House of Commons

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 9 November 2011

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

1. What steps the Government are taking to stimulate demand in the construction sector in Scotland.

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

7. What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the construction industry in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

I recognise the vital role that the construction industry plays in the Scottish and UK economy. The plan for growth includes a wide range of measures to support the industry across the UK. I have regular discussions with Scottish Ministers on these and other matters of importance to the Scottish economy.

[Mr Brown]

May I say to the Secretary of State that his Under-Secretary and I have one thing in common? We still have construction workers who remain unemployed after R & D Construction went into administration earlier this year. Does the Secretary of State fully recognise that throughout the UK, and especially in Scotland, there are far too many unemployed construction workers, who desperately want to get back to work? He needs to encourage the Scottish Government to stimulate that sector.

[Michael Moore]

I agree that we must take all appropriate measures to get the economy on the right footing. As he will appreciate, we have a big challenge clearing up the mess left by the previous Government and the challenging situation in the eurozone, but we are determined, through our credible deficit plan and with a strong economy, to get construction and other sectors in the right place.

[Jim Sheridan]

The Secretary of State might be aware of the major lobby today by construction workers throughout the UK, many of them from Scotland. They are concerned about proposals by six national construction companies to change the national agreement for electricians. Given what is going on in Scotland, when he next meets the First Minister will he remind him of the excellent work being done in both Parliaments in providing quality partnerships? The proposal by those construction companies could undermine all that good work.

[Michael Moore]

I agree that it is vital that the UK Government and the Scottish Government work together. Whether that is on terms and conditions or on the general state of the economy, it is extremely important. We as the UK Government have taken important steps to support the Scottish Government in their efforts with the economy.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable construction activity taking place prior to deployment of marine energy in the Pentland firth, particularly at places such as Scrabster harbour? What more can this Government do to ensure that the right infrastructure is constructed now so that we benefit from the opportunity of marine renewable energy in the future?

[Michael Moore]

As my hon. Friend knows, through our plan for growth, which sets out the basis on which we will support the economy through these difficult times—cutting corporation tax, reducing the burden of income tax, reducing the national insurance burden and, with a huge investment in marine renewables, reforming the energy market—we are laying the foundations for that important sector to develop. It is important that that is not undermined by the uncertainty that the independence referendum is causing in Scotland at present.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

A competitive tax position is vital for the construction sector and the rest of the Scottish economy. That is why the Scottish Government have called for the devolution of corporation tax powers. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the UK Government are actively considering the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland?

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we have had a consultation about corporation tax devolution to Northern Ireland and we are reviewing the responses to it. I wish we could say the same for the response to the Scottish Government’s consultation on their corporation tax proposals. We have asked a series of fundamental questions about the proposals but they have gone unanswered. We have yet to see the consultation responses, so I suggest the hon. Gentleman ask his friend the First Minister to get on with that.

[Angus Robertson]

The Secretary of State has taken the opportunity in the past to say that the UK Government will consider the devolution of corporation tax powers to Scotland, but Dr Graham Gudgin, an adviser to the Northern Ireland Secretary, confirmed in evidence to the Scottish Parliament that the UK Government have already ruled out the devolution of corporation tax “under any circumstances”. Both statements cannot be true, so which is true?

[Michael Moore]

We have said that we want to consider any valid proposals brought forward by the Scottish Government, but they must first establish a credible, detailed position, maintain the consensus across the parties and ensure that there is no detriment to Scotland or the rest of the UK. The Scottish National party and the First Minister have so far failed to deliver the detail.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I ask the Secretary of State to pay particular attention to the concerns raised this morning about the construction industry in Scotland, where 10,000 jobs have been lost this year and the number of companies facing bankruptcy has risen by 135% in the past two years. With that in mind, will he support Labour’s call, and that of the Scottish Building Federation, for a one-year cut in VAT on home improvements to 5%, a specific action to help boost the construction industry and get the Scottish economy moving again?

[Michael Moore]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new post, without, if I may say so, wishing her too much success in it. She brings a great deal of experience to the House and I look forward to our encounters. We have heard Labour’s proposals for reducing VAT, but I have to tell her that when that was last done it did not deliver the hoped-for outcome. As we are seeing across the eurozone, countries cannot spend their way out of a debt crisis. We need a credible plan and we have to deliver on it, which is what we are doing.

[Margaret Curran]

I thank the Secretary of State for his kind opening remarks and look forward to robust debates and work in the coming years. I am sorry to say that his answer is completely inadequate, because previous VAT cuts did deliver growth. The Government’s failed policies mean that they are set to borrow £46 billion more this year, rather than reduce the deficit. In reality, Scots face a double-whammy: a Tory-led Government cutting too far and too fast, and an SNP Government presiding over stagnant growth and cuts in capital spending. Scotland is in the midst of a crisis—a jobs crisis and a growth crisis. If he will not follow Labour’s five-point plan to boost jobs and growth in Scotland, what specific action will the Government take in Scotland and for Scotland to get our economy moving again?

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Lady cannot skip so lightly away from the mess we inherited from the previous Government: the highest deficit in peacetime history and we were borrowing £1 for every £4 we spent, which was simply unsustainable. It is absolutely vital that we keep to our credible deficit reduction plan and deliver on the plan for growth by cutting corporation tax, maintaining low interest rates and reducing regulatory and national insurance burdens. As far as Scotland is concerned, I agree that the tax hike in the Scottish Government’s spending review is bad for business. They must acknowledge that we have helped with pre-payments for the replacement Forth crossing and by making land available from the Ministry of Defence. We are helping the Scottish Government in many ways.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

2. Whether he has a policy on a threshold that would be required to vote in favour of independence before legislating for Scottish independence.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

The Government have no such policy. The Scottish Government have said that they will introduce proposals for a referendum, and we urge them to end the delay and uncertainty by doing so. Whenever there is a referendum, the UK Government will make the case for a prosperous Scotland in a modern UK.

[Kevin Brennan]

Should not any referendum that has profound implication for Wales, Northern Ireland and England as well as Scotland involve an absolutely clear and straightforward choice between remaining in the UK and separation, rather than muddying the waters with what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) has called the “I can’t believe it’s not independence” option?

[Michael Moore]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. With a BBC poll at the weekend showing that barely a quarter of Scots favour independence, it is no great surprise that the SNP is taking Scotland for granted and running away from an independence poll. It is creating uncertainty that is damaging for business. Let us have a clear question and get on with it.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

In considering Scottish independence, has the Secretary of State seen recent legal advice stating that an independent Scotland would be either outside the European Union, and therefore would lose EU funding and access to free markets, or required to join the euro as a new accession state? Does he agree that that is further evidence that breaking up the UK would be bad for the people of Scotland?

[Michael Moore]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The idea that the SNP can take it for granted that Scotland would enter the EU without negotiation and consideration of such issues is entirely fanciful. That is part of the uncertainty that needs to be resolved sooner rather than later.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

On 8 May the Scottish Secretary ruled out a 40% rule in a rigged referendum. He also said that the referendum was entirely a matter for the Scottish Government and that he would not be raising any constitutional questions. Does he stand by that?

[Michael Moore]

I do not think we should take any lessons on rigged referendums from the hon. Gentleman’s party, which is determined not to have a straightforward question on Scottish independence—the whole reason it exists—but to bring in other issues as well. Let us get a straightforward question now and end the damaging uncertainty.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to reduce administrative costs in his Department.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

Scotland Office Ministers are determined that the Office contribute to the Government’s task of reducing the budget deficit. I and my officials are bearing down hard on administrative costs through a range of efficiency measures, including using framework contracts negotiated by other Government bodies, sharing resources with the other territorial offices and making more efficient use of leasehold property.

[Mr Bone]

The Prime Minister wants to see smaller and more effective government. Only last year, the Secretary of State for Scotland called for the abolition of the Scotland Office. Would the very capable Minister not be making a career enhancing move if he suggested now from the Dispatch Box that we should abolish the Scotland Office, the Wales Office and the Northern Ireland Office and replace them with an office for the Union?

[David Mundell]

Absolutely not. At this time, when the United Kingdom faces its greatest ever danger from separatists, the Scotland Office is a bulwark against independence.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Is that what is called cutting the Department to the bone? Will the Minister name all the staff of his Department? I remember telling a previous Secretary of State that it must be the only empire in the whole of Westminster where the Secretary of State is able to name all his staff: can he?

[David Mundell]

I pay tribute to the staff of the Scotland Office. With a small number of staff, we have pursued the Scotland Bill, a very significant measure, through this House and into the other place. The Scotland Office has a key role to play as we move forward in preserving Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits to Scotland of the Union; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland’s economic opportunities are larger, our public finances are more robust, our defence is stronger, our influence on the international stage is greater, the welfare system is more secure and our cultural and family ties are closer. Those are just half a dozen reasons why we are stronger together.

[Mark Menzies]

Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the tough economic crisis facing small European countries, the worst thing for Scotland would be to become a small independent country dependent on the eurozone, rather than being part of the United Kingdom and having the strength that brings?

[Michael Moore]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the issues that face Scotland if it chooses to be independent and the fact that such a process cannot take place without some very hard-nosed negotiations with our European partners, who are facing real difficulties all over the continent. We need the SNP to spell out its plans on how it will deal with those issues—then let us get on with the independence referendum.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the social union, the Commonwealth, the monarchy and particularly the current Queen—Queen Elizabeth—will be important whatever constitutional arrangements Scotland has in the future? That, of course, would mirror the situation in independent Canada, New Zealand and Australia, with Scotland being the Queen’s 17th independent realm.

[Michael Moore]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion for Scotland’s independence, but I wish it were shared with some intention to get on with the debate. The chairman of the independence campaign is sitting beside him. What are they scared of? Let us get on with it.

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

My right hon. Friend has outlined the benefits to Scotland of European Union membership and the uncertainty that would surround those benefits in the event that Scotland were to be independent. Does he agree that it would help to resolve that uncertainty if the Scottish Government published the legal advice they have had on the point, so that it may contribute properly to the debate?

[Michael Moore]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point. The idea that we would somehow simply get membership of the European Union with complete agreement, without discussion and without needing to worry about the terms of negotiation is quite fanciful. It is a journey into the unknown and we need to have the detail.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

One of the many benefits associated with the Union is the certainty provided by Scotland’s continuing membership of the European Union. Has the Secretary of State seen the impartial Library research published yesterday, which indicates that Scotland may have to go through an accession process to stay in the EU if it becomes a separate state? That research also shows that if Scotland were accepted as a member state, according to the most recent data, net annual contributions to the EU from Scottish taxpayers would rise to £92 per capita compared with only £57 per capita from the rest of the UK. Would it not be contrary to Scotland’s national and economic interests to separate from the rest of the UK if it meant Scotland ended up out of the EU or paying more to stay in the EU, and only if it adopted the euro?

[Michael Moore]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role, in which he is already demonstrating his forensic attention to detail. I am delighted that he has put his point across, and I completely agree with him about the uncertainty that all this causes.

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

5. What recent discussions he has with Ofgem on energy prices in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

I recently discussed this issue with Ofgem and other key stakeholders at the energy summit I held in Bathgate on 20 October. This Government are determined to help people to reduce their energy bills and I welcome Ofgem’s recent proposals to reform the retail energy market.

[John Robertson]

The right hon. Gentleman’s Government want to put a bonfire under quangos, so how does Ofgem chairman Lord Mogg’s £200,000-a-year salary for a three-day week sit with not going above the Prime Minister’s salary?

[Michael Moore]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are talking about energy prices rather than salaries, but I am sure that the talents of the Secretary of State will allow him to remain in order.

[Michael Moore]

I am delighted to say to the hon. Gentleman that I recognise his long-standing concerns on all these issues—not only salaries but energy prices. Our proposals to simplify matters and to help people to switch and to get greater transparency in their bills, and all the other reforms being introduced by Ofgem, are crucial. I look forward to Ofgem getting on with that work.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

One of the key groups of customers facing high energy prices this year is those who are not on the gas main and heat their homes with oil, LPG and other fuels. At the moment, sadly, Ofgem does not have a remit for them. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change whether there is any way that those suppliers can be made to engage with their vulnerable consumers in the same way as mains gas suppliers have to?

[Michael Moore]

My colleagues in the Department for Energy and Climate Change will meet to discuss this in the next few weeks. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue, and I look forward to picking it up with him at some time in the near future.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Yesterday the Secretary of State for DECC sent a letter to all MPs promoting the Government’s policy of check, switch and insulate, but how does the Secretary of State suggest that off-grid customers can check or switch when in many areas there is a virtual monopoly on home fuel oil? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Far too many private conversations are taking place in the Chamber. We need to hear the Secretary of State.

[Michael Moore]

As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), we want to discuss these issues. Representing a big rural area without gas grid access, I recognise that this is an important matter, and I am happy to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman too.

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

6. What assessment his Department has made of the report of Electoral Commission Scotland on the 2011 elections to the Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

I welcome the Electoral Commission’s finding that the Scottish Parliament election was well administered and voter focused.

[Mike Freer]

Given that the Scottish Government did not complain about the Electoral Commission being involved in the elections, does my right hon. Friend think it odd that they now want to set up their own independent commission on the referendum?

[David Mundell]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The SNP Government had no complaint about the Electoral Commission’s involvement in the Scottish Parliament elections and the alternative vote referendum but, at great cost to the taxpayer, they intend to set up their own commission to oversee the referendum. No wonder so many people are speculating that that is an attempt to rig the referendum.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister meet the Electoral Commission in Scotland on 30 November, or will he, like me, be supporting the public sector strike against Tory cuts in pensions?

[David Mundell]

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman, as convenor of the Scottish Affairs Committee, brought the Electoral Commission before his Committee. That will provide valuable evidence in the debate on the role that it should play in any referendum.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of any recommendation in the report about changing the electorate in Scotland in the same way as the Scottish Government want to gerrymander the electorate for their independence referendum?

[David Mundell]

I am not aware of any such suggestions in the Electoral Commission report, but my hon. Friend is correct to highlight the issues with the Scottish separatists’ referendum that are causing such uncertainty—the franchise, the question and the timing. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to the House to come to order and listen to Mr Frank Doran.

[Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had on the deployment of carbon capture and storage technology in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

My most recent meeting with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to discuss this issue was on 10 October. Although it was not possible to reach a deal on Longannet, the Government remain firmly committed to carbon capture and storage and I welcome the confirmation given by the Treasury that the £1 billion of funding will be made available for future CCS projects.

[Mr Doran]

The Government in the 1980s refused to invest in wind power and threw away our world lead in renewables. Are this Government making the same mistake by refusing to invest in the most advanced industrial-scale carbon capture and storage project in the world at Longannet?

[Michael Moore]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, but I do agree that we are determined to see Britain take a leading role in this important technology. That is why the £1 billion of investment is still available and why Peterhead and other parts of the UK will be able to bid for it.

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

I hope that the Secretary of State will welcome this morning’s announcement by Scottish and Southern Energy and Shell that they are bringing the project at Peterhead one step closer. What assurances can he give that the project will not be shelved, as the last Peterhead project for carbon capture and storage was by the previous Government, and that we will see this investment?

[Michael Moore]

In a week when a major international bank has talked about the impact that the uncertainty over independence is having on renewables investment in Scotland, we will take no lessons from the SNP about uncertainty. As I said to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), it is vital that Peterhead and other places come forward with their bids, and £1 billion is available to support them.

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

9. What discussions he has had with the First Minister on reform of the common fisheries policy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the First Minister and his officials on a range of issues of significance to the Scottish economy. I have frequent discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Environment, including a meeting last week on the common fisheries policy and other matters.

[Miss McIntosh]

rose— [Interruption]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members are being very unfair to the Member asking the question and to the Minister answering it. Let us have a bit of order.

[Miss McIntosh]

Does the Minister agree that the direction in which the negotiations on fisheries are going is entirely in the interests of the Scottish and UK fisheries in ending discards and allowing for regional fisheries agreements?

[David Mundell]

I agree with my hon. Friend, just as I agree with Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, who stated in his evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which she chairs, that the UK should speak with one voice in fisheries negotiations.

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

What discussions has the Minister had with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) about tradeable quotas to ensure that they are not taken advantage of by multinationals who use the UK as a flag of convenience?

[David Mundell]

I am sure that the Under-Secretary will have understood the hon. Lady’s point. She, like me, will welcome the fact that there will be a Backbench Business Committee debate on fisheries next week.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

10. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the level of unemployment in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with John Swinney, the Scottish Minister responsible for employment, about unemployment in Scotland. Scottish Government officials and agencies have been involved in all the employment seminars that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has held over the past six months.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Will the Minister tell the people in my constituency who have lost their jobs since he got his job whether unemployment is a price worth paying for a deficit reduction plan that is choking off growth and raising Government debt?

[David Mundell]

I tell the hon. Lady to be slightly less predictable and finally to take some responsibility for the situation in which her Government left this country, including the biggest peacetime deficit in our history.

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

Unemployment in Kintyre could be reduced if the community bid to take over the former RAF base at Machrihanish goes ahead. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will make a contribution towards making the water supply fit for purpose, so that the community’s bid is viable. Will the Minister please encourage the MOD to do so?

[David Mundell]

I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and take forward his concerns with the MOD.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Will the Minister take responsibility for something that his Government have done? This morning, House of Commons figures show that youth unemployment in my constituency has risen by 218.2%. What is he going to tell the young people of Stirling that the Government have done over the past 18 months?

[David Mundell]

The right hon. Lady knows that youth unemployment rose under the Labour Government too. It is a serious issue, and it should not be the subject of party politicking. We should all work together to resolve youth unemployment.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 November.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Private Matthew Haseldin from 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment. Despite being in the Army only a short time, he had already proved himself to be a dedicated and courageous soldier. He has made the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the British people, and we should send our deepest condolences to his family and friends. This week, we will, of course, pause to remember all those who have lost their lives in defence of our country, so that we can enjoy peace and freedom, and we are humbled by their sacrifice.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Dr Huppert]

May I add my tribute to the Prime Minister’s about the sad death of Private Matthew Haseldin from 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, especially with Remembrance Sunday so near?

The Prime Minister is rightly concerned about jobs and growth. Crucial to that is consumer confidence. Does he think that telling 25 million workers that they have no job security and can be fired at will tomorrow will boost or reduce consumer confidence?

[The Prime Minister]

Clearly, we have to make it easier for firms to hire people. That is why we have scrapped Labour’s jobs tax, taken 1 million of the lowest-paid people out of tax, established new rules so that someone can go to a tribunal only after working somewhere for two years, and introduced fees for claims in employment tribunals to stop vexatious claims. Added to that, we are investing in the Work programme and apprenticeships—all as a way of helping to give young people jobs.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Private Matthew Haseldin from 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment? He showed immense courage trying to protect local people, and our thoughts are with his family and friends. With troops serving in conflict overseas, it is even more important that this weekend, on Remembrance Sunday, we honour all those who have served our country and who are serving our country today.

Will the Prime Minister tell us how many people entered the UK under the Home Secretary’s relaxed border controls?

[The Prime Minister]

The figures for the period between August 2010 and August 2011 for the number of people who entered the country are published in the normal way. The figures that I have are these: the number of people arrested was up by 10%, the number of drug seizures was markedly up, and the number of firearms seizures was up by 100%. However, we should be clear about what did, and what did not, happen here. First, the Home Secretary agreed a pilot for a more targeted approach to border control. This was for people within the European economic area, and it allowed better targeting of high-risk people and less for others, notably children. This did not compromise security. It was an operational decision, but one that I fully back, and which I think she was right to take.

Secondly and importantly, however, decisions were taken to extend that beyond EEA nationals. That was not authorised by the Home Secretary. Indeed, when specific permission was asked for, it was not granted. This did not mean that our borders were left undefended, and passports continued to be checked, but because this was unauthorised action—as it was contrary to what she agreed—it was right that the head of the border force was suspended. I back that action completely.

[Edward Miliband]

It is just not good enough. The Prime Minister cannot tell us how many people—how many millions of people—were let in under the relaxed border controls agreed by the Home Secretary. Is it not totally unacceptable that the Home Secretary chose to relax border controls in July, but, even yesterday, could not tell us which airports and ports that applied to, how many took it up and for how long?

[The Prime Minister]

The Home Secretary provided those figures, and the figures are as follows: firearms, 100% increase in seizures; illegal immigrants, 10% increase in arrests; forged documents, 48% increase. But the simple fact that the right hon. Gentleman—and, I think, everyone—has to accept is this. The head of the UK Border Agency, Rob Whiteman, who also did not know that such unauthorised action was taking place, said this, and it is very important for the House to understand it:

“Brodie Clark admitted to me on November 2 that on a number of occasions this year he authorised his staff to go further than ministerial instruction. I therefore suspended him from his duties. In my opinion it was right for officials to have recommended the pilot so that we focus attention on higher risks to our border, but it is unacceptable that one of my senior officials went further than was approved.”

That is why Brodie Clark was suspended, and that is why the Home Secretary backed that decision, but it is important to understand that he was suspended by the head of the UK Border Agency. It was a decision quite rightly taken by him—backed by the Home Secretary, backed by me.

[Edward Miliband]

Isn’t it utterly typical? When things go wrong, it is nothing to do with them—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, let me just emphasise this: there are Members on both sides of the House shouting their heads off. Members of the Youth Parliament last Friday—[Interruption.] Order. Members of the Youth Parliament spoke brilliantly and passionately disagreed with each other, but they did not shout at each other.

[Edward Miliband]

What did the Home Secretary say in the past, when she was in opposition and things went wrong on immigration? She said this:

“I’m sick and tired of…government ministers…who simply blame other people when things go wrong.”

The Prime Minister said yesterday, in his evidence to the Liaison Committee about the relaxation of border controls over the past few months, that

“clearly this is not acceptable and it is not acceptable it went on for so long.”

Why did the Home Secretary allow it to happen?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman cannot on the one hand blame me for not taking responsibility and then quote very clearly my words taking responsibility and saying what is not acceptable. We are having a lecture on responsibility from a party that trebled immigration, let an extra 2.2 million people into our country, allowed everyone from eastern Europe to come here with no transitional controls, built up a backlog of half a million asylum claims, and made no apology about it. Even today, when the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether too many people were let into this country, his answer was a very simple no.

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman has been Prime Minister for 18 months. He cannot keep saying that it is nothing to do with him; it is his responsibility. One month ago he gave a speech on border controls called “Reclaiming our Borders”, but while he was boasting about reclaiming our borders, his Home Secretary was busy relaxing our borders. Does the Prime Minister not think that he should at least have known?

[The Prime Minister]

The pilot that the Home Secretary introduced meant more arrests, more firearms seized and more forged documents found. That is the truth of it. The fact is that officials went further than Home Office Ministers authorised. That is what is wrong, and that is why someone had to be suspended—and that was the right decision.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what we have done. Let me tell him. We are completing e-Borders, so that by next April every flight from outside the EU will be checked; we are creating the National Crime Agency, with the dedicated border police; in the first six months, we seized more drugs than in the whole of last year; and last year we rejected 400,000 visa applications and turned away 68,000 people without the correct documents. I am determined that we have tough border controls, and finally we have a Home Office and an Immigration Minister who actually want to cut immigration.

[Edward Miliband]

Anyone listening to the Prime Minister would think that his policy has been a great success. It is a fiasco—a complete fiasco. The one thing that he cannot claim to know nothing about is cuts to the UK border force. Can he now confirm how many UK border staff are going to be cut under his Government?

[The Prime Minister]

By the end of this Parliament there will be 18,000 people working for the UK Border Agency—the same number as were working for it in 2006, when the right hon. Gentleman was sitting in the Treasury and determining the budgets. He asks about what we have done on immigration in 18 months in office. Let me tell him. We have introduced the first ever limit on work visas from outside the European Union. We have stopped more than 470 colleges from bringing in bogus foreign students. We have cut student visas by 70,000. Anyone who comes here to get married has to speak English. We are ending automatic settlement rights and stopping the nonsense of people misusing the Human Rights Act. In 18 months we have done more to control immigration than he did in 13 years.

[Edward Miliband]

The truth is, it is a fiasco and the Prime Minister knows it. That is the reality. It is a pattern with this Government: broken promises, gross incompetence, blame everybody else. He is an out-of-touch Prime Minister leading a shambolic Government.

[The Prime Minister]

As ever, the right hon. Gentleman just completely lost his way. I think he should spend a little more time listening to the author of “blue Labour”, Lord Glasman, who said:

“Labour lied…about the extent of immigration”.

Where is the apology?

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

Q2. On Friday, 3 Commando Brigade will be marching through the streets of Plymouth on their homecoming parade after a successful but costly tour of duty in Afghanistan. I know that the Prime Minister will be with us in spirit, but will he send a message of support today to those brave and very professional Royal Marines, of whom we are all so very proud?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly join my hon. Friend in doing that. I know that the whole of the south-west—and the whole country—is incredibly proud of the Marines, and we are proud of 3 Commando Brigade, who will be marching through Plymouth. I send my very best wishes for the homecoming parade, and we should also put on record what they have achieved in Task Force Helmand. They carried out 37,000 patrols, found more than 400 improvised explosive devices and trained more than 1,300 Afghan uniformed police patrolmen. They have made a real difference to the safety and security of that country, and to the safety of our country too.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Q3. Does the Prime Minister think it right and proper or in any way defensible that the Royal Bank of Scotland, which received a massive bail-out during the crisis, should be paying out more than £500 million in bonuses this year?

[The Prime Minister]

No, I do not think it is acceptable. RBS has not yet set its figures for bonus payments. The British Government are a seriously large shareholder in RBS, and we will be making our views known.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

In joining me in giving our condolences to the relatives of the Red Arrows pilot killed at RAF Scampton yesterday, will the Prime Minister acknowledge the overriding need for safety? Our campaign to save RAF Scampton from closure is based not just on sentiment for the historic home of the Dambusters, but on the overriding need for the safe uncluttered skies above north Lincolnshire that the Red Arrows need to practise safely.

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that the hearts of everyone in this House go out to the family of the pilot who was killed in that terrible accident, which comes on top of a second accident that happened in the Red Arrows. This has obviously been a tragic time for something that the whole country reveres and loves, and I know that the Red Arrows’ home in Lincolnshire is extremely important to them. We must get to the bottom of what happened, and I totally understand why my hon. Friend wants to stand up for the air base in his constituency.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Q4. The trade unions yesterday published data showing that Clackmannanshire in my constituency has seen the largest growth in youth unemployment in this country. Given that we will not have the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on unemployment numbers next week, will he tell me why he is letting young people down in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously we face a difficult situation with unemployment, including among young people, right across the country, and we need to do everything we can to help people back into work. That is why there is record investment going into apprenticeships and the Work programme. However, the real need is to grow the private sector, because, frankly, this is a time when whoever was in government would have to make reductions in the public sector. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but any Government would have to do that: look across Europe at the reductions that are having to be made. We need to get the private sector growing, which is what this Government are focused on.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Q5. Developing the considerable potential for jobs in the energy sector is central to economic recovery in my constituency, as is providing local people with the skills to take on those jobs. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government do all they can to fund the completion of the newly opened Pakefield high school in Lowestoft, which will play such an important role in skilling young people in a deprived area?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the skills that that local school will bring. This year Suffolk has an extra £33 million in capital funds. It is obviously for the local authority to decide how to spend that money, but school capital available throughout this spending round and this Parliament amounts to £15.9 billion, so money is there for important school projects.

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

Q6. This weekend the nation will pause to remember, paying tribute to our war dead. At cenotaphs across the nation, we will pay homage to the men and women who have made the supreme sacrifice in conflicts down through the years. Does the Prime Minister agree that where there is a desire to display that tribute in an entirely non-partisan way, whether in shops, schools, churches or on football tops, it should be not only allowed, but positively promoted?

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and sense that the entire House does too. It is a remarkable achievement of the Royal British Legion and the country as a whole that we have reintroduced over past years the sense of the silence taking place at the 11th hour of the 11th day, which is absolutely right. It is particularly appropriate in Northern Ireland, where so many people have served so bravely in our armed forces. Indeed, whenever I visit the Royal Irish Regiment, I am always struck by how many people from both sides of the border have served so bravely in our armed forces.

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

Q7. Less family breakdown would reduce the costs loaded on to our economy, so will the Prime Minister encourage health authorities throughout the country to take part in “Care for the Families: Let’s Stick Together” pilots, when health visitors and volunteer parents offer relationship support to new parents in the early years of their family life, which is when half of all break-ups occur?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has a great record in pushing forward that absolutely vital idea. It is a tragic fact that so many couples break up after the arrival of the first child because of all the stresses and strains that can bring. That is dreadful for those couples and dreadful for those children. We spend a huge amount as a country dealing with the problems of social breakdown; in my view we should spend more on trying to help to keep families together. Relationship advice and support, as he says, is absolutely vital in that.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Q8. On Friday the UN Security Council will consider the democratically conveyed Palestinian request for full membership of the UN. Might not the international community do more to advance the prospect of a two-state solution by doing more to create a two-state process? In that context, will he ensure that the UK representative casts a positive vote on Friday, and does not go for the cop-out of abstention?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a full statement to the House on this issue in a few moments, but let me say this: the British Government are fully behind the two-state solution, but I profoundly believe that we will get that not through declarations and processes at the UN, but through the two potential states—Israel and Palestine—sitting down and negotiating. All our efforts should go towards helping to make that happen.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Q9. If he will make it his policy to endorse the Somerset Community Foundation’s 2011 Surviving Winter appeal.

[The Prime Minister]

The winter fuel payment provides valuable help to millions of people with paying their fuel bills. Individuals are of course free to donate their payment to a charity if they wish, but it must be a decision for them.

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the Prime Minister for that question. I would like him to congratulate Peter Wyman of the Somerset Community Foundation on having the brilliant idea of people donating some or all of their winter fuel allowance to those who need it most. Would the Government consider enabling such donations by including an option in the letter sent out about the allowance to allow an automatic donation to the Surviving Winter appeal?

[The Prime Minister]

I shall certainly look at that suggestion, but it is important to keep the promises that we made to Britain’s pensioners about keeping up the winter fuel payments and cold weather payments. I would not want to see any unnecessary pressure put on people to do something that might not be in their own best interests.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q10. The operational instruction from the UK Border Agency on 20 July says:“We will cease routinely opening the chips within EEA passports…checking under 18-year-olds against the warning index”.Did anyone in the Home Office clear that document? Given the conflicting stories between the Home Secretary’s officials and her own version, will the Prime Minister publish all the ministerial instructions to the UKBA?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is trying desperately to make up the ground lost by his party leader, but I am afraid that he has rather lost the House in the process. The point is that an inquiry will be carried out by the independent chief inspector of the Border Agency—the very person who found out what was going wrong in terms of operations undertaking that did not have the permission of Ministers, and all these issues will be aired.

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

On Christmas day 1914, British and German troops put down their weapons and played a football match in no man’s land. The following day, the bloody hostilities resumed. Today, we wear the poppy in remembrance of our war dead. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the outrageous decision by FIFA to refuse the home nations’ request to wear the poppy on their shirts this weekend as a simple mark of respect and remembrance?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks not only for the whole House but for the whole country in being completely baffled—and, frankly, angry—at the decision made by FIFA. If teams want to put the poppy on their shirts, as many teams do in our football league, they should be able to do so at national level, whether it is the English team or the Welsh team. This is an appalling decision, and I hope that FIFA will reconsider it.

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

Q11. As poverty is rising, the Prime Minister is removing the requirement for people to register to vote in Britain, thereby removing millions of people’s right to vote. Is he not taking their money with one hand and taking their votes with another? Is it not a grotesque distortion of democracy to force austerity measures on the most vulnerable while removing their voting power?

[The Prime Minister]

The point that I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that we are introducing individual voter registration, which is a Labour policy, so he should be welcoming it. I can understand why he does not necessarily support the idea of making all constituencies the same size, because his constituency has only 62,000 people in it, whereas his right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) represents 91,000 people. I think that it is a basic act of fairness to have seats the same size. It was a demand of the Chartists in the 1840s, and I think that it is time we introduced it.

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

Q12. Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing evidence of the increase in abuse, intimidation and harassment on park home sites across the country? Tackling those problems needs political will, not a large sum of money. Will he address the issues urgently, so that vulnerable park homers get the protection that they need and deserve as soon as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. I have had constituency cases myself in which people have been treated very badly by park home owners. There are some extremely good park home owners, who not only obey the rules but demonstrate responsibility and compassion, but there are some who do not. We are committed to providing a better deal for park home residents by improving their rights and increasing protection against bad site owners. I will arrange for her to have a meeting with the Housing Minister so that they can discuss this urgent action.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

In these difficult economic times, it is even more important for our politics to be in touch with the people we represent. Will the Prime Minister therefore welcome the first people to be successful in getting places on the Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme, who are with us here today? They are inspiring individuals who would never normally have the chance to work in politics. Will he agree to meet them and listen to their views on the relevance of the issues today, and perhaps on how we are all doing in our politics?

[The Prime Minister]

I would certainly join the right hon. Lady in the point she makes. She has made a huge amount of impact on this issue of social mobility, of wanting to help people who have not had good chances in life. I applaud her for that. If there is time in my busy diary, I will certainly do as she says. I think there is an important opportunity for everyone in this House to look at organisations like the Social Mobility Foundation that provide opportunities for interns from inner city schools to come and have the experience of working here in Parliament. I have used this scheme, as have other members of the Cabinet, and I think it is an excellent scheme to give people a really good chance to see what we do in this place—not just on Wednesday at 12 o’clock, but more broadly.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Q13. Does my right hon. Friend think it right for hon. Members to take instruction from the GMB about how to vote on amendments?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a serious issue—[Interruption.] I can hear, and I can sense, a bit of resistance, which is perhaps not surprising when 85% of Labour’s money comes from the trade unions. When we discuss legislation in this House, we should be bringing our judgment, our ideas and our arguments, not just picking up a tired old brief from a trade union.

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

Q14. In my constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun there are over 3,000 people claiming jobseeker’s allowance, but the latest figures show that there were only 300 job vacancies available. Jobs are being lost in the public sector and the private sector. How high does unemployment have to go before the Prime Minister will accept that his economic policies are simply not working?

[The Prime Minister]

Unemployment is too high today, and I want to see it come down from its already high levels. What we have to do to make that happen is to put resources into the apprenticeship scheme and into the Work programme to make sure that we do all the things that help businesses to employ people. That is what this Government are doing. We are cutting corporation tax, introducing enterprise zones and doing everything we can to help businesses. We will do that in the hon. Lady’s constituency and throughout the country.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

Italian bond yields have jumped this morning by more than a percentage point to an unsustainable 8.1%. Could the Prime Minister please say what eurozone leaders must now do to stop the contagion?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If you do not have credibility about your plans to deal with your debts and deal with your deficits, whether you like the markets or not, they will not lend you any money. That is what we are seeing in countries like Greece and now, tragically, in Italy, where the price of borrowing money is reaching a totally unsustainable level. It is a lesson for all of us to have sustainable plans to get on top of our debt and our deficits. In terms of Europe, the problem of contagion is that as we agree a decisive write-down of Greek debt, people inevitably start asking questions about other countries. As that happens, you need to have in place the biggest possible firewall. That is what the European Financial Stability Facility is all about, and eurozone leaders urgently need to put flesh on the bones and put figures on the size of that firewall, to stop this contagion going any further.

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

Q15. Last year youth unemployment in Tameside stood at an unacceptable 20%—one in five. Today it stands at 34%, which is shocking. In light of that, does the Prime Minister still believe that the decision to scrap the future jobs fund was the right one?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me just make the point that under Labour youth unemployment went up by 40%—and the evidence that we received on coming into government was that the future jobs fund was three or four times more expensive than other job creation schemes. Indeed, in many parts of the country, including in the west midlands, the percentage of future jobs fund jobs that were in the private sector was as low as 2% or 3%. It was right to scrap the future jobs fund and put in its place apprenticeships, the Work programme and work experience that will make a difference to young people.

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

War is a failure of politics. The people who go to war are not politicians; they are brave service people who die in the service of their country. May I urge my right hon. Friend to write to FIFA to point out that the poppy is not a political symbol but a symbol that says that we respect the sacrifice that people have made on behalf of their countries?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly do as my hon. Friend suggests. I think that it is a question not just of writing to FIFA, but of asking its membership bodies, including the Football Association, to take a strong line. As my hon. Friend says, this is not an issue of left or right, Labour or Conservative. We all wear the poppy with pride, even if we do not approve of the wars in which people were fighting. We do it to honour the fact that those people sacrificed their lives for us. It is absolutely vital for FIFA to understand that, and I think that a clear message from the House and the Government can make it think again.

[Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Given that Italy is now on what the Prime Minister has described as a “credible fiscal path”, will he help the Group of Twenty’s Finance Ministers to meet and contribute to the creation of a European financial stability pact in a way that will assist the eurozone?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. However, the first responsibility for building the bail-out fund must lie with the eurozone members. As we said in the House on Monday, the problem at the G20 is that the G20, the International Monetary Fund and countries such as Britain cannot be asked to do things that the eurozone members are not themselves prepared to do.

We do stand ready to boost the IMF, we do want to help countries in distress, and we do not want to see our trading partners collapse. We understand that, even though we do not support membership of the euro, if countries fall out of the euro it could be very painful for our economy. However, it is for the eurozone countries to sort out the problems. It is their currency.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), the Prime Minister referred to a firewall in relation to the bail-outs. Does he accept that what we really need is structural renegotiation of the treaties, given the impact that this is having on the United Kingdom? If I may use a cricketing analogy of which the Prime Minister will be aware, he would not be sent in with a broken bat. He would be sent in with a new bat, and with a united Conservative team behind him.

[The Prime Minister]

There is a long history in my party of cricketing metaphors and Europe ending unhappily, so I will not necessarily follow my hon. Friend down that path. What I will say is that we will defend the national interest. When there was a treaty change in the European Council we got something back for Britain, which was the ability to get out of the EU bail-out fund. If there are future treaty changes—some European countries are pushing for them—we will make sure that we achieve a good deal for Britain and protect our national interests.

Free Fruit for Young Children

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I rise to present a petition from the 195 children at Northway primary and nursery school in Wavertree in my constituency. The children are very concerned about the cancelling of the free fruit that they receive during their morning break, because of cuts to local authority funding.

The petition states:

The Petition of children from Northway Primary and Nursery School,

Declares that the Petitioners oppose the cancelling of free fruit for young children due to cuts to local authority funding; notes that fruit provides children with the essential vitamins they need to keep strong, fit, active and healthy; further notes that as a snack, fruit provides children with extra energy between breakfast and lunch which helps them to learn and declares that the Petitioners believe that the free fruit scheme may be the only way that some children are able to get fruit, as parents in financial difficulty may not be able to afford to buy fruit for their children.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reconsider its deep cuts to local authority funding so that Liverpool City Council can afford to maintain its free fruit scheme in schools.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000976]

Bradford-on-Avon Station Ticket Office

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I wish to present this petition on behalf of the users of Bradford-on-Avon station, who are campaigning to keep the station’s ticket office open, following publication of the McNulty report, which recommends its closure. They value the service it provides to the local economy, as well as to rail users. A petition in similar terms has been signed by about 1,200 local residents.

The petition states:

The Petition of users of Bradford-on-Avon station,

Declares that the Petitioners regard the Bradford-on-Avon station booking office as an essential service and an essential part of the town, further declares that the Petitioners believe that it is used frequently and in preference to the ticket machine, particularly by older customers, and that it is widely valued for the information provided and for the services of the booking office staff in opening and closing the wonderfully refurbished waiting rooms.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that the Bradford-on-Avon station booking office remains open.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000978]

Guisborough Royal Mail delivery Office

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I wish to present a petition in opposition to the closure of the Guisborough delivery office. More than 5,000 petitioners made up of residents, business owners and Communication Workers Union Royal Mail workers have signed the petition in opposition to the privatisation of the Royal Mail and the proposed closure of Guisborough’s delivery office. There has been no meaningful consultation with the community, local business, or the work force and their trade union, the CWU. No proper reasons have been given for the proposed closure of what the petitioners believe is the most efficient delivery office in the Teesside area. Royal Mail’s proposals to move operations to Redcar from Guisborough are unproven, unworkable and unwanted.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Guisborough,

Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the closure of the Guisborough Royal Mail Delivery Office and the Government’s policy of Royal Mail privatisation; further declares that the Petitioners feel that there has been no meaningful consultation with the community, local businesses, the workforce and their trade Union, the Communication Workers Union; and declares that no proper reasons have been given for the proposed closure of what the Petitioners believe is the most efficient delivery office in the Teesside area.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that Royal Mail consults with local partners and reviews the proposed closure of Guisborough Delivery Office accordingly.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000977]

Blaydon Races 150th Anniversary

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Blaydon Races 150 organising group and its supporters throughout the north-east. More than 3,000 people have signed a similar online petition. The petition calls on this House to throw its weight behind the campaign for a fitting celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Blaydon Races, which falls in June next year. Specifically, the petition asks the House to urge the local authorities of Newcastle and Gateshead to work together to ensure that the 150th anniversary of this great north-east anthem is celebrated with a properly scaled and co-ordinated programme of activities.

The petition states:

The Humble Petition of the organising group of the Blaydon Races 150th Anniversary Campaign, namely Mr Steven Campion, Mr David Minikin, Mr Aidan Oswell, Mrs Lisa Christer Ovenden, Mr Andrew Ridley and Mr Anthony Pearson,

Sheweth, that the Petitioners are campaigning to encourage all those who cherish the history, culture and traditions of their beloved Tyneside to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Mr George Ridley's famous Blaydon Races anthem in June 2012.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to actively encourage the local authorities of Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne to work together to coordinate a properly-scaled programme of appropriate celebrations.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

[P000979]

Keynsham Railway Station Access

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I ask to present this petition from Mr Heard and Ms Friend, supported by more than 1,000 residents who live in and around Keynsham, in the county of Somerset. The petitioners are concerned by the poor facilities for the disabled at Keynsham railway station. Better access has been promised but never created. They therefore ask the Secretary of State to urge the relevant authorities to ensure that this takes place.

The petition states:

The Humble Petition of residents of North East Somerset,

Sheweth that the Petitioners believe that there are inadequate facilities for disabled people who wish to use Keynsham railway station.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Transport to encourage FirstGroup plc to provide adequate facilities for disabled people at Keynsham railway station.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

[P000980]

Speaker’s Statement

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

12:32

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that this Friday is 11 November, Armistice day. Although the House will not be sitting on that day, many of us will be on the estate performing our parliamentary duties. I regard it appropriate that, at 11 am, we and staff working for us should join the nation in observing the two minutes’ silence, so that we may remember those who gave their lives for their country to help preserve our democratic freedoms. Instructions will be issued to heads of House Departments, so that members of staff who wish to observe the two minutes’ silence may do so.

