.

My noble friend Lord Goschen asked about the local impacts of airfield development. The draft framework includes a policy that asks local councils to ensure that the new development is appropriate for its location, having regard to the effects of pollution on health and the natural environment or general amenity and taking into account the amount of potential sensitivity of the area of proposed development to adverse effects from pollution. This policy would apply to planning proposals nearby or next to airports or airfields. Therefore, where noise is likely to be an issue to the proposed site or development, the location is likely to be deemed inappropriate.

In conclusion, I thank my noble friend for his short debate and all his efforts in supporting the general aviation sector.

House adjourned at 5.11 pm.