Middle East and North Africa

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

12:33

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, so that the House can listen attentively to the statement from the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary is nodding vigorously in response to my proposition.

[Mr Hague]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The House will welcome an update on events in the middle east, including the middle east peace process and Iran’s nuclear programme.

Let me begin by updating the House on the situation in Libya. The national transitional council declared Libya’s liberation on 23 October after the fall of Sirte and the death of Colonel Gaddafi, starting the country’s transition to democracy as set out in the council’s constitutional declaration. A new interim Libyan Prime Minister, Mr al-Kib, has been appointed, and we expect other Ministers to be appointed soon. The forming of a new Government is due to be followed within eight months by elections to a new National Congress.

These are historic achievements. NATO operations came to an end on Monday 31 October, following the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2016 on 27 October. The whole House will join me in paying tribute to our armed forces, whose contribution has saved many lives and helped to make the transition in Libya possible.

I visited Libya on 17 October to reopen our embassy and to hold talks with the Libyan authorities. We are providing communications and logistics support for Libya’s new police force and deploying a British policing adviser. We are also supporting attempts to locate missing anti-aircraft weapons and to clear mines in Misrata, and giving advice on destroying stocks of chemical weapons. We are encouraging the Libyan authorities in their efforts to reintegrate former fighters, bring together Libya’s security forces and provide employment opportunities. It is also important that the remaining International Criminal Court indictees, Saif al-Islam and Abdullah al-Senussi, be brought to justice before a court of law. We urge Libya’s neighbours to arrest and surrender any indictee on their territory.

We are determined to address legacy issues from the Gaddafi regime, including the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, the Lockerbie bombing and support for IRA terrorism. The Prime Minister discussed that with Prime Minister al-Kib on 5 November, and we welcome the new Libyan authorities’ willingness to work with us to try to close this chapter of tragic events.

While progress is made in Libya, in Syria the situation is deteriorating. More than 3,500 people have been killed since March according to the UN. On 2 November, the Arab League brokered an agreement with President Assad, which we welcomed. That plan required the Syrian Government to implement an immediate ceasefire and end all violence; to withdraw their military from all Syrian cities and towns; to release all prisoners and detainees; to provide access for Arab League committees and international media; and to begin comprehensive engagement with the opposition. Implementation was to take place within two weeks.

Apart from token measures, the Syrian Government have failed to implement the plan. Instead, the repression has escalated and at least 60 more people have died. The Arab League is due to meet this weekend to review the situation. We urge it to respond swiftly and decisively with diplomatic pressure to enforce the agreement, with the support of the international community. To us, these developments confirm that President Assad must step aside and allow others to take forward the political transition that the country desperately needs.

We will work to intensify pressure on Assad and his regime. On 14 October we reinforced EU measures to include sanctions against the Commercial Bank of Syria, the largest in the country. These sanctions, including the embargo on imports of oil from Syria into the EU, are already restricting sources of finance to the regime. We are working with our European partners on a further round of sanctions to be applied soon if the Syrian Government do not take immediate action to end the violence.

Turning to Iran, today the International Atomic Energy Agency will deliver its report on military aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme. The report lays out clearly and objectively the evidence that the agency has uncovered of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons technology. The board of governors of the IAEA will convene later this month to consider these grave findings. The assertions of recent years by Iran that its nuclear programme is wholly for peaceful purposes are completely discredited by the report. Iran is ramping up its production of uranium enrichment to levels for which it has no plausible civilian use, but which could easily and quickly be converted into weapons-grade material. The uncovering of the recent plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States also shows Iran’s apparent willingness to sponsor terrorism outside its borders.

Iran needs to change direction. We want a negotiated solution and have extended the hand of reconciliation to Iran time and time again. We are prepared to have further talks, but only if Iran is prepared to engage in serious negotiations about its nuclear programme without preconditions. If not, we must continue to increase the pressure, and we are considering with our partners a range of additional measures to that effect. Iran’s actions not only run counter to the positive change that we are seeing elsewhere in the region; they may threaten to undermine it, bringing about a nuclear arms race in the middle east or the risk of conflict.

The events in the Arab spring and mounting concern over Iran’s nuclear programme do not detract from the urgent need to make progress on the middle east peace process. I repeat our calls for negotiations on a two-state solution without delay and without preconditions, based on the timetable set out in the Quartet statement of 23 September. In our view, the parameters for a Palestinian state are those affirmed by the European Union as a whole: borders based on 1967 lines with equivalent land swaps; a just, fair and realistic solution for refugees; and agreement on Jerusalem as the future capital of both states.

Israel’s announcement last week that it would accelerate the construction of 2,000 settlement housing units was wrong and deeply counter-productive. That was the eighth announcement of settlement expansion in six months. We also condemn the decision to withhold tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority, which was provocative and against Israel’s own interests, as it has direct implications for the Palestinian Authority’s ability to maintain effective security in the west bank. We call on Israel to revoke both those decisions. We are also concerned about the situation in Gaza and the constant risk of an escalation in violence. We believe the Israeli restrictions harm ordinary Palestinians, inhibit economic development, and strengthen rather than weaken Hamas. It will be both right and directly in Israel’s interest if it permits increased imports of building materials for UN projects and for the private sector in Gaza; allows legitimate exports to traditional markets in the west bank and Israel; and reduces restrictions on civilian movement between Gaza and the west bank.

On Friday, the admissions committee of the Security Council will conclude its consideration of the Palestinian application and produce a report summarising Council members’ views on whether Palestine meets the criteria for membership under the United Nations charter. As that could now soon be followed by a vote in the UN Security Council, it is appropriate to inform the House of the Government’s intentions.

The United Kingdom judges that the Palestinian Authority largely fulfils criteria for UN membership, including statehood, as far as the reality of the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories allows, but its ability to function effectively as a state would be impeded by that situation. A negotiated end to the occupation is the best way to allow Palestinian aspirations to be met in reality and on the ground. We will not vote against the application because of the progress the Palestinian leadership have made towards meeting the criteria, but nor can we vote for it while our primary objective remains a return to negotiations through the Quartet process and the success of those negotiations.

For those reasons, in common with France and in consultation with our European partners, the United Kingdom will abstain on any vote on full Palestinian membership of the UN. We reserve the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at a moment of our choosing and when it can best help to bring about peace. The United Kingdom will continue to be one of the principal supporters of Palestinian state-building efforts, assisting the Palestinians to tackle poverty, build institutions and boost their economy. If their application to the UN Security Council fails, the Palestinian leadership have indicated that they may take the issue to a vote at the UN General Assembly, where different voting procedures and different considerations apply. We and the other countries of the European Union will continue to emphasise that any proposition put to the General Assembly must make a return to negotiations more likely.

For Israel, the only means of averting unilateral applications to the UN is a return to negotiations. A demonstration of political will and leadership is needed from both sides to break the current impasse. This includes the Israeli Government being prepared to make a more decisive offer than any they have been willing to make in the past.

The middle east peace process cannot be viewed in isolation from the rest of the region. In each country there is a huge opportunity for peaceful change, the advancement of human rights and economic development. The decisions they take now will affect their future security and prosperity, and we urge all of them to take the path of reform.

That was my message on my visit to north Africa last month, when I also travelled to Morocco and Algeria, and to Mauritania, making the first visit by any British Minister to that country. I welcome the fact that during my visit the Government of Mauritania announced that they will reopen an embassy in London. In all these countries I discussed political reform and declared our willingness to support projects through our Arab partnership initiative. That is already providing £6.6 million this year to projects that promote freedom of speech and political participation, support the rule of law, tackle corruption and help small business and entrepreneurs. Across the region we are working with the BBC and the British Council to develop new programmes to strengthen public debate, drawing on our country’s long tradition and expertise in these areas.

Tunisia has set an example of what can be achieved peacefully. Its elections on 23 October were the first free elections of the Arab spring and the first in that country’s history. This is a remarkable achievement. We look to those who have been elected to the constituent assembly to work together in forming a Government.

In Egypt, we welcome the decision of the high election commission to allow international NGOs to monitor its parliamentary elections on 28 November. On his visit to Egypt last month, the Deputy Prime Minister emphasised the need for a clear road map to democracy, and announced UK Arab partnership support to assist the democratic process and economic reform.

In Bahrain, we await the report of the independent commission of inquiry into the unrest in February and March, which has been deferred until 23 November. This report is a major opportunity and important test for the Bahraini Government to show they take their human rights obligations seriously and will adhere to international standards. We stand ready to help them implement recommendations from the report. In the meantime, we continue to encourage the authorities to address allegations of human rights abuses that are reportedly still occurring and remain of great concern.

In Yemen, finally, the political impasse is deepening insecurity and poverty. On 21 October, we helped to secure Security Council resolution 2014, which was adopted unanimously and signals clearly to President Saleh that the only way to meet the aspirations of the Yemeni people is to begin a transition on the basis of the Gulf Co-operation Council’s initiative. We will continue to work with others to support a peaceful and orderly transition in Yemen.

Each country in the region has to find its own way, and we will work with Governments who strive to bring about greater political and economic freedom in their countries. The Government will work with international partners to maintain peace and security, promote democratic development and uphold the interests of the United Kingdom.

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, although the fact that it has been made today, reducing Opposition time, is a matter of regret.

This is the first statement we have had on foreign and Commonwealth affairs since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector ended, after seven months of operations at sea and in the air. I am sure the whole House wants to pay tribute to the armed forces of all nations involved, and in particular to commend the professionalism of the British service personnel who have been involved in protecting the Libyan civilian population.

While we are dealing with matters related to armed conflicts in north Africa and elsewhere, could the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether reports today are true that the British Government intend to support efforts to change the position agreed in the 2008 convention on cluster munitions and permit the use of certain cluster munitions bombs produced after 1980? He will, I hope, take this opportunity of his response to agree with me that the achievement of the previous Government, taking a lead in reaching international agreement to prohibit the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions, was significant and should not now be reneged upon. I also welcome the steps, set out by the Foreign Secretary, that are being taken by the Government in Libya—and indeed Tunisia and Egypt—to translate popular uprising into stable democratic government.

In his last statement, the Foreign Secretary promised

“to increase the pressure on the regime”—[Official Report, 13 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 496.]

in Syria. Last Wednesday, he issued a statement saying that he commends

“the Arab League’s efforts in pursuing this initiative to stop the violence in Syria”.

Of course the diplomatic involvement of Syria’s neighbours in ending the violence would be welcome, but in his statement today he acknowledged that the situation in Syria has in fact deteriorated, with the UN stating that the death toll now exceeds 3,500. Sixty people have been reported killed since the Arab League began its involvement, many in the city of Homs. Can the Foreign Secretary therefore give his assessment of the realistic prospects for the Arab League’s process, given this continuing pattern of violence? Can he also set out more specifically in his response what steps the British Government are urging on the Arab League when it meets this weekend?

Let me turn to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report, which we are given to understand indicates that Iran has carried out tests

“relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device”.

The Foreign Secretary should be assured that he therefore has our full support in making clear to the Iranians their obligations under international law, our shared opposition to Iran developing a nuclear weapon—a step that would not only threaten Israel and Iran’s immediate neighbours but the security of the whole region—and the need for Iran, as he put it, to change direction.

In the last statement to the House, the Foreign Secretary said,

“We are working on further sanctions”—[Official Report, 13 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 502.]

on Iran. Given that the case for further diplomatic measures will be strengthened by this latest IAEA report, can he now tell the House what progress has been made in developing those further sanctions? Can he also give his assessment of the implications of this news for proliferation across the region, given that none of us wants to see a nuclear arms race in such a volatile part of the world? Finally, can he give his assessment of what prospects there are for further action at the United Nations level, given the stated positions of both China and Russia?

I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary has given a more substantive update on the situation in Bahrain in today’s statement than was given in his previous statement. In our last exchange on the issue, the Foreign Secretary accepted that

“national dialogue has not yet been successful in bringing everybody together in Bahrain.”

Given his statement today that human rights abuses are still being reported, can the Foreign Secretary give his assessment of whether the prospects for national dialogue have improved?

In his last statement the Foreign Secretary also said:

“We attach great importance to the publication”

of the report of the independent commission of inquiry into human rights abuses. At that time he said he expected the report on 30 October, but that has now been pushed back to 23 November. Can he explain why? Will he commit today to setting out the British Government’s reaction in a written or oral statement to the House when that report is finally published?

Let me turn to the issue of Israel and Palestine. The need for progress on this conflict has, if anything, become more urgent in light of the recent changes in the region, which have only increased the Palestinians’ desire for statehood and have shaken some of the core assumptions that have underpinned Israel’s security in past decades. What is the Foreign Office’s best assessment of the likely impact of the announcement by the Israeli Government of 2,000 more settlement units and threats to withhold Palestinian tax revenues, which the Foreign Secretary condemned, on the Quartet’s attempts to facilitate a return to talks? Will he also join me in condemning the latest rocket attacks on the people of Israel?

The House is aware that, as the Opposition, we set out our position on the issue of Palestinian recognition on 20 September, and that in a letter to the Foreign Secretary on that date I said that the case made by the Palestinians for recognition at the United Nations as a state was strong. I said that the British Government should be willing to support the recognition of Palestinian statehood as part of continuing steps to achieve a comprehensive two-state solution, but I also said at the time that there remains a heavy onus on the British Government and other members of the international community to work to ensure that any change in the level of Palestinian recognition is followed by meaningful negotiations between the parties.

The Foreign Secretary rightly stated that the goal of all diplomatic efforts should be a two-state solution brought about by negotiations. On 13 October, he told the House:

“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.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 497-502.]

Yet today the Foreign Secretary has been unable to explain his decision in reference to negotiations that have resumed. That is because no meaningful negotiations are taking place. After his statement today, many Members in all parts of the House will still be struggling to see how a decision to abstain is likely to help bring about resumed negotiations.

Given the absence of any meaningful negotiations between the parties at present, a point which I am sure the Foreign Secretary will not dispute, can he tell the House how his position of having no position is likely to advance the peace process? This decision announced by the Government today represents a further acceptance of and accommodation to a wider pattern of failure—failure to achieve meaningful negotiations, failure to meet the aspirations of the Palestinians and, indeed, the Israeli people, and continued failure by the international community to find a way through the present impasse.

Given the Government’s decision announced today, what is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the likely consequences of the Palestinians’ bid for statehood being rejected in the Security Council? How will the Government cast their vote when the issue comes before the United Nations General Assembly? The House deserves a clear answer on this question. I hope in his response the Foreign Secretary will be able to offer a clearer sense of what he now regards as the realistic path forward to a negotiated two-state solution, which I sense the whole House is united in continuing to support.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Gentleman. He asked about a report on a different subject, cluster munitions, but I will deal with it quickly. There is an Adjournment debate about this tomorrow, I think, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will deal with and set out the position in more detail. We certainly do not want to weaken what has been agreed in the past, so it is important not to believe everything written in newspapers on this subject, as on so many subjects.

On the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked about Syria, yes, I think it is absolutely right for us to commend the efforts of the Arab League, without being able to have a huge amount of optimism about whether they will be successful. It is very good that the Arab League is engaged with the issue in a united way, and that pressure from within the region among the Arab states is being applied to the Assad regime. As in so many of these situations, that is far more likely to succeed than any pressure from western nations.

It is right to commend that pressure, but as I indicated in describing the events of the past week, matters have not improved since the putative deal with the Arab League was done, so it is important now for the Arab League to reinforce the pressure that it is applying to the Assad regime. There is a range of measures that the Arab League can take, from suspending Syria from the Arab League to much more concerted diplomatic pressure. It would be quite a major step for the Arab League to go beyond that, given its customary practices, but it is for the Arab League to consider. We will not try to lay down what it should do. We will continue to intensify our own pressure. We have already agreed in the EU sanctions on 56 individuals and 19 entities—importantly, as I say, on the Commercial Bank of Syria as well. That pressure will continue to increase on what is a completely deplorable and unacceptable situation in Syria.

On Iran, I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for much of what I said about Iran. He asked what the report meant for proliferation in the region. It is bad news about proliferation in the region. The principal problem with Iran’s nuclear programme is that it threatens to drive a coach and horses through the non-proliferation treaty. Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. It makes it much more likely that other states in the region will develop their own nuclear weapons programmes. Then the world’s most unstable region will be in possession of the world’s most destructive weapons. We have to take this situation with the greatest seriousness. Further action at the United Nations is difficult, given the positions of Russia and China, but I think it will be important for all the Security Council members to study the IAEA report and the forthcoming outcome of the board of governors meeting, and there will be a strong case for further discussions at the United Nations.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what further pressure we are considering. We have already introduced unprecedented UN and European Union sanctions on Iran. We are working to ensure their robust implementation to close loopholes and to discourage trade with Iran. We are in discussions about increasing this pressure, and we are also considering further unilateral measures, should Iran fail to comply with its responsibilities. Although I cannot go into precise detail now on the sanctions that we are considering, we are looking at additional measures against the Iranian financial sector and the oil and gas sector, and the designation of further entities and individuals involved with its nuclear programme.

On Bahrain, an assessment of whether the national dialogue will lead to success is, again, difficult to give. Some honest efforts have been made to reinforce and carry out that dialogue, but they have certainly not yet produced general agreement in Bahrain on the way forward. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to explain why the report of the commission of inquiry had been delayed. That is a matter for the Bahraini Government rather than for me to explain, but I hope it signals—[Interruption.] Well, one can take it as good news or bad news. I hope it signals that this is going to be a serious report when it is published on 23 November. Certainly, the composition of the inquiry suggests that its members will want to produce a very serious report. That is why we should attach great importance to it. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether, when the report is published, we would give the Government’s reaction in a statement of whatever kind, including a written statement. We will certainly do that.

On the middle east peace process, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether actions are helping, including the settlement announcements. Clearly, they are not helping; nor are the rocket attacks on Israel, which he rightly pointed to. He pointed out that his position—and it is our position as well—is that any change in the status of Palestine at the United Nations must be accompanied by or followed by a return to meaningful negotiations. I think that there is common ground on that across the House, but it is how to act on that basis that gives rise to differences on how we should vote at the UN Security Council.

We consider there to be no substitute for negotiations under the Quartet process, which we obviously want to get going. We believe that it is vital for Israel and the Palestinians to embrace the opportunity to take the Quartet process forward, but we also believe that voting for full Palestinian membership of the United Nations at this moment would reduce the incentives for the Palestinians and the willingness of Israelis to find a negotiated solution. I fully respect a different point of view, but that is our judgment on the matter and that of most, if not all, European Governments in and outside the European Union.

A further factor in our decision is the fact that there has been a serious European effort to bring about a resumption of negotiations by supporting the Quartet. That effort will continue. I do not expect any of our European partners to vote at the Security Council for Palestinian membership. A serious divergence in our voting behaviour at the Security Council at this point would disrupt and complicate European efforts to revive and support negotiations.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If I am to accommodate a reasonable number of them within the very heavy time pressures we face, extreme brevity from Back and Front Benches alike is vital. The way can be led by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr Richard Ottaway.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has confirmed that the IAEA will be publishing a critical report on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Does he agree that we must ensure that the choice does not come down to a military strike against Iran on the one hand, or a nuclear Iran on the other? Even though the Russians do not want to get involved, will he mobilise the international community to bring back the toughest sanctions possible before we are caught between a rock and a hard place?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the urgency of the situation. I hope no one in the world wants to be confronted with the choice he refers to. That is why our dual-track approach is so important; we are prepared to negotiate with Iran through the E3 plus 3, but at the same time we can increase the peaceful and legitimate pressure. It is a peaceful pressure, but it is an increasingly strong economic pressure through the sanctions we are applying. That is designed very much to avert the terrible choice to which he refers.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I commend the Foreign Secretary for making his announcement on Palestinian statehood to the House first and wish that more Cabinet Ministers would do the same. Is it not clear from what he said about the expansion of illegal settlements, the fact that President Obama, as we have heard, has to deal with Mr Netanyahu every day and the fact that still nothing is happening that an abstention at the United Nations would simply be an abdication of responsibility and achieve nothing?

[Mr Hague]

As I said, I think that will be the position of many of our partners and many members of the Security Council, based on our best judgment of what is likely to bring about a return to negotiations. The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly said that such meaningful negotiations are not taking place at the moment, but the best chance for a viable, durable Palestinian state living in peace with Israel is for such negotiations to be resumed and to succeed. It is certainly our judgment at the moment that a positive vote at the UN Security Council would not help to bring about a return to negotiations. I entirely respect a legitimate alternative view, but that is our judgment and that of the French Government and many of our colleagues.

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

I fully support everything my right hon. Friend said about Syria, Libya, Iran and Bahrain, but I hope that he will forgive me for registering my profound disappointment that the United Kingdom will abstain in Friday’s vote in support of Palestinian membership of the United Nations. Does he understand that many on both sides of the House, and indeed in the country, believe that such a decision is wrong in principle, is ultimately against British interests and will reduce our influence in the region?

[Mr Hague]

Clearly I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend on that point. British interests are in a negotiated settlement; we have no higher interest than that in the middle east peace process. We want to see successful negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians leading to a two-state solution. We have to act in a way that is consistent with that and supports it. There are differences of opinion on how best to do that, but our judgment is that it can best be done by acting in this way. It is also the general judgment of our European partners. He is a strong enthusiast of Britain acting with our European partners, but we would be going in the opposite direction if we were to vote differently. I am often asked to ensure that we work closely with our European partners, but when such a situation arises people want me to go in a different direction.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I endorse entirely the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). Will the Foreign Secretary please think again about this? His argument seems entirely tactical, yet there is absolutely no evidence that holding back from a decision to vote for this, which I think he would otherwise support, will encourage Israel to come to the table. Surely the whole weight of the argument is that Israel will come to the table only if the international community is firm with it.

[Mr Hague]

I did not notice under the previous Government a dramatic recognition of Palestine or support for its membership of the United Nations—[Interruption.] It seems the right hon. Gentleman is still learning as he goes along. He is right that the judgment is largely tactical. Our tactical judgment is that this is the best way to proceed at this moment in the peace process when we are faced with this particular situation. We strongly support the successful creation of a viable Palestinian state. As I pointed out in my statement, under successive Governments the UK has been one of the biggest supporters of that in so many ways, including financially, and the judgment takes nothing away from that, but we believe that we have to maximise the incentives for Palestinians to re-enter negotiations without setting many preconditions and the willingness of Israelis to find a negotiated solution, however frustrated many of us may be with them, and we believe that that is best served by voting in the way I have described.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the UN and the EU have all assessed the performance of the Palestinian Authority and reported that they are ready for statehood and that, therefore, the consequences of an abstention at the Security Council on 11 November will be severe? Our partners in the middle east look on amazed while we support the right to self-determination in every other country in the region but deny the Palestinians the same right. I strongly urge him to order a reconsideration of the matter and exercise a positive vote at the Security Council.

[Mr Hague]

As my right hon. Friend well appreciates, Palestinians are in a different situation. We strongly support their right to a state and a two-state solution in the middle east, but all concerned must concede that such a state can come into meaningful existence only as a result of successful negotiations with Israel. That is where we must direct our efforts. It is not right at this time to vote for a resolution that is not linked to negotiations. That would give the impression that there is a better way of proceeding than returning to negotiations. At this moment there is no better way.

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

I support the Foreign Secretary’s view that only direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will solve the conflict. Does he consider that in the current situation the Palestinians are refusing to go back to the negotiating table because they regard the unilateral declaration as an alternative to negotiations in which they would have to recognise Israel?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Lady’s point is related to the one I am making, which is that we should not encourage the idea that at this moment there is a substitute for negotiations that will bring about a Palestinian state, because realistically there is not. That is why we have taken this position. I think the Palestinians should be ready to re-enter negotiations without setting additional preconditions, but I also think that Israel has to enter negotiations with a readiness to make a much more decisive and—if I may describe it like this—generous offer to the Palestinians than it has been prepared to make for many years. Both things are necessary to bring about a successful negotiation.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the UN process is a distraction from the biggest obstacle to what we all want to see, which is an independent Palestine living alongside a secure state of Israel? That biggest obstacle is the unchecked nuclear ambition of Iran. It is simply inconceivable that the Israeli people will accept another state becoming a base for Iranian proxies in the way that south Lebanon and Syria have been until we sort out the problem of Iran.

[Mr Hague]

It is certainly true that the behaviour of Iran makes peace in the middle east a much more difficult goal to attain. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. However, I would say—and I do say—to Israeli leaders that the conduct of Iran makes it all the more important for them to settle their differences with the Palestinians and seek to arrive at a two-state solution. That is a very important aspect of the argument as well.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is little chance of a united international, and therefore effective and peaceful, response to the Iranian nuclear weaponisation programme unless other regional players take a lead in those international forums? Is there any chance—has he seen any sign—of their preparedness to do so?

[Mr Hague]

There is a lot in what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is very important that strong international concern is expressed beyond western nations and United Nations Security Council members. He will know that there is immense anxiety in the Arab world about, for instance, the behaviour and intentions of Iran. We do look to those countries to take a stronger public position in the coming months than the positions they have been prepared to take in recent years.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as reported in The Wall Street Journal, Prime Minister Netanyahu has in the past couple of days announced a dismantling of illegal settlements? That could mean more settlers being removed than since the evacuation of Gaza, which led to increased terrorism. Does he agree that it is difficult to support a Palestinian state when part of it is still controlled by terrorists funded by Iran?

[Mr Hague]

I am aware of announcements made by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Nevertheless, I say to my hon. Friend that the overall effect of Israeli settlement announcements is very negative, is the wrong judgment and does not help the peace process. We should be absolutely clear about that. I readily agree with him on his second point. Clearly, the situation in Gaza—the continued intransigence of Hamas—certainly does not help the peace process or help to persuade Israelis that a partner for peace is available to them.

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

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Palestine’s bid for membership of the United Nations is a lawful one and that it asks no more than the recognition that Israel has demanded as non-negotiable for itself and which was granted by the United Nations 63 years ago? When lawful acts like this and the recent UNESCO decision to admit Palestine to membership are met with reprisals through accelerated settlement building, financial boycotts and attempts in the Israeli Parliament and on the streets of Jerusalem to gag Jewish Israeli groups that dare to speak out for peace and human rights, how is it credible for the UK to sit on its hands and abstain? The time has come to make up our minds.

[Mr Hague]

There are two points to respond to. It is certainly entirely wrong to respond to votes such as the one that took place in UNESCO with reprisals of any kind—with announcements of new settlement construction and the withholding of tax revenues. That aggravates and escalates a difficult situation and does not help Israel any more than it helps Palestinians.

The hon. Gentleman said that we are sitting on our hands. The important point is that, across all the European nations involved in these matters, we are absolutely not sitting on our hands. We are trying to get negotiations going again through the Quartet, the work of Baroness Ashton—the EU High Representative—and all the representations that the United Kingdom, France and Germany make. We are all highly active in that regard. However, at this moment in the very difficult fortunes of the peace process, it is consistent with that approach for us to act in the way I have described.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend re-evaluate the travel ban in parts of Kenya, particularly in Malindi, which is an important tourist resort where thousands of African workers have no work and are likely to be—or could be—recruited by terrorists? Many local people believe it is now safe.

[Mr Speaker]

My geography may be at fault, but I do not think it is. The Foreign Secretary is a wise man and he will judiciously and briefly deal with the matter.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is stretching north Africa down in a southern and eastward direction. He has written to me on the subject, so I will be responding to him in any case.

[Mr Speaker]

Marvellous.

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

As it is clearly a waste of time asking the right hon. Gentleman to reverse his deplorable decision on Palestinian membership of the United Nations, may I ask him to endorse the French President’s character reference of the Israeli Prime Minister?

[Mr Hague]

It would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom for the Foreign Secretary, whoever that may be, to endorse any such remarks. We do not get into endorsing leaked conversations.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary is more patient than I am in waiting for the Israeli Government to return to meaningful negotiations with the Palestinian authority. When will his patience, like mine, have run out?

[Mr Hague]

Well, it will not last for ever. I do not think the Israeli Government regard me—or the position of the United Kingdom—as patient on this subject because we have spoken to them extremely frankly about what they need to do. Nevertheless, however frustrated we are, we all have to recognise that the resumption of negotiations is the only way to bring about the Palestinian state that we seek. We have to act in a way that is in accordance with that, which is why we have taken the decision we have.

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

The Iranian regime is dreadful. Its tyranny is notorious and we all condemn it—at least I hope we all do. Does the Foreign Secretary accept, however, that any military attack on that regime would be counter-productive and have devastating consequences in the region? Will he give a commitment now that under no circumstances will this country be involved directly or indirectly in any such attack?

[Mr Hague]

It is always right to warn against all the unknowable consequences in any situation of military action but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, our concentration is on efforts to negotiate with Iran and apply peaceful pressure to it. We are not calling for or advocating military action, but we have also always made it clear under successive Governments—this remains our position—that no option has been taken off the table.

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

Two matters are now clear beyond peradventure in relation to Iran. First, that Iran is in the process of acquiring nuclear weapons; secondly, that the existing sanctions regime has not worked at all in seeking to deter it from that course. Russia and China stand in the way of the further sanctions that my right hon. Friend has indicated it would be the Government’s intention to seek, but we have friends in the middle east who can exercise their own pressure on both Russia and China. Will he give an undertaking that that is precisely what the Government will seek to do with those friends in the middle east?

[Mr Hague]

Yes. As I emphasised to the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), the former Secretary of State for Defence, it is very important that the pressure does not just come from western nations. It is very important that there is increased pressure and attention on the matter throughout the middle east, and we will certainly be seeking to encourage that.

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

May I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about addressing legacy issues arising from the Gaddafi regime, particularly his explicit reference to IRA terrorism? I look forward to continuing to work with him and his team in the Foreign Office on that issue. On Israel, has he any evidence to suggest that recognition of a Palestinian state would encourage Hamas and those like them, including Iran, to stop their support for the annihilation of Israel and, by extension, the Jewish people?

[Mr Hague]

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman says about the legacy issues. Of course, we will continue to work with him and others on these subjects. We have no evidence that what he describes would be the result. That underlines, of course, the importance of a negotiated solution. Passing motions in the United Nations will not resolve the issue, but a successful negotiation between Israel and Palestine would do so.

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

The Foreign Secretary’s statement seemed to focus very much on the actions of Israel rather than on the actions of the Palestinian Authority, which continues to threaten the state of Israel and not to do enough about terrorist attacks on Israel. However, may I urge him to look again at whether we abstain? Surely we should be voting against this unilateral and provocative act that will do nothing to bring anybody to the negotiating table.

[Mr Hague]

We will not vote against it, for the reasons I gave in my statement. I disagree with my hon. Friend a little on this. In recent years, under President Abbas, the Palestinian Authority has done a very good job of building up many of the attributes of statehood. In particular, the work of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has been excellent in this regard. We must not lose sight of that. On the other hand, of course, there is Gaza and the behaviour of Hamas; the Palestinian Authority is not in control of that situation, so I can meet my hon. Friend halfway on that. The Palestinians have done a good job of building up many of the attributes of a state, and that is why we could not countenance voting against this resolution.

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

But surely the Foreign Secretary must understand that an abstention in these circumstances is equivalent to a no vote. Does he understand the despair that this will cause, and does he not accept that this will encourage Hamas and undermine President Abbas, who, as he said, has done so much to try to forward the peace process?

[Mr Hague]

No, I do not agree with that. President Abbas has always understood that such an application would not succeed in the United Nations Security Council. After all, it is the position of the United States that it would, if necessary, veto such a resolution. There is no Palestinian expectation that this application would succeed in the Security Council. What is important is what comes after this discussion. Of course, we want to see the resumption of negotiations in the Quartet. If that does not work, I think that the Palestinians will return relatively quickly to the United Nations General Assembly, where, as I said, different considerations will apply because the terms of any resolution there have yet to be framed. We will do our utmost to ensure that any such resolution helps the return to negotiations.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the conflict is a political one that can be resolved only at the negotiating table, and that the talks should resume as soon as possible without any preconditions? May I therefore urge him, as have other Government Members, to reconsider and vote no against any application?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right that it is a political problem that requires a political solution. There is no legal solution that can be imposed in this respect; a successful political process is required. I agree with him about that. However, for the reasons I gave earlier about the very good work that has taken place in the Palestinian Authority in moving itself towards statehood, we would be unable to vote against its application for membership of the United Nations.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Many people listening to the statement will be very surprised that the Foreign Secretary devoted so much more time to criticising Israel than to criticising Iran’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons, which threaten the stability of the entire region and could trigger a regional arms race and threaten Israel’s very existence. In addition, he did not have a single word to say about terrorist attacks on Israel sponsored by Iran. What conversations has he had with his international counterparts about an increased sanctions regime and any other measures designed to bring Iran to its senses?

[Mr Hague]

I have set all that out already, so I do not want to repeat myself. I covered a very wide range of subjects in the statement. I do not think our concern about each subject should be measured by the number of words on it. The middle east peace process is a particularly complex matter that therefore requires a good, detailed explanation. I think that what I have said about Iran is very clear, and I set out in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary how we are proceeding on additional measures.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary was right to say that Tunisia has set an example of what can be achieved peacefully, and its first free elections are a remarkable achievement. He will recall that the events that triggered the downfall of the undemocratic Government in Tunisia were caused primarily by economic hardship. What can the UK and its allies do to ensure that there is an economic recovery in north Africa to underpin the positive political progress we have seen?

[Mr Hague]

There is an enormous opportunity to create much stronger economic and trading links between the whole of Europe and the countries of north Africa. It is part of the excitement and the vision that is now possible in the Arab spring that we can envisage Tunisia, Libya and, we hope, Egypt opening up economically, provided that we open up to them. It is now vital that we implement the European neighbourhood policy agreed in May, including better market access into Europe for products, including agricultural products, from north Africa to begin that process of much stronger links between our countries.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

One hundred and seven hon. Members from across this House have signed a motion in support of Palestinian statehood at the UN. Surely at a time when the negotiations have virtually stalled, one way of kick-starting them is to get a positive vote for the Palestinians at the UN. If, as it is said, they are one vote short of achieving that, it would be an absolute disgrace for this country to sit on the fence.

[Mr Hague]

The difference of judgment is on whether voting for the application in the current situation at the UN Security Council would help a return to negotiations. Our view, and the view of the Government of France and many other Governments, is that it would not do so—that such a vote, if we all voted in that way, would reduce the incentives for Palestinians, and the willingness of Israelis, to engage successfully in negotiations. We differ only on that point. I entirely respect the legitimate view that we should vote in favour, for all the reasons the right hon. Lady and others have put, but our overall judgment is that a return to negotiations is best served by the course I have set out.

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

This year, although on separate occasions, my right hon. Friend and I were the first British MPs to visit Mauritania since its independence in 1960, when the Father of the House visited. This shows the previous Government’s lack of engagement with Francophone north Africa. I very much hope that as a result of my right hon. Friend’s visit we will give due consideration to establishing an embassy in Nouakchott and issuing a speedy invite for the President of Mauritania to come and meet the Prime Minister.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend blazed a trail by being the first British MP to go to Mauritania in a very long time. I can assure him that people there are still talking about his visit, and they will be for a long time to come. I strongly welcome the work that he has undertaken. We now have one diplomat based in Nouakchott, and of course we may want to expand that presence in future. I do not want to go any further than that at the moment.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary rightly drew attention to our need to have dialogue with the Arab League, and possibly Turkey, about Iran and Syria. Does he accept that while we do not buy friendship with those we work with, nevertheless the decision announced today about the vote on Palestine will not be well understood by our friends in the Arab world?

[Mr Hague]

I think the situation in the Security Council is quite well understood in the Arab world. As I pointed out to one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, there has been no serious expectation that a bid to the Security Council could be successful; given the position of the United States, it is not possible for it to be successful. What matters, therefore, is what happens next. It is very well understood in the Arab world that we have been increasing the pressure on Israel and increasing our condemnation of actions such as the settlement activity undertaken by Israel, and that we are doing our utmost to restart negotiations.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s support for enhanced but peaceful pressure on Iran. Will he confirm that our preferred approach for more aggressive intervention in other states by anyone is that there should be a strong legal and humanitarian justification, regional support and, if possible, explicit sanction by the United Nations?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is quoting me back at myself in what I have said about the strengths of our intervention in Libya. I have said that any necessary intervention is greatly strengthened by such things and that they are, and remain, criteria for us. Clearly, we are not advocating military action; we are advocating an increase in peaceful, legitimate pressure, as well as the continued offer of negotiations.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Will the Foreign Secretary call on the Turkish Government to end their criminalisation of legitimate democratic Kurdish organisations and, in particular, will he condemn the arrest of the Assembly Member, Büsra Ersanli, the veteran writer and publisher, Ragip Zarakolu, and many others on clearly politically inspired charges?

[Mr Hague]

We do raise human rights cases with Turkey and I will certainly consider the cases that the hon. Gentleman has described. We will have many detailed discussions with Turkey because of the state visit of the President of Turkey in two weeks’ time. I will look at those cases ahead of that visit.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Are sanctions against Iran likely to work unless China and Russia both get involved?

[Mr Hague]

Russia and China are involved in the current framework of United Nations sanctions, which is approved by the UN Security Council, including by Russia and China. It is important that we do not have the impression that those countries are not concerned about this subject or that they have not been helpful on many occasions. It is true that we would go further, however. In the light of the IAEA report we will certainly want to focus minds on this subject, including in Moscow and Beijing, so there will be further discussions with both countries.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that all women doctors should be released from Bahraini prisons, that all our parliamentary colleagues in Bahrain should be able to resume their functions, and that all Ministers who sanctioned torture a few months ago should be placed on trial? We do not need to wait for a whitewash report before he can say yes on all three points.

[Mr Hague]

We want human rights to be fully respected in Bahrain. It is wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to say in advance of the report that it is a whitewash. We will be able to see whether it is or not and to form our own judgment. It is wrong of him to form his judgment before its publication. It is best to respond to such things after their publication. In the meantime, we will of course continue to advocate to the Bahraini Government that they should have the maximum respect for the human rights of their citizens, just as we would expect in this country.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Iran’s continued nuclear weapons programme and the rising tensions in Israel constitute a terrifying tinderbox in the middle east. The military rhetoric from some quarters in the United States is very worrying. How is the Foreign Secretary using our improving bilateral relationships with Brazil, India and other emerging economies to increase the economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran?

[Mr Hague]

We always raise this issue with the emerging powers of the world. The position of such countries is generally not as favourable to sanctions, including on Iran, as our position and the general European and American position. Again, I hope that the detail of the IAEA report will increase the focus on the behaviour of Iran in countries such as Brazil and India.

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

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that some countries believe that Britain and France should not have seats at the Security Council, but that there should be a European Union seat instead. Is he saying that when there is no consensus in the European Union and when Germany objects, we will in future abstain in the Security Council?

[Mr Hague]

No, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will never agree to an EU seat at the United Nations Security Council. It is important that British and French permanent membership is continued. Of course, there are many occasions on which we vote in different directions. However, on the middle east peace process, the EU has worked together to pursue a determined initiative in a united way, working with Cathy Ashton, so there is a premium on European unity being maintained on this issue.

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

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we are rapidly approaching a tipping point with Iran and that a peaceful solution is looking more unlikely in relation to its nuclear programme?

[Mr Hague]

We are entering a more dangerous phase—let me put it that way. When the IAEA report is officially published, everybody will be able to see what it says. Of course, the longer Iran pursues a nuclear weapons programme without responding adequately to calls for negotiation from the rest of us, the greater the risk of a conflict will be.

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

The importance of involving women in post-conflict situations is well known. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what support that the Government are providing to countries such as Egypt, Libya and Tunisia is going specifically towards ensuring that women are fully involved in the development of democracy?

[Mr Hague]

Certainly some of our Arab Partnership fund is going towards that. In Egypt, for instance, we are helping to fund training for women to participate in the forthcoming elections. We also raise this issue more broadly with the new leaders in the region. When I visited Tripoli last month, I raised with Chairman Jalil of the national transitional council the importance of ensuring the wider involvement of women in society and politics in Libya. It will certainly help that country’s post-conflict reconstruction and progress if it does that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but the statement has run for just over an hour and we must move on, given the pressures of time.

Points of Order

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

13:35

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that I contacted your office first thing this morning to give notice of my intention to raise a point of order regarding amendments that I tabled last week on Report of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Three of those amendments related to employment rights for workers at the Legal Services Commission. I was advised on those amendments by the GMB trade union. My entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests makes clear my membership of and relationship with that union, but I regret that I did not draw attention to that last week in the Chamber because the amendments did not relate specifically to the union, but to the rights of individual employees. None the less, I apologise to the House if hon. and right hon. Members have been misled. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to set the record straight.

[Mr Speaker]

That point of order was most courteous and the matter rests there. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tomorrow, Mr James Murdoch will return to give evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Will you confirm whether it would be in order for the Committee, if it chose to do so under the Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 1871, to require him to give evidence under oath? Will you also confirm that if false evidence were given, he would be subject to penalties for perjury under the Perjury Act 1911?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has correctly stated the procedural position. I am familiar with both those Acts, which are important. I say to him that how these matters are pursued is for the determination of the Chair and members of the Committee.

I think that there was another point of order, but perhaps it or the person responsible for it has been exhausted. That is probably just as well.

Travellers (Unauthorised Encampments)

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

13:37

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

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable police forces and local authorities in England and Wales to disperse unauthorised traveller encampments with the minimum of delay; and for connected purposes.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to present this Bill to the House. I hope that it will address the concerns of my constituents in Brighton, Kemptown, the constituents of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), and the constituents of right hon. and hon. Members up and down the country regarding unauthorised Traveller encampments.

We all recall the scenes at Dale Farm in Essex a few weeks ago. I am aware of the strength of feeling about unauthorised Traveller encampments in Brighton and Hove. I recently held a public meeting in Woodingdean in my constituency that was attended by more than 1,000 people. I have also taken part in a peaceful demonstration organised by local residents, which was attended by a similar number of people, near a site that has not been ruled out as a possible Traveller site by the Green-run Brighton and Hove city council. The refuse, damage and inconvenience that, whether we like it or not, often accompany unauthorised sites are more than some communities want to bear. There have been numerous incursions this year in Brighton, which have only aggravated the problems and heightened feelings on this matter.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), for his help in addressing some of these issues in the Westminster Hall debate that I secured early this year. However, it was clear from that debate that many hon. Members, with seats across the country, have their constituencies affected by this issue and that more therefore needs to be done. This is about protecting local green spaces and sports facilities. In my constituency, there have been unauthorised encampments at Happy Valley, Sheepcote Valley, Wild park and on the Black Rock site. Furthermore, Travellers riding motorbikes across football pitches while children are attempting to play football in front of their mums and dads is simply unacceptable.

We need clarity and a strengthening of the law. My Bill seeks to achieve these two distinct aims, and has two objectives: the first is to give local authorities and the police additional powers and responsibilities to help to move unauthorised Traveller encampments on more quickly. Nothing irritates my constituents more than to see an illegal encampment on their doorsteps for weeks on end. They do not understand why the public authorities often seem powerless or unwilling to move on the vans, cars and other vehicles that so often accompany these events.

The second objective is to clarify the law as it affects the police and local councils. Hon Members will be aware that the key Act regulating the relationship between the police and local authorities is the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. As I understand it, there was a clear intention in that Act to enable unauthorised Traveller encampments to be moved on promptly, but over the years, because of case law and interpretation, it seems as though the Act is being implemented more liberally than the then Government had intended. Given what we have seen this year, it is time to restore the original intentions of the Act, and my Bill will do just that. It contains four provisions. First, it will clarify the Act so that the police have to take action when an unauthorised encampment appears. We know that the police are not obliged to move Travellers on, and this is a matter of real contention, especially in Brighton and Hove. It cannot be right that if a local authority or local landowner does not move quickly, neighbours of the site have to deal with the matter as best they can. The police should be obliged to move an unauthorised Traveller encampment whenever one occurs.

Secondly, we need to review the welfare check process to ensure that when Travellers move within a local authority area, the authorities do not have to undertake the same checks on the same people again and again, so delaying the possibility of moving the Travellers on. It is nonsense to review the health and welfare of people checked only the week before, because it delays moving the Travellers on and causes frustration and concern for local residents. Clearly, where there are health and welfare matters to manage that affect an individual and their family, these should not be used as an excuse for delaying action against the whole Traveller group.

Next, I believe that the authorities should have increased powers to impound Travellers’ caravans and associated vehicles, if the owners do not move on as directed. The existing powers in section 62C of the 1994 Act need strengthening. We need to end, once and for all, the cat-and-mouse issues that arise as Travellers move from one site to another one nearby. Often these moves are a matter of only 100 yards or so, and as local taxpayers are paying to clear up the mess on one site, often the offenders have reappeared down the road, which puts the legal process back to square one. This cannot be right. The threat of impounding vehicles, if Travellers do not move on right away or if they do not comply with instructions issued to them, should be a serious deterrent to non-compliance

Finally, there needs to be a requirement for local authorities to maintain an out-of-hours service so that the issue of unauthorised encampments can be addressed at weekends, in the evenings and on bank holidays. Any hon. Member who has had experience of Travellers in their constituency will know that they frequently arrive on a Friday evening and move on just before a court order is enforced. It seems to me that an out-of-hours service would not only enable work on the moving on of unauthorised encampments to begin immediately, but mean that welfare checks could be carried out more promptly.

Much has been said about how seeking to move unauthorised Traveller encampments on more quickly is racist or discriminatory. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both the Travelling and settled communities need clarity, which I hope that my Bill will increase. Hard experience has shown that after 17 years, the 1994 Act is not having the effect originally intended by Parliament and does not enable the police and local authorities to move Traveller encampments on quickly enough. When we witness these scenes, we cannot, as hon. Members, stand by and do nothing.

Historically, the role of the House has been to strike a fair and appropriate balance between the roles and responsibilities of different groups of people in this country and to rectify that balance when necessary. The costs, the inconvenience and the sheer frustration of the settled community need to be addressed, which is what my Bill seeks to do with sensible step-by-step changes to existing laws, while acknowledging how the relationship between Travellers and the settled community has changed over recent years. The people of Brighton, Kemptown desperately want change and desperately need clarity, and people up and down the country want those two things as well. I believe that now is the time for both the change and the clarity. My Bill will help to bring about both.

Question put and agreed to

Ordered,

That Simon Kirby, Mike Weatherley, Heather Wheeler, Nicholas Soames, Mark Garnier, Priti Patel, Jack Lopresti, Nigel Adams, Caroline Nokes, Karen Bradley, Robert Halfon and Paul Maynard present the Bill.

Simon Kirby accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2012, and to be printed (Bill 247).

Opposition Day

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Un-allotted Day]

Border Checks Summer 2011

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

13:48

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes with concern the significant reduction in the level of security and border checks at UK ports of entry in the summer of 2011; and calls on the Government to publish immediately all relevant Home Office submissions to Ministers, together with the instructions from Home Office Ministers to the UK Border Agency (UKBA) regarding passport checks in the summer of 2011 and the relevant operational instructions from UKBA executives to staff and all data collected by the UKBA on the level of checks at each port of entry since July 2011.

We have called this Opposition day debate to discuss the events in border control this summer, because Parliament and the public need answers. I am sorry that more Cabinet Ministers have not joined us for the debate, because this borders fiasco is now escalating. The Home Secretary did not answer all the questions put to her on Monday, she could not answer all those from the Home Affairs Select Committee today, and she and her Immigration Minister are refusing to do television, radio or newspaper interviews on the subject. However, she cannot hide on the important issue of border control. Answers are needed, and her account of what led to the weakening of border controls this summer is now at odds not just with the memos from the UK Border Agency, but with the account of one of her most senior officials, Brodie Clark.

The public need the truth, so let us be clear about the information that the Home Secretary needs to provide. Most importantly, we still need to know the scale of the security breaches that have taken place. Does the Home Secretary yet have any estimate of how many people were affected by the weakening of border controls? The Prime Minister could not tell us today.

On Monday the Home Secretary told us that she was concerned about the routine removal of checks for EU citizens, the suspension of the watch list in Calais and the suspension of fingerprinting non-EU citizens on top of the removal of watch list checks for children, which she authorised. Border agencies have told us of repeated cases in which adults did not have their passports swiped at all, along with no checks against the watch list, not just at Calais but at other ports. The Home Secretary needs to tell us whether that happened.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

Before I give way to Back Benchers, I should like to offer the Home Secretary the opportunity to intervene and tell us whether watch lists were relaxed—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The debate is going to continue, so everybody can listen to the debate, and if the right hon. Lady wishes to give way she will do so. We do not need people to keep coming up, one after another.

[Yvette Cooper]

I should like to give the Home Secretary the opportunity to clarify quickly whether the watch list was relaxed at any ports of entry other than Calais.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has not intervened, so let me give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Alok Sharma]

Listening to the tone of the right hon. Lady’s opening comments, one would almost think that her party had left immigration in absolutely perfect order. Let me remind her that it left a system which her own Home Secretary at the time said was “not fit for purpose”, with a backlog of 450,000 asylum cases, and that Lord Glasman, her own colleague, said:

“Labour lied…about…immigration and the extent of illegal”—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The House will come to order on both sides, and if we are going to have interventions they must be much shorter and we must not make speeches. That will come later.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharman) has obviously got himself into a Whips-induced lather, but if he is concerned about asylum cases he may want to ask the Home Secretary about the 100,000 cases that have now been written off, as identified in the Home Affairs Committee report.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I am a representative of Dover. This issue is a key concern to my constituents, as is Brodie Clark’s statement that such controls had been relaxed since about 2008-09. Who authorised that relaxation?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman, as a representative of Dover, will I know be concerned by the removal of the watch list checks in Calais. Like him, I certainly look forward to Brodie Clark’s evidence to the Home Affairs Committee next week. I am not sure whether the Home Secretary will be looking forward to his evidence in quite the same way, but I am sure that he will set out at that point—

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In view of the fact that the Government deliberately took an hour away from this time-limited debate with a statement that could easily have been made yesterday, will you make it difficult for hon. Members reading out Whips’ questions to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Sir Gerald knows as well as I do that that is not a point of order. He has certainly made the point that people were upset by the statement, but it is for the Government to decide the business of the House, and they control the business of the House. I have certainly already recommended shorter interventions, however, and I am sure that that will have been taken on board.

[Yvette Cooper]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Home Secretary has still not told us the extent of the reduction in border checks throughout the country. She said on Monday that she had no clue how many people walked into the country under reduced checks. On Monday, she did not even know which airports were covered by her pilot projects and her decisions. Yesterday she told the Select Committee that she knew which airports were covered in theory, but she had no idea which ones had taken up her pilot project.

Data exist, however. According to the internal e-mails that I have seen, downgrading checks to level 2 is recorded by terminals. Indeed, one would expect it to be. How could the so-called pilots be monitored if the data were not being collected on what was happening? So, does the Home Secretary have those data? Can she tell us now how many times checks were downgraded at how many airports since her decision in July? Has she even asked to see those data, and if she has not, why on earth not? What have this Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister been up to?

If the Home Secretary does have access to the data and has seen the figures on the number of times that checks were downgraded to level 2, will she step up to the Dispatch Box now and tell us what the data say? The public have a right to know what the downgrade in security was this summer. Again, we hear a deafening silence from the Home Secretary. Again, we do not know what data were collected.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he shares my concern that we still do not have any clear data on the way in which border security checks were downgraded this summer.

[Robert Halfon]

I have just a simple question for the right hon. Lady. How many people entered the UK without being checked against the warnings index between 2008 and 2010?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will want to know what is happening now, and what happened this summer. His Government and his Home Secretary cannot answer the questions. They cannot even tell us more about the pilots, or the decisions they thought they were taking—what they thought they were signing up to.

We know that the Home Secretary thought that in theory her pilot covered European citizens, but in practice it routinely did so. That is a funny definition of a pilot. It was not just one Thursday afternoon a month in Luton; it was every airport and potentially every European citizen. Millions of them entered Britain this summer, and they formed the majority of foreign citizens entering the country, so how many of them missed the full checks? How many of them did the Home Secretary expect to face reduced checks when she gave the go-ahead for this so-called pilot earlier this year?

We know, too, from the UK Border Agency’s internal minutes this summer that there was a reference to

“mixed views on the summer pressures work, including the concern that not checking children on the watch list may facilitate child trafficking”.

Officials raised that concern within the UKBA, and I raised it with the Home Secretary on Monday. She will know that the House has repeatedly expressed deep concern about people trafficking across Europe, so did she even consider those risks before she took her decision?

The intention of Labour Ministers and, I had always understood, Conservative Ministers, too, was to strengthen our border checks year on year. We all agree that there were difficulties in the past, but I thought that we all agreed, too, on the remedy—that we should roll out e-Borders, biometrics and new technology; make sure that enough staff were in place so that we could increase checks and cover everybody properly by counting people in and out; and every year extend the technology and strengthen the checks.

This Home Secretary and this Home Office made a conscious decision to turn the clock back and to reduce the checks. What they put in place this summer was a new regime of lower not higher checks, using less rather than more technology.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can tell me whether he believes we should strengthen and extend biometric tests, rather than reduce them.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. In 2008, the then Government reduced warnings index checks on European economic area nationals, children and adults, on Eurostar services, and they did so on 100 separate occasions between 2008 and 2010. She was a senior member of the previous Government, so can she tell the House whether she supported that measure?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman needs to understand that biometric checks increased every year under the Labour Government; his Government have undermined them and rolled them back. What is the point of Britain investing loads of money in biometric technology and passports, if we then switch off the system every time a European citizen goes through it? What on earth is the point of that investment, which our Government supported and were extending and rolling out, but which the hon. Gentleman’s party and his Government seem to have backed off from and ditched, undermining the border controls that are in place?

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. We are listening with great interest to her rewriting of history. Does she not agree that the Government of whom she was a member left the system in a real mess? This Government are trying to improve things and clear up the problem.

[Yvette Cooper]

If this is what the hon. Gentleman calls improving things—dearie me. We should be strengthening controls. Those controls had been strengthened, year on year, but in my view they should have gone further. We should be doing more to roll out e-Borders and extend biometrics. He does not seem to realise that his Home Secretary removed the biometric checks. She has been undermining many of the checks that should have been taking place.

Secondly, we need to know who authorised what, because serious allegations have now been made, both by the Home Secretary against a senior civil servant and by a senior civil servant against the Home Secretary. Her advisers seem to have briefed the newspapers that Brodie Clark was a rogue official. She told the House that he had taken responsibility and that she would make sure that “those responsible are punished”. He has said that her statements were wrong. The Home Secretary has a history of high-level spats, but this is considerably more serious than a political row over immigration and the future of cats; this is a dispute over the security of our borders. We need to know what advice she was given. What were the precise terms of the pilots that she signed off? What was communicated to the UK Border Agency about her decision? Was the memo—which I know she is aware of—from the Border Agency saying that it would cease routine biometric checks of EU citizens cleared by her, the Minister for Immigration or Home Office officials? Is it an accurate or inaccurate reflection of the instructions that were sent out from her office, or the description of the pilot in the submission that she received and signed off?

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, I notice that the Home Secretary is silent, so I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. However, she has not yet mentioned the fact that Rob Whiteman, Mr Clark’s boss, has said that Mr Clark overstepped and did more than was authorised by Ministers. That is why he had to be suspended.

[Yvette Cooper]

We now have different accounts from different officials, the Home Secretary and the memos from the Border Agency that have been revealed. What the public want to know is the truth. That is why we need the information to be published. We need to know what information the Home Secretary gave to the Border Agency, what instructions were given to the Border Agency and what instructions were given by the Minister for Immigration. What information was provided to Ministers from the Border Agency? What monitoring did they ask for? What monitoring did her Minister for Immigration do? By the way, it is good to see him here today. He has been completely silent and absent from this entire debate. Indeed, in the light of these revelations, we wonder what job he is in fact doing. What information did either Minister ask for when they decided to extend the pilot just six weeks ago?

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

Is it not crucial that we know Mr Clark’s version of events? We look forward to his giving evidence next Tuesday, because so far we have simply had the Home Secretary. Why should a senior civil servant of 40 years standing wish to mislead us or give a wrong impression to Parliament?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right: we need to hear Brodie Clark’s evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which will be important. However, we also need to know what it says in the instructions that the Home Secretary’s office gave to the Border Agency. That by itself should clear a lot of this up. What did she decide? What were her instructions to the Border Agency? Has it accurately reflected those instructions or not? She should publish that information and those data. Let us get to the bottom of what has been going on.

Thirdly, the Home Secretary needs to provide us with more information and assurances about resources. It is clear from the internal memo and from the Border Agency that staff were under pressure. One internal management e-mail says:

“If we aren’t using level 2”—

the reduced level of checks—

“the assumption is we won’t be using secondary staff to support any pressures…as you know, this is a message we have put out time and time again…We cannot continue to pull resources from other parts of our business when we are not making use of all the tools available to us”.

In other words, the Border Agency was not allowed to ask for extra staff when things got busy unless it had already downgraded to a lower level of checks.

People do not like queues when they come back from holiday—the kids are crying, it is very stressful, or perhaps they are late for a business meeting—but they stand there, looking at all the empty booths, and thinking, “Why aren’t the extra staff put on? Why aren’t the extra lines open?” Now we know the answer: because the Border Agency has been told that it has to cut the checks that are in place. Some 6,500 staff are going from the Border Agency, with 1,500 going from the border force, including more than 800 this year alone. The Prime Minister told the House with great pride that the level of staff was returning to the level of 2006. Really? I have to say that I do not think that border controls were strong enough in 2006. We were right to strengthen them and to keep strengthening them. [Interruption.] If Government Members really want to roll back the clock and reduce the checks and border controls that are in place across this country, they are completely out of touch with their constituents across the country, who want to see proper immigration controls in place.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady think that the border controls were ever strict enough under the last Government? Let me tell her that my constituents will never forgive that Government for letting in 2.2 million people, a population twice that of our nearest city, Birmingham.

[Yvette Cooper]

It was right to increase and strengthen those border controls and to increase biometric checks. However, if the hon. Lady wants to intervene again, I have to ask her: does she agree with the pilot that her Home Secretary introduced, which reduced those biometric checks and removed checks against the watch list for EU children?

[Margot James]

I will not presume to comment on the decisions that the Home Secretary made, but I will say this. It was quite—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The House must come to order. We want to hear the interventions as well as the speeches.

[Margot James]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was quite reasonable to assume that a pilot should be undertaken in the European economic area, such that not everybody was subjected to the same tests as those identified as being in a high-risk group. I do not see why anyone should argue with that decision.

[Yvette Cooper]

This is a pilot that covered millions of people over many months and has led to Home Secretary being unable to tell us how many people have wrongly been allowed into this country as a result.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

If Government Back Benchers want to declaim their support for the pilot, I will happily allow them to do so.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I appreciate the right hon. Lady’s generosity in giving way again. Does what she has said about 2006 mean that she agrees with the mea culpa—I think that was the phrase—of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee when he said that the problem started under her Labour Government?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree that Labour Home Secretaries were right to increase the controls and to increase new technology, which is why I am so shocked that Conservative Ministers and the Conservative party are so enthusiastic about rolling back those border checks now. We have seen that the scale of the cuts is putting pressure on the UK Border Agency just as the scale of cuts to policing is putting pressure on community safety. People across the country fear that corners are being cut and that border security is being put at risk by the scale of the Government’s border cuts. This needs to be sorted out. We have had the embarrassing spectacle of a Home Secretary who does not know what she agreed to, how it was being implemented or how great the security risks were.

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

It is a question not simply of cuts, but of competence. Whether with Building Schools for the Future or the selling off of forests, this Government are simply not fit for purpose.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. The most shocking thing of all is that the Government do not seem to know what has been happening on their watch.

Time and again, Ministers have blamed the previous Labour Government and civil servants, but the Home Secretary might want to think back to “Question Time” in 2004 and a debate with the then Immigration Minister, Beverley Hughes. The current Home Secretary said at that time that she found it

“absolutely extraordinary that she’s…blamed officials in her department for this decision to be taken…I’m sick and tired of government ministers…who simply blame other people when things go wrong.”

Indeed, Home Secretary.

The House does not expect the Home Secretary to know every detail of what is going on in the agencies for which she is responsible all the time, but we expect her to get on top of things and to sort them out when they go wrong.

Five days on, the public still do not know what on earth has been going on in the Home Office and at our borders. Time and again, this Home Secretary has not been on top of the facts and has not taken action to sort things out. She seems to be making things worse.

We cannot afford a Home Secretary who cannot cope with a crisis or sort out a fiasco. Border security and public safety are too important for us to have a Home Secretary whose authority is continually being sapped. She cannot blame the previous Government and she cannot blame officials. It is her watch. She needs to provide the facts that she has been unable to provide so far and to provide the answers, and she needs to do so today.

14:12

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

May I first welcome the sudden interest of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) in immigration and border security? It is a bit rich coming from the party that gave us 2.2 million total net migration, the foreign national prisoner scandal, Sangatte, a 450,000 asylum backlog, no transitional controls for eight eastern European countries, the Human Rights Act 1998, and a points-based system that failed to reduce immigration.

The Leader of the Opposition says that immigration was not too high under Labour; the shadow Home Secretary claims that the previous Government were reducing immigration; and now they have appointed a shadow Immigration Minister who says that public concern about immigration is “nonsense” and “huff and puff” generated by tabloid newspapers. None the less, I am willing to welcome any convert to the cause of controlling immigration.

Let me remind the House why we are here. As I said in my statement to Parliament on Monday, there are two separate issues. First, as I have explained, the Immigration Minister and I authorised a limited pilot this summer, which—in limited and specific circumstances—allowed the UK border force to use more intelligence-led checks against higher-risk passengers and journeys instead of always checking European economic area national children travelling with parents and in school groups against the warnings index, and always checking EEA nationals’ second photographs in the chip inside their passport. In normal circumstances, all standard checks would be carried out.

That was a perfectly reasonable thing to do—stronger checks on high-risk passengers aimed to achieve more arrests, more seizures of illegal goods and more stops of illegal immigrants. Far from weakening our border controls, those procedures were aimed at strengthening our border. The results of the pilot are not yet fully evaluated, but initial UKBA statistics show an almost 10% increase in the detection of illegal immigrants and a 48% increase in the identification of forged documents compared with the year before.

I therefore want to be absolutely clear to the House: my pilot did not in any way put border security at risk. That was my assessment, and it is the assessment of UKBA and security officials.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Why was the Prime Minister not informed that those pilot schemes were being carried out?

[Mrs May]

If that is the best question the hon. Lady can come up with, I am sorry I gave way to her.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

The second and very separate issue is that senior UK border force officials, without my authorisation, ordered the regular relaxation of border checks, beyond what I had sanctioned, and not just in the limited circumstances that I had authorised. First, biometric checks on EEA nationals and warnings index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without my approval. Secondly, adults were not checked against the warnings index at Calais, without my approval.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

Thirdly, the verification of the fingerprints of non-EEA nationals from countries that require a visa was stopped on regular occasions, without my approval. Not only that, but checks on the second photograph in the biometric chip of passports of non-EEA nationals were also regularly stopped, again without my approval.

Let me say again: I did not give my consent or authorisation for any of those decisions. In fact, I stated explicitly in writing that officials were to go no further than what had been agreed in the pilot—[Interruption.]

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We want to hear what the right hon. Lady has to say. We want a debate on Home Affairs, so let us listen to what is said. If she does not wish for hon. Members to intervene, she will not give way. If she gives way, that is fine, but at the moment, we must listen to her.

[Mrs May]

As I said, I did not give my consent or authorisation for any of those decisions.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I will give way to a former Home Secretary.

[Mr Blunkett]

I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. Did any other Minister give their consent or, by indicating that they needed to clear the backlog at Heathrow, indicate that any measures should be taken to free up resources to do that?

[Mrs May]

I am setting out very clearly the pilot for which consent was given by the Immigration Minister and me.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary says that she put something in writing. Is she prepared to put everything that she put in writing in the public domain in the Library of the House this afternoon, so that, instead of having to take just her word for what her pilot was, we can see the truth in black and white?

[Mrs May]

All relevant documents will be going to the relevant inquiries. That is entirely the right way to do it.

I remind hon. Members that last night, the chief executive of the UK Border Agency, Rob Whiteman, confirmed that Brodie Clark, the head of the UK border force, admitted to him that he went beyond ministerial instructions. That is why Mr Whiteman suspended Mr Clark immediately. He took that decision as chief executive of UKBA, and before he informed me of his meeting with Mr Clark. Subsequently, two other senior officials have been suspended and I have ordered three separate investigations, as I outlined to the House on Monday, and I have placed the terms of reference for those inquiries in the House of Commons Library.

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

Since 2008, warnings index checks have been suspended on 100 occasions. Has my right hon. Friend discovered whether those suspensions were authorised by previous Labour Home Secretaries?

[Mrs May]

That is a very interesting question. I note that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford chose not to answer it when she was asked it during an intervention.

I am aware that Mr Clark has released a statement—it was referred to by the right hon. Lady—in which he made several allegations. Those allegations will of course be addressed by the inquiries, but as they relate to what I have already told the House, I would like to address them. First, he says that he did not introduce

“additional measures, improperly, to the trial of our risk-based controls.”

But let me read to the House the statement issued last night by Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of the UK Border Agency:

“Brodie Clark admitted to me on 2nd November that on a number of occasions this year he authorised his staff to go further than Ministerial instruction. I therefore suspended him from his duties. In my opinion it was right for officials to have recommended the pilot so that we focus attention on higher risks to our border, but it is unacceptable that one of my senior officials went further than was approved.”

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady’s case is that she agreed to weaken border controls in July—

[Hon. Members]

No.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I must make the same point again. We all want to hear the interventions; otherwise, the Home Secretary cannot answer.

[Mr Denham]

The right hon. Lady agreed to weaken border controls in July. She then tells the House that what actually happened went much further than she intended. Will she now tell us why she agreed to extend this policy of weaker border controls in September? Is it not the case that, had she asked the most basic questions of Mr Clark or anybody else about what was actually happening in ports and airports, she would have known that thousands of people were coming into this country unchecked?

[Mrs May]

I have already made it absolutely clear to the House that the premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is wrong. My pilot did not put border security at risk. That is not just my assessment; it is the assessment of UKBA and of security officials.

Mr Clark says that

“those measures have been in place since 2008/09.”

But if he is talking about the warnings index guidance, published in 2007, that guidance makes it clear that any relaxation of warnings index checks should be done in extreme circumstances for health and safety reasons. It does not permit the extent of the relaxations that were allowed. And if he thought that these measures were already allowed, why did he seek ministerial approval for new pilot measures this year? I gave no authorisation for the relaxation of checks beyond what we had allowed under the terms of the pilot. But, given that Mr Clark says that his relaxed measures were allowed since 2008-09, can Ministers from the last Government give the same assurance?

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Could the Home Secretary tell us which ports or airports she has visited, from the instigation of the pilot in July up to now, and with whom she discussed the progress of the pilots on those visits?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that we allowed the pilot to take place, and the evaluation of it to come up to Ministers at the end of the pilot.

Mr Clark says that I implied that he

“relaxed the controls in favour of queue management”.

[Mr Straw]

Do I take it from the Home Secretary’s answer that she visited no ports or airports in that time period?

[Mrs May]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I was willing to allow officials to make an evaluation—[Interruption.] I will come on later in my speech to the point about the information that was available to Ministers.

Mr Clark says that I implied that he

“relaxed the controls in favour of queue management”

and that he came under pressure from Ministers to reduce queues, but I have never speculated about his motives, and I have never told officials to reduce queues at the expense of border security. Finally, Mr Clark says that he had been pressing for the trials “since December 2010” and that he was pleased when I agreed to the pilot arrangements. He certainly was pressing for changes to border checks, including the suspension of automatic fingerprint checks of visa nationals, which I rejected. But now, of course, he says that such measures were already available to him, and have been since 2008-09. I stand by every word I told the House on Monday and yesterday and again today.

I now want to turn to the questions raised by the shadow Home Secretary. She said repeatedly that I had not yet answered them—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I will give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving evidence to the Select Committee yesterday. When she did so, she made a profound statement about the future of the UK Border Agency, saying that the UKBA of today would be very different from the UKBA of tomorrow. What will be the main differences, once she has completed what appears to be a reform programme?

[Mrs May]

I pay tribute to the Home Affairs Select Committee for the light that it has shone, for some considerable time, on the UK Border Agency under this Government and the previous one. The precise shape of UKBA in the future is under discussion at the moment. The new chief executive has been in post for six weeks, and he is looking at what he thinks needs to be done. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, one of the issues that we are looking at is the question of establishing the border police command under the National Crime Agency and the relationship that it will have with the UK Border Agency.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I will not give way.

I was about to deal with the questions raised by the shadow Home Secretary. She has repeatedly said that I have not answered her questions. If she reads Hansard, she will find that I have, but let me answer them again. She asked for the precise terms of the pilot scheme that I authorised. I have just set out those terms. I authorised the pilot, under limited circumstances, to allow UK border force officers to use more intelligence-led checks against higher-risk passengers and journeys, instead of always checking EEA national children travelling with parents and in school groups against the warnings index, and always checking European nationals’ second photographs in the chip inside their passport.

The shadow Home Secretary also asked whether I, Home Office Ministers or Home Office officials signed off the operational instruction distributed by UKBA. The answer in all three cases is no. This was a regular operational instruction, and she should know that Ministers—neither under this Government nor under the last—do not sign off such instructions. UKBA operational instructions are signed off by UKBA officials. She asked whether the operational instruction distributed reflected Government policy, and I can tell her that yes, it did, in that it allowed for a risk-based assessment—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) should know better than to keep standing.

[Mrs May]

The operational instruction did reflect Government policy because it allowed for a risk-based assessment when opening the biometric chip of EEA passports and checking EEA national children against the warnings index when they were travelling with parents or as part of a school party.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has just made an extremely important statement. She said that the UK Border Agency’s interim operational instruction did reflect Government policy. That operational instruction says

“We will cease:

Routinely opening the chip within EEA passports.

Routinely checking all EEA nationals under 18 years against the Warnings index” .

If that is Government policy, it is little wonder that, across the country, people have been routinely stopping doing the biometric checks in EU passports and stopping doing the watch index checks. The instruction does not say “Only in exceptional or limited circumstances”. It says “We will cease routinely” to do those checks.

[Mrs May]

The whole point is that they were allowed, in certain circumstances, not to open the chip—[Interruption.] The whole point is that they were allowed, in certain circumstances, not to check children against the warnings index. And the whole point is that officers were allowed to exercise their discretion.

Where the instruction says that officers should escalate further measures, it refers of course to the warnings index checking policy put in place in 2007 under the Government of which the right hon. Lady was a member. I have to tell the right hon. Lady that the quotes she has been eagerly e-mailing around the Lobby come from a policy put in place by her own Government.

The right hon. Lady referred to staff numbers. What she failed to tell the House was that in April 2010 the Labour Government had already announced that they would cut the budget and the staff of the UK Border Agency.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has not answered an extremely important question. She has accused officials of going much further, of using routinely the reduced checks that she wanted in only limited circumstances. That is one of her main allegations—officials going further than her decision and her advice. The interim operational instruction that the Home Secretary says reflects Government policy and was her intention is described as “Trial of risk-based processes at the border,” and states:

“We will... Cease routinely opening the chip within EEA passports.”

The document goes on to talk about discretion, but the discretion is to go further, not to cease the process only in limited circumstances. Will the right hon. Lady now recognise that the document shows that her intention and her policy were substantially to expand the reduction of checks for EEA citizens across the country and to reduce controls at our border?

[Mrs May]

I answered that point on Monday, on Tuesday and this afternoon. The right hon. Lady knows full well what was in the pilot I authorised.

The right hon. Lady asked what information was given to Ministers when we decided to extend the pilot programme. As I told the Select Committee yesterday, Ministers were provided with four updates on the progress of the pilot prior to the agreement to extend it. The updates provided information about seizures of drugs and detection of illegal immigrants. They did not refer to unauthorised actions; in fact, they explicitly said that officials were sticking to the terms of the pilot and not going beyond them.

The right hon. Lady asked about child trafficking. I answered that question on Monday in the House and before the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. For the information of the House, in 2010, 8 million EEA-national children were checked against the warnings index. An alert came up for one child, and after further questioning the child was allowed in.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Could the Home Secretary confirm to the people of Northern Ireland that the relaxations extended to Northern Ireland, especially at the ports of Larne and Stranraer?

[Mrs May]

As Stranraer is not an international port, the pilot did not cover it.

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

rose—

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

rose—

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady asked—

[Hon. Members]

Give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not need advice from the Back Benches, especially from the back row.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford asked how many people Ministers expected would not be checked, and whether an impact assessment would quantify that figure. The answer is that under the terms of the pilot I authorised, all adults would be checked against the warnings index, as would all non-EEA nationals of any age, which, incidentally, was not always the case under the Labour Government of whom she was a member.

Let me reiterate: whatever the shadow Immigration Minister keeps saying, the only incident of which I am aware when passengers were waved through passport control without any checks at all did not occur during my pilot. It happened in 2004, at Heathrow, under the right hon. Lady’s Government.

Let me tell the House what this Government are doing to secure our border: a National Crime Agency with a border policing command and e-Borders to check passengers in and out of the country. We have tough enforcement: 400,000 visas were rejected last year and 68,000 people with the wrong documents were prevented from coming to Britain. We have policies to cut and control immigration: economic migration—capped; abuse of student visas—stopped; and automatic settlement—scrapped. There are compulsory English language tests, tough new rules for family visas and changes to the Human Rights Act. We have a clear plan to get net migration down to the tens of thousands.

What do we hear from the Opposition? Nothing. Nothing on the cap on economic migration. Nothing on the clampdown on student visas. Nothing on settlement. Nothing on sham marriages. No wonder, when the Leader of the Opposition’s policy adviser said that Labour lied to the public about immigration—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Nobody will be able to hear anything either in the House or on the television broadcasts. I am sure everybody on both sides of the House wants to hear the Home Secretary.

[Mrs May]

The public want us to reduce and control immigration, and at long last they have a Government who will do just that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I remind the House that there is a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

14:35

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

It was Herbert Morrison who said that the walls of the Home Office were paved with dynamite. It is true, but the Home Secretary is busily placing those sticks of dynamite herself. One is marked “Cuts in police numbers”. One is marked “Restricting the ability of the police to use DNA to catch murderers and rapists”. Another is marked “Enforced introduction of police commissioners that will cost a small fortune and that nobody wants”. The only surprise is that the issue—

[Robert Halfon]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Johnson]

I will give way in a minute.

The only surprise is that the one marked “Immigration” has exploded quite so quickly in No. 2 Marsham street. Like many others, I predict that the Government’s pledge to reduce immigration to the levels of the 1980s will not be met, because we live in a very different world from the 1980s. In government, I admitted that we were slow to come to terms—as were many other countries—with the huge increase in migration from places such as Iraq, Kosovo, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. We were using a 20th-century system to deal with a 21st-century problem, but after the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, we progressively managed to get on top of the issue—bit by bit. With only a dribble of asylum seekers entering the country, it took 22 months even to get an asylum claim to the first stage under the preceding Conservative Government, but by the time we left office it was taking six months. The introduction of biometric visas and e-borders all made a contribution.

The Home Secretary might like to correct her remark on Monday that since the introduction of the points-based system, immigration has not gone down. It has. The difficulty for her is that immigration and net migration are two different things. The Government have no control over the number of people leaving the country, just as they have no control, incidentally, over mortality or the birth rate—thank goodness—unless it is in their plans for the Queen’s Speech. In fact, net immigration has gone down; it fell from 237,000 in 2007 to 163,000 in 2008 and to 147,000 in 2009. It has only gone up again since this Government came into power.

The problem is complex, and e-borders are central to its solution. We could have all the checks in the world, but the majority of illegal immigrants in this country have entered the country legally and overstayed their visa. It is not until the e-borders system—the Government have supported it; I presume that they will keep to the same programme—checks people out as well as checking them in that we shall actually solve the problem.

For the Home Secretary, solving these problems was simple. The rhetoric, as usual, was at absolute variance with reality.

[Mr Blunkett]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm a point that the Home Secretary referred to earlier? It was agreed in May 2004 to allow people permitted to be in this country legally to work legally, but 40% of those who registered to work were already in the country. That is why proper legal processes for economic migration and tough border controls have to go hand in hand.

[Alan Johnson]

I do confirm that. The Home Secretary talked about Sangatte on Monday, and it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) who, in an incredible piece of political acumen, did a deal with Sarkozy effectively to move our border from Dover to northern France. That made a huge contribution as well. I find it incredible that the Home Secretary formulated and introduced plans to reduce the crucial biometric checks while the threat level was at its second highest; it was at severe at the time, and it was lowered to substantial only in July. In effect, she turned the UK into a semi-Schengen country by not requiring full checks on EEA citizens.

[Brandon Lewis]

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned dynamite. I wonder whether he thinks that one of those pieces of dynamite might be the almost half a million unsolved asylum cases that his Government left in a warehouse when the present Government came in?

[Alan Johnson]

If it is, it will go right back to when Willie Whitelaw was the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] “Ah!” they say. I can tell hon. Members why they say “Ah!”. It is because they do not know—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. People want to listen to interventions, and we certainly want to listen to the answers from Alan Johnson.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Alan Johnson]

Government Members are in happy ignorance of the fact that all this built up over many years under successive Conservative Home Secretaries, and it was the Labour Government who got on top of the issue in the end.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) should not stand up for such a long time. If he wishes to intervene, he must rise quickly and then sit down straight away.

[Alan Johnson]

The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) was not making much impression on me, anyway, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Home Secretary claimed on Monday that those on the watch list will have been picked up because of e-Borders, but she knows as well as I do that not every country is meticulous at operating e-Borders. It is patchy around the European Union.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Alan Johnson]

I have given way twice; everyone knows that we give way twice in these debates.

Again, what the Home Secretary was saying was at variance with what she was doing. In June, the Home Secretary was pledging to stop tens of thousands of migrants seeking to enter Britain through Europe as part of the exodus resulting from the Arab spring. She was saying that just as she was about to reduce checks on those people entering from Europe. In November last year, she said:

“I want to bear down on all the routes into Britain”.

Ending the necessity to check the biometrics can be described as a lot of things, but “bearing down” is not one of them.

On Monday, the Home Secretary described the biometric chip as if it were just a photograph. It is, of course, much more than that. The provision of geometric dimensions means that the identity thief and even the terrorist who has plastic surgery to disguise himself or herself cannot get through. A lot of things can be done with surgery, but eyeballs cannot be moved further apart. The biometrics are crucial to our security.

Let us come to the Home Secretary’s attempts to blame her officials for the mess that she is in. The treatment of Brodie Clark, whom I know, respect and admire, has been reprehensible. If it was right to suspend him from office because he had not informed the Home Secretary, why is it right for the Home Secretary still to be in place when she had not informed the Prime Minister, who bears ultimate responsibility for these issues? Brodie Clark may well have been suspended for operating the 2008-09 guidance, which says that when the police say that there is a public order issue, it has to be responded to. That was the reference.

The Beecroft proposals have not yet been introduced. The Government have not yet wiped away the unfair dismissal rules, which means that Brodie Clark will go to court, he will win his case and this Home Secretary will have nowhere to hide.

14:44

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson)—even on this occasion. He was a decent Home Secretary, but I am afraid that his argument today was indecent in its preposterousness, especially when he tried to claim that the large increase in migration that took place after 1997 was somehow the result of international considerations beyond anybody’s control, and nothing to do with the policy decisions taken by the then Labour Government. I ask the right hon. Gentleman just once in this debate to look at the facts—

[Angela Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clappison]

If the hon. Lady will listen to the facts first, I will give way to her afterwards. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the facts of net migration and migration as a whole before 1997, he will see that in the month after his Government took office in 1997, net migration stood at 52,000. It had been 70,000 the previous year. In the years that followed, it went up to 74,000, 157,000, 161,000 and 187,000—almost entirely due to the decision of that Labour Government to grant more work permits for workers from outside the European Union, which was a conscious policy decision.

[Angela Smith]

rose—

[Robert Halfon]

rose—

[Mr Clappison]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).

[Robert Halfon]

I note that my hon. Friend speaks with great expertise on these matters. Does not what he has just said explain why the chief adviser to the Labour party leader, Lord Glasman, said that the Labour party lied to the people about immigration?

[Mr Clappison]

The facts are facts: we can see what the deliberate policy decisions were, and the motives behind them may come to light in due course.

As for what took place after that period when net migration exploded up to 233,000, we have to look at what happened when the accession countries joined the European Union in 2005 when the then Labour Government estimated the number of workers who had come from within the European Union at about 13,000 a year. We know that that was completely wrong. While we saw the huge increase in the number of workers coming to this country from within the EU, the Labour Government—and this is particularly reprehensible—continued giving just as many work permits to workers from outside the EU.

[Angela Smith]

rose—

[Mr Clappison]

If the hon. Lady wants to say that any of those facts are wrong, I will give way to her.

[Angela Smith]

There was an increase in migration in the late ’90s, due partly to a major conflict in the Balkans, which was made necessary because of the appeasement delivered to Slobodan Milosevic by the previous Tory Government. They bear responsibility for that migration as well.

[Mr Clappison]

I am sorry to tell the hon. Lady this, but at the time of the Balkans conflict, net migration was negative. The policy decisions to increase the number of work permits to workers from outside the European Union are crucial; there is a close correlation. Those are the facts.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s speech. Does he agree that nobody will believe a single word from Labour Members until they apologise for the mess they made?

[Mr Clappison]

Yes.

Coming back to this motion, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has thrown everything but the kitchen sink into this debate. I am afraid that she and her party have failed to produce a single fact or any evidence in support of the motion. They have not even bothered to wait for the evidence of the Home Affairs Committee or for any of the three inquiries that the Home Secretary has rightly put in place, including the one by John Vine, who is the chief inspector and an appointee of the previous Government.

In trying to throw the kitchen sink into the motion, the right hon. Lady even mentioned the 100,000 legacy figure. She asked who was responsible for how the 100,000 people under the legacy exercise have been dealt with. She need not have looked much further than the person sitting next to her—the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne)—because the former Immigration Minister was partly responsible for the legacy exercise. The question she really needs to ask is how she thinks the 500,000 cases arose before 2006, which had to be dealt with in the legacy exercise. Asylum cases had not been properly dealt with. Some of the people involved had waited for many years and some had been refused permission to remain in the country. Now, however, the right hon. Lady is trying to blame the Government for that. She made some comment about 2006 being a starting point, but who had been in power before 2006? She need look no further this time than the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who has been in his place for this debate. He was the Home Secretary who put the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in place. Against that background, how did we reach a position whereby 500,000 people’s cases were lingering, mouldering, waiting to be dealt with and had to be the subject of a legacy exercise in 2006?

[Mr Straw]

rose—

[Mr Clappison]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will speak in this debate, so I will get a chance to intervene on him. He can explain how each of two previous asylum exercises came to admit more and more people irregularly.

[Mr Straw]

rose—

[Mr Clappison]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will tell me what a success that was.

[Mr Straw]

As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the problems involving asylum backlogs date back until at least the early 1990s, when the Berlin wall came down. I do not think that we are assisted by the trading of histories—what matters is today—but if the hon. Gentleman wants to do that, let me add that a computer system introduced by Lord Howard, which we were promised would become operational in November 1998, failed to operate at all. That was the mother and father of the backlog then, and it still is.

[Mr Clappison]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me an equally long intervention when he makes his own speech.

I happened to be a member of a Committee that the right hon. Gentleman addressed, as Home Secretary, in 1999. I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but I recall that he said, “There is no greater challenge to the Labour Government than to put in place an asylum system which works.” We can see what happened after that.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford overlooked another problem that occurred in 2006: the terrible problem of prisoners who were not deported. A thousand prisoners were not even considered for deportation. It was not just a question of people being allowed into the country; people were allowed into the country, committed offences, and then were not considered for deportation. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on having established a system which now ensures that criminals who commit offences are considered for deportation; and, as will be acknowledged by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), his Committee’s report congratulated her on that as well.

I shall wait for the evidence and the facts to be produced. What I am clear about, however, is that the present Government have a policy intention of reducing migration to proper levels, of establishing a proper system enabling the right migrants to be chosen to come to this country, and of not allowing the unrestricted immigration that we have seen in the past. Furthermore, they are tackling the long-standing problems of asylum, and are introducing systems to bring about the deportation of foreign prisoners that is so important to my constituents.

I believe that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford is a person of high intellect and high ability who puts the case as well as she can, and she did that today. I am afraid, however, that she completely failed to establish any facts or evidence in support of the motion. What she did demonstrate beyond peradventure was that, however great her intellect—and it is great—she has an even greater brass neck, in view of the record of the last Labour Government.

14:52

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) has just told the House that he is ready to wait for the evidence and the results of the inquiry before reaching conclusions, and I think he is right to do so. It is a great shame that the Secretary of State jumped to conclusions impetuously, without any proper evidence and without allowing others to respond.

At the heart of this debate are the issues of the conduct of the Home Secretary and the level of ministerial responsibility, in terms of both competence in running a Department and moral responsibility for what happens in that Department.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

There is a long-established principle that Ministers take responsibility for what goes on in their Departments, and to be fair, the Home Secretary confirmed that principle earlier in the week. Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on what she means by taking responsibility for her Department?

[Mr Straw]

As I shall explain, the issue is not whether a Minister mouths the words, but whether, in practice, that Minister acts in a way that demonstrates his or her responsibility for what happens in his or her Department.

The truth about the Home Office—which is the subject of all kinds of dark jokes, particularly when new Home Secretaries enter it—is that things are more likely to go wrong there than in any other Department. That is not because its staff are of less high quality than other staff; far from it. Overwhelmingly, the staff in all parts of the Home Office who served me during the four years for which I was Home Secretary showed the highest possible skill, dedication and commitment. They possessed the added attribute that they were dealing with people—such as prisoners, criminals and illegal immigrants—with whom most of us would not wish to deal day by day or week by week.

The fact that the Home Office is so often in the limelight for the wrong reasons, because there is a “fiasco” or “crisis”, is due to the nature of its business. Other Departments generally work with the grain of the people with whom they deal. There are two obvious examples. In schools, parents and pupils want, roughly speaking, what teachers and the Secretary of State want, which is better education. When it comes to health, patients and their relatives want the same as nurses, doctors and the Secretary of State, which is improved health care. The same does not apply in the Home Office, which is at the sharp end of the operation of the state. However much we may dress it up, the business of the Home Office is actually about enforcing the state’s monopoly over the use of force, and its monopoly over the deprivation of other people’s liberties. It is a hard, tough job, both for the person at the top and for those all the way down.

The other aspect that lies behind one of the core arguments in the debate is that, because the Home Office’s business is about the use of force, the deprivation of liberty and the refusal of rights, junior, young and quite inexperienced staff must often be accorded a very high level of discretion—discretion to arrest people, to allow them in, to lock them up, and so on—which is not accorded to equivalent people elsewhere. The whole system will seize up unless those lower down believe that those at the top are worthy of their confidence, and are ready to take responsibility when things go wrong.

I am not dewy-eyed about what can go wrong in a very large Department—of course not—and no Secretary of State is responsible for locking every cell door or checking every border. I recall occasions when, after a full and careful inquiry, one or two people had to be invited to pursue their careers elsewhere. That is inevitable. However, I believe that it must be done in a way that is judicious and judicial. Secretaries of State must ensure that they take the overwhelming majority of their staff with them. What they should not do—I am sorry that the Home Secretary has embarked on this—is adopt what appears to me, whatever the right hon. Lady’s personal motives, to be both a vindictive and a punitive approach of hanging someone out to dry because it seemed to her that that would be a way of saving her career.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I think that the House would take the right hon. Gentleman slightly more seriously were it not for the case of, say, Mr Steve Moxon, who in 2004 revealed the evident failings of the previous Administration on immigration, particularly in relation to one-legged Romanian and Bulgarian roofers. For his pains he was hounded out of office, as indeed was the then Member of Parliament for Stretford and Urmston, the right hon. Beverley Hughes.

[Mr Straw]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting for a second that any illegal immigrant painted my house. If that is what he was suggesting, he should withdraw the suggestion immediately.

[Mr Jackson]

I am happy to clarify what I said. There is evidently a double standard in what the right hon. Gentleman says. He talks of keeping the respect and trust of people who work in the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice, but those who have revealed the failings of the last Administration on immigration have been hounded out of their jobs.

[Mr Straw]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am a little concerned about the length of that intervention. I am also concerned about what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) was trying to allude to when he mentioned double standards.

[Mr Straw]

I am afraid that I find the hon. Gentleman’s point, at best, completely incomprehensible.

[Mr Blunkett]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Straw]

Let me return, if I may, to the issue of the Home Secretary’s responsibility. As I was saying, it is the nature of the business, not the nature of the staff, that makes Home Secretaries so vulnerable to things going wrong. I find myself comparing the behaviour of the present Home Secretary with that of Sir Paddy Mayhew, now Lord Mayhew, when he was Northern Ireland Secretary. Some of us were in the House at the time.

On 2 January 1995, the Northern Ireland equivalent of the House of Commons suffered a serious fire and was almost burnt to the ground. Sir Patrick Mayhew, as he then was, set up an inquiry. He gave the results to the House on 19 April, and I remember sitting there admiring the way in which a Secretary of State had taken responsibility for a disaster on the chin. He described what had happened. He pointed out that there had been no fire drills for five years, and that the fire hydrants had suffered from a particular defect: an “absence of water”. He said that new instructions had been issued and disciplinary action had been taken against the staff, but that was after a full inquiry—not before those staff had had a chance to explain themselves—and the staff were not named. It could have been a catastrophe for that Secretary of State because he was, indeed, responsible, but because he set the tone for the inquiry and followed proper procedures, he left the Chamber with his reputation enhanced, not diminished.

Among all who have held the post of Home Secretary there is, regardless of party divide, some camaraderie and understanding about the predicaments one can face. My concern about the current Home Secretary is that she will end this episode with her reputation diminished. I had dealings with Mr Brodie Clark, and I found him to be a very good official. It may be the case that he has done all the things said of him, but, like anyone in such circumstances, he deserves a proper inquiry—he deserves a proper hearing. Hanging him and the other officials out to dry without their having any opportunity to respond or there being any proper process, thereby condemning him before there has been a trial, not only damages his rights, but greatly demeans the reputation of the current holder of the great office of state of Home Secretary.

15:01

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

I had expected Opposition Members to take a humility pill before today’s debate, but they have clearly left their prescriptions at home. Labour has admitted that it presided over a Government Department that was not fit for purpose. Members on both sides of the House will be personally aware of the backlog of 450,000 asylum cases from the impact that has had on many of our constituents over many years. When the spokesman for the official Opposition opened the debate, she admitted that border checks were not strong enough in 2006—although I cannot recall her admitting that at the time. I am sure she can also confirm that in 2004, when there were no controls at all at Heathrow, border checks were also certainly not strong enough. I wonder whether she has attempted to calculate how many people passed through the Heathrow borders in 2004.

[Mr Straw]

On the issue of humility, would the right hon. Gentleman like to confirm that the Liberal Democrat party opposed each and every measure introduced by the previous Government starting from, and including, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which was designed to strengthen border controls, and which did precisely that?

[Tom Brake]

If we look at—[Interruption.] If we look at the catalogue of disasters under the last Labour Government—[Interruption.] The catalogue—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Members must stop shouting at each other across the Chamber. Points can be made in debate, but they must not be made by Members screaming at each other while another Member is trying to make a speech.

[Tom Brake]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was saying that if we look back on the catalogue of disasters under the last Labour Government, we can see why we did not support the right hon. Gentleman’s proposals.

I welcome the pilot and the emphasis on intelligence-led checks on very high-risk passengers and journeys. That has clearly had a very positive impact, as is shown by the preliminary results, such as the 10% increase in respect of illegal immigrants and, as we heard from the Prime Minister, the 100% increase in firearms seizures. I also welcome the reviews that have been launched into what has happened over the past few days and the review of the pilot. I particularly welcome the fact that on Monday the Home Secretary confirmed that she would be happy for John Vine to look at every aspect of this episode, including the ministerial decisions that were taken. However, I would just gently point out that that is not included in his terms of reference, but the fact that the Home Secretary put it on the record earlier this week confirms that he has that remit.

If we are serious—as I think Members on both sides of the House are—about improving security at our borders, one aspect that we could usefully address is the progress being made in respect of the border police command in the National Crime Agency. In the long term, that will clearly have a very positive impact on the security of our borders. An update on the progress being made in establishing that body would have been useful, and perhaps the Minister will give us that information in his winding-up speech. We would like to know, for instance, what progress is being made in drawing up the comprehensive cross-agency assessment of the threat posed to border security by organised crime; that is a key aspect of the border policing command responsibilities. I would also like the Minister to say whether the reviews that have been launched will have any impact on the business plan that is being drawn up, particularly as it relates to developing the smart zone concept for processing pre-checked low-risk passengers through border controls. Might these reviews have an impact beyond the topics under immediate scrutiny, which concern all hon. Members?

I know that many other Members want to speak, so I shall conclude by saying that what the events of the last three or four days have underlined is that in 13 years the previous Government did not reform a Department that was deemed to be not fit for purpose, and that the coalition Government have not completed the reform yet either, but we are committed to doing that and we will achieve it in this Parliament.

15:06

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

It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), because it was he who treated the House to his knowledge that the Liberal Democrats were going to win the Oldham by-election. That shows the quality of his judgment, and the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrat party on immigration control fills us with disgust. My anti-Semitic Liberal Democrat opponent at the general election tried to turn body scans of women at airports into an election issue, in the hope of winning votes from Muslims. I can put up with the Conservatives because they are what they are, but the sheer hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrat party on issue after issue turns my stomach.

This debate is about the fact that there are now in this country a very large number of people whose numbers we do not know and whose whereabouts we do not know, and who may include terrorists, and this Government’s policy and this Home Secretary’s decisions have made that possible. Let us be clear, too, that this disaster could have been foreseen because from the moment when the Home Secretary came to office, she has refused to be involved in any way in the administration of immigration cases. There are a very large number of immigration cases in my constituency, yet she, unlike Douglas Hurd, a reputable person, and unlike Willie Whitelaw, also a reputable person, has refused to touch those cases. My constituency immigration cases and those of other Members have instead been siphoned down to the hapless Minister for Immigration, who sits in his office signing letters that have been put in front of him by the UK Border Agency, whose activities the Government now decry. This Government have made a mess of immigration policy because of the arrogance and indolence of the current Home Secretary.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

The Minister for Immigration does not need me to fight his corner for him, but may I tell my right hon. Friend that I have had seven individual meetings on seven individual immigration cases with the Minister?

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

I am not knocking the Minister for Immigration—poor chap, he does what he is left to do—but the fact is that this arrogant and indolent Home Secretary will not touch immigration and because of that she does not know what goes on at the ports, she does not know what goes on in the immigration departments, and she does not know what goes on in Islamabad, Dubai or Abu Dhabi. That is because she does not care; she thinks she is too important to deal with the nuts and bolts of administration. My right hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and for Blackburn (Mr Straw), both former Home Secretaries who have spoken in this debate, did do that. They were ready to listen and to look at the nuts and bolts. That is what is wrong with her. I say again that it is her arrogance and her indolence that have made this possible.

[Margot James]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady. She can sit down and she can read out what the Whips have given her on some other occasion.

Other Conservative Ministers—

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not trouble the House with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), but he has now three times described the Secretary of State as “arrogant and indolent”, which, if not unparliamentary, is offensive. Being a new Member, I would ask whether he needs to withdraw those comments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I can say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman are not unparliamentary, in the sense that they are not impugning the personal honesty of a Member of this House. But comments are being made by Members on both sides and we would all want to reflect on whether they show this House at its best. They are sailing pretty close to the wind of good parliamentary conduct, and I take this opportunity, therefore, to say that there is no requirement for anything that has been said thus far to be withdrawn, but perhaps everybody could bear that in mind.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

The hon. and learned Gentleman may, in the short time that remains to him as a Member of this House before the next general election, learn what is parliamentary language and what is not.

The fact is that, unlike Lord Carrington, who resigned over the Falklands even though he was not to blame, and unlike other Tory Ministers who were honourable and who resigned, this Home Secretary is trying to save her own skin by destroying the career of a decent public servant, who is not being given the chance to answer for himself, although he will get that before the Home Affairs Committee in a few days’ time. This Home Secretary is not fit for purpose. She may not resign now, but her days are numbered.

15:13

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

It is with regret that I follow the poisonous personal attack that I have just had to listen to. I have to say that I did not come into the House to hear debate at that level.

I am not going to speak for long, because the main issues surrounding this debate have been well rehearsed already, but I would like to cover just a few. The Home Secretary has clearly stated that the approved pilot for an intelligence-led approach to border checks did not put national security at risk and was approved by the security services. It seems to me that pursuing an intelligence-based policy to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of border checks is a perfectly sensible starting point. Indeed, the recent Select Committee report on the UK Border Agency called for it to improve its use of intelligence, following the report of the independent chief inspector of the UKBA, John Vine—a Labour appointment—which found that the agency’s approach to the use and management of intelligence had been poor.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of an intelligence-led approach. Does she agree that it would be a great shame if the furore around this incident meant that the UKBA did not go ahead with intelligence-based approaches, because they would make our border more secure by applying resources more efficiently?

[Nicola Blackwood]

I think it is important that we continue to approach intelligence-based processes rationally.

I am not opposed to the principle of giving border officials greater discretion in assessing risk. These border officials are professionals who, for the most part, work in very difficult circumstances, and even the best policy framework cannot allow for every situation and cannot replicate the experience of a border official who has their eyes and ears fixed beadily on the individual in front of them. However, that discretion must be exercised within an evidence-based policy framework that has been set out by Ministers and properly scrutinised by Parliament. As I understand it, that was the intention of the pilot but, as we have been hearing, it was not what John Vine found was actually happening on the ground.

We hear from whistleblowers in the UKBA that border checks were being relaxed at the request of BAA staff when queues were long. We hear from Brodie Clark that controls have been relaxed since 2008, not in favour of queue management but for a reason which he does not state. I look forward to hearing his evidence to the Select Committee. Rob Whiteman insists that Clark confessed that he had been relaxing the controls on a regular basis without ministerial approval. Most worrying from my perspective is that we find that since at least 2007—under the previous Government—agency operational instructions have contained a paragraph that apparently gives border force duty directors the authority to relax checks for health and safety reasons. That might be completely justifiable in certain extreme circumstances, but I do not think it is possible to get a proper picture of what has been going on with border checks without knowing how often these controls were relaxed on the grounds of health and safety, what criteria and processes were used to trigger such a relaxation, what the reporting mechanisms are and whether they have been properly followed. In particular, this raises the question of whether this power has been misused.

Although I am only too aware of the potential implications of the agency’s failure to implement border checks properly, the statistics on how many people have passed through the borders during this time are truly sobering. A measure of comfort can be taken from the fact that the chief executive did take immediate action when this came to light, which has triggered full-scale parliamentary scrutiny and three independent investigations, and I hope that they will take into account ministerial decisions and, in particular, the recent claims that border checks have been relaxed to level 2 without ministerial approval or oversight since 2008. I think it highly unlikely that that would have been the agency’s response previously; I suspect we would have come up against something closer to an attitude of, “Least said, soonest mended.”

However, when I said a “measure of comfort”, I meant a small one. The truth is that even in the relatively short time that I have been a member of the Home Affairs Committee it has become abundantly clear that the UK Border Agency is an organisation with deep-seated problems that date back well into the previous Government’s time in office, and an organisation that seems to have encouraged a culture of deniability. Again and again, the Committee has found that the UKBA has failed to record and account for its responsibilities. For example, when we asked for reasons for the 1,300 outstanding cases of difficulties with deporting foreign national prisoners, the agency could not account for 350 of those—it simply had not recorded the data. The agency was not able to tell the Committee how many individuals had been removed as a result of action taken by intelligence units in 2011, because the data for allegations and removals are kept on two different databases.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is quite accurate in what she is saying about the concerns of the Home Affairs Committee, across parties. However, would she not have expected Home Office Ministers, understanding the deep-seated concerns of Members of this House, to be absolutely on top of all the detail and to ensure that they knew everything that was going on in the Department?

[Nicola Blackwood]

I would have hoped that they were trying to get on top of it, just as I would have hoped that Ministers in the last Government were trying to do.

I realise that the picture is not all doom and gloom—the agency has made progress on legacy cases, as we have already heard today. There was a backlog of more than 450,000 asylum cases under the last Government, which has been reduced to 18,000, and there was a significant reduction in foreign national prisoners released without being considered for deportation, from more than 1,000 to just 28. However, those examples show just what a low base the agency was coming from, and how far it still has to go if there is any hope of its being properly capable of protecting our borders and assuring our national security.

What worries me most about this incident as much as the facts, which are worrying in themselves, is that they are indicative of a wider cultural problem within the agency, endorsed by at least some senior officials: that short-cuts and papering over the cracks are a justifiable way of dealing with the work load, and that transparency is a concept more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

The Select Committee will play a part in trying to get to the bottom of contradictory claims coming out of the UKBA. The three investigations will do their bit, but they will only get to the bottom of what happened when. Although we must pursue those issues vigorously, I do not believe that we will stop seeing scandals in the agency until we have genuine reform of both the systems and the culture of an organisation that we need to be able to trust with protecting our borders.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I still have 11 speakers who want to take part in this debate. Therefore, I am reducing the time limit, from the next speaker, to five minutes. Hopefully, we will get everybody in.

15:21

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

I regret the fact that the Home Secretary is no longer with us—

[Stephen Pound]

No longer in her place.

[Paul Goggins]

No longer in her place. She will know from the exchanges that she and I have had both inside and outside the Chamber in the 18 months that she has held office that my starting point, as a former Home Office Minister and Northern Ireland security Minister, has been to trust the Home Secretary, as, indeed, I trusted all her predecessors. We heard on Monday from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who described the job as the “ministerial graveyard”. We heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) talk earlier this afternoon about the serious responsibilities that the job has for public safety and our borders. It is my strong belief that we should not seek to second-guess difficult decisions that Home Secretaries have to take, often with advice, of course, that the rest of us do not have.

Having said that, in the interests of protecting her own reputation and, crucially, that of her office, the Home Secretary needs urgently to clarify a number of issues. I have three specific questions. She and the Minister will remember from my question on her statement on Monday that Manchester airport is in my constituency. Indeed, when I asked her whether the pilot included that airport, she gave me three answers for the price of one: “No”, “Yes” and “Maybe”. Well, I need to know whether the pilot did in fact operate at Manchester airport, and if so how frequently checks were relaxed and how many people passed through the airport without biometric checks. I appreciate that the Minister replying today will have many other things to respond to, so a letter on those issues and questions would be very welcome.

My second question, which has not been discussed as extensively as it needs to be, is where did the pressure for this pilot come from? I find it difficult to believe that all the pressure came from within the UK Border Agency. After all, procedures were in place for health and safety and public order emergencies, and Brodie Clark himself has confirmed that, even this summer, when the pilot was operating and there were three-hour queues at Heathrow airport, checks were still not relaxed.

However, delays at airports damage the reputation of airports themselves and of airlines. I would therefore like the Minister to tell us whether any pressure has been applied, either on the Home Secretary or the Transport Secretary, by BAA or other airport operators—or indeed by any airline companies—to speed up passport control. Has there been any correspondence with the Home Secretary and the Transport Secretary on that, or any meetings or discussions with Ministers? If there has, we should have copies of those letters and minutes.

My third question goes to the very heart of how Ministers operate within this Government. How hands-on were the Home Secretary and her Ministers in establishing, monitoring and evaluating this pilot? The right hon. Lady must have been aware of the political risk she was taking in establishing the pilot. She must have been aware that the public would take some convincing that a more effective and targeted approach would include the relaxation of biometric checks. If she wants now to convince us that she is on top of the situation and has been throughout, she needs to publish all the submissions and all the other documents that relate to the pilot, including the information that was gathered during the pilot.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the public reaction, but would he not admit that one of the things that we most commonly hear from members of the public is about using intelligence-led checks at our borders? Everyone I speak to—lots of constituents—constantly asks why we do not use a more intelligence-led approach, rather than frisking schoolchildren and so on. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The public would have every sympathy with an intelligence-led approach.

[Paul Goggins]

Of course the public want an intelligence-led approach, but the idea that that includes disregarding the biometric content of any passport is preposterous. I hope the hon. Lady accepts that.

To return to my point, surely Ministers were receiving weekly updates on the pilot. Surely they were convening regular stocktakes in relation to what is, after all, a highly controversial pilot. I would be particularly interested to hear from the Minister how many times decisions to implement measures beyond the routine procedures that were allowed within the pilot were escalated to the border force duty director, in line with the instructions to which we heard reference earlier.

There was some speculation on the radio this morning that in the end both Mr Clark and the Home Secretary will be proved right. I believe that that would be the worst of all outcomes. It would show a complete disconnection between policy and operations, with claims that officials were over-interpreting what Ministers had approved, and Ministers so hands-off that they simply blame officials when things go wrong. I find it astonishing that the first the Home Secretary knew about the issue was when she was informed by the permanent secretary that disciplinary action had been instigated against Brodie Clark. If she had taken even a basic interest in the pilot, she would have known well before that that something had gone wrong. For the sake of her reputation, but more particularly for the reputation of her office, she should be as open as possible and publish all the documents that she has.

15:27

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I support the pilot scheme that was introduced in just a limited area across the European Community. I have read about the Home Secretary’s approach to this. It was first put to her back in April this year. She approached her decision with characteristic caution. She requested more information, particularly from security advisers, and she was given the all-clear by those security advisers that in the pilot, under strictly limited conditions—limited in scope and in geographical area—the UK Border Agency could relax some of the restrictions that hon. Members have already mentioned.

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

But if the hon. Lady is right and the Home Secretary had those concerns at the start of the pilot, the very least I would have expected the right hon. Lady to do was to say to her Immigration Minister, “Watch this, because this could cause serious problems.” Is the hon. Lady not surprised that the Home Secretary never did that?

[Margot James]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I believe the Home Secretary did just as he suggests. It is my understanding, and I am sure that in the winding-up speech we will hear for sure, that the Home Secretary asked the Immigration Minister to keep a close eye on the operation. We should not forget that although it was put to the Home Secretary back in April, the operation did not even start till July this year. We are only in the second week of November, and it has already come to light that things have gone wrong. The media and the Opposition are a little too hasty in coming to such a swift judgment on a pilot that has barely been completed and that the Home Secretary has suspended.

The Home Secretary then decided to allow a limited pilot to be run. It is clear from the limited information we have so far that on several occasions the head of the UK border force authorised staff to go beyond the pilot approved by Ministers. The pilot had been running for only the best part of three months, during which time excesses were agreed by managers on the ground. It might have come to light before now, but as soon as it did come to light the Home Secretary took the right decision by suspending the pilot. The decision to suspend the head of the UK border force was taken by the chief executive of the UKBA, not the Home Secretary. I fail to see why there has been such criticism of her for a decision that was taken in a proper manner by someone else.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The hon. Lady says the Home Secretary did not ask for Mr Clark’s resignation, but in her statement the right hon. Lady basically blamed him for everything that went wrong. By doing so, she has prejudiced any inquiry that could be carried out. Surely it would have been better, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) suggested, to keep to the tradition of Sir Patrick Mayhew and carry out an inquiry to find out what went wrong before blaming an individual with 44 years of service at the highest level. That is why the Home Secretary is wrong.

[Margot James]

No one fired the individual concerned. There was a resignation following a suspension, and my understanding is that the suspension was not ordered by the Home Secretary. It was immediately instituted because the individual admitted to varying the terms of the pilot.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has long experience in business, which she could perhaps use to compare the suspension of Mr Clark by the UKBA with the sacking, live on television, of Sharon Shoesmith by the current shadow Chancellor.

[Margot James]

My hon. Friend makes an insightful observation, and one that I trust Opposition Members will learn from.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Margot James]

I will not give way again, as many other Members wish to speak.

I will conclude my remarks by expressing my astonishment, which I am sure many of my constituents share, that Labour Members have sought in such an opportunistic fashion to capitalise on this media storm. Have they no shame? They have proposed this motion in the aftermath of more than 10 years of open and porous borders and what was effectively an amnesty for illegal immigrants. This Government inherited a 450,000 backlog of asylum cases. The Labour party seemed to have a deliberate policy when in power to increase dramatically the number of eastern European workers coming into the country by making Britain one of only two EU member states that did not introduce transitional controls. It was an outrage when seven years ago the then Home Secretary said on television that he expected 70,000 to come from eastern Europe without introducing those transitional controls. There have been allegations that the Labour party deliberately encouraged the policy of mass immigration so as fundamentally to change British society and boost the economy in a completely unsustainable way.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Margot James]

I will not give way, as my time is running out. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

No one voted for the fundamental change brought about in our country over the past 10 years. The Labour party should be doing time for the fraud it served on the British public, rather than seizing the first media storm to challenge the new Government’s commitment to the truly Herculean task of addressing the dire straits into which our immigration system fell when Labour was in power.

15:34

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It really is quite breathtaking to hear Conservative Members ignore the history of the shambles that was left behind by the previous Conservative Government in 1997. We all know that this is an extremely difficult issue, and it must be taken seriously. I am sorry to say that what we have heard from Conservative Back-Benchers today is a series of partisan remarks that are remarkable in the extent of the loyalty shown to Front-Benchers, who are clearly in enormous difficulty. Loyalty is admirable, but it is not very instructive and it does not contribute to getting to the bottom of an extremely difficult issue.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

Is that loyalty not also breathtaking in that it is coming from the coalition partners as well, given their record on immigration and what they did to previous Governments?

[Alun Michael]

Absolutely right. I am very disappointed that the Home Secretary is not still in the Chamber, because this debate is about her behaviour and performance. She was remarkably reluctant to take interventions from Labour Members during her speech. Normally on such a big issue—a big occasion in Parliament—the Minister concerned takes a lot of interventions. It was disappointing that she did not do so, and perhaps demonstrates her nervousness about the situation she is getting into, although she still does not seem to understand how serious her position has become.

I want to help the Home Secretary by giving her an opportunity to correct the record. On Monday, I put a question to her in these terms:

“we know who she is blaming in advance of her inquiries, but those who know the people at the top-end of the border force, and who know how that body works, say it is unthinkable that they would have taken these actions without the knowledge and approval of Ministers. That is right, isn’t it?”

She replied:

“my understanding is that the head of the UK Border Agency admitted he had taken action outside ministerial approval.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 52.]

Well, I think she meant the border force, but that is what she said. We now know that statement to be untrue. The head of the border force has made it clear that he does not accept her description of what has happened, so it would be nice if the Home Secretary could correct the record on that matter.

A further issue is the pilot. The idea that it was suspended one day early by the Home Secretary is not exactly a dramatic gesture in the direction of public concern. Apparently, the relaxation of controls was allowed everywhere under the pilot scheme—Scotland, Manchester, Northern Ireland and right across the country. That is some pilot scheme. Such an approach does not seem to indicate a calculated attempt to see exactly what is happening and evaluate it properly.

[Stephen Pound]

My right hon. Friend has just told the House that the pilot was extended to Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary did not know that—does he?

[Alun Michael]

I understand that it extended to Northern Ireland, but I also understand my hon. Friend’s point because, at the beginning of the week, the Home Secretary did not seem to know whether the pilot had been extended to anywhere other than Heathrow.

Another point is that there is one cast-iron rule at the Home Office: the need to understand that the devil is in the detail. In fact, I became quite bored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) reminding us of that on a daily basis. That was because he paid attention to the detail and expected his Ministers to do so as well. We cannot expect a Minister to know everything that officials do in their Department and its agencies, but we have the right to ask whether Ministers have asked the right questions and insisted on getting to the bottom of any important issues. During the questions and responses we have heard in the Chamber and in the Home Affairs Committee throughout this week and today, that has not been demonstrated by the Home Secretary.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any pilot scheme worth its salt must do one thing first of all: ensure that it does not put our borders at risk? Does it seem strange to him that the Government are defending what has happened on the basis that it was a pilot scheme, and that that seems to excuse people being able to get through the border system without controls?

[Alun Michael]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Home Secretary had asked the questions she should have asked as a Minister, she should have been able to answer the key questions put to her on Monday and yesterday, but she was unable to do so.

Normally, advice to Ministers would not come into the public domain, but by suspending a senior official who has a reputation as being highly committed and effective, the Home Secretary has put herself in the firing line and made it essential for all communications to be given to Parliament. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary asked her for that, but we did not get a positive response. It is time for the Minister for Immigration to tell us whether the Home Secretary is going to let us have the full information, without which Parliament will not be able to make a proper judgment on what went wrong. At the moment, we cannot make a judgment about whether the Home Secretary has told us the truth or whether, as Mr Clark claims, she has lied to MPs. We have to come to a judgment based on evidence, so it is incumbent on the Home Secretary to give us the evidence, the whole evidence and nothing but the evidence.

The Home Secretary knew of the Home Affairs Committee’s concerns about UKBA to which the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) referred. In the report that we published on Friday, we said:

“Immigration is an issue which affects the safety, the social cohesion and the economy of Britain as well as its standing on the world stage. For that reason we will continue to hold sessions with the UK Border Agency every four months or possibly even more frequently.”

That was the level of concern. Surely the Home Secretary, who had herself been questioned repeatedly by the Select Committee, should have understood how serious the issue was and would have had herself and her Ministers all over the agency like a rash ensuring that they knew exactly what was going on.

The Home Secretary said that she was explicit about what the pilot would cover and what it must not cover. How has muddle and misunderstanding arisen if she was so clear? We need to know. Her answers were not full and complete. Let us see all the exchanges and see what happened. Giving that information only to an internal inquiry, as she implied today, is not adequate; it needs to be given to Members of this House—to the members of the Home Affairs Committee, in particular, but also to Members of the House as a whole. The Home Secretary has a lot of questions to answer; she has gone no way towards answering them today.

15:42

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

It is an enormous pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), with his considerable knowledge of the way that the Department functions. However, for me, and I hope for other Members of this House, the most disappointing feature of this debate has been that it has taken place not only in a heated atmosphere but, at times, in an extremely ill-tempered one. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said that he was concerned that the office of Home Secretary might be diminished by this affair. I am similarly concerned that this House has been diminished by some of the debate this afternoon. I say that because I think the British people are interested in three things as a result of this affair and, indeed, of their more general interest in the question of immigration—but not interested in an opportunistic fashion. I venture to suggest that this is an opportunistic motion, albeit that there have been opportunistic contributions from both sides of the House.

First, the British people want to know precisely what has gone on. Secondly, they want an acknowledgement by politicians in all parts of the House—but particularly, if I may say so to Opposition Front Benchers, by those who formed part of the previous Administration—that something went very badly wrong with immigration in this country for a very lengthy period, as a result of which many of our constituents spent much of the last general election campaign raising immigration with us as an issue that seriously concerned them. I know that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has done this in the past in relation to aspects of the previous Government’s immigration policy, but it would do her, and those who sit with her, no harm at all to acknowledge that something went very badly wrong under the previous Government, that having an extra 2.2 million people—twice the population of Birmingham—in this country during the course of the 13 years that Labour was in power was not a good thing or something that increased community cohesion, and that real mistakes were made in relation to other areas such as establishing quotas for those from new-entry members of the European Union.

Thirdly, our constituents want to hear about what ministerial responsibility means in the 21st century in the context of a Department that, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn made clear, is at the forefront of relations between the state and the individual, which is why it has caused such problems for so many Home Secretaries in the past.

I was enormously pleased that the right hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford acknowledged, because this must be the case in the 21st century, that neither the Home Secretary nor any other Minister can know precisely what is going on in their Department. What we therefore need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) indicated, is to get to the bottom of what happened on this occasion by virtue of the inquiries that will take place, to listen to the results of the inquiries, and only then to make judgments about the conduct of the Home Secretary and her officials and advisers in the Home Office.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Stephen Phillips]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very glad. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems a bit surprised that he is giving way to me.

How can we get to the bottom of the matter if it is not guaranteed that the inquiry will be published and that all the paperwork that will be provided to the inquiry from the Home Office will be published? If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that it should be, he should vote for our motion.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am not voting for the motion—let me deal with that point first—because it is entirely premature, as I have made clear. On whether the papers should be produced to the House, which is what most of the motion calls for, the answer is obviously no. The papers need to go before the inquiry. I have no doubt that after the inquiry has reported, a statement will be made to the House. I express no view at the moment about whether the report will be published. My view, which I will share with the hon. Gentleman, is that it ought to be published so that the House knows what it says, suitably redacted if necessary to protect the advice to Ministers that is not generally produced in this House, or indeed at all. That is necessary given the form of government that we have.

In the time that remains to me, I will briefly answer those three questions. What happened here? There was a limited pilot that was agreed to by the Home Secretary, which meant that under limited circumstances European economic area national children, travelling with their parents or as part of a school group, would be checked against the warnings index when assessed by a border force—

[Alun Michael]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Phillips]

I will give way.

[Alun Michael]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is saying what the limits were. Can he enlighten us about whether he is speaking from the Whips’ brief or whether he has seen all the exchanges and information on what limits were applied?

[Stephen Phillips]

I am speaking from my notes for the purposes of this speech. I am a little tired of Opposition Members intervening to make some point when I am trying to assist the House by saying what I understand the position to have been.

[Alun Michael]

On what basis?

[Stephen Phillips]

I know it in part because I read the evidence that the Home Secretary gave to the Home Affairs Committee, and indeed watched most of it.

I will state what appears to have happened on the basis of the evidence that we have at the moment. We do not have all of it because of the prematurity of this debate and because we have not heard Mr Brodie Clark’s side of events. Mr Clark, according to his boss, accepted that he went beyond what he was permitted to do under the terms of the pilot and what had been agreed by the Home Secretary. It was for that reason that he was suspended, not by the Home Secretary, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said, but by his boss, as the Home Secretary has made perfectly clear and as his boss has confirmed, after it became apparent that the terms of the pilot had been exceeded.

[Chris Bryant]

I just want to correct something that I think the hon. and learned Gentleman might have misunderstood. He said earlier that the warnings index was still being checked for children. It was not. The document that the Home Secretary says covers her guidance expressly states:

“We will cease... Routinely checking all EEA nationals under 18 against the Warnings index”.

Those passports were never scanned.

[Stephen Phillips]

If I said that, I misspoke.

My understanding is that the terms of the pilot were that children travelling in school groups or with their parents would no longer be checked. Those were the terms that were agreed. They were no broader, in many ways, than the terms of the pilots and systems that were applied by the previous Government. What gives great cause for concern is that the terms of the pilot seem to have been exceeded without reference to Ministers. It is that that the British public need to know about.

We need to get to the bottom of this matter, forgetting the sheer opportunism and ill temper that have permeated this debate, and find out what has happened so that it does not happen again. I also think, if I may say so, that the previous Administration must recognise their faults in the area of immigration.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Many hon. Members still wish to speak, but we are running out of time—interventions are taking up a lot of time—so I am going to reduce the time limit again, this time to 4 minutes from the next speaker, in the hope that Members waiting to speak can get in. Perhaps those who have already spoken could apply some discipline and not intervene.

15:50

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

We have heard a lot about the intricate detail of this policy, but I want to pose two key questions. First, what is the role in the Government of the Home Secretary and her Minister for Immigration? The second question concerns the Government’s overall approach to immigration policy.

Let us wind back to the end of last year. The chief executive of the UK Border Agency announced that she would be leaving her post, and from January she took up another post in Whitehall. At that point, an acting chief executive was appointed, while several acting directors were also in post—as I understand it, some of them remain in post. Of eight posts, up to five at any one time were acting. All were operational posts—not backroom posts, but front-line operational director posts. On 26 September, the new chief executive of UKBA was appointed.

Ministers, and the Minister for Immigration in particular, had a strong responsibility to ensure leadership and continuity at a time when there were so many acting officials. It was his responsibility, in particular, to watch the detail, to ask the questions and to set the direction. Clearly the Home Secretary had a role, but I have been a junior Minister supporting a Home Secretary, and I know that the role of a junior Minister is to look at the detail and to ensure that the Home Secretary has what she needs to do her job. So why has the Minister for Immigration been so silent? Was he reading the detail of the briefings sent to him, and was he watching the Home Secretary’s back? She is protecting him now, and he should be very grateful. The named civil servants who have been condemned publicly in the House and elsewhere have not had the same cover. In his closing remarks, will the Minister tell us what progress reports he received from officials, what action he took to ensure that the pilot, as outlined, took place and where the pitfalls were?

Immigration is a complex project, and it needs that oversight. On the approach to immigration policy, the talk was tough. “Let’s reduce the numbers,” they said, “to tens of thousands, and let’s go back to the levels of the 1980s and early 1990s.” They wanted to create a new border force, forgetting that, actually, UKBA was, in effect, that very thing. The rhetoric on immigration and migration was great, but the actions have been weak. At the same time as all this rhetoric, the Minister for Immigration, in a little-known side move as he abolished identity cards, abandoned fingerprint biometrics in passports. The reason he was appointed to the Home Office was to abolish identity cards, but in the process, he threatened the security of the British passport and, therefore, part of our immigration system. He threw out with the bathwater the precious baby of our security.

We have e-Borders, but only for some and only when it suits the Government. Then, let us look at the budget issues. We saw a 23% reduction in the Home Office budget, and it is naive to think that we can conduct a modern immigration service with fewer resources. I know, because I have been in such meetings in the past, that the Department for Transport, the airlines and the operators will have been putting immense pressure on the Home Office to reduce queues. However, the Home Office’s job is to maintain the integrity of security. It seems that it crumbled, but that is hardly surprising, given that it took its lead from No. 11 Downing Street, because, ultimately, those cuts to the budget led to a cut in service.

The buck stops with the Minister for Immigration, the Home Secretary and, ultimately, No. 10 and No. 11. By cutting too far, too fast and at any cost, the Government have put the security of our borders at risk.

15:55

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I had the great pleasure of inspecting the border controls at Dover and at Calais with the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. We went last year, and we were shown around by Brodie Clark and his fellow officers. It was a very interesting educational journey, and we saw the hard work of the officers on the ground.

Whatever the brickbats from Members on both sides of the House in relation to what did or did not happen in the Home Office among the high-ups and all the rest of it, we ought to pay tribute to the front-line officers at the UKBA, who do a fantastic job standing at our border, keeping watch and keeping guard come rain or shine. It is a difficult job—a very hard job—that requires a lot of experience and knowledge, and the longer they are there, the better they get at just knowing, deep down by instinct and experience, who to stop, and which lorries to stop.

The Home Secretary’s pilot is not a bad idea. Opposition Members say that it is weakening controls, but I am not sure that that is right. It is a different method of border control, which takes a risk-based approach, and if we take such an approach we are saying that we will rely on the experience of those front-line officers to determine who should and who should not be stopped. We are relying on their intelligence and on intelligence gathering.

It is quite significant that, since the pilot was introduced a year or so ago, we have seen a rise in the number of illegal entrants being caught, so we should be slow to say, “Let’s just chuck this pilot out.” Instead, we should carefully and thoughtfully evaluate and consider it, and see whether that way of organising our border controls might actually be the best way.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in this debate we must be careful not to become too party political, as has already happened. Is it not important to ensure that all three investigations that the Home Secretary has put in place are thoroughly undertaken, so that they can lead into what my hon. Friend is saying?

[Charlie Elphicke]

That is a fair point. There are several important ongoing inquiries into what happened, and they are the right thing to do. It is right that the new boss of UKBA should have the licence and ability to supervise his staff—and that includes Brodie Clark. If the new boss takes that view, and the Home Secretary endorses it, that will be the right execution of the chain of command. The House should respect that, and it should respect the need to let the inquires go through and be conducted properly. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) may not agree, and may want all the papers published on the internet immediately, but the proper processes should be followed and dealt with. We should ensure that we have the most secure borders possible, because our constituents are deeply concerned about what has gone on.

I talk to people on the doorsteps of Dover who tell me, “I am really unhappy about the fact that we have had so many people come into this country,” and it is a matter of public record that about 2.2 million have done so. European Union citizens have in broad terms a free right of entry to come and go, but that does not apply to people outside the area.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Without trying to be too opportunistic, I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that when the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) told the House that concerns over immigration, border controls and asylum were just “nonsense” and apparently “huff and puff” in many of the tabloid newspapers, he showed that he has no credibility on the subject—and neither do the Labour party.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and he is right. The hon. Gentleman discussed the matter in a question on the EU constitution, and in fairness I should read out his entire remarks. He said to the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett):

“The Home Secretary may well have heard over recent days much huff and puff in many of the tabloid newspapers about the draft constitutional treaty and what it will do to border controls and asylum and immigration in Europe. Will he ignore all that nonsense”?—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 15.]

The then Home Secretary replied: “Yes, I agree entirely.” One gets a perspective from that, but I do not want to labour what is a partisan point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to read out more of what he said—he did go on; indeed, he does go on—when he gets his own chance to make some remarks.

I shall close with the concerns of my constituents. We need more controls for people from outside the European Union. The figures reported by the labour market survey show a total increase of 966,000 in employment between quarter 1 of 2004 and quarter 3 of 2010—that is, 966,000 people not born in the UK. UK-born employment fell by 334,000, while foreign-born UK employment rose by 1.297 million. Of those, 530,000 were born in the EU8 countries. The essential point is that the majority—800,000—were born outside those countries. We see immigration as somehow an EU problem, but there is a bigger problem with people born outside those areas—people for whom we can take controls. I hope that in time we will not only do that, but do more to make the Home Office fit for purpose, after the mess of the past 13 years.

16:00

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

The issue before us today is not what Mr Brodie Clark did or did not do—although I hope that before the end of the debate we will hear from the Front Bench that the Government will put no obstacle in the way of his attending the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday. Today we need to focus on the arrangements for which the Home Secretary has now admitted she was responsible. She claims that she authorised a pilot to establish a risk assessment approach. It was evident from her statement to the House on Monday that she was more than a little shaky on the details of the pilot—a secret pilot—which was actually a scheme to relax border controls at every airport and port of entry in the country. From the end of July to the beginning of November, literally millions of people passed through our borders without being subject to normal controls. By her own admission, she has no idea how many drug couriers, terrorists, people traffickers or gangsters got through.

A pilot is where we trial a new activity and assess it against the conventional approach, but the Home Secretary did it everywhere. She told us that a risk-based assessment was used, but we know that staff were advised that the measures were to deal with summer pressures. Far from being a pilot, it was a sleight of hand. She wants us to believe that the first she knew of the problem was last Thursday, but there is an operations log that is reported to the Home Office weekly. From July until September, when she authorised a further extension, she had weeks of information at her disposal. Why did she not look at it?

The Home Secretary came to the House on Monday and attempted to deflect the blame for the fiasco on to Mr Brodie Clark. That is a smokescreen designed to blind us to her negligent and inept behaviour. She is responsible for our borders and the security of the British people. As I put to her then, her colleague the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) dispatched Charles Clarke, the former Home Secretary, on the basis that he was culpable for putting the security of the British public at risk. Sadly, I had to accept that the right hon. Gentleman was right; and, for exactly the same reason, his words are right today. Not only has this Home Secretary failed to protect our borders; she has sought to deflect blame, dump on others and throw a smokescreen over Parliament, rather than admitting that she is guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.

I of all people understand the efforts of Government Whips and the pressure that will be brought to bear on Tory Back Benchers today to speak up for the Home Secretary. I understand the sense of personal loyalty that some will feel, just as I felt it to Charles Clarke. However, if the Home Secretary cannot be relied on to protect our borders, if she cannot be relied on to give a straightforward account to Parliament and the Home Affairs Committee, if her instinct is to blame others when she is caught red handed, and if she puts fear of queues above fear of terrorists, then she is no longer fit for this great office and she should go now with dignity. She can make a clean break today and agree to make available all the information requested in the motion, or we can prise the details out a bit at a time. I doubt that it will save her. I call on her to do the decent thing. This House is good at persuading people to do the right thing. She should do it now.

16:04

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

Since coming to office, the Government have initiated a series of reforms to try to get a grip on the chaos they inherited, such as the cap on non-EU migration, the crackdown on abuses of the student visa system, the accreditation for colleges and the focus on the family route. However, we need to be clear about the size of the task we face after 13 years of open-door immigration, because under the previous Government, as much as Labour Members huff and puff, net migration was more than 2 million.

[Mr Watts]

That is not the issue!

[Mr Raab]

It is the issue, and we will come to why.

The lack of control under the previous Government was illustrated by periodic catastrophes. They could be dismissed as one-offs—I am sure that that is the intention of Labour Members—but this Government inherited serial, systematic failings that they must clean up. Under the previous Government, the Home Office ignored warnings that visa claims were being backed by forged documents; 1,000 foreign prisoners were released and not considered for deportation; illegal immigrants were cleaning the Home Office; and 12 illegal workers were given security jobs in the Metropolitan police, one of whom guarded the site where the Prime Minister’s car was parked.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will not give way, because of the time.

We know from Brodie Clark that the relaxation of current checks dates back to 2008. One obvious question is whether the former Home Secretary—the former right hon. Member for Redditch—knew about or authorised the relaxation at that time. That is the institutional context and the legacy that the Government inherited.

I welcomed the Home Secretary’s statement on Monday. One thing remains clear: we still have a long way to go to repair the inherited fractures in our border controls. The big picture, however, is that the Government are dealing with the operational strains that result from the strategic error of one Labour Home Secretary, who said that he could see no obvious upper limit on net migration to this country, being compounded by another who confessed that the UKBA was not fit for purpose but failed to clean up the mess. There are unanswered questions and we need to get to the bottom of each one—that is why three reviews are in place—but we need right answers, not rushed ones.

The motion is so patently a fishing expedition to find something—anything—that might cause political embarrassment. It has little to do with sound public policy; it is all about cheap politics. The net is cast so widely as to be deeply irresponsible on security and the burden on officials, who are working hard to rectify the mistakes that have been made. To demand the publication of every item of official advice and every record of exchange would have a chilling effect on the candour and flow of advice to Ministers. The risk is more of the informal advice and sofa government that we had under the previous Government.

Opposition Members cannot on the one hand cry that Ministers are exposing officials to the harsh glare of media limelight and on the other ask for every official utterance immediately to be released to the public. Things might be different if the shadow Home Secretary were asking specific, focused questions, but she is not. It is irresponsible to ask officials to drain the swamp in search of vignettes for Labour party press releases.

Frankly, the motion trivialises an important debate and the serious scrutiny that the House should exert. All hon. Members should be seriously concerned about the recent failings at the UKBA, but no hon. Member who is concerned could credibly vote for the motion.

16:08

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) is right that many questions remain unanswered. That is why it was good to have the Home Secretary before the Select Committee on Home Affairs yesterday to answer questions for more than an hour on this important issue.

It is right that we should have this debate today. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have described it as an ill-tempered debate, but I have been a Member of the House for 24 years, and no debate on immigration is not noisy, because these are controversial matters. It is right that the House should look at what the Home Secretary has done. Yesterday, she took absolute ownership of the pilot scheme and made it very clear to members of the Committee that anything beyond that was the responsibility of Brodie Clark.

In the few minutes I have available, I should like to update the House on what the Committee will do in respect of the inquiry. Of course, there will be an independent inquiry set up by the Home Secretary and led by John Vine. The Committee rates John Vine, who has done a terrific amount of good work. In a sense, we wonder what would have happened had he not turned up last week at that terminal in London to find out what was going on. We would certainly not be having this debate today. The fact that he is conducting the inquiry is therefore welcome. I am not absolutely certain that there is a need for two other internal inquiries, but I will go along with the Home Secretary on that. If she feels that they will be useful, let us hear what they have to say.

On Tuesday, the Select Committee will hear from Brodie Clark. I am extremely grateful to him for responding so readily to our invitation to come and speak to us. He has made it clear that he will not make any statements outside the Select Committee hearing or give any newspaper interviews until he has had the opportunity to answer questions from members of the Committee. As what he said yesterday was basically in direct contradiction of what the Home Secretary said, it is important that we hear the views of all sides before coming to a conclusion. We have also asked Rob Whiteman, the new chief executive of the UKBA, to give evidence to the Committee, and when the Immigration Minister gets back to the Home Office, he will see a letter from me inviting him to give evidence to the Committee as well. It is important that he should have an opportunity to tell us what was happening on a day-to-day basis.

The Select Committee has a long record, under successive Governments, of producing reports on the UK Border Agency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) will remember that we also criticised the agency’s operation when he was Home Secretary. The key thing is that, when recommendations are made, they should be implemented. That is why I was heartened to hear what the Home Secretary said about the need for the UKBA to change. This has been a crisis, and it will not be resolved until we have all the answers, but she should use it as an opportunity to look at the organisation. It has been fundamentally flawed for a number of years. I do not go back to the crucifixion, as some hon. Members have done; I go back only to 1987. The agency has been flawed since the day I entered Parliament and discovered, during my very first campaign, that there were bags and bags of unopened mail. It is very important to see what is happening today in that context, and to ensure that we make the necessary changes. All that we ask in the Select Committee is that our witnesses are open and transparent, and that they give us the answers so that we can prepare a good, timely report for the House.

16:12

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

I have been a Member of this House for 17 years—five years in opposition, 12 years in government—and I have been privileged to be a Minister in various Departments. Which was the most toxic Department? The Home Office, for the reasons that have already been given by former Home Secretaries and former Home Office Ministers. I am an ex-Minister in the Home Office, and it beggars belief that the Immigration Minister did not follow this matter through in the way we would expect. There has been a major change to a flagship policy. Immigration and counter-terrorism have been strong policies that, as the Prime Minister has often said, are at the heart of the Government’s response. They have been flagship policies because we need to keep our borders safe and secure, but it has been accepted that there has been a change of policy in the guidance. We have now been told by the Home Secretary that Ministers did not see what was happening. I cannot believe that, but the Immigration Minister will have an opportunity to respond and tell us exactly what did go on—or will he?

I have been around here for 17 years, as I said, and I spent three of those in the Whips Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) will also recognise the Whips’ operation in action. Most of the Conservative Back Benchers who have spoken today have not talked about the issue concerning the Home Secretary; they have talked about immigration policy and the differences between us in that regard. That is their fault, in the sense that they turned immigration into an election issue. They said that they would reduce the amount of immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament, but that is not going to happen, because the Government are hitting the problems that all Governments face because of the complexity of the issues. None the less, we will have debates on immigration and on who was at fault.

This is also about the role of the Home Secretary in dealing with members of staff. It was appalling that she attacked Mr Brodie Clark in the way that she did on Monday. People should be given the opportunity to make their case. It is right that we have the inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee and the other inquiries, but the questions that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary asked need to be answered. The answers need to be in the public domain, because it is grossly unfair for somebody to be criticised and castigated as Mr Clark was without having the opportunity to reply. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, said, Mr Clark will have his day in court; and he will win, because what the Home Secretary did was constructive dismissal.

The debate will end with Government Back Benchers being loyal and the Government carrying the day. The good news for the British public is that the affair will not end today; it will continue. The truth will out. It is never good to see Ministers having to resign after holding on to power for as long as they can, as the Defence Secretary did recently. The Home Secretary should do the honourable thing and resign. The security and safety of our borders is paramount for Government.

16:15

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

It is always far easier to find a scapegoat than it is to find a solution, and we have heard some scapegoating this afternoon. We have heard scapegoating of individuals in the Home Office and we have heard scapegoating of the past. Even the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), normally such a seraph of sweetness and light in the Chamber, tried to introduce the suggestion that the previous Administration had an amnesty for asylum seekers. Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that at the last election only one party stood in favour of a “keep your head down and everything will be all right” amnesty: the Liberal Democrats, with the mendacious mush of pusillanimity that ended with them swallowing their principles and their pride and selling their souls to the Conservatives.

It is no good scapegoating the Home Office as some evil organism that takes the good and the innocent, and corrupts, kills and throws them out again, like the reactor room of K-19—the infamous Russian nuclear submarine from which no one ever emerged alive. That is not the situation.

We have an intensely difficult problem, dealing with human beings prepared to risk their lives, and in many cases to lose their lives, to come to this country. Any amount of legislation or fine theory comes up against the fact that some young lad from Afghanistan will hang on under a lorry, even though he has a 60% chance of dying, to come to this country.

We are dealing with people for whom the situation is in that order of seriousness, so we should grow up and stop going for the stupid false nostrum that we can pull a wall around this country, even around the forgotten frontier that stretches from Foyle through Belfast lough to Strangford. We cannot build a wall around the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I appreciate that some may wish to do so, but it is not physically possible.

This summer, Raed Salah, a man banned from this country by the Home Secretary, wandered in through customs with a cheery wave and a tip of his hat—I was going to say that he stopped off at the duty-free, but he probably did not. The current structure is indefensible. How on earth can we possibly justify it?

I end with one positive thought. I speak not for my party on this; in fact, I think I may have more in common with the Home Secretary. Is it not time for us to revisit one of the sanest, most sensible, positive and productive proposals ever heard on the Floor of the House? Identity cards. Is it not time that we looked again at those proposals? Otherwise, we shall never know how many people entered the country this summer until they either rock up in MPs’ surgeries, claiming that their overstay should be regularised, or appear in court. When they are asked how they came into the country, they will reply that it was during those sweet balmy days of summer when people could wander in and nobody said a word. The way to find out is to be like my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who carries his ID card in his wallet to this day. As does he, so should the nation.

16:19

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

There have been many striking things this afternoon. The most striking one at the beginning was how few members of the Cabinet came to offer their support to the Home Secretary. I have been in this Chamber on many occasions when people have called for a resignation. I have nearly always on those previous occasions seen at least half the Cabinet present. I presume that she does not have much longer, in light of the support from her colleagues.

There have been a great many contributions. I think I am correct in saying that we have heard from three members of the Home Affairs Committee—the hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), although I know she is unable to join us now, and, of course, the much-respected Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). We have also heard from a former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).

We heard, too, from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I must say that when he said he thought the Labour party should have taken a humility pill, I thought that was—well, talk about “pot” “kettle” “yellow”! The Liberal Democrats should be swallowing a humility pill in respect of a whole load of things at the moment—but I think we will leave that to the electorate.

Other contributors were my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael); my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound); the hon. Members for Stourbridge (Margot James), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab); and the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips).

All spoke and made interesting contributions, but what have we learned today? First of all, we have learned that the Home Secretary experimented with lowering our border controls—and unlike the Home Secretary, who made up her contribution, I am not making this up—in the year before the Olympics. She chose to experiment with border controls in the year before the Olympics!

Secondly, we learned that the Home Secretary did not even know what she agreed to in the first place. We saw that classically on Monday afternoon, when Members asked whether the experiment applied to Manchester airport, to Glasgow or to Belfast, and she did not know. She did not have the faintest idea; she was completely clueless. She still does not know today how, where or when her experiment with our border controls was applied. Even after days and days of this issue being the main one in the media, she has not chosen to brief herself to find out how it was applied.

The one member of the Cabinet who was here to provide his paltry support was the Secretary of State for Education. [Interruption.] Oh, sorry—I forgot about the Secretary of State for Wales, because we always do. We have heard that this was a pilot, but I would have thought that a pilot would be introduced in just one airport to see how it worked out, not become an experiment in changing the whole policy on our border controls across every single airport and port of entry into this country. This was no pilot; it was a change of policy.

We have also learned that the Home Secretary extended the experiment for a couple of extra months without even getting a view from the front line on how it was operating. It was only because John Vine happened to go along to Heathrow that we were able to find out exactly what was happening. [Interruption.] The Minister for Immigration says that Ministers cannot be expected to do inspections, yet we heard from the hon. Member for Dover that at least he has been able to go and visit. [Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Gentleman went, but the Minister did not bother.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman; he has already spoken.

We also learned today that data do exist. The Home Secretary admitted that for the first time this afternoon, but she is refusing to publish them. [Interruption.] She is looking confused again; of course she is, because she has not bothered to burrow down into the detail. We want her to publish the data as soon as possible. She also admitted that the interim operational instruction, which we have referred to over the last couple of days, represents Government policy and that it does not stretch Government policy at all.

We have learned today, too, that the Prime Minister and several hon. Members who have been given Government Whips’ handouts think that this policy was a good idea. Well, if it was a good idea, are they going to do it again next year? I suspect not because they know it was not a good idea in the first place. What have we seen in this country?

[Stephen Phillips]

The pilot caught an extra 10% of illegal immigrants who were trying to enter the country, so why was it not a good idea?

[Chris Bryant]

It is interesting, is it not, that the only pieces of data that Government Members can come up with are the pieces of data that they think will help their argument. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants the House to have data, let him publish the whole set of data, so that we can know exactly how successful or unsuccessful the operation was. He may wish to present a private Member’s Bill next year, in which case I look forward to seeing how many Government Members support him.

What have we seen in the country, though? One person from the neighbouring constituency of Cynon Valley contacted me, having arrived at Heathrow in the summer. He said that

“all those with biometric passports were called up and just waved through”.

That is precisely the opposite of what Ministers have been saying. I also have a piece of paper from the chief operating officer at Heathrow, who writes:

“Within the passenger environment the highest risk currently at Heathrow is the onset of the student season, which brings with it large numbers of people”.

She goes on to explain how she and her colleagues will be dealing with that. It is, of course, one of the main issues with which the Minister for Immigration is meant to be dealing. The chief operation officer writes:

“We have a number of ways of mitigating that risk, and these are now in place: use of Level 2 measures”—

in other words, the lighter touch—

“with the opportunity to use additional measures where required”.

That flies directly in the face of everything that the Home Secretary has been saying, and everything that the Minister has been saying.

We also know that some operations were suspended which the Home Secretary says were not. On Monday afternoon, she said:

“First, biometric checks on EEA nationals and warnings index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without ministerial approval.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 45.]

That is her basic defence. Yet the very document that she says reflects her policy states:

“We will cease…Routinely checking all EEA nationals under 18 years against the Warnings index”.

Those children’s passports were not swiped. The warnings index was not involved. That is directly contrary to what the Home Secretary said on Monday.

As for the Immigration Minister, who has been notable by his absence over the last few days, I think the whole House would agree that he is a nice man. I myself would argue that he is nicer than his politics. However, the fact remains that he has been completely absent. I should have thought that an interventionist Minister— [Interruption.] Will he calm down? I should have thought that an interventionist Minister who wanted to introduce a new policy on border controls and had organised an experiment would be ringing up members of staff at Heathrow, Gatwick and Calais to find out exactly what was happening. In my view, the Minister has been so hands-off that much of this problem is directly his fault.

I note that this afternoon, when the Prime Minister’s spokesman was asked on eight separate occasions whether any Minister other than the Home Secretary had sanctioned the extension to further areas, the spokesman expressly chose not to answer the question. I suspect that that is because it was the Immigration Minister himself who gave a further sanction to the extension of the regime.

Government Members would love to talk about anything other than the fact that what has happened is due to two decisions that were made on their watch: the decision to cut the number of staff in the border force by 886 this year and by 1,552 by the time of the next general election, and the decision to suspend some border controls throughout the summer. This was not a pilot; it was a change of policy. It has blown up in the Home Secretary’s face, and she simply has not the decency to own up.

All that my constituents want to know is this: did anyone dangerous or criminal enter the country this summer at a port or airport near them? Sadly, we will not know the answer unless the Government do what our motion calls on them to do and publish the facts in black and white.

16:30

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

This is a serious subject, which deserves serious contributions. Sadly, the shadow Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), has just characteristically walked the line between opportunism and hypocrisy, as he so often does, believing apparently—[Interruption.] He apparently believes—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sure the Minister was not making any personal comment as to integrity or behaviour, but he might wish to rephrase his remarks.

[Damian Green]

rose—

[Hon. Members]

Withdraw.

[Damian Green]

No. I chose my words very carefully, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have no intention of withdrawing them because they are the truth. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not need to shout to say the truth. It is a shame that he adopted the attitude that he did, because this is a very serious issue, but it is not surprising given some of the other contributions from Opposition Members, which, unfortunately, attempted to blame the fall of the Berlin wall, my noble Friend Lord Howard and the late Lord Whitelaw for problems in the current immigration system, not recognising for a second how much their Government weakened border controls. We heard no recognition of how their Government allowed warnings index checks to be suspended on EEA children and adults, no recognition of how their Government threw open the border at Heathrow, and no recognition of their uncontrolled immigration policy that allowed net migration to this country of 2.2 million. There is only one phrase the British people need to hear from the Labour party on immigration, and that is, “Sorry—sorry we left such a mess.”

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out in detail once again for the House the exact nature of the pilot that she and I authorised to target investigative resources on intelligence-led checks. The shadow Immigration Minister said he assumed that I had authorised the unauthorised extensions. I am happy to be able to assure him and the House that I did not. Under the pilot, instead of always checking children travelling with their parents and in school groups against the warnings index of terrorists and serious criminals, and instead of always checking European nationals’ second photographs in the chip inside their passport, in limited and specific circumstances border force officers would have been able to use intelligence and operational judgment to decide which children to check against the warnings index and on which adults to open the second paragraph.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary talked about risks. I have been in correspondence with the Minister and the Home Secretary, and we disagree about the internal port at Stranraer and Cairnryan. Following the withdrawing of UKBA funding there, people arrive—[Hon. Members: “Speech!”] People arrive there, they are illegal and they are identified by the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. Arrangements are then made with—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. If Members rise to intervene, they should make an intervention, not deliver a short lecture. I call the Minister.

[Damian Green]

I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels about the Larne and Stranraer issue, but it is not an international port. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom; boats that come from Northern Ireland to Scotland are not crossing an international boundary. That is a fact that the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise.

The pilot was designed to improve security at our ports and to strengthen our border. Several Opposition Members said they believed that it was not being monitored and that no information was being passed to the Home Secretary or me during the course of the pilot, but of course that was not the case. We were getting regular information from management about what was happening, and it was telling us that there was a 10% increase in the detection of illegal immigrants, a 48% increase in fraudulent documents detected, and that cocaine seizures and illegal firearms seizures were up.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Damian Green]

Before I give way to the right hon. Lady, will she answer the following question? If the figures for the pilot had gone the other way—if detections were down, the number of fraudulent documents detected were down, and drug seizures were down—would she not be calling for a debate to argue that the pilot was a failure? Why is she calling a debate now when, as far as we can see, this pilot was a success?

[Yvette Cooper]

If the hon. Gentleman’s pilot was such a success, he will need to explain why he has now suspended it. There is an important question that the Home Secretary ducked earlier about the management data that were available—I refer to the information about how many times the checks were downgraded to level 2. How many times did that take place over the summer? Has the Minister seen that information? If so, will he publish it? We know that the information exists.

[Damian Green]

That is precisely the information that the various investigations are looking at, but what the right hon. Lady has to recognise is that, without the authorisation of Ministers, senior UK border officials are alleged to have ordered the regular relaxation of border checks. They also went beyond the pilot that Ministers had agreed. Biometric checks on European economic area nationals and warnings index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without approval, and adults were not checked against the warnings index at Calais, without approval.

What the pilot was designed to do—I hope that there will be some consensus on this across the House—was to have a risk-based approach. I say that there should be some consensus, because having a proper risk-based approach to immigration control has been the basis of our policy on both immigration and wider security since 9/11. I was grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on that point. It is obviously sensible to concentrate our effort and resources in those areas where they are likely to have most effect on making our borders safe. I cannot believe that there is a Member in any part of this House who disagrees with that. That is what we approved.

On the point about queues which was raised by several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), there is of course permanent pressure for shorter queues; there is pressure from Members of this House. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that whenever I come back in the autumn—I suspect this was the case for any previous Immigration Minister—I hear tales of woe about queues at Heathrow, but it is absolutely the first responsibility of the Home Office to make sure that we do not compromise security. That is what this pilot—that is what a risk-based approach—is designed to do.

What happened that went beyond authority was that the verification of the fingerprints of non-EEA nationals from countries that require a visa was stopped on regular occasions, without approval.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.

Let me quote what Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of the UKBA, said:

“Brodie Clark admitted to me on 2 November that on a number of occasions this year he authorised his staff to go further than Ministerial instruction. I therefore suspended him from his duties. In my opinion it was right for officials to have recommended the pilot so that we focus attention on higher risks to our border, but it is unacceptable that one of my senior officials went further than was approved.”

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Damian Green]

Do sit down; you have not been in the debate.

If Brodie Clark had not admitted that to his immediate superior, he would not have been suspended. That is why he was suspended.

Let me turn to some of the points raised by hon. Members. The serious point that the shadow Home Secretary made was about staffing cuts, so let me quote for her from the UKBA business plan produced at the end of the previous Government’s term in office. This was her Government’s policy, and it says:

“Our workforce projections indicate that there will no longer be a business need for the same number of staff in certain locations by the end of March 2011…within Border Force it is imperative that frontline services are maintained but changes to the way we work mean that this will be achievable with targeted reduction across the grade range.”

In other words, the previous Government were planning to reorder the way the border force works so that it could be effective with fewer people. That is why I said that the hon. Member for Rhondda was walking the line between opportunism and hypocrisy—I was not referring to him personally at all.

Indeed, my predecessor, Phil Woolas, said:

“Providing more flexibility and powers for the deployment of officers in tackling those threats at the border will enhance border security and therefore the protection of our country.”––[Official Report, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2009; c. 5.]

That is what Labour’s last Immigration Minister said, and I agree with him. It is pretty disgraceful that his successors are now attempting to say that it is somehow improper to follow that example.

For many years, the UKBA has needed to be reformed. We have reversed Labour’s open-door immigration policy; we have capped economic migration; we have clamped down on student visas; we have restricted family migration; and we are breaking the link between temporary migration and permanent settlement.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I will give way once, to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful. The one thing that neither of the Ministers has revealed today is what will be published at the end of these inquiries. On Monday afternoon, the Secretary of State changed her original date for producing the inquiries—by January—to the end of January. What exactly are the Government going to publish? Will they publish all the important decisions—obviously, with the redactions that were referred to earlier—so that we can see in black and white precisely what they sanctioned?

[Damian Green]

Obviously, all the relevant papers will go to the inquiries, and it is for John Vine, who is an independent inspector, to decide what he should publish. That seems to me the sensible way to do it. If there is an independent inspector holding an independent inquiry, it is not for me to tell him what to do.

For the first time in 15 years, we have a Government who are willing and able to deliver a controlled immigration system. Because of the shambles we inherited, it will take longer than I, this House or the British people would want, but we will improve the UKBA, we are bringing immigration under control and, unlike the Labour party, we will continue to take immigration as seriously as the British people do. This is a shameful motion promoted by a shameless party, and I urge the House to reject it.

Question put.

16:41

Division 393

Ayes: 247

---

Labour: 230
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Scottish National Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Independent: 1

Noes: 300

---

Conservative: 254
Liberal Democrat: 44

Youth Unemployment

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

16:54

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the Government’s policies of cutting spending and raising taxes too far and too fast have resulted in the UK economy flat-lining for 12 months, well before the recent Eurozone crisis; notes that unemployment has reached a 17-year high and youth unemployment has hit a record level of 991,000; further notes that slower growth and higher unemployment makes it harder to get the deficit down and that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts £46 billion more borrowing than the Government planned; further believes that with long-term youth unemployment up by 64 per cent. since January 2011 it was a mistake to abolish the Future Jobs Fund and urgent action is now required to stop a generation of young people being lost to worklessness; agrees with the IMF’s warning that ‘consolidating too quickly will hurt the recovery and worsen job prospects’ and that the Government should have ‘a heightened readiness to respond, particularly if it looks like the economy is headed for a prolonged period of weak growth and high unemployment’; and calls on the Government to adopt the Opposition’s five point plan for jobs which includes using funds raised from a tax on bank bonuses to guarantee a job for 100,000 young people and build 25,000 affordable homes, bringing forward long-term investment projects, temporarily reversing January’s VAT rise, a one-year cut in VAT to five per cent. on home improvements and a one-year national insurance tax break for every small firm which takes on extra workers.

I am glad to have the opportunity to open this Opposition day debate on youth unemployment, but sad not to see the Secretary of State in his place on the Treasury Bench. This is the second such debate we have had on youth unemployment, and it is the second such debate in which the Secretary of State has not been in the Chamber to present the Government’s argument. I am glad we have the opportunity to debate the motion today because next week we will see figures that could show youth unemployment has risen above 1 million, but I hope that it will come down. Today we have a chance to force the Government to come to the House to explain their complete failure to address the crisis now unfolding in almost every community in this country: the crisis of youth unemployment and the re-emergence of scars that we thought had gone from communities, never to return.

When we debated this issue in February, we heard some pretty complacent arguments from Treasury Front Benchers. Indeed, we had the spectacle of a Minister trying to blame the rise in youth unemployment unfolding on his watch on what happened five years ago. I hope we do not have that spectacle again this afternoon, because it is about time that the Government had the guts to take responsibility for their decisions.

In the past few weeks, the chorus of voices raising the alarm about youth unemployment has grown loud and wide. Yesterday, the Trades Union Congress confirmed that youth unemployment has now risen in 97% of communities. Last Friday, the Work Foundation urged Ministers to take urgent action to help the lost generation or risk a crisis in Britain’s communities. Last week, the CBI said:

“youth unemployment presents a specific and urgent challenge.”

Last month, the chief executive of the Prince’s Trust said that the number of unemployed young people is now twice the size of the population of Manchester and:

“If we fail to tackle youth unemployment now, we risk losing this talent forever which would be a tragedy.”

My constituency has the highest level of youth unemployment in the country, and throughout the summer residents have been telling me that we have got to do more to help our young people—people like Deborah Gillespie from Shard End who said:

“I’ve been looking since June for a job for my 16 year old. No jobs for him! He is a hard-worker. No-one will give him a chance.”

One of her neighbours has said:

“As I am an older person, I must say I do feel sorry for out-of-work youth. My own 24-year-old is out on the dole. They lose what little self-respect they once had.”

When I asked what young people needed, my constituents’ answer was pretty straightforward: work and to help them feel worthy. I know that what my constituents have been saying to me will have been echoed in constituencies around the country.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why youth unemployment increased by hundreds of thousands when the previous Government were in office?

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman will know that I am familiar with his constituency because it is where I grew up. What his constituents want to know is what this Government are doing about the rise in long-term youth unemployment in his constituency. I hope that he will use the opportunity of this debate to press his Front Benchers to do more for some of the young people like the people I grew up with in his constituency.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way—[Interruption.] He is now a shadow Minister and will probably never be a Minister again—[Hon. Members: “ Oooh!”] Well, I talk to my electorate and that is what they are telling me. Although the right hon. Gentleman is right that we must do more about youth unemployment, the fact is that it was under his Government, from 2000 onwards, that the trend started to rise, and it was under his Government that the gap between the top 10 and bottom 10 performing schools, one of which I was teaching at for a number of years, increased. This is not something that can be laid at the door of any particular Government; it has been happening for a considerable time.

[Mr Byrne]

What the hon. Gentleman’s constituents want to know is what the Government are going to do about the crisis of youth unemployment unfolding in constituencies—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. For goodness’ sake, I am losing my voice. Mr Browne, you will not stand at the Bar and shout across the Chamber. Thank you.

[Mr Byrne]

What the hon. Gentleman’s constituents want to know is what this Government are doing for unemployed people in his constituency now. He might like to live in the past; his constituents want to know what he is doing for them today.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

One of the things this Government can do, and are doing, is to provide more apprenticeship places. Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome, as I do, the 70% rise in apprenticeship places in Crawley that has just been announced?

[Mr Byrne]

That is such an important point that we will dwell on it at length shortly.

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

Will my right hon. Friend please ignore Government Members? They are in denial about what is happening to young people in this country. Young people are always the ones to suffer most in a recession. Does he agree that outside some parts of London and the south-east, we are in recession? We are in recession in Huddersfield and in his constituency, and we have to do something about it, but the Government are doing nothing.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Under the Labour Administration, youth unemployment was 300,000 lower on average than under this Government today, even while the economy is supposed to be in recovery.

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

I recall writing a letter to my local newspaper in November 2009 berating the then Labour Government, whom the right hon. Gentleman served, for a 59% rise in the latest unemployment figures. Although he does not want to talk about history, does he accept that context is very important and that his own Government had a lot to answer for in relation to youth unemployment?

[Mr Byrne]

Let me remind the hon. Lady that under the previous Government, even at a time of recession, youth unemployment and long-term youth unemployment were coming down. That is because in the face of a crisis we chose to act. The question that she has to answer—

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I might finish responding to the hon. Lady first.

The question that the hon. Lady has to answer for her constituents is why under Labour, even in recession, youth unemployment was coming down by 38%, and now, over the course of this year, long-term unemployment is up by 68%—on her Government’s watch. What is she going to say to those on the Treasury Bench about what further action they must take?

[Mr Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman tells us how well the previous, Labour Government did on youth unemployment, but that is not how the figures look to me. From 2004, youth unemployment was rising, and when the Labour Government left office it was higher than when they took office in 1997. How does he work that one out?

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman is an astute observer of current affairs, and he will have noticed that the worst international financial recession was under way—

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

Let me just answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. He will know that the worst global recession since the 1920s was under way, yet despite that, before the election, youth unemployment was coming down. He must answer this question: how is it that this Government are doing so well, when since the beginning of this year long-term youth unemployment has risen by 68%? Hundreds of constituencies around the country have seen long-term youth unemployment double. If he has the right plan, can he explain exactly what is going so well?

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

As we know, the scar of unemployment on young people lasts through their lifetime; it has a tremendously negative impact. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is getting the tone of this debate correct. In truth, in the years of economic boom on his watch, youth unemployment stayed resolutely high before peaking and rising following the crisis. We need to look at what we can do better to understand the youth employment market. He must at least acknowledge the steps that this Government are taking on training and apprenticeships. It may not be enough, but let us not use this as a party political football; let us try to be constructive.

[Mr Byrne]

I am grateful, at last, for a consensual note. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends might laugh, but the fact that long-term youth unemployment in his constituency is up by 48% this year is not a laughing matter. This debate is an opportunity for us to interrogate this Government on what they are doing to get youth unemployment down and how, ahead of the autumn statement, they should negotiate with the Chancellor for more resources to get our young people back to work.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost one in seven young people in Rotherham are looking for work and out of a job? It is one of the 10 worst-hit areas since this Government came to office. The question that people are asking is how much worse this waste of talent has to get before the Government are shaken out of their complacency, accept that what they are doing is not working and change course.

[Mr Byrne]

My right hon. Friend has experience of this matter at the sharp end. Long-term youth unemployment in his constituency is up by 78% this year. I know what a difference programmes such as the future jobs fund made in his constituency. That is why it is such a tragedy that before the evaluation was in, this Government chose to cancel the project. That is why this debate is so important.

The Opposition do not believe in half measures when it comes to getting young people into work. At the end of the recession, youth unemployment was down by 38%. A year and a half into the recovery, youth unemployment is up. This year, long-term youth unemployment is up by 64%. When we were confronted by the great increase in youth unemployment, we did not stand idle but did something about it. The future jobs fund worked because it helped to create 100,000 opportunities for young people all over the country. When we met to debate this matter in February, the jury was still out on the results. We now have the Department’s own evaluation and the judgment is categorical:

“for many participants their reported experiences had been to such a high standard, that they could not think of any improvements to the scheme.”

The Government cancelled it anyway.

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

In my constituency, unemployment among 20 to 24 year olds is now at nearly a quarter. Members across the House should be alert to the cohort challenge, because a whole cohort of graduates is being hit hard. The unemployment rate for new graduates in the third quarter of 2010, according to the Office for National Statistics, was 20%. One in five recent graduates who are economically active and looking for work is unable to find it. That is almost double the rate from the start of the recession, which was 10.6%.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which echoes that made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). We know that if people are out of work when they are young, they are more likely to be low paid in the course of their career, more likely to suffer ill health and more likely to be unemployed again. That is why the Prince’s Trust and others are right to focus their attention on the crisis of youth unemployment that is unfolding in our country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Not only is there the spectre of unemployment and the prospect of no jobs, but many of the young people who are not in education, employment or training are under medical supervision. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that almost 30% of the young people who are unemployed are facing depression and are suicidal? Does he feel that we have to address that issue along with unemployment?

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valuable point, which I hope he will develop in the course of the debate.

When this Government were first in office, at a time when the economy was fragile, when the recovery was in its first stages, when they were launching the biggest programme of Government cuts for many years, and when there was a risk of rising unemployment, as was made obvious by the Office for Budget Responsibility, they chose, at huge expense, to take out the key back-to-work programmes that we had in place, which were keeping unemployment down. That will stand as one of the worst judgments made by this Administration.

I know that the Government will in a moment protest that they are taking action. The Secretary of State, who is not here today, reeled off a list of programmes at Question Time last month, when he said that there are

“work clubs, work experience, apprenticeship offers, sector-based work academies, the innovation fund, European social fund support,”—

it is nice to see the Secretary of State supporting Europe on something—

“the skills offer, the access to apprenticeships programme, Work Together, the Work programme, Work Choice, mandatory work activity and Jobcentre Plus.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 4.]

It is not clear how Jobcentre Plus is an innovation of this Government, but none the less it earned a place in his list.

The only problem is that none of these programmes is making a blind bit of difference, so let us take some of the key measures one by one. I want to start with the flagship package of measures launched last May. So important was it, so pregnant with opportunity, so sure was it to make a difference, that the Deputy Prime Minister himself was allowed to put out the press release. Those measures came replete with a total budget of £60 million over three years—a grand total of £20 for every unemployed young person. Or we could look at it as 5p a day to help—

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

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

I shall give way in a moment, because I would like some questions answered.

That is 5p a day to help workless young people. In total, the scheme costs less than the Department spends on stationery—what an insult! Will the Minister tell us how many people the Government have got back into work? Just give us the number.

[Chris Grayling]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify that the measures announced in May were for 16 to 18-year-olds? He is misrepresenting the statistics. Will he also acknowledge to the House that his Government provided no support to 16 to 18-year-olds?

[Mr Byrne]

This is the Minister whom the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority once wrote to about his casual use of statistics, so I shall take no lessons from him about statistics traded across the Dispatch Box.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman advise me on the future jobs fund, which he heralds as a great creator of opportunities? Owing to EU rules on wage subsidy claims, posts offered had to be newly created; they could not be normal vacancies. How many young people got real, permanent jobs out of the future jobs fund?

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Lady need only look at the statistics, including those for her area. This year, long-term youth unemployment has risen by one third in Solihull. The future jobs fund was helping to bring youth unemployment down. To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), we have to help young people stay close to the labour market because if we let them drift into long-term unemployment, they have a bigger chance of being unemployed in the future, of being low paid and of drifting into ill health. That is why the right decision for her constituents, as well as mine, is not to do nothing, but to act.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question from my colleague, the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). We are fooling ourselves, if we think that this problem is simply to do with this Government or the previous one. This is a long-term, growing problem of youth unemployment. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) is looking for the statistics for my constituency. I can tell him: it is up 24%. As we look for solutions and as economies across Europe are being destroyed because of their excessive debt, my question is: what can we do that does not incur additional debt for the Government? Will he support our schools reforms? Will he support our efforts on apprenticeships? Will he support the reductions in taxation and regulation on small businesses indicated by the Government?

[Mr Byrne]

Long-term youth unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is up this year by 133%. That is a serious increase. I am happy to share with him the figures produced for us yesterday by the House of Commons Library. Those statistics speak to one key point: we need action to get youth unemployment down, and we need it now.

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

In my constituency, the figure is 36% year on year. I was delighted to read in The Times today the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman just referred on long-term youth unemployment. I made the point of getting the figures from the House of Commons Library, so that I could see what the figure was in my seat. Is he aware that in 235 constituencies, youth unemployment, by the measure that he requested, has fallen since May 2010, and that in a further 41 constituencies, it has remained static?

[Mr Byrne]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman the figures in his constituency. Long-term youth unemployment in his constituency has risen by 233%, and that is an extraordinary increase, but surely he will agree with the judgment of the TUC, the CBI and the Prince’s Trust that now is the time for urgent action to get young people back to work, including young people in his constituency.

[Paul Maynard]

As the right hon. Gentleman has again mentioned my constituency, I note that according to the Library the unemployment figures rose from 75 in May 2010 to 100 in September 2011. I represent a coastal community. Has he ever heard of seasonal unemployment?

[Mr Byrne]

The figures are seasonally adjusted, as the hon. Gentleman will know, but surely he is not saying to the House and to his constituents that he is seriously relaxed about the rise in long-term youth unemployment in his constituency. I simply do not believe that that is his position.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

I will give way to hon. Members in a moment, but first I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

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

The reality on the ground in my constituency is, I am sure, the same as that in many other parts of the west midlands and the black country. In my constituency, a store opened recently with 20 vacancies, and I wonder how many Government Members are able to tell us how many people applied for those 20 vacancies. I shall tell the House how many: 500. That is the reality: people desperate for work—and denied it by this Government.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend speaks with some passion, because he is right. We cannot tolerate any longer a situation in which long-term youth unemployment continues to rise at today’s pace.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I shall, because the rise in long-term youth unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is three times the size of the rise in mine.

[Nick de Bois]

If the right hon. Gentleman is as interested as I am in developing sustainable long-term jobs to deal with youth unemployment in particular, does he agree with and welcome rolling back the heavy hand of employment rules and legislation, including vexatious employment tribunals, and will he commit his Front Benchers to do that and even go further, so that it is easier to employ people?

[Mr Byrne]

Before I became a Member, I started a business. I know what it is like to start a business with two people around a kitchen table, to grow it, build it, take on new staff and do well, but dealing with regulation was the easy bit; selling and making a profit was the tough bit, and that is why we need urgent action to get growth back into the economy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for the last time, and then I shall turn my attention to the Government’s flagship Work programme.

[Andrew Percy]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. He is being very generous and deserves credit for that, but is he honestly saying that, on this important issue, to which he is doing a great disservice, the upward trend in youth unemployment under his Government, the increased gap between the best and worst performing schools and the increased number of young people growing up in families where nobody has ever worked are totally and utterly unrelated to youth unemployment today? If he is, he is being completely and utterly incredible.

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will want to know why he is living in the past, and what he is doing to take to his Front Benchers the argument about what more they are going to do in the autumn statement to get our young people back to work.

We have heard about the great success that is the flagship youth programme. Now let us turn to the Work programme.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Byrne]

In a moment. I shall just tell the House a little about the Work programme.

We have debated before the virtues of the Work programme, and I understand that young people can now be referred to it early. I shall put aside for one moment the Work and Pensions Committee’s conclusion that it is one third smaller than previous programmes, because the Minister has strong views about that, and I shall put aside also the Social Market Foundation’s analysis that the DWP offers providers of successful outcomes a maximum amount of money that is 25% less than the flexible new deal, because those facts are not the worst of it. The worst of it is that the Department itself expects three quarters of people to flow straight through the programme and straight back on to the dole, so I ask the House, how is that going to make a difference?

[Mr MacShane]

Do we not have to nail one lie—that there is some magic deregulation out there which solves the problem? European countries such as the Nordic countries, the Netherlands and Germany—the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) is aware of this—all have stronger regulation and active labour markets, so it is a huge lie to say that the poorer young workers are and the worse they are treated, the more jobs there will be.

[Mr Byrne]

I know that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is curious that while unemployment is going down in America, the eurozone and Japan, it is going up in this country.

[Nick de Bois]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mr Byrne]

I will give way in a moment, because I want to turn to apprenticeships, which the Minister has mentioned. Apprenticeships have sometimes been seen in this debate as the Department’s silver bullet, so let us be clear: ours was the party that rescued apprenticeships. We inherited 65,000 apprenticeships; the figure was over 260,000 when we left office. This year, 85% of new apprentices will not be young people, but people over 25. Leaked documents seen by The Guardian show that Ministers have been warned that apprenticeships are actually a re-badging of existing jobs. It turns out that about 11,000 of this year’s new places have gone to 16 to 18-year-olds. I should point out for the House that 205,000 of those aged 16 to 17 are now on the dole. If they all applied for one of those apprenticeships, they would have a 5% success rate. Getting into Oxford university is less competitive than that. Given those figures, an ally of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the Chancellor thought that apprenticeships were

“a rare piece of good news, but it’s turning out to be a con”.

The unnamed ally is right: it is a con. We have a Work programme that is all programme and no work, a youth jobs scheme that costs less than the stationery budget and an apprenticeship scheme that is harder to get into than Oxford university. No wonder overall long-term youth unemployment is going through the roof. Let us hear an answer from the Minister.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

I am very happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman all about it, but I wonder whether he will acknowledge that today there are more apprentices under 25 than the total number of apprentices when his Government left office and that the two-year growth in apprenticeships for 16 to 24-year-olds over the last two years is bigger than at any time when his party was in office.

[Mr Byrne]

Will the Minister intervene again and say whether it is more competitive to get into Oxford university or to get on one of his apprenticeships? Just tell us: which is easier?

[Mr Hayes]

I am not sure that that is particularly relevant to the question that I asked, but I will ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. His Government commissioned the Leitch report—[Interruption.] It was probably the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) who commissioned it—he was running the show in the Treasury then, or so he now pretends. What does the Leitch report say? It says that we need to upskill and reskill the work force and that apprentices are a critical way of doing that. Is the right hon. Gentleman now denying that? Has he changed his mind, or does he in fact think that we need to use apprenticeships for that purpose?

[Mr Byrne]

I want apprenticeships for young people, and it is this Government who are not delivering them. That is why, all over the country, we now see long-term youth unemployment rocketing up. Some 233 Members of this House now represent constituencies where long-term youth unemployment has risen by over 100% this year. Overall, long-term youth unemployment is up by 64% since the start of the year. All over Britain, scars that we thought were gone for ever are reappearing, and not just in Labour constituencies, but in places such as North Dorset, Aylesbury and Stevenage. Some 238 of us now speak for constituencies where, since the election, youth unemployment is up by 20%.

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

rose—

[Mr Byrne]

In a moment.

The bad news is that business is saying that it will get worse before it gets better. In October, BBC Radio 1 surveyed the business community. It found that two thirds of firms surveyed said that the situation would get worse for young workers before it got better. Half said that the Government should do more to train young workers. That is surely a sentiment that the hon. Lady will agree with.

[Dr Coffey]

I think everybody in this House shares the sentiment that it is a tragedy for any young person who wants to work not to be able to get a job, but we are trying on that. What I would like to understand from the right hon. Gentleman is this. Under the last Government, people who were unemployed for 12 months were moved on to a training programme. That meant that they moved out of the unemployment figures, but they went back if they were not successful in securing a job. This is an opportunity for a genuine debate about the future of our country, but I am afraid that some of the—how can I put it—casual use of certain statistics is not helping us to achieve that.

[Mr Byrne]

Is the hon. Lady seriously denying that a crisis in youth unemployment is unfolding now? [Interruption.] I am glad that she says from a sedentary position that she agrees that there is a crisis, because the question now is what we do about it. That is the answer we want from the Government.

Before I set out what the Opposition believe is the right next step, let us remind ourselves who is paying the bill for this failure. Since the Government came to office, the benefits bill alone is projected to rise by more than £12 billion, which is £500 for every house in this country. To pay that bill for the new workless, the Government are having to squeeze working people through cuts to child care and tax credits, and the acceleration of the rise in the state pension age. Good people who are doing the right thing and who are trying to get on and go up in life are being squeezed to pay the bill for people who have been put out of work by this Government.

[Mr Sheerman]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a massive plan for young people in our country, because this problem will get worse? We need education and training leading to work in the community and the environment. We need something bold and imaginative. The fact is that Government Members know that it is cheaper to keep young people on the dole.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—

[Robert Halfon]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

No. I could speak about this all afternoon, but I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so let me draw my remarks to a close by outlining what the Opposition believe should be done.

The Opposition believe that the starting point should be a new tax on bank bonuses. That is what this country is crying out for. There are only a few weeks left before the Chancellor’s autumn statement. The Secretary of State is not here but I hope he reads Hansard. Let me give him some advice about what he should negotiate for. He should be putting on the table the five-point plan that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has set out before the House.

Let us set out what that plan means for young people in this country. Many people in this country deserve a tax cut, but our country’s bankers are not among them. The scale of the imminent bank bonus round is already in the news. I see that there is a bonus pot of £500 million at Royal Bank of Scotland—shareholder: Her Majesty’s Government. Here is a sentiment with which most hon. Members can agree. Lord Oakeshott, the former Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson said:

“I don’t want my taxes going to pay for hundreds of RBS investment bankers taking home millions in bonuses as their profits tumble.”

Many hon. Members would agree with that. The Opposition advice is simple: let us have a fair and sensible tax on bankers’ bonuses. That could create a fund of £2 billion, which we believe could help to get 800,000 back to work, including 11,500 jobs here in London; 5,000 in the south-east, the region of the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling); and 8,500 in my home region, the west midlands. That is the kind of action that the Secretary of State should propose.

[Chris Grayling]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Byrne]

I will give way in a moment. Let me tell the Minister this: that policy would be popular. Over the summer, I asked my constituents whether the bankers ought to share their blessings a little more generously and whether they should do more to help get young people back to work—97% of them said yes. That policy would be popular, so why is the Minister not proposing it?

[Chris Grayling]

I wonder whether I could just clarify a point. The Leader of the Opposition has previously announced that the bank bonus tax money will be spent on additional infrastructure, reversing child benefit cuts and paying down debt, and, I believe, seven other commitments. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether those policies have now been dropped?

[Mr Byrne]

If the Minister wants a full breakdown of the costs, I will be happy to provide it for him; and if he wants me to support him in his negotiations with the Chancellor, I will be right by his side.

With that policy should come an acceleration of investment in capital infrastructure, as the CBI calls for today; a temporary cut in VAT to help families up and down the country; a one-year cut in VAT on home improvements; and a tax break for small firms that take on extra workers, especially young people, as proposed by the Federation of Small Businesses.

The whole country knows that this Government are failing our young people. This year, our country has seen one of the fastest ever increases in long-term youth unemployment. When the TUC, the CBI, the Prince’s Trust and the Work Foundation are telling the Government to change course, surely it is time for them to act. Before the Minister for Universities and Science, the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), was encumbered with the cares of office, he wrote a book about the baby boomers. In the introduction, he writes that

“the charge is that the boomers have been guilty of a monumental failure to protect the interests of future generations”.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is not here today, is—believe me—a baby boomer. If he does not change course, and fast, he will stand before the House guilty as charged.

17:29

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

I regard youth unemployment as one of the most difficult parts of the legacy left to us by the previous Labour Government. In 2010, at the time of the general election, 930,000 young people in this country were unemployed. When Labour left office, there were more young people not in education or employment than when it took office in 1997. Labour also left behind one of the most difficult sets of economic circumstances that any incoming Government have ever faced. Indeed, we do not need to use our own words to describe that; we remember clearly the words of the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who left a note behind saying, “There’s no money left.”

[Mr Byrne]

Will the Minister just remind the House what level youth unemployment stands at today? Will he confirm that it is the highest figure on record?

[Chris Grayling]

Actually, youth unemployment—genuine youth unemployment—is not at the highest level on record. When we exclude from the figures full-time students looking for part-time jobs, the level of youth unemployment today is not the highest on record. However, I regard any level of youth unemployment as unacceptable, and something that we should work to try to solve.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

In researching for this debate, I found an Office for National Statistics summary of labour market statistics. In one of the columns dealing with youth unemployment figures, under the heading “Last time higher”, I found, in bold writing, the word “Never”. That figure has never been higher.

[Chris Grayling]

When we exclude full-time students in colleges of higher and further education, the level of youth unemployment today is not the highest on record. I reiterate, however, that I regard any level of youth unemployment as unacceptable. It is a challenge and a priority for the Government. We have to remember that the problem goes back a decade. Youth unemployment started to rise in 2003-04, and it has been rising steadily since. Even in good years, the previous Government’s policies failed to deliver solutions. Eighteen months ago, we inherited a series of failed programmes that had failed to deliver real solutions for young people, and we are trying to turn that round.

[Robert Halfon]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the problem has been the failure of our primary schools over the past decade? Under the last Government, 500,000 children left primary school unable to read or write. Is that not part of the reason that we have a skills problem today?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend has highlighted one of the many challenges that the previous Government left behind for us. There was a total failure to equip young people for the workplace and for a working life, a failure in our education system and many other failures, not least of which was the disastrous economic inheritance. When the Labour Government left office, they were borrowing £1 in every £4 that they spent. Our first priority remains sorting out the challenges in our public finances. Does anyone seriously believe that, if we were in the same position as some other European countries in failing to deal with our deficit, business would want to invest in this country rather than cutting jobs and moving elsewhere? It is my clear view that, had we not taken action to deal with the deficit, unemployment would be higher than it is now, rather than lower.

[Mr Byrne]

Can the right hon. Gentleman just remind the House by how much the Government have had to revise upwards their borrowing forecast over the past few months?

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman talked about international challenges, but let me remind him that, three months ago, youth unemployment was falling and was below its level at the time of the election. He should also remember that we are now in the middle of the biggest financial crisis in the eurozone in decades, perhaps in modern times, and that our labour market is not immune to that. However, we are now turning round the set of failed programmes that existed under the previous Government and putting in place measures that will make a difference to the long-term unemployed.

[Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that containing, controlling and reducing the structural deficit is a prerequisite for economic growth and job creation?

[Chris Grayling]

It is my view that had we not taken those steps, interest rates would be higher, investment would be lower and unemployment would be higher than it is today. I know it is a point of difference between the two sides of the House, but Labour’s alternative strategy would simply involve Britain borrowing more money. I do not understand how it is possible to solve a crisis created by too much borrowing by borrowing even more.

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

I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that youth unemployment is to a large extent symptomatic of the fragility of the wider economy, but will he also acknowledge that the Government’s approach to the wider economy is not working and is actually exacerbating youth unemployment?

[Chris Grayling]

I do not accept that. I shall briefly set out some of the measures we are taking on the broader economic front that will make a difference to unemployment.

The regional growth fund is now delivering investment to parts of the economy where the private sector is too small, and where we want to see private sector growth, and the research and development and investment in infrastructure that creates jobs. The introduction of enterprise zones in parts of the country where the private sector is weak will encourage businesses to grow and develop. The cut in corporation tax will deliver the lowest headline rate in the developed world. Those are examples of measures that will help to make Britain a better place to do business.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Minister talks about the regional growth fund and enterprise zones, but those words will mean little to young people in my constituency who have seen long-term youth unemployment rise by 192% over the past nine months. Can he tell me in plain English what he will do for those young people in Lewisham?

[Chris Grayling]

I can indeed, and I shall carefully go through the different measures we have taken to tackle the youth unemployment problem. It is also important to note that we are targeting investment and support on parts of the economy where we want private sector growth so that jobs can develop.

It is worth remembering that the previous Government fiddled the figures on youth unemployment; they claimed to have abolished it. When people moved on to the new deal, they had a period of work experience and were transferred to a training allowance, at which point they no longer showed up in the figures. By that mechanism people who remained out of work for long periods temporarily disappeared from the figures, so long-term youth unemployment was, according to the previous Government, “abolished.” That was absolute nonsense.

[Mr Sheerman]

I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a long time, and he is a reasonable man. People outside this place want a positive initiative, to which we can bind other parties. They want an adventurous and innovative scheme to give young people the chance to get off the dole and into training and work. That is what we are waiting to hear. If the Minister comes up with a scheme like that tonight, we shall support him.

[Chris Grayling]

I shall be delighted to talk about some of the specific measures we are taking, but before I do that, let me address the issue about the future jobs fund. It had two key flaws. The first was that it was entirely in the public and voluntary sectors; it did not take young people into the private sector, where there has been employment growth over the last 12 months. That was a fundamental flaw. The other one, in a world where, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said, there was no money left, was that the FJF was by far the most expensive scheme; it was four times as expensive per job outcome as the new deal for young people, and massively more expensive than previous schemes. We have developed a better package of support; it will be more effective and more cost-effective. Through the various schemes that I am about to explain, I estimate that we shall provide support for about 350,000 young unemployed people over the next two years, to make sure that nobody is left without the help they need to try to get themselves into work.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

The Minister has referred to a number of issues about the future jobs fund. In Inverclyde, when I was council leader we were the second most effective constituency in using the fund, putting some 400 of our young people into employment, mostly in private sector jobs. In Inverclyde, we are putting our money where our mouth is; on our own backs, we are continuing the future jobs fund for a further year, with the target of putting 500 young people into jobs. The future jobs fund worked, and it is still working.

[Chris Grayling]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this Administration believe in localism, and a local authority is free to do what it wants to support the unemployed. I welcome any local partnerships to deliver that. I would still say, however, that the reality is that the future jobs fund cost massively more than comparable schemes, and we believe that the package we put in place is more cost-effective and likely to deliver better success rates.

[Mr Byrne]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

I shall give way once more to the shadow Minister, but then I am going to make some progress in explaining what we are doing.

[Mr Byrne]

If the right hon. Gentleman believes the future jobs fund was too expensive, is he by implication saying that he is prepared to see youth unemployment go up, because that is what has happened since the election, after which he abolished the programmes? Is he saying that youth unemployment is basically a price worth paying?

[Chris Grayling]

One reason this country is in its financial predicament is that the previous Government did not understand value for money. They believed in throwing money at a problem, not trying to do the most cost-effective thing. That is one reason for the right hon. Gentleman leaving that note behind, saying, “No money left”.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

One of the key things I believe is important is rebalancing the economy towards manufacturing and engineering, which focuses, of course, on the private sector to make sure that it provides jobs. I see evidence of that happening in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that that kind of initiative is critical to ensuring that we deal with youth unemployment?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the failures of the previous Government arises when we talk to engineering firms that want to recruit young engineers and cannot find them. I think that the previous Government 's skills strategy was fundamentally misplaced. That is why the work being done by the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who is in his place beside me, is so important.

[Robert Halfon]

Talking about the future jobs fund, although it created 90,000 jobs, almost half of the people involved were back on the dole seven months later.

[Chris Grayling]

What the future jobs fund did not do for many young people was provide a clear pathway into long-term employment. As to apprenticeships—my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, too, will talk about them later—we believe that they are a better strategy.

There are three elements to the work we are doing for our young unemployed people. The first is helping those who have been unemployed for a shorter period of time to overcome that classic challenge—“If you haven’t got the experience, you can’t get a job, but you can’t get the experience unless you have got a job.” What we have done is launch our work experience scheme and its sister scheme alongside it—sector-based work academies. We launched those in the spring. Figures published this morning show that more than 50% of the young people who go through the work experience scheme are off benefits within a month of it finishing—at a cost that is a tiny fraction of the amounts spent on previous programmes.

Employers and Jobcentre Plus are working together around the country in a way that is hugely positive to deliver real opportunities for young people to get their first steps in the workplace—and it is making a real difference. I am confident that as we come forward and expand the sector-based work academies with a mix of training and work experience, we will see a similar result. That is a very good start for the scheme.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend inform me why the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) should be laughing at such a scheme, when I have seen it working in my constituency? I would say that substantially more than 50% of people involved with it have got into real jobs.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right; I am baffled as well. This is working far better than we expected and provides a significant piece of evidence to show that if we can get a young person into the workplace quickly to get them their initial experience, it can make a real difference. I am proud of what that scheme has achieved, and I would like to pay tribute to members of the Jobcentre Plus team up and down the country who are working with employers to find those work experience opportunities.

I had occasion a couple of weeks ago to meet a group of young people who are actively looking to try to get work experience opportunities because they believe it is a real route for young people to get into employment. We are now working with that campaign to make sure we help all the young people involved to get work experience opportunities. We are, as I say, a Department providing work experience opportunities to a large number of young people, and I believe this is an important ingredient of the support we provide to those who have just entered the labour market, who are trying to get into work after a short period out of work, to make a difference for that group.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a generation of young people were betrayed by vocational qualifications that were inappropriate, as the Wolf report indicated earlier this year? It is ironic to see the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer among the Front-Bench team, because when he came before the Select Committee, which used to be chaired by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), he refused to listen when he was told again and again that the diploma was going to be a hugely expensive mistake. He refused to listen, spent millions of pounds of public money and let down young people with a diploma programme that was not fit for purpose.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. To be honest, I do not know why any of us listens to this lot. They were a disaster in Government, and the country is well rid of them. What we are trying to do now is repair the damage caused by 13 years of mismanagement.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I want to make a bit progress first.

Let me now deal with the second element of our strategy: how we will deal with long-term youth unemployment, a problem that has become much more acute now that we have stopped massaging the figures and hiding the real picture. I believe that the Work programme will make a real difference to those young people. It has been up and running for four months—

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I think that the programme is doing good work. I have visited providers throughout the country—

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I extend an invitation to Members on both sides of the House to visit their local Work programme providers. They can contact my office if necessary to arrange the introduction. I think that they will be impressed by the work that is being done.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

We will publish details of what is happening in due course, but I can tell the House now that more people have been referred to the Work programme than we originally projected, that it is growing fast, and that a large number of providers are having a great deal of success in getting people into work.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I pay tribute to one of our providers, EOS in the west midlands, which has just achieved its 1,000th job placement. I congratulate all its staff on their success—

[Mr Byrne]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will visit them.

[Mr Byrne]

I should love to do so, and when I do I shall ask EOS for its performance statistics, because I understand that the Minister has banned their publication. If he is so confident about the performance of the Work programme, he should tell the House what it is delivering.

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman is, classically, trying to have it both ways. On one hand he tells me off about national statistics, and on the other he tells me off for not obeying the rules on national statistics. What does he want? These are national statistics, and they will be published in line with national statistics rules. He will just have to wait.

What I will say now is that so far I am encouraged by the progress that is being made. All of us—Members in all parts of the House—need the Work programme to work and to make a difference for the long-term unemployed, and I am confident that it will do that. For the first time we are giving the providers genuine professional freedom to do what works for our young people, and I believe that if we trust the professionals and do not tell them what to do, as the last Government did, we are much more likely to be successful.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time. This time I want to emphasise the importance of a proper interface between the education and business sectors, providing experienced, professional contact, so that people understand that they are receiving the kind of education that will lead them into jobs.

[Chris Grayling]

Absolutely. The Department for Education is working hard to remedy the failings of our schools system in partnership with my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who is working with the FE sector to try to deliver a much better quality of vocational education. That, along with the partnership that now exists between my Department and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, will ensure that the unemployed are presented with a genuinely joined-up offer of an opportunity to obtain the skills that they need, and it represents a real step change from what we saw in the past.

The third element of the support—

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I will.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am obliged to the Minister for finally noticing me.

Is it not the Minister himself who is trying to have the question of the Work programme both ways? He does not want to publish figures on a national basis, but when he chooses, he will use figures plucked from we know not where to prove that the programme is working. Can he explain exactly how a work programme ever creates any jobs?

[Chris Grayling]

The point of the Work programme is very straightforward. We have a team of organisations throughout the country helping people to get into work. We pay them if they succeed. Fortunately, they seem to be making a good start. In due course, when I can do so, under national statistics rules, I will publish information for the benefit of the whole House. I want to expose to the whole market who is doing well and who is doing less well, so that there is competitive pressure on organisations to become the lead provider. I will publish those figures as soon as I can according to national statistics rules, and as soon as the programme has been going long enough for them to be reliable.

The third point—

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Grayling]

I will give way once more, and then I must make some progress and wind up my speech.

[Sarah Newton]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been very generous in giving way. Does he agree that this is all about local partnerships? Organisations such as Cornwall Works will help the 105 young people in my constituency who have been unemployed for more than six months to get back to work. Those young people will benefit from the new apprenticeships created in my constituency in the last year—more than 660. Local partnerships enable such people to find real jobs with real employers.

[Chris Grayling]

Local partnerships are immensely important, and now the Work programme providers have complete freedom to forge partnerships that will make a genuine difference.

The third element of our strategy is apprenticeships. Over the past 12 months, we have launched 100,000 new apprenticeships. I believe that more apprenticeships are now available in this country than ever before. We have many apprenticeships that are targeted at young people. The previous Government’s track record on apprenticeships was, as usual, full of rhetoric but lacking in delivery. They repeatedly made promises for an overall number of apprenticeships, and they repeatedly failed to deliver what they promised. We are hitting targets for apprenticeships. That is the first time in a long time that that has happened, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning for that.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

How many of these apprenticeships are reserved for 18 to 24-year-olds?

[Chris Grayling]

In the Budget, we announced an additional 40,000 apprenticeships targeted at the young unemployed, and the overall number of young people under the age of 24 on apprenticeships is greater than the total number of apprenticeships that were available under the previous Government. My hon. Friend will walk us through the details of that when he concludes the debate; this is very much his baby, and he should take credit for what he has achieved.

I might also mention the support we are providing for the short-term young unemployed through the work experience scheme, our sector-based work academies and the work being done through Jobcentre Plus. The Work programme is the biggest ever welfare-to-work programme of its kind in the country. We have the biggest payment-by-results scheme in the world, offering tailored, personalised support to help young people actually get into work right now. There is the opportunity to move through into an apprenticeship, which is an appropriate path into work for many young people. Never before has this scale of apprenticeships been provided in this country.

I believe these measures represent a coherent strategy to deal with a problem that was left behind by the previous Government, and that has been made more challenging by a difficult set of international circumstances. Unlike the previous Government with their failures, we are determined to tackle this problem, and to succeed.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Many Members wish to speak. The winding-up speeches will start at 6.40 pm, so there is not a lot of time. Although there is a four-minute limit on speeches, I ask Members to speak more briefly than that if they can do so. I also ask Members to show restraint in making interventions, so as to avoid doing others out of an opportunity to speak.

17:49

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are having a debate about the economic situation and its impacts on young people. My constituency has felt the chill winds disproportionately, as has the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). My local authority, Sandwell, has the third highest rate of youth unemployment in the country. We also endured high youth unemployment under the previous Conservative Government. The Labour Government made substantial inroads, but the problem is now back with a vengeance.

On the general economic situation, some of the Government’s measures are aggravating the problems, which are a by-product of our poor economic performance. The higher education proposals, for instance, will disincentivise young people from low-income, low-aspiration backgrounds from entering higher education, and there is a great danger that young people from areas such as mine will look to take an alternative route, such as vocational training and apprenticeships. That is not in itself bad, and it may well be of great benefit to the economy, but the cohort of young people who previously would have gone into apprenticeships and training will find that they have nowhere to go. That is already being reflected in the increase in the number of NEETs in the country as a whole, and certainly in my area.

The Government trumpet the progress made on apprenticeships, and I welcome apprenticeships, as they are potentially of enormous benefit. However, the fact remains that the greatest increase in apprenticeships, as of this moment, is in the post-24 age group, and there is a suspicion that this is just a rebadging of the old Train to Gain scheme. In addition, the headline figures do not take into account the number of short apprenticeships—these are not the two or three-year courses that we commonly think of as apprenticeships which will enable people to go into work. My Committee will be undertaking an inquiry into this in the new year, and I hope to be able to drill down to find out exactly what the situation is.

[Mr Hayes]

I am sorry to have to intervene, because I know that time is short. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I take his work seriously in that regard and that we, like him, are determined to see apprenticeships of the right quality and to see bureaucracy cut so that more firms can be involved. He is right to say that apprenticeships matter, but the brand matters too and we are as committed to quality as he is.

[Mr Bailey]

I welcome the words of the Minister, whose commitment to this cause I would not doubt for a moment. I am sure that we will have an extremely enlightening inquiry in the new year.

I shall highlight two measures that would cost the Government very little but would help. First, they should continue the funding for the graduate internship scheme—these are funded internships for graduates in small businesses. This has proved to be of enormous benefit to small businesses and to the graduates, and the total cost to the Government would be about £8 million. Given that this is a win-win situation—it helps the small businesses and graduates, and the cost would be lower than that of keeping them unemployed—I would have thought it was an obvious thing to continue. Also it sends messages to young people thinking of going to university that there is career progression after graduation. In the context of the highest level of graduate unemployment since 1992, that is a very important thing for the Government to do.

Secondly, small businesses are crying out for a financial incentive to encourage them to employ young people. The Government have introduced national insurance breaks. The existing scheme has not been very successful, and there is £850 million allocated for it. It should be broadened to existing businesses or, as the CBI says, a possible cash payment should be established for companies that take on young people and give them meaningful employment. These are not the words of tax-and-spend merchants; they are coming from the Federation of Small Businesses and the CBI—the authentic voice of the business community. If the Government do that, without great cost, it could make an impact on youth unemployment.

17:57

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

I speak as someone who knows what it is like to have been made redundant, and I have also seen my father lose his job in his 50s. I can tell hon. Members that there are not many things worse than when a breadwinner comes back home to his family to tell them that he is out of work and there is no income. I also recall that as a 17-year-old I was asked, somewhat prematurely, to leave school, and I found myself having to look for work. My first job was not the one that I would have ideally wanted, but it was work and it provided my first wage—£48 a week, as I recall it. Getting a start is crucial for young people and I always tell the youngsters I talk to that being in the workplace is much better than not being in work at all, because they have to get something on their CV.

It is easy to go for the headlines and talk down our economy, but I would like to take a moment to talk up this Government’s efforts to improve youth employment chances, not just through job creation, but through their support of the apprenticeship scheme programme. Just over two months ago, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning announced cuts to bureaucracy to encourage employers to take on a large number of apprentices, and this serves as a proven way to fill the skills gap in our economy. As someone who has owned and run businesses, and actually created employment before entering this House, I am all too aware of the damage caused by excessive red tape and bureaucracy. It is vital that we reduce regulation in order to encourage businesses to employ youngsters. I am pleased that the Government have set about tackling this via the red tape challenge.

[Meg Hillier]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nigel Adams]

I would love to but I need to crack on; we have only got four minutes each.

This Government also promised 50,000 extra apprenticeships in 2010-11, but the figure has been surpassed and we have seen a record year—an increase of over 50%. In fact, in my constituency 850 people are on apprenticeships, an increase of 67% in the last year. Only by proving to business and the private sector that it is worth their while investing in youngsters can we fulfil our long-term goal of reducing unemployment, and I am confident that, via apprenticeships, we are taking the right steps towards that aim.

Hon. Members can do more than their bit to help young people and others back into work. That is why I organised a jobs fair in my constituency, and I know that many of my colleagues have done something similar. More than 1,100 jobseekers came through the door—both unemployed, and employed but looking for new opportunities. It was evident to me at my jobs fair that vacancy statistics from Jobcentre Plus do not necessarily reflect the actual climate. Its figures for October 2011, published in the Library, would have people believe that at least three jobseekers apply for every vacancy advertised in my constituency—a deficit of employment. However, many of the work and training opportunities offered by the 52 different organisations that turned up to my jobs fair were not advertised in the Jobcentre Plus system, and never are. I am also pleased to say that the feedback from the jobs fair was very positive, and lots of people have received interviews and job opportunities and have started work. Indeed, I have visited some of the youngsters who have started work.

I am confident that the Government have a credible plan for getting this country’s finances back on track, reassuring businesses and reducing regulation. Labour should take note that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

18:01

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

I had prepared something long and detailed, but I will keep my remarks brief because I want to let other Members speak.

When I made my maiden speech in May 2010, I spoke about unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, in my constituency; and when I checked my predecessor’s maiden speech, made in 1987, I discovered that she, too, spoke about unemployment in the north-east and North West Durham.

[Mr Hayes]

I remember that.

[Pat Glass]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Anyone looking at those two speeches could be forgiven for thinking that this is a deeply entrenched problem that cannot be dealt with, but actually, that is not true. Between 1997 and 2010, North West Durham, like most of the post-industrial north, underwent an economic and social revolution, with the support of the previous Government, but it is amazing how quickly the clock has turned back to the 1980s. Under a previous Conservative Government, male unemployment in Consett, in my constituency, reached 100%. Can people now imagine what it is like to live in a place with 100% male unemployment?

Youth unemployment in my constituency has doubled in the last 12 months and now stands at 35%. Unemployment generally has increased by 20%, and it is a direct result of Government policies. The Prime Minister tells us that we need to rebalance the economy from the south to the north and from the public sector to the private sector, so that, as public sector jobs disappear, they are replaced by private sector jobs. We would all agree with that, but in my constituency, full-time relatively well-paid public sector jobs are disappearing at a rate of knots and are being replaced by very few part-time, poorly paid jobs.

If the Government are serious about delivering on unemployment in places such as the north-east, they need to be serious about a growth strategy. We do not need enterprise zones and short-term grants. We have had those before and they do not stay: as soon as the grants run out, the jobs disappear and everybody runs back to the south-east. We need instead proper infrastructure investment, so that private companies are attracted to the area and stay. That means investment in roads and rail, airports and broadband. Some 46% of my constituency is a broadband blackspot.

We need investment in skills. Nissan came to the north-east not because of the grants but because of the skills that were there when the shipyards and the steelworks closed down. We need investment in a growth strategy for the regions. But what have the Government done? They have cut public expenditure for infrastructure and jobs, and cut investment in skills. The abolition of the EMA has led directly to falls in participation rates at 16 to levels that we have not seen since the 1990s, and the tripling of tuition fees has led to a 12% reduction in university applications this year.

Young people are having a hard time from this Government and it is due not only to the abolition of the EMA and the rise in tuition fees, but to the cuts in home-to-school transport, home-to-college transport, careers services, youth services and local bus services. Young people are becoming more cynical now than they have ever been about politics and the role of the Government. I am pleading with the Government now to listen to the suffering out there and start putting in place a proper plan for growth and jobs for young people.

18:05

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

It is a great pleasure to be called to speak in this important debate. I know the Opposition like to make their Wednesday afternoons political theatre, but there are many people on the Government Benches who are concerned about youth unemployment and have ideas about how the situation can be improved.

As the MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, I represent the fourth most deprived Conservative-held seat in the country. That is no badge of honour. It is with no sense of satisfaction that I report that year on year youth unemployment has risen 36% since September 2010. I take no pleasure from the fact that even on the figures that were fed to The Times by the Labour party, the number of long-term youth unemployed has risen from 75 individuals to 100 individuals since May 2010, but I point out to Labour Members, as they seem to have failed to understand earlier, that there are 276 constituencies where youth unemployment has fallen or remained static since May 2010, according to the same figures as they obtained from the House of Commons Library.

I am sure that everyone who speaks in the debate will say that apprenticeships matter, and they matter to me. I have taken on one apprentice, Nathan, in my constituency office, and he is excellent. Many on the Government Benches have done the same, but we in the House obviously cannot solve the problem alone. I am delighted that, thanks to what the Government have been doing, the number of apprenticeships in my constituency has risen from 300 to 940.

[Meg Hillier]

All hon. Members would agree that apprenticeships are a good thing and that we want more of them, but what would the hon. Gentleman say about the issue that I have picked up on on doorsteps throughout the country, which is that young people with A-levels, and sometimes with degrees, are going for apprenticeships that would normally have been available to young people with lower levels of qualifications, thereby pricing them, so to speak, out of the market? Does he share my concern about that and will he raise the issue with Ministers in his Government?

[Paul Maynard]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. It brings together a number of points that Members are likely to make this evening. First, we should welcome the fact that better qualified individuals are now seeking apprenticeships. We should not say that apprenticeships are only for those who are not academically inclined. Secondly, the Labour party now disapproves of older people seeking to take on apprenticeships. It was a Labour Government who commissioned the Leitch review, which wanted to see more older people going into apprenticeships.

I represent a seaside town. I know the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) does not understand the economics of seaside towns, so I shall try to explain to him that one of our fundamental problems, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) pointed out in The Guardian interview that I saw in the debate pack, is that of generational worklessness and the potential for generational exodus, even—people not finding opportunities in seaside towns and having to leave.

For members of the third generation who do not have a job and cannot find a job, the inclination to go out and look for a job, and even seeing that part of their life involves going out to work, is lost. Part of the solution is getting the older generation into apprenticeships and into work as much as the younger generation. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) tried to make clear, the problem did not start in May 2010. It did not start even in May 1997 or May 1979. There has been a gradual structural problem of worklessness, particularly in post-industrial societies. Tourism and hospitality are not like coal mining or the steel industry, but they have none the less gone through a period of decline in my constituency and we have seen employment and opportunities fall as a consequence, so there is a challenge.

The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the Prince’s Trust, which does a fantastic job in my constituency. Three times a year it takes a group of 12 young people from deprived backgrounds. I have been to one of the thank you parties at the end of a session and heard the powerful tales of how they got into the situations they found themselves in. Many brought their problems to Blackpool from outside the town. Many came from broken homes, broken families and disappointed backgrounds, yet they have struggled and managed to succeed.

What frustrates me about the debate is not so much the usual political to and fro, the misuse of statistics and Members trying to portray things as good or bad, but the Labour party’s failure to understand that this is not about who is to blame. It is about trying to understand why worklessness occurs in our society, why young people are unable to enter employment and what we need to do to get them there. The Government are making progress. I would of course like it to be faster, but we are putting the building blocks in place and I welcome that.

18:10

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

There could hardly be an issue of greater importance to my constituents in these challenging economic times than jobs and security for their families. Almost every day I hear about the consequences of unemployment and poverty in my constituency. It is not just about people losing their jobs; it is about people losing their homes or worrying about keeping their homes and the resulting stresses on family life.

Youth unemployment is a major concern in my constituency. Nationally it is at an 18-year high, at 991,000, with long-term youth unemployment up by almost two thirds this January and by a staggering four fifths in Halton. We are again seeing the familiar face of Conservative Governments: mass unemployment, people being thrown on the scrapheap and young people hit particularly hard. To put things in context, back in 1993, in the twilight of the miserable 18 years of Conservative rule, youth unemployment in Halton stood at a massive 22.7%, and it was almost 27% in the autumn of 1985. For most of the early 1990s the rate remained stubbornly above 20%, even as late as 1996, well after the last recession.

Under the Labour Government youth unemployment in Halton was mostly below 10%, which was not good enough, but it was still a lot less than it had been under the previous Conservative Government, and at times it fell as low as 4%. Of course, any youth unemployment is unacceptable, but comparing what the previous Tory Government and the current Tory Government have done shows the natural progression and where they are going. Their economic policy is failing and hurting. It is clearly not working because the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that the Government will borrow an extra £46 billion over the next year. As the Business Secretary said on 15 March:

“Cuts without economic growth will not deal with the deficit.”

The motion before us also refers to the International Monetary Fund’s concerns about the Government’s approach. A few weeks ago I met some young people in Runcorn who were on a training scheme to get jobs in the construction industry, which is massively difficult to get into. They were desperate to get work, but they want the confidence that there will be jobs for them. I regularly meet young people who want to work and get those skills. Only last Sunday I met members of the Halton Youth Parliament in Runcorn, who told me that one of their biggest problems is transport. When they are looking for a job or training or a college place, being able to get there is vital. The Government’s cuts to transport, particularly bus transport, have been very hard for my constituency.

There is of course concern about the banks, which should be doing more. I strongly support our proposal for a £2 billion bankers’ bonus tax, which would fund work for 100,000 jobs and allow every small firm taking on extra workers a one-year break from national insurance contributions. The banks should be doing more to help the unemployed, particularly young people. I have twice raised concerns about bank lending to small businesses with the Chancellor on the Floor of the House, and he is looking again at what more can be done. We shall see about that, but there must be a recognition that not enough is happening and that the policy is failing. He has to do more to help young people who are unemployed. It is important that we make it clear that we must have a growth strategy.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Derek Twigg]

I will not, because I have very little time remaining.

Finally, in my constituency we have done a great deal of work with the local authority and local businesses, with the help of the previous Government, to bring forward important projects, such as the Mersey multi-modal gateway, the new Mersey gateway bridge, the Daresbury science and innovation campus and a number of other important projects. Some of those are supported by the Government, but they were developed under the previous Government, which had a growth policy to encourage jobs in areas of high unemployment that need development and need to see—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Lorely Burt.

18:14

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I shall be very brief. There is not enough time to cover everything mentioned in the motion, so I will avoid the usual political knockabout in the first part of the motion, which is the Labour narrative about how we got into this economic situation. Those arguments are well rehearsed. What matters is not how we got here, but how we get out. I agree with some of the suggestions the Opposition have made. I have long campaigned for a 5% VAT rate on home renovation materials and have asked the industry to analyse the cost-effectiveness of that proposal.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lorely Burt]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

I agree that we could work up a programme to give national insurance relief to small companies taking on new workers, maybe even in the form of a rebate after the first complete year of employment. I have got lots of other ideas, which I hope colleagues in the Treasury will consider. Again, I agree with the Opposition: we need more incentives to stimulate private business to rev up the engine of growth.

It all boils down to growth, but it must be growth in the private sector, not growth led by creating jobs that do not exist, which is what one could argue the future jobs fund did. The Minister has outlined all the steps we are taking to create jobs and prosperity. The motion says only two things about youth unemployment: that long-term youth unemployment is up, and that we should not have scrapped the future jobs fund. Well, youth unemployment is up, but it grew under Labour by 40%—going from 664,000 unemployed 16 to 24-year-olds in May 1997 to 924,000 in May 2010. According to the latest statistics, that figure is 991,000. I hope that a Labour Member will intervene to explain to me how that equates to a 68% increase because, according to my mathematics, that seems more like 7%.

[Meg Hillier]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, especially given that time is short. Does she not agree that, out in the real world, people do not want the bickering. What they are concerned about, as we should be, is that an entire cohort—for example, graduates—is experiencing a higher rate of unemployment. We should be addressing the whole cohort issue, because we are condemning an entire group of young people to lower incomes and worse life chances as a result of Government policies.

[Lorely Burt]

I am sure we agree on the seriousness of the situation and all the different groups of young people who are affected. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady did not answer my question, but never mind.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lorely Burt]

I am sorry, but I will not give way.

Dealing with youth unemployment is incredibly hard, but the Opposition should not make political capital out of a relatively small increase in existing figures that are a legacy of their own figures.

[Rachel Reeves]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lorely Burt]

I have only two minutes. I am very sorry.

The future jobs fund was well intentioned, but ineffective and expensive. It created new positions that were not, by definition, real jobs. It was so ineffective, in fact, that young people who were not on the programme fared better in getting real employment than those who were. It cost more than it saved, and failed to accomplish its targets. Now the Opposition are also calling for a bank levy to raise funds for a youth jobs fund. However, we have already introduced a bank levy, and it raises more each year than they managed to raise with their bankers’ bonus tax.

So what have we done for young unemployed people? We have concentrated on apprenticeships and getting people into real jobs. We have exceeded the targets in our apprenticeship scheme, with the provisional figures showing that the number of apprenticeships has grown by 58% across the UK and some areas showing growth of 198%. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) would like to welcome the 82% rise in apprenticeships in his constituency. The Work programme is designed to ensure that people can get out of a cycle of benefits and get back into work that pays. The jury is still out on the Work programme, but I am really hopeful that the work of specialist agencies, using their skills to find jobs for long-term unemployed individuals, will bear fruit.

I welcome the fact that Labour Members are bringing ideas to the table. As I said, I agree with some of them, but not all. We will listen and we will work with all colleagues in this House for a more prosperous future for all our constituents.

18:20

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Youth unemployment is the single biggest social and economic problem facing my constituency, and its effects will leave a scar on Hartlepool’s prospects for decades to come. My town has the dubious and unwanted distinction of having the worst youth unemployment in the country: 1,450 young people in Hartlepool—17.4%, or nearly one in five— do not have a job. We have not seen such levels of youth unemployment in my town since 1995. What is particularly worrying is that in my constituency unemployment is rising fastest among young people, and rising much faster than the regional or national average. Since this Government came to office 18 months ago, youth unemployment in Hartlepool has increased by some 60%, and it has been increasing fastest in the past six months.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my fellow Teesside MP for giving way. Does he remember when Middlesbrough football fans used to chant, “There’s only one job on Teesside”, in celebration of Joseph-Désiré Job, who played for the club? That is no longer very funny, because young people might be under the impression that it is actually true as hundreds of them chase every single job opportunity on Teesside.

[Mr Wright]

As a proud Hartlepool United season ticket holder, I will never celebrate the achievements of Middlesbrough football club, but my hon. Friend is right to say that we have been here before.

When I was growing up in the 1980s, the spectre of unemployment haunted my constituency. The de-industrialisation of this country in the 1980s hit my region hard. In the recession of 1979 to 1981, an astonishing 20,000 jobs were lost in my constituency as shipyards, steelworks and heavy engineering firms closed their doors. In many respects, Hartlepool and the wider north-east is still, in 2011, adjusting to the huge economic shocks of the 1980s and 1990s. I suggest that the Government need to learn the lessons of history and acknowledge the problem that youth unemployment creates. They need to act decisively to ensure that the young people facing a bleak future are not abandoned permanently and that Hartlepool does not see once again, as we did in the 1980s, a lost and forgotten generation.

We all know that the longer a person is out of work, the harder it is for them to gain employment. Young people are hit particularly hard in this regard. They cannot get a job because they have not got experience, but they cannot get experience because they have not got a job. It does not have to be like this. The future jobs fund was a particular success in my constituency, helping more than 720 young people in Hartlepool to get a foot on the career ladder and providing them with tangible help and support into employment.

In contrast, we now have a Government stripping out demand in the economy and a Chancellor who is changing his growth forecasts more often than he changes his socks and neglecting the talent, potential and passion of the next generation. I urge the Government to change course—not to concentrate solely on deficit reduction to the exclusion of everything else, but to have a more sophisticated and holistic economic policy based on stimulating demand for our economy, providing a framework to make Britain the best place on the planet to do business and, crucially, providing good future prospects for our young people. Other nations are doing this. Germany now has a lower jobless rate in general and among young people than it did at the start of the financial crisis. It has achieved that through greater emphasis on infrastructure spending, ensuring that its economy will be more productive and efficient in future; and providing job subsidies, ensuring that its work force, particularly its young people, remain job-ready and equipped with the skills needed in the 21st century.

In my lifetime, in the 1980s, a Conservative Government abandoned a whole generation in my constituency. The rationale behind this was that such unemployment was a price worth paying. I implore the Government please not to make the same costly mistakes again.

18:24

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Minister said that he believes strongly in localism, and so do I. However, having suffered under a Labour-led or Labour Administration in Cardiff for the past 12 years, it is sometimes difficult to keep supporting the idea of localism.

Since 2000, the level of Welsh GDP in comparison with the European average has fallen from 68.6% to 64.4%. At the same time, between 2000 and 2010, the proportion of young people aged 16 to 24 in Wales who are unemployed increased from 15.8% to 21.5%. The sad fact about this debate is that Opposition Members simply do not recognise that a failing economic performance is related to a failure to create jobs for young people.

Wales has had support from Europe on a regular basis because of the failure of the policies adopted by the Labour party in Wales. Such is the failure of the Labour Government in Wales to put together policies that make a difference that Wales is one of only eight regions out of 66 in Europe that have qualified for objective 1 funding to see its prosperity decline. To put that in context, over the past 10 years under Labour, Wales has gone backwards while even the Greeks have gone forward. That is the reality of living under Labour. I support localism, but in Wales we suffer for it.

We cannot divorce this debate from education, skills and training for young people. Recently, there was evidence from the largest inward investor in the south Wales valleys over the past five years that less than 20% of the young people who were referred for job interviews—not for high-level jobs, but for comparatively low-level jobs—had adequate skills in reading, writing and arithmetic, and, more importantly, adequate social skills. Is that a surprise when the Labour Government in Cardiff have deliberately decided to spend £600 per head less than England on educating young people? That is the reality of Labour.

We must take on board the need to create economic growth and prosperity. Jobs for young people will not appear in isolation. Opportunities for young people will come as a result of economic growth and success—something we desperately need. That is why it is crucial that we pay tribute to this Government for taking the issue seriously. The Work programme, which has been mocked by Opposition Members, will ensure that payments are made on the basis of performance. That is a move in the right direction. It means that people will have to be in position for 12, 18 or 24 months before payments are made. That is a sign of confidence in the ability of the programme to get people into private employment.

[Mr Byrne]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument with care. Will he tell the House how he thinks the programme is going in his constituency, because long-term youth unemployment is up by 100%?

[Guto Bebb]

The shadow Secretary of State again makes the mistake of making a short-term point about unemployment in my constituency, without reference to the fact that the biggest employer in my constituency is the tourism industry, which is seasonal. As he wants to make an issue of youth unemployment in my constituency, it is worth pointing out that we have literally hundreds of people working in hotels, guesthouses and other tourism-related businesses there who are hard-working, successful and moving on. The sad fact is that a huge number of them are from eastern Europe. Those people have grasped their opportunity, but that opportunity has not been available to young people from my constituency because of the welfare state created by the Labour party, which is more interested in throwing money at a problem than solving it.

[Mr Byrne]

rose—

[Guto Bebb]

I will not take another intervention, because it would be unfair to my colleagues.

The Labour party has created a dependency culture, rather than a culture of can-do and change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) made clear, young people should have the opportunity to take a job and to develop in that position. The Labour party’s policies have ensured that those jobs are not available. Many young people in my constituency have families and responsibilities, but because of the welfare system developed by the Labour party over 13 years, they are often better off not taking a job. The biggest change that the coalition Government are making is to ensure that when people take employment, they are better off. It is unacceptable that the Labour party believes that throwing money at people and allowing them to do nothing is more effective than changing the way we live and giving people the opportunity to make something of themselves in employment.

18:29

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

May I say at the outset that I am disappointed that we have had only two hours to discuss youth unemployment and jobs, which is one of the most important issues in this country at the moment? I will use my four minutes to try to expose the myth that we are all in this together. Before the election, the now Prime Minister said that the north-east would be hit hardest and first, and that the public sector there was too big. What an absolute disgrace! It was an insult to everyone in the region, and what is more, only this week a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research North think-tank stated that 32,000 public sector jobs have been lost in the north-east so far this Parliament, yet 24,000 public sector jobs are being created in the south-east of England and 8,000 in London. Where is the fairness in all this? How are we in this together? It is not right. Why is the north-east continually hammered by this coalition Government?

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

rose—

[Ian Lavery]

Excuse me, but the hon. Gentleman has just come in. There are people who have been in here for ages.

In my constituency, 20.7% of young people are not in education, employment or training. It was once a thriving mining community, but we now have unemployment levels of 7.7%. Over the past five years, there has been a 67% increase in the number of jobseeker’s allowance applications, and over the past 12 months, a 19.8% increase. The number of applications from those aged 24 and under has increased by 34% in 12 months. It is an absolute disgrace.

The most horrendous statistic is that for every job vacancy in Wansbeck, there are 9.6 applicants. The jobs are not there for people. It is unacceptable, and we cannot continue to treat people like this. It has been said on numerous occasions, “Is this a price worth paying?” Do people believe that youth unemployment is a price worth paying? It is not. The lack of jobs and opportunities will see this country decline in the future. Young people should be seen as our future doctors, business men and women, nurses, firefighters, teachers, soldiers, sailors and council workers. We should treat them with a little decorum.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend is right to point out what our young people should be able to expect from the future, but is not the reality that because of what is happening, there is so much despair and fear among young people—fear that they will never get a real job—that it is essential that we get action now to provide jobs, and that we do not just rely on promises and schemes? That is what will give them hope. Otherwise, they will find their fears and despair justified.

[Ian Lavery]

I agree wholeheartedly. The 9.6 people going for every job in my constituency are now being threatened and told that if they do not secure employment, their benefits will be withdrawn. That is hardly a carrot-and-stick approach; it is basically a baseball-bat-over-the-head approach. Instead of encouraging people into employment, we are seeing quite the opposite.

The Labour party has proposed a five-point plan for growth and jobs, and the Government parties would be well advised to scrutinise it. What the Minister said absolutely appalled me: he said that they should not listen to the Labour party. Well, let me give him a message. I am here to represent hundreds and thousands of people unable to attract employment. The employment that is available is low paid. On youth unemployment and jobs, the Government should be listening to everyone from across the parties. People are asking me, and are entitled to ask, whether this is a cynical, political attempt to attack the north-east region and them as individuals, because of a fundamental lack of support for the Government parties.

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

The problems that my hon. Friend is describing do not just affect the north-east. Does he agree that Government Members seem to be in denial about the scale of the problem and the fact that it will get a lot worse if they do not change course?

[Ian Lavery]

That is exactly right, and the economy shows clearly that borrowing is up by £46 billion, that CPI inflation is up to 5.2% and that RPI inflation is up to 5.6%. We have the highest level of unemployment for 17 years, the highest level of unemployment among women since records began in 1988 and almost 1 million unemployed young people.

We have to change course. Whether it is plan B, plan C, plan D, plan A plus or whatever, I say to the Government, please listen to what people are saying on the ground. Instead of saying, “We are not prepared to listen,” please listen to these people, who are desperate out there—the people who have been marching the streets of London, the disabled and the women, who I have already mentioned. Listen to what they have to say, please change course and let us see what can be delivered for the people who are most in need in the UK.

18:35

[Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), but the only point on which I agreed with him was when he said that this is a very serious issue, and that we need an extremely detailed and fundamental rethink of how we address unemployment.

Every single person who is unemployed, whether young, middle-aged or old, experiences a personal tragedy, and we need to do as much as we possibly can to address the situation, but the fundamental point is that we will not create jobs unless we have macro-economic stability.

To get macro-economic stability, we have to get the deficit under control, and the coalition Government must not change course. They must stick to the course that they have set, otherwise the economy will not grow, because controlling the structural deficit is a pre requisite of economic growth, not a substitute for it.

Of course there is growing unemployment, but youth unemployment grew by 40% between 1997 and 2010, so it is not a new problem or issue. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who speaks for the Opposition on this matter, made surreptitious use of statistics, with some of those that he gave painting a wholly inaccurate picture. Interestingly his only solution to the problem was more tax and more spend, the formula that clearly did not work under 13 years of the Labour party in government.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Is it not true that in Hull and other cities throughout the country, the previous Government ignored youth unemployment, which stayed steady even as the general economy boomed? The truth is that on too many estates the Labour party abandoned people, threw them on welfare and did not provide them with the employment or education that they needed to better themselves?

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think I am correct in saying that 97% of current youth unemployment was inherited by this Government from the Labour Administration.

I have three or four suggestions for what the Government might do in addition to the excellent job that they are already doing. The first suggestion is to provide a greater emphasis on lifelong learning through not just traditional learning theatres, but online learning in particular. Secondly, the costs to, and regulations on, businesses must be reduced. For example, businesses are being used for informal tax gathering, which is highly regressive and has a disproportionate impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, thereby inhibiting their ability to create jobs. There needs to be a close look at exempting businesses from a raft of regulations and bureaucracy which has a negative impact on their ability to create jobs. We must also find mechanisms—I hope the Chancellor is looking at this—to incentivise businesses to invest, to create wealth and, therefore, to create jobs for young people and for others.

Owing to the long-term nature of the problem, the education system clearly fails far too many young people. It is clear also from the rise in youth unemployment, which began long before the current economic crisis, that the education system did not meet employers’ needs, but the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) is doing an excellent job of trying to make businesses and education link up and perform in that way.

The Government are absolutely right on their key policy areas, such as rolling out broadband to enable people to engage with technological businesses and innovation, and increasing the Work programme. It is absolutely right to involve independent sector providers to deliver personalised help. There is significant evidence in my constituency that the work providers and the Work programme are getting jobs for people whom the state structures had failed for up to 18 months beforehand. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to deliver improved apprenticeships. In my constituency they are up 67% this year, and in the east midlands the figure is 60%. They are significant achievements, and my hon. Friend should rightly be proud of them.

The introduction of university technical colleges is absolutely right, and I hope that there will be many more of them. Then there is the new enterprise allowance and the link between volunteering and work experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) was right that it is important for people to get something on their CVs. A link with the voluntary sector may enable that to happen. The Government are on exactly the right lines. They need to continue and they must not be deterred from controlling the structural deficit.

18:40

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

It is right that we should have the chance to debate youth unemployment today, as our economy continues to flatline and unemployment is rising. It is just a shame that neither the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions nor a single member of the Treasury Front-Bench team has bothered to turn up. How complacent and out of touch this Government are.

The last time we debated the economy in this House was on the day when new figures showed that youth unemployment had reached a 17-year high, with 991,000 young people out of work. Next week we shall have an update on those numbers, but in the last few weeks the Government have done nothing to address the national youth unemployment crisis. It is almost two years since this country moved out of recession, yet the prospects for unemployment and youth unemployment are gloomier than ever. Labour has set out a five-point plan for jobs and growth, and called on the Government to introduce an alternative to their plans, which are hurting but not working. Businesses up and down the country are seeing demand hit. Young people out of work and facing trebled tuition fees are seeing the impact. Families struggling with high VAT and rising energy prices are feeling the impact. All are still waiting for a plan for jobs and growth from this Government. We are all waiting for some leadership from this out-of-touch Government on a jobs and growth plan internationally as well. Every day of waiting is a day wasted, with potential going untapped and opportunities squandered.

[Richard Graham]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment. Can she explain to me how it was that during the 13 years of Labour Government, 5,600 private sector jobs were destroyed in my constituency of Gloucester?

[Rachel Reeves]

What I do know is that in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, as in mine, youth unemployment and long-term youth unemployment is going up on this Government’s watch.

There has rightly been concern from all parts of the House today about youth unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), whose constituency has the highest youth unemployment in the country, rightly talked about the impact on his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) gave a passionate speech about youth unemployment and its effect in the north-east, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who talked about people in his constituency being hammered by this Government’s policies. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), in whose constituency long-term youth unemployment has risen by 106% in just nine months, was right to talk about the need for a national insurance holiday for small businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), in whose constituency long-term youth unemployment has gone up by 81% in nine months, raised the prospect of Royal Bank of Scotland bonuses of £500 million this year, with no tax on bank bonuses to fund youth jobs—a policy proposed by the Labour party.

[Mr Winnick]

We have heard many eloquent speeches about unemployment from our right hon. and hon. Friends, unlike those from Government Members. In the 10 constituencies in England with the highest jobless rate for 18 to 24-year-olds, eight are in the west midlands, and of those eight, six are in the black country. We should bear in mind the devastation that is occurring once again, as in the 1980s, in the west midlands and the black country.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is right to talk about the impact on his constituents. That is why we need a five-point plan for jobs and growth across the country, including the black country.

Unemployment is at a 17-year high and youth unemployment is almost 1 million. Despite the complacency on the Government Benches, the Government must do something to tackle the crisis. Long-term youth unemployment is at its highest for a generation, with 120,000 young people out of work for more than six months, up a staggering 64% since January. The number of young women who are long-term unemployed has risen to 37,500—the highest level in a generation. Whatever Government Members say, the number of young people in long-term unemployment was falling when the coalition Government were formed and it is increasing on their watch.

[Paul Maynard]

Will the hon. Lady tell me in how many constituencies, according to the figures she requested from the House of Commons Library, did long-term youth unemployment fall between May 2010 and September 2011? I, too, have the figures.

[Rachel Reeves]

The answer is in a very small minority of constituencies. In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Blackpool North and Cleveleys, long-term youth unemployment is up 233%, so enough of the complacency—he should be urging the Government into action rather than going along with their out-of-touch attitude.

Throughout the country, the number of young people looking for work has increased in 196 out of 202 local authorities since September last year—97% of local authorities have rising youth unemployment. Even in the Minister’s constituency of South Holland and the Deepings, 50 more young people have been looking for a job for more than six months, which is a 71% increase since January. I see the impact in my constituency of Leeds West day in, day out: 105 extra young people have been looking for work for more than six months, which is a 66% increase. Those numbers speak of a devastating impact on the lives of individuals and families, and they are the result of this out-of-touch Government’s complacency on youth unemployment.

Rising youth unemployment also shows that the Government’s plan A does not make economic sense. With unemployment at a 17-year high, inflation soaring and growth flatlining, the Government are set to borrow an extra £46 billion in this Parliament—and that is before the Office for Budget Responsibility comes up with its revised forecast on 29 November. We are all paying the price for the Government’s failure to get a grip on unemployment with higher Government borrowing and debt.

[Robert Halfon]

Will the hon. Lady answer the question that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) did not answer when I asked him? Why did youth unemployment rise by hundreds of thousands on her watch and under her Government despite all the taxpayers’ money that was spent on one scheme or another?

[Rachel Reeves]

With long-term youth unemployment up 140% in nine months, the hon. Gentleman should be asking questions of this Government rather than looking back to the past. The reality is that unemployment was falling when this Government came into power; now it is rising. That is the difference between a Labour Government and a Conservative-led Government.

The Government like to blame anyone but themselves—that seems to go for Government Back Benchers as well. First they blamed the snow, then they blamed the royal wedding, and now they blame the eurozone, but the truth is that the economy was flatlining and unemployment was rising before the eurozone crisis hit. They needed a plan for jobs and growth before the problems in the eurozone erupted, and they need to change course now more than ever. It is time they took responsibility for their actions.

In the wake of this national crisis of youth unemployment, what have the Government done? More than a year ago, their very first act was to abolish the future jobs fund, which was worse than doing nothing. The future jobs fund got 100,000 young people into work. Before the election, the Prime Minister said that that same future jobs fund was a good scheme. Why did he cancel it, and why did he cancel it before he had a replacement? The Work programme—the Government’s replacement—is no substitute for the future jobs fund. It has one third less funding and is making less of a difference to young people’s lives.

We need jobs and growth and young people need hope and opportunity. They deserve a plan that gets the economy moving and improves the prospects of those leaving school, college and university. That is why Labour has set out a five-point plan for jobs and growth. A £2 billion tax on bank bonuses will both support the construction industry and guarantee a job for 100,000 young people. What could be fairer than using some of the record bank bonuses to get young people back to work? Bringing forward long-term investment projects— which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham mentioned—utting VAT temporarily to give immediate help to our high streets and struggling families cutting VAT to 5% on home improvements, and a one-year national insurance holiday for every small firm taking on extra workers, will make a huge difference to small businesses and to the 991,000 young people who are out of work today. This is a five-point alternative that offers hope and unlocks opportunity. It is a five-point plan that would get young people back to work, get businesses hiring and get our economy growing. I urge hon. Members to support this action for the sake of the young people up and down this country who have been tossed on the scrap heap by this Government, just as they were in the 1980s and 1990s under Tory Governments of the past.

It is time to learn the lessons. We cannot afford the cost of spiralling unemployment, or of young people leaving school and college without the hope of getting a job. Call it what you will—plan A-plus, plan B or Labour’s five-point plan—but for the sake of 1 million young people waiting for action, I urge hon. Members to support the motion.

18:50

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

How could we not be moved by what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), and the hon. Members for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said about the plight of young people in their constituencies? Let there be no dispute about this: there is no denial and there is no complacency. [Interruption.] Of course this matters to all hon. Members in this House, and it ill befits Opposition Members to suggest that they have a monopoly on care.

[Ian Austin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will not give way.

Hearing Labour Members talk about generational joblessness reminded me of the plight that my father and my grandfather suffered in the ’30s when they were jobless. The story now, as we have heard from Members across the House, is no less tragic than it was then. That is why the Government are doing something about it.

All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate must be disappointed by the motion. Like worn-out conjuror’s paraphernalia, it is all smoke and mirrors. It resembles the economic policy that the last Government practised when the shadow Chancellor was their senior economic adviser, and we all know where that led. It led to the point at which the shadow Secretary of State, who introduced this debate, left his famous letter saying “There’s no money left”. We can see the shadow Chancellor’s footprints and fingerprints all over the motion.

[Mr Byrne]

I am genuinely grateful for the tone that the Minister is trying to strike, but does he understand the signal that it sends, in a debate on youth unemployment, when the Department for Work and Pensions Minister cannot be bothered to turn up for more than half the debate and the Secretary of State is nowhere to be seen?

[Mr Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman obviously wants to make party political and partisan points. However, I was suggesting, perhaps unfashionably—perhaps this is not typical for the Opposition—that this matter goes beyond party divides, and that we should be united in our concern and in a call for action.

The shadow Chancellor is not without redeeming skills. I understand that, when he was at public school, he was good at playing the violin. So Balls fiddles while Byrne roams around talking down Britain’s chance to succeed.

Let me deal with the three principal points that have emerged from the debate—first, the future jobs fund. It was by far the most expensive part of the September guarantee package, at £6,500 for each individual, and 50% of the people who were under the influence of the fund found themselves unemployed eight months later. That is why we questioned its value—not because it did no good, but because it did not do enough good and was simply not cost-effective.

The second big issue that has been raised today is that of NEETS. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) must know that the NEETS figures are part of a deep, long-term structural issue. Throughout the good years, the NEETs figures were at an unacceptable level. The right hon. Gentleman will see from the figures that in 2009, on Labour’s watch, the number of NEETs rose to 925,000. The truth is that youth unemployment involves long-term structural and systemic issues, and this debate was a chance for us to consider them seriously. Instead, what we have heard from the Opposition was little more than party political knockabout.

The third point to emerge from the debate relates to apprenticeships. Let us deal with them head on. I shall leave aside the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has rubbished all those in his constituency doing apprenticeships in their 20s—people like those at Jaguar Land Rover or at BT.

[Mr Byrne]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hayes]

No, you had your chance.

The right hon. Gentleman rubbished people at BT, Honda and British Gas—[Hon. Members: “Give way.”] I give way to him.

[Mr Byrne]

Will the Minister tell the House by how much youth unemployment will fall as a result of his apprenticeship programme?

[Mr Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman knows the answer: over two years, the growth in apprenticeships for people under the age of 19 has been 29% and for people aged between 19 and 24 it has been 64%. Labour could only dream of those figures, and would have died for them in government. The number of apprenticeships for young people is growing. There are new opportunities, and while Labour is deliberating, the Conservatives and Liberals are delivering. That is the difference.

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does it not tell us everything we need to know that when there is a debate in the House on tax support to create jobs for young people, there is not one Treasury Minister on the Front Bench for the opening and closing speeches? Is that not a matter of great shame for the Government and an embarrassment for the Department for Work and Pensions?

[Mr Hayes]

I offer the shadow Chancellor this, and I do so fraternally: if just occasionally he would temper his belligerent bombast with a degree of humility about the advice he gave the previous Prime Minister and Chancellor, he might manage to stop his reputation flatlining.

The motion shows that the old conjuror has learned no new tricks. Once again, we have profligacy dressed up as prudence. It is public policy transvestism: from a distance, the promise of tax breaks may look alluring; only up close can we make out the underlying 5 o’clock shadow of debt and downturn. That is all the 5 o’clock shadow Cabinet can offer.

Some people think that many of the Opposition Front Benchers have been over-promoted, but I give them a second chance. I have a very small bet at very long odds that there is an outside chance that some of them may make a half-decent job of it.

This Government are acting on apprenticeships. We are acting on the Work programme. We are acting on work experience. We are working on getting people into jobs. That is the difference between this Government and the previous Government. We care too, but we act as well.

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

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

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

18:58

Division 394

Ayes: 234

---

Labour: 222
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Scottish National Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Independent: 1

Noes: 290

---

Conservative: 246
Liberal Democrat: 42

Business without Debate

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 6 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

International Development

That the draft International Development Association (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) (Amendment) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 7 September, be approved.

That the draft International Development Association (Sixteenth Replenishment) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 7 September, be approved.

That the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Selective Capital Increase) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 7 September, be approved.

That the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (General Capital Increase) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 7 September, be approved. —(Mr Newmark.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Urban Development

That the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) (Amendment) Order 2011, dated 3 October, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 October, be approved.—(Mr Newmark.)

Question agreed to.

Petitions

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

19:14

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

I rise to present a petition from the 195 children at Northway primary and nursery school in Wavertree in my constituency. The children are very concerned about the cancelling of the free fruit that they receive during their morning break, because of cuts to local authority funding.

The petition states:

The Petition of children from Northway Primary and Nursery School,

Declares that the Petitioners oppose the cancelling of free fruit for young children due to cuts to local authority funding; notes that fruit provides children with the essential vitamins they need to keep strong, fit, active and healthy; further notes that as a snack, fruit provides children with extra energy between breakfast and lunch which helps them to learn and declares that the Petitioners believe that the free fruit scheme may be the only way that some children are able to get fruit, as parents in financial difficulty may not be able to afford to buy fruit for their children.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reconsider its deep cuts to local authority funding so that Liverpool City Council can afford to maintain its free fruit scheme in schools.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000976]

19:16

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I wish to present this petition on behalf of the users of Bradford-on-Avon station, who are campaigning to keep the station’s ticket office open, following publication of the McNulty report, which recommends its closure. They value the service it provides to the local economy, as well as to rail users. A petition in similar terms has been signed by about 1,200 local residents.

The petition states:

The Petition of users of Bradford-on-Avon station,

Declares that the Petitioners regard the Bradford-on-Avon station booking office as an essential service and an essential part of the town, further declares that the Petitioners believe that it is used frequently and in preference to the ticket machine, particularly by older customers, and that it is widely valued for the information provided and for the services of the booking office staff in opening and closing the wonderfully refurbished waiting rooms.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that the Bradford-on-Avon station booking office remains open.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000978]

19:17

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

I wish to present a petition in opposition to the closure of the Guisborough delivery office. More than 5,000 petitioners made up of residents, business owners and Communication Workers Union Royal Mail workers have signed the petition in opposition to the privatisation of the Royal Mail and the proposed closure of Guisborough’s delivery office. There has been no meaningful consultation with the community, local business, or the work force and their trade union, the CWU. No proper reasons have been given for the proposed closure of what the petitioners believe is the most efficient delivery office in the Teesside area. Royal Mail’s proposals to move operations to Redcar from Guisborough are unproven, unworkable and unwanted.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Guisborough,

Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the closure of the Guisborough Royal Mail Delivery Office and the Government’s policy of Royal Mail privatisation; further declares that the Petitioners feel that there has been no meaningful consultation with the community, local businesses, the workforce and their trade Union, the Communication Workers Union; and declares that no proper reasons have been given for the proposed closure of what the Petitioners believe is the most efficient delivery office in the Teesside area.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to ensure that Royal Mail consults with local partners and reviews the proposed closure of Guisborough Delivery Office accordingly.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000977]

19:18

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

I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Blaydon Races 150 organising group and its supporters throughout the north-east. More than 3,000 people have signed a similar online petition. The petition calls on this House to throw its weight behind the campaign for a fitting celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Blaydon Races, which falls in June next year. Specifically, the petition asks the House to urge the local authorities of Newcastle and Gateshead to work together to ensure that the 150th anniversary of this great north-east anthem is celebrated with a properly scaled and co-ordinated programme of activities.

The petition states:

The Humble Petition of the organising group of the Blaydon Races 150th Anniversary Campaign, namely Mr Steven Campion, Mr David Minikin, Mr Aidan Oswell, Mrs Lisa Christer Ovenden, Mr Andrew Ridley and Mr Anthony Pearson,

Sheweth, that the Petitioners are campaigning to encourage all those who cherish the history, culture and traditions of their beloved Tyneside to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Mr George Ridley's famous Blaydon Races anthem in June 2012.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to actively encourage the local authorities of Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne to work together to coordinate a properly-scaled programme of appropriate celebrations.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

[P000979]

19:19

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

I ask to present this petition from Mr Heard and Ms Friend, supported by more than 1,000 residents who live in and around Keynsham, in the county of Somerset. The petitioners are concerned by the poor facilities for the disabled at Keynsham railway station. Better access has been promised but never created. They therefore ask the Secretary of State to urge the relevant authorities to ensure that this takes place.

The petition states:

The Humble Petition of residents of North East Somerset,

Sheweth that the Petitioners believe that there are inadequate facilities for disabled people who wish to use Keynsham railway station.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Transport to encourage FirstGroup plc to provide adequate facilities for disabled people at Keynsham railway station.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

[P000980]

Cluster Munitions

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Newmark.)

19:21

[Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)]

I have sought this debate because I am very concerned at current moves within the UN convention on certain conventional weapons to adopt a new protocol that would ban some older and less sophisticated cluster munitions, but allow continued use of some weapons that are the most dangerous to civilians. This would be a major step backwards, as it would effectively undermine the convention on cluster munitions that prohibits ownership, manufacture and transfer of all cluster weapons, because they all kill and maim civilian children, women and men when they are used. Some 111 states have now joined this treaty, which requires a complete ban.

However, before I rehearse my argument on that issue, it might help if I take a step back and look at what cluster munitions are, what they do and whom they do it to, and describe how the convention on cluster munitions was achieved and what has happened since to take its provisions forward. Cluster munitions are air-dropped or ground-launched shells that eject multiple smaller sub-munitions or bomblets. Some have been developed for use against runways, armour and even electrical transmission systems to locate a specific type of target. However, their primary purpose in most circumstances in which they are used is to kill people—ostensibly enemy combatants, but in practice many others as well.

Cluster bombs can contain variable numbers of sub-munitions, but most often that means very large numbers. Each sub-munition contains explosives, a copper cone, a pre-stressed fragmentation sheath and an incendiary sponge. The main bomb breaks open in mid-air and the bomblets are released, effectively carpet-bombing an area the size of two or three football fields. Anybody within that area—military or civilian—is likely to be torn apart. Tragically, in conflict after conflict, because of where they have been used, many of the victims of that weaponry—even at the time of attack—have been innocent children, women and men who were non-combatants.

However, that is only the first part of the story. There is a longer-term impact, because many of the bomblets do not work properly. They fail to explode on immediate impact and are left on the ground after the end of hostilities, to be trodden on by farmers returning to their fields, pulled up when families are cleaning rubble from their damaged homes, or even picked up as playthings by children attracted by their shape and shine. They remain lethal.

Cluster weapons date back to the second world war, but were used most extensively by the United States in the Vietnam war, where villages were carpet-bombed with cluster munitions. In fact, in Vietnam the US sometimes employed cluster bombs that were designed not to explode on impact. They were called area denial ordnance, and when they were dropped they were effectively land-mining an area from the sky. That was deliberate, of course; but all too often ever since, the result of using cluster munitions has not been too different.

Revulsion at what cluster munitions were doing to the ordinary people of Vietnam led in the early 1970s to calls for an international treaty. In 1974, Algeria, Austria, Egypt, Lebanon, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Norway, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Venezuela and Yugoslavia jointly put forward a document that included a section headed “Anti-personnel fragmentation weapons”. It said:

“Anti-personnel cluster warheads or other devices with many bomblets, which act through the ejection of a greater number of small-calibred fragments or pellets to be prohibited for use”.

Sadly, that initiative got nowhere at that time and the people of Vietnam are still living with the aftermath of that mass cluster bombing, 40 years later. Even now, every year, hundreds of Vietnamese civilians are killed or injured by American sub-munitions from cluster bombs dropped all that time ago. Some 22 countries have been affected by cluster munition contamination, with particular problems of unexploded ordnance in Indo-China, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon.

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Having visited southern Lebanon myself shortly after the ceasefire took place and after the Israelis had carried out a massive sowing of cluster munitions, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that he is absolutely right to point out the terrible dangers to men, women and children from these awful weapons, which are primarily used with the aim of, and have the effect of, killing and maiming civilians.

[Martin Caton]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He is absolutely right, and I shall say a little about what happened in Lebanon.

In 2006, the charity Handicap International produced a report documenting more than 10,000 known civilian casualties from cluster munitions, but it believed that the true figure could be as much as 10 times as high as that. What there can be no doubt about is that cluster munitions have caused excessive and disproportionate harm to civilians in every conflict in which they have been used over the past 40 years. People across the world realised this, especially when they saw on their television screens the use of millions of these weapons by the state of Israel against Lebanon and the consequences for its people. Sixty per cent. of Israeli cluster strikes were in built-up areas, with the inevitable impact on innocent human life. At the end of the conflict it was estimated that there could have been as many as a million unexploded cluster sub-munitions littering roads, schools, wells, houses, gardens and fields, taking their toll on the Lebanese population. A clean-up operation continues, in which the UK Department for International Development is playing a valuable and important role, but that, we should not forget, is a diversion of development aid money from other humanitarian projects.

At the end of that conflict, cluster munitions, as an issue, had gone up the political agenda across the face of the planet. Civil society was brilliantly organised by the Cluster Munition Coalition of more than 350 organisations in more than 100 countries. They found politicians who were willing to listen, ready to be convinced and prepared to act. From 2000 until 2007 attempts had been made to negotiate on cluster munitions at the UN convention on certain conventional weapons, and this had been blocked every time by the United States and others. When in 2006 a mandate to negotiate an instrument on cluster munitions, proposed by 27 states, was again prevented, Norway and the other countries involved decided to go outside the UN to move the issue forward.

That was the start of what became known as the Oslo process, starting with a conference in that city in February 2007. In doing that, Norway was following the example of Canada, which had used the same approach in securing the landmine treaty 10 years earlier. The Oslo process was quite remarkable. By getting people and their Governments to address the impact of cluster munitions, we saw quite radical changes of position over about a year, not least in this country.

On 23 November 2006, I secured an Adjournment debate in the Chamber on cluster munitions in which I urged the then Labour Government to play a leading role in the Oslo process and to take the initiative by announcing the UK’s intention to renounce all cluster munitions. The then Minister of State, Ministry of Defence who responded described cluster munitions as

“lawful weapons that provide a unique capability against certain types of legitimate target”,

and went on to say:

“Our military commanders judge the degree of force to employ to achieve the mission, subject always to strict compliance with international humanitarian law. We believe that that is a sufficiently adequate body of law. It puts considerable constraints on the use of cluster munitions.”

He added that

“a total ban on the use of all types of sub-munition would have an adverse impact on the UK’s operational effectiveness.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 802.]

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

If all those countries have signed the letter asking for these munitions not to be used, what action does the hon. Gentleman think should be taken against the manufacturers, because that is where the key lies? If they cannot sell them, they will not manufacture them.

[Martin Caton]

In the 111 countries that are signatories to the Oslo convention on cluster munitions, manufacturing, stockpiling or transferring them is clearly illegal and states should act against such practices. Our problem is the countries that want to hang on to their cluster munitions, such as the United States, Russia and China in particular. That is the point of my debate. I think that they are trying to use the convention in the UN to enable them to hang on to the munitions, and I will move on to that point later.

In November 2006 the Labour Government’s position was that we need cluster munitions, but by May 2008 the previous Prime Minister was in Dublin arguing very effectively with Ministers from other states for a total ban. An historic agreement was struck on 28 May to establish the convention that now has 111 members, and more are joining as time goes on.

Let us think about that. Many people knew that the issue of cluster munitions needed to be addressed for at least the last third of the 20th century and the first few years of this century. In just five years, remarkable progress had been made and continues to be made. The convention on cluster munitions that came out of the Oslo process is now in its second year of implementation and its momentum remains strong. There were two new accessions in September and three new ratifications. The same month saw Lebanon host the second meeting of states parties to the convention, in which 34 countries that have not yet signed the convention participated. That is a dynamic that I think needs to be encouraged.

That is what worries me about what the United States and others are now proposing. Having blocked use of the UN convention on certain conventional weapons for years, they have proposed a draft protocol that would ban certain cluster munitions produced before 1980. It is due to be debated between 14 and 25 November in Geneva. There are three possible outcomes: adoption of the draft protocol, ending negotiations with no result, or the adoption of a political agreement that is not legally binding but allows interim steps.

My objective is to urge the Government actively to resist adoption of the protocol. In doing so, and in fairness, I want to recognise the commitment of the Government, like their predecessors, to a complete ban as espoused in the convention on cluster munitions. I do not doubt Ministers’ respect for its integrity or their keenness to get every country to join. However, from written answers to questions I have tabled, and from what colleagues and I picked up in a meeting on Monday with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), I am worried that the Department may be in danger of making an error of judgment. I put it no more strongly that that, because I know that deliberations are ongoing.

My concern is that the Government feel that the Oslo process has stalled and that, therefore, any initiative that allows non-signatories to the CCM to commit to some renunciation of some cluster weapons is welcome because it might allow more progress towards the goal that all Members of the House want to see: a global cluster munitions ban. I understand that thinking but am convinced that it is quite wrong for a number of reasons. The proposed protocol seriously risks encouraging greater use of cluster munitions that have been banned by most countries because it would remove the current stigma that has been developing against the use of cluster munitions—the same stigma developed with landmines, with very positive results. Some welcome the protocol because it would allow a red light for certain old cluster weapons, which would mean the removal of more of those weapons, but there is a reverse side to the coin.

First, when we say that only some munitions are unacceptable, implicitly we are saying that others are acceptable, which means that they get the green light. For the draft protocol, that would mean the United States’ BLU-97 getting the okay. That is the cluster bomb that caused such civilian suffering in Serbia and Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Amazingly, it would also give the okay to the Israeli M85, which was responsible for the slaughter in Lebanon. That cannot be a step forward.

Secondly, the protocol would also hamper efforts to achieve universal adherence to the convention on cluster munitions. The states that want the protocol want it to avoid making progress on the CCM, not to facilitate it. Thirdly, banning cluster munitions is increasingly making military sense, because they do not deliver. That is why 22 of the 28 NATO states have banned them.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and admire the passion with which he presents his case. Does he think that the UK’s position, given the role that the previous Prime Minister played in the Oslo convention, is looked at with particular significance by other nations?

[Martin Caton]

The role of the UK Government in Geneva could be critical. It is vital that they show a strength of will against what the United States and others are trying to do to protect the integrity of the current convention.

The draft protocol is not compatible or complementary with the convention on cluster munitions. The latter bans these weapons; the former allows for their use, production and transfer. The proposed protocol would—as I believe it is designed to do—undermine the convention on cluster munitions that came out of the Oslo process. It would set up a rival legal framework for cluster weapons under the auspices of the UN and would not remove a single weapon likely to be used in conflict. All the weapons banned would be 40 years old by the time the protocol required their removal, and they would be ready for decommissioning anyway. However, the draft protocol would legitimise the use of much more dangerous cluster weapons. It would be a body blow for the approach that drove the Oslo process, which was a humanitarian-centred partnership between civil society and Government that is a valuable model for future progress on multilateral disarmament.

The draft protocol contradicts existing international humanitarian law and is not the best way to engage with existing states that have stockpiles of cluster munitions. The International Committee of the Red Cross has pointed out that if it is established, this protocol would set a highly negative precedent. It would be the first time in history that international humanitarian law has moved backwards. I urge the Government, whatever they do, to resist this protocol. It will not move us forward; quite the opposite, it will take us back and reverse so much that has been achieved in the past five years.

I understand the Government’s desire to find ways to encourage recalcitrant states to begin the process of decommissioning cluster munitions. The best way to do that is by encouraging the development of a political declaration or plan of action stating that intention, rather than by creating an alternative international legal edifice that threatens our existing convention, which, in fairness, is delivering within a pretty speedy time frame. The draft protocol is not about cluster munitions disarmament; it is a fig leaf behind which the US, China, Russia and others intend to hide, so that they can continue to rely on dangerous, indiscriminate ordnance that will kill more innocent civilians if we let them get away with it.

19:37

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) on securing the debate and on the way he has for some years in this place consistently championed the cause of eliminating cluster munitions from the world. He has been tireless in drawing the matter to the House’s attention and in insisting that it should be high on the political agenda of successive Governments. I also want to acknowledge the presence here and contributions of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Wells (Tessa Munt).

I start by stating unequivocally that the UK and the Government remain fully committed to the objective of ridding the world entirely of cluster munitions. As the hon. Member for Gower said, the UK was one of the original 46 states to join the negotiating process for a convention to prohibit the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling and transfer of such munitions. Those negotiations ultimately led to the coming into force of the convention on cluster munitions.

It is fair to say that the previous Government and previous Prime Minister are entitled to take pride in the part that they played in that. I remember speaking from the Opposition Front Bench when the Bill that became the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010 was going through its stages in the House of Commons. I am glad that that legislation was taken through without amendment and with almost universal cross-party support.

The 2010 Act paved the way for this country to ratify the convention, enabling us to become the 32nd state party to the convention in November last year. It comprehensively implemented in UK law the obligations set out in the convention and it prohibited activity including the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of cluster munitions from taking place within the UK, and by any UK national wherever in the world they might be. The Act also established appropriate penalties and enforcement mechanisms, up to a 14-year prison sentence.

The convention on cluster munitions is rightly recognised as one of the most significant disarmament treaties of recent years. It is a great testament to what can be achieved by states and non-governmental organisations working together. I want to make it absolutely clear that, for this Government, the convention remains the gold standard for work on cluster munitions—the standard that we want all countries to aspire to and to accept and to which this country is determined to adhere.

We take our obligations under the convention very seriously. Immediately after signing the convention in May 2008, the United Kingdom withdrew all cluster munitions from operational service. That represented some 38 million sub-munitions. The United Kingdom then began the active destruction of these stockpiles in anticipation of ratification. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that so far we have already destroyed nearly two thirds of those stockpiles, or some 25 million sub-munitions. Under current plans, it is our intention to destroy the remainder by the end of 2013, or five years ahead of the deadline imposed by the CCM. This represents an early and dedicated effort to realise as quickly as possible, and in a safe, secure and environmentally responsible manner, our obligation to destroy munitions that are prohibited by the convention. We have shared the experience that we have gained and the lessons learned from that stockpile destruction programme with other signatories, and those countries have appreciated that advice and assistance.

At the same time, we have played a full role in delivering on our treaty obligations regarding international co-operation and assistance. Between 2010 and 2013, the United Kingdom will spend more than £30 million on mine action work. This includes the clearance of unexploded ordnance, including cluster munitions, around the world. In addition to this programme, we have allocated significant additional funding for mine action work in Afghanistan and Libya. The provision of this assistance is based on our published mine action strategy, which includes three main objectives: first, to release land affected by the explosive remnants of war so that it can make a measurable contribution to the socio-economic development of affected communities; secondly, to help Governments to take full responsibility for their national mine action programmes; and thirdly, to improve value for money in mine action.

With this strategy, we are concentrating our support on the states in greatest need. As recognised in the Vientiane action plan agreed at the first meeting of the states party to the convention on cluster munitions, the United Kingdom believes that particular attention should be paid to the world’s poorest, least developed states. Our strategy therefore gives priority to work that helps those countries first. Specific examples of assistance programmes include £27 million for two partners—the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust—principally for operations in Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Laos, Mozambique, South Sudan and Vietnam; and a further £5 million granted to the UN Voluntary Trust Fund that is supporting mine action in countries including Afghanistan, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Laos and Mozambique. We are fully committed to international co-operation and assistance. In just six months of our sponsored projects starting in Cambodia, Laos, Mozambique and Vietnam, 2.5 million square metres of land considered a high priority by those Governments for their national planning purposes had been cleared and returned to communities for productive use.

In addition to these efforts, the Government are fully committed to seeking a global ban on cluster munitions. That is a Government priority, and we continue to promote the universalisation of the CCM during all relevant bilateral meetings, as well as in multilateral forums.

Most recently, the UK, in partnership with non-governmental organisations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, hosted a workshop for Commonwealth countries, which was opened by my noble friend Lord Howell. The UK remains fully committed to the convention on cluster munitions and to a world free of cluster munitions. That is the standard we shall adhere to, that all states should aspire to and that we will continue to promote.

We cannot ignore the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman said, according to some estimates, 85% to 90% of the world’s stockpiles of cluster munitions are held by countries that are not parties to the Oslo agreements and to the convention. Nor can we ignore the fact that, sadly, there is little prospect of the non-Oslo states becoming parties to the convention on cluster munitions any time soon. That is a matter of profound regret. We continue to urge those countries, from the greatest to the smallest, to move forward and join the CCM.

It is in that context that negotiations have been under way for some time for a draft protocol VI on cluster munitions, within the convention on certain conventional weapons. The UK, along with the vast majority of signatories to the convention on cluster munitions, has participated constructively in those negotiations, but it has done so with a clear objective. We are determined to ensure that any protocol on cluster munitions that emerges from the talks for adoption by the CCW parties is complementary to and does not contradict the rights and obligations of states parties to the convention on cluster munitions. We also want to ensure that the additional humanitarian benefit that any proposed protocol would deliver is significant and demonstrable.

We think that working with the world’s major producers and users of cluster munitions towards a full prohibition—I emphasise that last phrase—is entirely consistent with our obligations under the CCM and that it would be irresponsible of us to refuse to engage with the countries that we wish to persuade to move towards adoption and implementation of the CCM, but which have so far refused to do so.

[Martin Caton]

I can see that the Government might be able to find a form of words that does not apparently contradict the CCM. However, these countries obviously will not give us a protocol that includes a complete ban, so what will happen in practice is that a green light will be given to some of the worst munitions, such as the M85. In practice, if the protocol goes through, it will contradict the existing convention and it will be very dangerous.

[Mr Lidington]

Negotiations are under way and we have a seat at the table. I think that we are right to take part in those talks. However, we are a long way from seeing a protocol that we regard as worth debating or as acceptable in any way.

I will go into a little more detail. The negotiations on protocol VI have produced a draft protocol that would see states that agreed to be bound by it take on a legally binding obligation to prohibit the use of pre-1980 stocks of cluster munitions. We reckon that that could account for a third of the world’s stockpile of these munitions. The draft protocol, as it currently stands—of course, it may be subject to change—would also create obligations regarding victim assistance, clearance of cluster munition remnants and reporting on stockpiles.

Some of those things, of themselves, would be a step forward, but we are disappointed by the progress achieved during negotiations on a draft protocol VI. Our approach to those talks remains unchanged. We will participate in negotiations at the CCW review conference this month, with the aim of getting the best possible result, and we will be guided by our determination to deliver a significant humanitarian outcome and, crucially, not to undermine the progress made under the Oslo treaty. We will therefore continue to press the world’s users and producers to give up more, to be more transparent and to be explicit in their commitment to work towards a world entirely free of cluster munitions.

Given that negotiations are ongoing and this review is about to start, it would not be right for me to go into further detail about the UK’s negotiating position at the Geneva conference, or to speculate on what the outcome of those negotiations might be. I can tell the House that the UK will take a view based on whatever final draft protocol might result from the negotiations between the CCW parties, but the UK Government remain firm in their commitment to the integrity of the CCM, to maintaining it as the gold standard and to ensuring that nothing that might be agreed—it is hypothetical at the moment—for protocol VI to the CCW undermines or contradicts countries’ obligations under the CCM. That is how we propose to take things forward.

19:51

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Ministerial Correction

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 9 November 2011

Deputy Prime Minister

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Voter Registration

[Chris Ruane]

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much his Department spent on steps to encourage voter registration in each of the last five years; and how much funding he plans to allocate for such purposes in each of the next four years.

[Official Report, 20 October 2011, Vol. 533, c. 1099W.]

Letter of correction from Mark Harper:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on 20 October 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Harper]

Electoral registration is the responsibility of individual Electoral Registration Officers (EROs). Local authorities have a duty to encourage participation in the electoral process and the Electoral Commission promotes public awareness of registration and produces research and reports on electoral registration issues. Electoral registration activity at the local level is funded through the Revenue Support Grant from central Government.

The Ministry of Justice (responsible for elections policy until June 2010) provided funding through the Electoral Participation Fund set up in 2007-08 to support local electoral officers in undertaking their statutory duties. The following funds were provided from the Participation Fund: £934,742 in 2007-08, £544,392 in 2008-09 and £153,895 in 2009-10. A further £67,355 was spent in 2010-11 to support activities undertaken by electoral administrators to encourage participation at the elections which were held on 6 May 2010, but approved in the previous financial year. The Participation Fund was closed in the Emergency Budget of 22 June 2010.

The Government have allocated a total of £108 million to meet the cost of implementing Individual Electoral Registration. This will fund EROs to make contact with each potential elector individually and invite them to register in 2014. It will also fund research to understand the current state of the electoral register and currently under-registered groups in order to ensure that as many people as possible are registered to vote. This year the Government are funding the piloting of 'data matching' of electoral registers against other data sources, such as the National Pupil Database and the Department for Work and Pensions database, to identify possible eligible electors, as well as looking at the ways in which we can make it as easy and secure as possible for citizens to register to vote, such as online registration.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Harper]

Electoral registration is the responsibility of individual Electoral Registration Officers (EROs). Local authorities have a duty to encourage participation in the electoral process and the Electoral Commission promotes public awareness of registration and produces research and reports on electoral registration issues. Electoral registration activity at the local level is funded through the Revenue Support Grant from central Government.

The Ministry of Justice (responsible for elections policy until June 2010) provided funding through the Electoral Participation Fund set up in 2007-08 to support local electoral officers in undertaking their statutory duties. The following funds were provided from the Participation Fund: £934,742 in 2007-08, £544,392 in 2008-09 and £427,190 in 2009-10. A further £54,708 was spent in 2010-11 to support activities undertaken by electoral administrators to encourage participation at the elections which were held on 6 May 2010, but approved in the previous financial year. The Participation Fund was closed in the Emergency Budget of 22 June 2010.

The Government have allocated a total of £108 million to meet the cost of implementing Individual Electoral Registration. This will fund EROs to make contact with each potential elector individually and invite them to register in 2014. It will also fund research to understand the current state of the electoral register and currently under-registered groups in order to ensure that as many people as possible are registered to vote. This year the Government are funding the piloting of 'data matching' of electoral registers against other data sources, such as the National Pupil Database and the Department for Work and Pensions database, to identify possible eligible electors, as well as looking at the ways in which we can make it as easy and secure as possible for citizens to register to vote, such as online registration.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 9 November 2011

[Philip Davies in the Chair]

Adoption

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies. It is my privilege to be able to bring this debate to the Chamber. The issue of UK adoption rates is topical and extremely important. Last week was national adoption week, and the issue has caught the public imagination. There is much to be said about the adoption process in the UK.

I must declare an interest as a family law barrister who has represented, over the years, parents, children and local authorities, in the child protection arena, since qualifying about 10 years ago. That has given me an insight into the many strains and pressures on those who work in child protection, and how those factors impact on the adoption process in the UK. I hope to set out some context, showing the different complexities that need to work together to improve the adoption process. However, I also consider the debate a perfect platform from which to encourage prospective adopters to come forward and be assessed, and to thank those who have stepped up to the mark and are now parents. The attendance at today’s debate shows that it is of interest across the parties.

The recent figures on adoption levels in the UK should cause alarm bells to ring. In the past year, of the 3,660 children in care under the age of one year, only 60 were placed for adoption. Those figures are a matter of concern, but they continue a trend that has troubled the Department for Education since the formation of the Government last year. For those of us with an interest in that area, the commissioning by the new Government of the Norgrove and Munro reviews, and the appointment of Martin Narey to review the adoption process—among other things—was most welcome. I know that the Children’s Minister, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), and the Secretary of State have taken a real interest in the subject matter.

I read this week a moving account by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education of his experience of childhood after being adopted.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I was looking at the adoption statistics, and it seemed to me that the decline in the number of adoptions is associated with an increase in the number of special guardianships being granted. When those are combined, the absolute numbers, in terms of giving permanence to a child, have increased since 2006. Does the hon. Lady agree that special guardianship orders, as well as adoption orders, can give the permanence that we seek for children?

[Jessica Lee]

I agree that when special guardianship orders came in, they brought about something that was much needed in the system. It is often, although of course not always, relatives of the child who step forward, and the orders provide another avenue of permanence and security for the child.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, about which many of us feel passionate. She has carried out a duty on behalf of us all in championing the matter in Parliament.

Although since 2005 special guardianship orders have been an important addition to the routes to permanence for children, is it not the case that the number of children being adopted had already flatlined in the two or three years before those orders were introduced? We need to be careful not to make a direct comparison between special guardianship orders and adoption orders and assume that one is replacing the other.

[Jessica Lee]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has shown leadership in the House in taking forward the issue of outcomes for looked-after children. I agree with his point. Special guardianship orders have their place and have been very useful in the child protection arena, but I do not accept that there is a direct correlation between the introduction of those orders and the reduction in adoption figures. It simply is not that straightforward. It should be borne in mind that often other residence orders or long-term foster care arrangements have supported special guardianship orders.

To return to what I was saying about the Secretary of State, he has taken the view that his life chances were transformed by the childhood that he experienced. He hopes to support looked-after children who are waiting to be placed for adoption. I was very encouraged by the interest shown by the Prime Minister in the issue in his party conference speech and subsequent remarks. I was delighted to hear him comment on the importance of improving adoption rates. I was also delighted with his response to my question at Prime Minister’s questions, which included this comment:

“It is also important that the Government pledge that we will make the process of adoption and fostering simpler. It has become too bureaucratic and difficult, and the result is that it is putting people off. I am absolutely determined that we crack this.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2011; Vol. 534, c. 923.]

I am sure that we would all agree with the Prime Minister about that.

Pulling all the indicators together, the message is clear. There is a momentum in the House and the country to tackle the challenges affecting the adoption process. We must seize the opportunity. The starting point must be the assessment process for prospective adopters. Last week’s national adoption week was an excellent opportunity to showcase, across the country, the need for adoptive parents, and the need to raise awareness. It is hoped that families and individuals will reflect on the possibility of adoption and make that important phone call to local authorities to start the process. Sadly, there are many anecdotal examples of that first step in the process—contacting children’s services—being a hurdle to overcome. I worked with and for social workers for many years, and I assure hon. Members that I am not going to turn my speech into criticism of those who work in the field. The difficulties I mention are merely an example of the problems that occur all the way along the process of adoption.

Anecdotally, some applicants report being discouraged from the outset, and more needs to be done to ensure that all possible applicants are appreciated and encouraged to apply. Until we get people up to the starting line for the assessment process it is difficult to improve the number of applicants. With the current numbers of successful adoptions, we cannot afford to discourage people at an early stage. The entire assessment process needs to be streamlined and improved.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Last year I spent an afternoon out with Warwickshire social services, and met foster carers, who were doing a terrific job looking after some of the most vulnerable young people. They were very concerned because of the delays in adoptions, which caused problems, leaving the young people uncertain for some time. Does my hon. Friend agree that streamlining and speeding up the process would help our most vulnerable young people?

[Jessica Lee]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has essentially summed up the problems. There is not one individual, agency, organisation or Department at fault. We are dealing with an entire system that needs to be examined and improved throughout. A domino effect of improvements is required.

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

Is the hon. Lady aware of developments in Wales? The Welsh Assembly Government are consulting on the possibility of unifying the adoption capacities of local authorities into a super-agency, with the idea of reducing duplication and, hopefully, providing speedier and better matches between adoptive parents and children. I imagine that the hon. Lady, like me, would welcome that approach.

[Jessica Lee]

I of course welcome any initiatives that are being taken, and I am sure that more information will be presented about the pilots and process in Wales, which will help us all, throughout the country.

Turning to the streamlining of the process, I ask the Minister this: do the Government consider that the process takes too long on occasion? Are the assessments too lengthy? Is there too much bureaucracy? Again, I am not criticising individual social workers—adoption is not an easy area to work in, and those working in adoption teams are often passionate and committed to seeking a placement for children for whom they are responsible. My concern is about the culture that has developed regarding assessment and the heavy-handed approach to form-filling. We need to reach a position where professionals feel confident to exercise their judgment to make decisions. That is perhaps reflected in the conclusions of Eileen Munro’s review into social workers and how we can improve prospects for professionals.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady has been generous in giving way, and I congratulate her on securing this important debate.

May I reinforce the hon. Lady’s point? Does she agree that Martin Narey’s evaluation of what is going on in the area is striking? He reported that one local authority required

“prospective parents to go through 146 pages of assessment.”

He also met a couple who had had to spend

“12 days with a social worker in their home assessing their readiness for adoption.”

At a time when almost

“three quarters of councils failed to place a child with their new adoptive family within 12 months of the adoption being finalised”,

does she agree that on both sides of the House we need to give the strongest support to Martin Narey in sending out the signal that pace and purpose need to be brought into the whole process, in the interests of the children?

[Jessica Lee]

I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Of course we need to support Martin Narey, and I will come on to his report.

Another anecdotal example that one hears is that households are assessed through a form that is several pages long about the number of pets in the household, the fire drill process and so on. It prompts the question: where does the balance fall? Of course we need to safeguard children—no one would object to that. However, if every family of every newborn child who goes home from hospital with their natural parents had to produce a fire drill, a pet assessment form and details about its private life, the country would come to a standstill. We do not want to discourage people who have agreed to adopt and who have made an emotional commitment and a life-changing decision from applying. The concern, which we must tackle, is that such people are distracted or discouraged from continuing the process. In his report, Mr Martin Narey gives some excellent examples of where the problems lie.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. Regarding the point that she has just made, does she agree that although we need, first and foremost, to ensure that adoptive parents are fit and proper to take on an adoptive role, by no means should the Government or the state tell the people who are fit and proper to look after children how to run their lives?

[Jessica Lee]

The point is well made by my hon. Friend, and I thank him for the intervention. It is exactly that balance that perhaps we should all refer to this morning. There is a clear dividing line between assessing and safeguarding children and deciding whether they would be in any risk in a household, and commenting on people’s lifestyle choices and intimate details, which is simply not relevant to whether people are fit and capable parents.

Another aspect to speeding up the adoption process is the time limit for courts in completing care and placement proceedings. The family justice review, headed by David Norgrove, has just produced its final report. Sections of the report are relevant to the debate on adoption rates in the UK.

It is broadly accepted that children make their main attachments in the earliest months and years of their lives. It goes perhaps without saying that the more secure are their relationships with their main carers, the more likely it is that they will form secure attachments and relationships in childhood and beyond.

It is important to remember that the paramount priority of the family court has been and always will remain the welfare of a child. Again, I make no criticisms of all the professionals and others involved in the court process; I know at first hand how hard-working and committed the court staff, lawyers, social workers and children’s guardians are. However, there are long delays in the completion of cases. Care and supervision cases now take an average of 56 weeks. One can say that a young child is subject to proceedings for a high percentage of their life—often 50% or more. There is no magic wand for that problem. It requires consideration of case management, court availability and judicial leadership.

We already have in place the public law outline, which sets out the parameters for how cases should progress. Judicial continuity and strict case management are just one important aspect of how we could speed along proceedings.

[Mr Timpson]

Regarding the court process, judicial continuity and case management, is it not also important that the initial allocation of a care case is done with the utmost expediency and by a judge with the right level of experience, to ensure that there is not even more delay built into the court process, so that the time limits that we are trying to adhere to are more likely to be kept?

[Jessica Lee]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. At the moment, all public law cases automatically go to the family proceedings court. They may then be transferred to higher courts, such as the county court or even the High Court. However, when we are dealing with strict time limits and concerns to create outcomes for children, every extra court date is time not best used. It is a waste of the child’s time, and we must improve the situation. I would support any proposals that allocate cases more efficiently and directly to the correct level, so that they can be properly managed by appropriate judges.

The Norgrove review proposes a limit of six months in which to complete proceedings. That is certainly a good aspiration, but if that is to be achieved, it will require the coming together of many aspects of how the courts function. I realise that the report has only just been published, but I ask the Minister for any preliminary response to it, and what the time scale is for a detailed Government response to that important document. Six months is a reasonable period in which to make an assessment. A court’s primary and first consideration and hope is that a child may be returned to their birth family and stays with it. Following that is an assessment and consideration of the parents and any other family members. We need to speed up the availability of court time.

Judicial continuity is important. If a judge is charged with the responsibility of a case from the outset, they will have a much better understanding of the dynamics, personalities and initial concerns of a social worker. They will have a grip on the background and chronology of the case; they will have seen it through. It is much more difficult for a judge to step in halfway through a case and make important and life-changing decisions for a child. I am sure that many judges would wish to have judicial continuity throughout cases—they aspire to that as well—so I hope that can be achieved over time.

Once the court process has been exhausted and a placement order made, allowing local authorities to match a child with prospective adopters, there are further hurdles and challenges. A local authority has to consider the pool of adopters within its authority. Again, one has to think about the cost and other complications of looking further afield from the outset. However, is that a sensible, child-centred approach? Surely, we need a more straightforward structure in which adoption teams across the country can consider as wide a pool of prospective adopters as possible from the earliest opportunity. That could save months when matching children with prospective carers.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I apologise for arriving late to this extremely important debate. I have considered adoption. I am 47 years old and have successfully brought up three children. I know that there is a big question over whether MP mothers are fit people to adopt, but I am also considered too old to adopt because of some absurd guidance on the age spread between the adopted child and the adoptive parents. Surely it is time to stop that insanity and allow these vulnerable children to be placed in loving homes regardless of ethnic background and age. We need a return to common sense.

[Jessica Lee]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course we need a common-sense approach. There are thousands of children in care who are waiting to be placed, and we must do all that we can to help them.

The issue of concurrent placements is important. Foster carers who are caring for children throughout the court process—the care proceedings—can also become the adoptive parents without having to be assessed all over again. The advantage is that children are in their prospective home and able to form those important attachments from an early stage. That is surely desirable and needs to be encouraged. Organisations such as Coram are skilled and successful in implementing such an approach, and authorities, including the London borough of Harrow, have championed it.

Of course there are consequences to such an approach. We are asking foster carers to make an emotional investment, and yet they are often left for months on end waiting for the outcome of the assessments of everyone else to see whether they can keep the child for the longer term, so it is not for the faint-hearted. None the less, there are many advantages to the concurrent placement approach. I hope that the Government will consider increasing the number of concurrent placements and also how they are undertaken across the country.

Another aspect of the adoption debate is the question of how important it is to secure a cultural and ethnic match between prospective parents and the child. In my experience, this is a debate in which feelings can run very high, and professionals and parents hold a variety of views. Of course there are many who have a greater knowledge and insight into this issue than I, but for what it is worth my view is that we have taken a step in the right direction with the recent change in the legislation that says that a culturally appropriate match is desirable but is by no means a prerequisite or a deal-breaker.

It is easy to be simplistic about this topic, but it is difficult to accept that it is better for a black and minority ethnic child to have to remain in care for all of their childhood instead of being placed in a loving home because there is not an ideal ethnic match.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this debate to the Chamber today. Often foster parents and those who wish to adopt go overseas to adopt. Does that not illustrate the problem that we are trying to highlight today—that it is quicker to adopt overseas than at home? Surely there needs to be a quick change to the system for the very reasons that the hon. Lady has stated.

[Jessica Lee]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have many anecdotal examples of this issue. I have met many adoptive parents who have spent years hoping to adopt children and who have, eventually, had to turn to agencies overseas. It has taken years and cost them a huge amount to parent a child. That is a tragedy and must come to an end. Society has moved on considerably on this issue and those not involved in any way with the court or adoption process are often amazed to hear that they may not be considered as parents for a child because there is not a good cultural match. I do not think it is fair on BME children who are in foster care to be disadvantaged in such way. We must make progress on this issue.

On the issue of sibling placements, there is evidence that the loss of contact with birth siblings is a real regret to adopted children. We need to do more to support successful sibling placements and to encourage contact and communication between siblings throughout their childhood. I have friends who went from having no children to having three overnight, aged three, two and one. It was a life-changing moment for them, but it ensured that the sibling group were able to stay together. I can now report that those children are flourishing and experiencing a very happy childhood.

It is easy to be over-simplistic about this issue and there will be many examples of situations where it is not in a child’s best interests to maintain such relationships. None the less, if such relationships can be sustained they should be, and this is where the care plans that are devised at court and the role of the independent reviewing officer come to the fore.

When the case completes in court, the judge will sign off and approve the final care plan. A section in that will include the contact—contact with birth parents and with birth family, which will include siblings as well. A real regret for judges is that they do not know what happens after that point; they have no judicial role once the case has concluded. The case then moves to the management of the local authority and the independent reviewing officers, who have a key and pivotal role to play in the whole adoption procedure. I hope the role of such officers is supported and perhaps even increased and improved over the years. They are charged with the responsibility of checking on that care plan and seeing how it is being implemented. The loss of birth parents can be difficult for children as they grow up, but the loss of siblings with whom they may have been very close can be something of real regret. More needs to be done to improve and encourage not just the placement of siblings together but sibling contact if children have to be separated.

The issue of Criminal Records Bureau checks also needs to be considered and changed across many Departments. A constituent of mine wanted to volunteer to work with the local Home-Start charity. Erewash is lucky to have such a good Home-Start team who do great outreach work, especially for young mums, and work very well with the local authority. The constituent put in for her CRB check and she was confused with another lady who did not even share the same name. The check came back saying that she had a number of convictions. That is simply not the case and it has taken months to resolve the matter. My concern is again with the system that we have. We are dealing with an individual who wants to help; she wants to volunteer in her community and help young mums, and the system has done everything it can to try to prevent her from doing that. We must not let such problems with bureaucracy get in the way. Such problems are also reflected in the adoption process, but I have already covered them in this debate.

Martin Narey, the former head of Barnardo’s, has been appointed by the Government to advise on adoption. He has worked extremely hard and been bold and direct in his conclusions about how we move forward. Both his work and the campaign that has been championed by The Times have done a huge amount to raise the issues across the country.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on today’s debate. On the campaign organised by The Times, would she join me in paying tribute to the newspaper for its leadership on the issue, to Martin Narey and to the Children’s Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who commissioned Martin Narey to write his report and who has adopted his recommendations? The Prime Minister has both warmly welcomed the report and called for an overhaul of the adoption process. Does she not agree that for the first time in many years, this Government are showing real leadership on the issue of tackling these problems?

[Jessica Lee]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. I reiterate that there is a real momentum—within Government, across parties and across the country through The Times and other publications—to raise the profile of this issue, so we really must do more.

There are many threads and complexities to this issue, but at the heart of this debate is a wish to raise the profile of adoption, to encourage adoptive parents to come forward and to point out how rewarding and valuable adoption of children can be. Like any life-changing decision, it will not be without its challenges and ups and downs, but from the many, many discussions that I have had with adoptive parents I know that their lives have been enriched by the decision to open their homes and to care for children.

As politicians, what we need to focus on now are the real challenges of making the system of adoption as streamlined and as efficient as it can possibly be.

[Ann Coffey]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate, and she is making a very thoughtful contribution to it. Does she agree that although we must of course have more adoptions, we must also have more successful adoptions? The research indicates that about 11% of adoption placements break down and that is heartbreaking, both for the adopted child and the adopting parents. Does she think that the Department for Education could take more of a lead in commissioning research into adoption breakdowns, so that we have a better perspective on what goes wrong and can secure more successful placements in the future?

[Jessica Lee]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. In my view, the Department is doing exactly that; it is examining the entire process of adoption, root and branch, in detail. So I am confident that those points are being considered. Her point about the need for post-adoption support is a good one, and it needs reflecting on. Perhaps it takes us back to the points that I made about the role of the independent reviewing officer in reviewing case plans and reviewing the position of children.

I conclude by saying that better outcomes for looked-after children should be our goal. It is attainable; I feel that the momentum towards achieving it is there, and I ask everyone to do their bit to improve the adoption system.

10:01

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I will be brief, because I know that right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute to this debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) on securing this debate on an issue that is very important to a lot of people out there among the general public who are interested in becoming prospective parents. They are interested in this debate, because the hon. Lady has expressed a lot of the frustration that many of them feel when they have to go through the process of adoption.

In the research papers that we received before this debate, one figure given to us was that last year, only 60 out of 3,600 children under the age of one who are in care were adopted, and in addition the average time that the process of adoption took was two and a half years. We all know that when a child reaches the age of four, the possibility of their being adopted is very slim indeed. They may go into foster care, but it is certainly very difficult for them to be adopted.

The research papers state that one in four adopted children were forced to wait more than a year before they moved in with their new parents. I have to say that my experience as someone who has adopted—I will go into that experience more in a moment—is in relation to the prospective parents: those couples who believe that they can offer a good home to children and who have tried for many years to have a family in a natural process but have never been able to do so. They are frustrated with the legislation on adoption. We have heard about the form-filling. In the words of people who have come to me, they are frustrated with “the intrusiveness” of having to sit down with social workers. The hon. Lady mentioned the good work of social services, and I accept that point, as being a social worker is a very difficult job. However, for older prospective parents aged between 30 and 35, having to sit down and talk to a young social worker who has very little experience of life and rearing a family—their experience all comes from a textbook—and tell them why they cannot have a family is very difficult. The prospective parents have to tell the social worker all their personal details and the process is very frustrating from their point of view.

There is a balance to be struck in all of this. I understand—and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members realise this—that some of the things that have happened to children over the years, and even in recent months, for example, baby P, children being starved to death and all those sorts of things, are horrific. In my opinion, anyone who does that sort of thing to a child is not fit to live in society.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has raised the issues that people who want to adopt, or even foster, children are faced with. There is a myth that if someone is a smoker, or unmarried or even overweight, they will not be considered a suitable adoptive parent. Of course, many parents throughout the country face all those issues and it does not make them any better or any worse parents. We must also address the issue that people are expected to be paragons of virtue in everything that they do before they are regarded as perfect adoptive parents.

[David Simpson]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady. Certainly, if being overweight had been an issue, I would not have fitted the bill. Later on this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) will introduce a Westminster Hall debate on the Government policy on obesity, and he has dared me to attend. [Laughter.] I will go to it.

The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) is right. No one is perfect and it is very hard to get a role model of a parent. We all have frustrations. Even if people have children through the natural process, they experience frustrations because they do not know how those children are going to turn out, which is difficult. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) raised the issue of the age of prospective parents and I think that she said she is 47. May I say that she looks very well for 47? If I was a social worker, I would take her for 27, but we will not go down that road.

Returning to the serious point, it is nonsense for social services to restrict the number of prospective parents just because someone is over 40, or 45. That is absolutely scandalous. One of the prospective parents who had come to see me and who had been told that they could not adopt, was told that one reason was they were over 45, so when the child reached their teenage years the prospective father could not play football with them. That is absolute nonsense—the whole thing is crazy.

We must try to get a balance in all of this. In Northern Ireland 25 years ago, what my wife and I did was very new. We went to an agency, we went through missionaries, and we adopted our first child from India. That was 25 years ago this December. I think that we were the second set of parents in Northern Ireland to adopt a child from a foreign country. The reason was simple; it was because the waiting list to adopt a child in Northern Ireland was horrendous. It was unbelievable. We felt that we could give a child a home, and as we could not have that child from the British system, we were forced to go down another avenue.

We did that 25 years ago. We have had no problems whatsoever from a cultural or ethnic viewpoint, and we have experienced no racism in any way. My daughter is now 25 and she runs her own business. Then we adopted twins from Paraguay. At that time, the dictator in Paraguay made it very clear that he would prefer it if children died on the streets of Paraguay than be adopted by a western society. He did not have his way and we adopted the twins. Someone asked us after we did that if we were trying to start our own United Nations, but we decided to stop at just the three children because we knew that the United Nations was nothing to be proud of. We did not go down that road.

Our twins are now 22, and again that adoption has worked well; there are absolutely no issues. However, the point that I am making is that because of the system we were forced to go in that direction. The system needs to be looked at. Two and a half years is much too long for any prospective parent to wait for a child. We need to deal with that, and we must address the ageism involved in beliefs about the age a prospective parent should be.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) on securing this excellent debate. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that families who put themselves forward for adoption often have had fertility problems? Not only are they waiting throughout the lengthy bureaucratic process of adoption, but they might have been trying for children and have had a desire to contribute, by bringing up a family, for a long time—perhaps up to five or six years.

[David Simpson]

That is 100% right. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue, and we need to get to grips with the situation. On many such issues, the policy of the present Government and of previous Governments for many years—I am not pointing the figure at any one in particular—has been, “We’ll put a sticking-plaster over it and that will last for another while. Then we’ll perhaps bring out a wee bit of legislation or else we’ll go out for consultation.” The period involved is frustrating for potential adoptive parents. Last year in the United Kingdom, only 60 out of 3,600 children under the age of one in care were placed with families. That scandal must be dealt with, and I trust that the Minister will take note. Many families who are willing to give children a loving home are not given the opportunity to do so.

10:12

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) on securing this debate. We have had an overview of the situation from her, and a personal story from my hon. colleague the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson). I want to look at two issues raised by constituents of mine, one about the choice and selection of adoption agencies, the other about awareness in the education system of the needs and sensitivities of adopted children.

Statistics show that the number of children being adopted has fallen, with decreases of 5% from 2010, 20% from 2005, and 8.4% from 2009. I will look at that significant 2009 figure a little later. We must, however, look at the reality of the situation. We are talking about a child’s journey, about the most formative years in their life when they are at their most vulnerable and learn the most, not from the spoken word but from the things that shape their characteristics and personality traits for the rest of their life—how they are accepted and rejected, how they form a loving bond with their parents or new adoptive parents, and how that has a significant impact on their future relationships. That is key. Some 33% of children who leave care are not in education, employment or training, compared with a national average of 18%, so there are huge implications and ramifications later in life.

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

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Part of this debate is about policy that has social benefits down the line. There are clearly issues about parents being able to adopt as quickly as possible, but the critical point is that this is part of an early intervention policy and we need to get it right because it has benefits for society.

[Esther McVey]

I completely agree. There are benefits to society, but also huge benefits to the child who progresses into adulthood.

My constituents came to see me about the significant changes to adoption agencies under Labour’s 2010 equality laws, which state that the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is a fundamental principle of human rights laws and that such discrimination can be permitted only in the most compelling circumstances. I completely agree. That is the law; that is the way forward. The consequence, however, has been the closing of Catholic adoption agencies across the country. We have a huge problem, because those adoption agencies were the best at finding parents for older children—the most difficult to place with adoptive parents—and were the most successful in ensuring that those children remained in families.

People said to me, “You put the Catholic Church in a situation in which Parliament’s laws conflicted with the Church laws,” which they considered a higher law. They said, “When does tolerance become intolerance? Why were we tolerant of other people but not of the Catholic Church? When did equality for the Catholic Church become inequality?” We have seen that inequality, as all of a sudden the help that the agencies provided stopped because they were no longer given funding. Agencies that can trace their origins back to orphanages set up in Leeds in 1863 ended up closing down. Of course, we have to live within the law—of course, we must have the correct outcome—but surely that does not mean that we cannot have choice in how adoption agencies go about their work and in how they meet the needs of parents who come to them.

I looked slightly closer at the falling numbers of children being adopted. At the moment, there are 177 adoption agencies, 150 in local authorities and 27 voluntary ones, but if we go back, there were 11 more—Catholic ones that closed. That was a 5.83% decrease in the total number of agencies, but a 30% drop in the number of voluntary ones. How do we replace those valuable agencies? How do we find a selection—a choice—for people wanting to come forward, and how do we find those people? Some people come forward via the Church. This is a fundamental need for them, and they feel they are helping the Church, local communities and children. We must look very carefully at how we reach out to people who want to adopt, but for the past couple of years feel that they have been overlooked. There must be equality for everyone, but we need choice, which will ultimately provide equality for everyone and for the children who so desperately need to be adopted.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I want to reinforce my hon. Friend’s point. In my constituency of Gosport and in the wider Hampshire area, only 35 children were adopted last year. The older children are, the harder they are to place, and looked-after children have half the success rate of other kids in English and maths. We therefore need to explore every possible avenue to enable older children to be adopted, and the Catholic agencies were very successful at placing them and other harder-to-help children.

[Esther McVey]

Absolutely. The key point is, “When does tolerance become intolerance?” The Catholics who came to see me thought that that had happened. They believed that providing choice could bring about equality, but that what we had stopped was choice.

My second point, which a constituent of mine, Paula Davies, raised with me, is about the lack of awareness in the education system. She had adopted a daughter, and thought that she had unique needs arising from the adoption, which had happened later in life. She was concerned that the schools did not seem to be fully aware of the requirements of children from such backgrounds. She did not want something specific for her child; she did not want anybody taking her aside or teaching her differently. She was not looking for something different or extreme. However, she told me that two county councils, Hertfordshire and Somerset, have documents for staff who work with looked-after or adopted children in schools, and she wondered why every county council could not have those documents to hand for teachers to read, so that they could be aware of such children’s unique sensitivities and awareness.

Children adopted later in life are particularly vulnerable to rejection. They might take being told off or made to sit over there in a slightly different way, having been rejected early or later in life. It would be a simple change. The documents already exist, so I am not asking for anything with a cost implication. We are asking that they be made available to other councils, and therefore to teachers across the country.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about education for adopted children. Does she agree that local authorities treat adopted children differently from children in care, in terms of the support that they get and the schools that they go to? Does she agree with the proposal to change that and enable adopted children to receive the same support as children in care?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I was not aware that there were differences, but if so, of course they need to be addressed. Particularly for children adopted later in life, it is painfully apparent that they might need the same support as children in care. I will conclude on that point, but I would like replies from the Minister on my points about choice, equality and awareness of the need to help children in school.

[Mr Timpson]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Two colleagues are seeking to catch my eye. Just to let them know, I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 10.40 am, so they can divide the time between them.

10:22

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to make a few points to give the Northern Ireland perspective. I commend the hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee)— I am sure that my pronunciation is totally wrong, but that is by the way. I hesitated to mention her constituency, because I was not sure it would come out right. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on his heartfelt contribution. He has walked that road and knows it well.

I am a great believer, as I have said in other debates, in the importance of family life. Family is the core of society, and we build society around the family. I am fortunate enough to have come from a good family environment, from my point of view. I have three boys and am a grandfather to boot. I see the importance of family life in giving children stability and ensuring that they do well in life.

In my position as an MP, I have had the opportunity to meet many constituents who adopt and foster, and who give love and meaning to those who need help. Many wish to adopt, and I will make a couple of points relating to them. Some of those points have been mentioned, but I want to put on record the situation in Northern Ireland and the importance of family life to those who find themselves on their own.

I have seen many products of adoption and the good work done by foster parents. I know a family in my constituency who have adopted or fostered numerous children over a period of years. I remember one young boy; I mind well when he was adopted, and I have watched him grow all the way through the process. He started as a vulnerable young boy, and found parents who gave him an opportunity in life. Now he is a young man. I have watched his progress from a child seeking adoption to his present employment. He is stable, kind, well-mannered and a credit to both his parents and his foster parents.

Northern Ireland had 2,660 children in the care of the authorities in March last year, to give some statistics. Their needs included short-term care as well as long-term adoption and fostering. The breakdown is that 50% were boys, 17% were between the ages of one and four, 30% were between five and 11, 31% were between 12 and 15 and 19% were 16-plus. They all have their own unique needs.

Fostering and adoption are absolutely important, but in Northern Ireland, only 61 of those 2,660 young people found adoptive parents that year. That is a minuscule drop in the ocean. I have spoken to fostering authorities and organisations in Northern Ireland, and they have indicated some of the problems with the process. A better way is needed through the paperwork and bureaucracy that we have all mentioned and know about. I made a comment earlier about people going overseas to adopt children. It is not that children from across the water should not have the opportunity for adoption. It is not only celebrities who adopt them but people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann, who wanted to give children a home, as do many people I know, who have looked at photographs in the paper and read stories on TV and in magazines about multi-millionaires who go overseas to adopt children. Such people give young people stability and opportunity.

The process worries me, because it takes so long. One key factor that other Members have mentioned is that the process can take anything from two to two and a half years. For those who are starting the process and are anxious to enable quick fostering or adoption, we must do something about that.

[Claire Perry]

I wonder what the hon. Gentleman would say about a case in my constituency involving an officer returning from Afghanistan. He and his wife had been trying for five years to have a child and decided to adopt. He was a smoker and was told that he had to give up, that he could not then restart the process for a year and that it would take another two years, by which time he is likely to be on deployment again. Surely we should do better and make the system more streamlined.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that example. We are all frustrated by the process, which does not deliver when needed but adds anomalies, in this case in relation to smoking.

[David Simpson]

On that point, when we were going through the process, we were told that it would take a year or a year and a half to do the home study and so on, but if we were willing to pay for it, social services could do it in four months. That is exactly what we did. People who cannot afford that have to wait a year and a half or more, but those in a position to pay for a home study through social services can do it in four months, a bit like the health service. It is not right.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. There is something seriously wrong with a process where those who can pay get it and those who cannot pay have to wait.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

On that point, does the hon. Gentleman share the ambition that Martin Narey set out regarding the scale of change needed when he suggested that the number of adoptions ought to double and the time taken to complete them ought to halve? Is that not the scale of change that we must press for?

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome those constructive comments. I would say that the number should more than double. If only 61 people in Northern Ireland were adopted in a year when 2,660 were awaiting adoption—I am mindful that those figures are for both short-term and long-term care—I would like that figure to more than double. However, I accept that point.

[Mr Smith]

I mention that ambition because that is what Martin Narey said. He set it in context by saying that even people who are pro-adoption—incredibly, he comes across people who are anti-adoption—have a feeling that that is too ambitious and undeliverable, but like the hon. Gentleman, I think that we ought to be capable of doing better than that.

[Jim Shannon]

I think that we all agree that we have to set targets that meet the need. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he represents Strangford, my old hunting ground. On the difficulties for those who wish to adopt or who have adopted, does he agree with my constituents, Mr and Mrs James, who told me the other day that, as people who have adopted children, had they known what they would have to go through, they probably would not have done so? Moreover, Mr and Mrs Nash told me that they did not know about the difficulties that they would have in relation to education or about the hidden trauma of the children whom they adopted—it was waiting to come out, but they did not get the same support as children in care. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with them that, if we could overcome those difficulties, we would be able to raise the rates of those who are adopted—in Gloucestershire, only 27 out of 500 children in care are adopted—and that the problem would be much less grave?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I wholeheartedly agree with him and think that every other Member present does, too.

I am conscious of the time, so I will come to a conclusion. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has indicated that he is keen and anxious for a time scale of six months. If that is to happen, we will need more than a verbal commitment. I want action. It would be good to see that happen.

Finally, I am concerned that, in some, not all, cases, it is as though Christian families are interrogated about their ethics and morality, their homes, and their desire to adopt. In some cases, Christians, Christian families and Christian parents are being penalised because of their beliefs, but we cannot pass by what they have to offer. Those potential parents wish to adopt and we have a list of young children who seek adoptive parents. The answer is simple—let us put the two together and do it right.

10:32

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

It is an unmitigated delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) on her deeply knowledgeable and constructive speech, which set out all the issues with which we need to grapple in order to improve our adoption system. It is worth setting down a marker from the outset that adoption is only one route to permanency for children who need to find another home, and that many foster carers and family members take on a caring role. Although adoption is a route to permanency that many more children could be the beneficiaries of, we have to recognise that it is not always the right option for every child.

I declare an interest. Like my hon. Friend, I am a family law barrister, although I do not practise at present. I also have two adoptive brothers—Oliver, who is now 35, and Henry, who has just turned 24, I think. They are an integral part of our family and one thing about which I can be absolutely confident is that they have enriched our family’s lives. I hope that we have provided them with the stable and loving environment that they so desperately needed.

It is worth acknowledging that successive Governments, including the previous one, did their best to try to help vulnerable children who were in need of a stable home. That included trying to work in ways that would help adoption become a more successful route. We could talk about whether targets are a good or a bad idea, but I think that the motivation behind them was absolutely right. It was to try to give the opportunity to more families to offer a home to children through the adoption route. Ultimately, this is about finding the right home for a child, rather than the right child for a home. I believe that the current Government’s work to achieve that end is moving the system in the right direction, but be under no illusions—there is no quick fix and it will take a whole cultural shift over a long period.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a valid point. Although we recognise that there will be no quick fix to the problem, one of my concerns is that, in the meantime, we as Members of Parliament must do our level best to make sure that those looked-after children and those going through the process are given the best possible voice and opportunity. Foster carers in my constituency have told me that they want looked-after children to have a voice and to be heard by us in this place, so that we can understand the issues that they face.

[Mr Timpson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which gives me the opportunity to remind her of the groups that I chair—the all-party group on adoption and fostering and the all-party group on looked after children and care leavers. Every time we meet, we manage to bring to Parliament about 150 people who are in care or have left care, so that their voice can be heard here. We are trying to begin a scheme whereby MPs will be matched with a care leaver in their constituencies. I encourage all Members present to engage with that and to ask their local authority if they can sit on an adoption panel, so that they can learn exactly how the decision-making process works.

In this debate, we have elaborated on the myth-busting that needs to take place in relation to the issue of who can adopt. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) has mentioned his experiences in Paraguay, which leave a lot to be desired. I remember visiting some Romanian orphanages in 1990 with my parents, who were so distressed by what they saw that they inquired about adopting a Romanian child. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who has left the Chamber for now, has told us that she was turned down for being 47. My parents were turned down in Romania for being over 35, which shows that some other countries have even more stringent conditions for adoption.

We need to bust myths. If someone has a body mass index that they are not proud of, it does not mean that they cannot adopt. If you like a flutter on the horses, Mr Davies, it does not mean that you cannot adopt. A lot of myths need to be shaken out of the adopted system. The Government’s important measures in relation to new adoption guidelines, particularly those centring on black and minority ethnic children, are an important step in that direction.

It has been suggested that the way to try to improve the number of people who put themselves forward to adopt and to ensure that more children are adopted is to go back to the targets system. I have already touched on that and do not believe that it is the right way. We need to do something similar to what has been done in Cheshire East council, in my constituency, which has a local but direct campaign called “Fostering and Adoption in Cheshire East”. FACE brings together people from all sorts of different backgrounds—married, single, gay, pensioners—who adopted successfully, to try to ensure that people realise that they do not necessarily need to count themselves out and that they are very much welcome. We also need to make sure that those local authorities that get more inquiries, as has been the case in Cheshire East, have the capacity to deal with those cases and provide those people with the services that they need. We do not want to end up in a situation in which people make the emotional decision to present themselves as potential adopters, only to be told, “Don’t call us, we’ll call you.”

I would have liked to have covered many other issues, many of which have been addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, but what I will say is that it is outcomes for children that matter. If all children are going to be placed in an adoptive placement, it is important that the outcomes are successful. We need to look carefully at organisations such as Coram, which has a 100% success rate in finding adoptive parents for children with adoption plans. It has almost negligible breakdown rates, and post-adoption support plays a vital role in that. Adoption UK and After Adoption are just two of the voluntary adoption agencies that offer specific courses for adopters. I have spoken to adopters who have benefited from those courses, which are valuable in ensuring that adopters understand the issues they face, and that the children they look after get the support they need post-adoption. Just because a child is adopted does not mean that the problems disappear. My brother Oliver is 35. He still has difficulties that all relate to his early life trauma. I am pleased to say that he has just completed his first year in employment without changing jobs. That has been a huge breakthrough for him. For our family, it is a measure of the success from where he started.

10:40

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I sincerely pay tribute to the hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) for securing this important and well-attended debate. Her work in this area, both in Parliament and as a family law barrister before her election, is highly regarded, and she gave an excellent speech that acknowledged the complexity of the issue. The debate has been extremely interesting, with excellent contributions from all hon. Members.

The debate is timely. As mentioned, last week was national adoption week. It has been running since 1997 and provides us all with a reminder of the need to raise awareness of adoption, the importance of encouraging adoptive parents to come forward, and the need to highlight the importance of adoption for those children who, for whatever reason, cannot remain with their birth parents. Ministers used last week to make a number of important announcements on this issue. I add my support, in particular, to the announcement that adopted children will be given the same priority in school admissions as looked-after children, which builds on the work of the previous Labour Government.

I welcome the new adopters’ charter, which sets out clear principles on how adopters should be treated, and I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is giving his backing to the Give a Child a Home campaign, which was launched by the British Association of Adoption and Fostering and the Fostering Network. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) set out so well, it is as important to focus on fostering and the people who give up their time to foster children as it is to focus on those who adopt.

The most high-profile announcement last week was on performance tables, which the Department for Education will use to assess local authorities. The aim is to act

“as a challenge to local authorities to do better for the children in their care.”

I agree that all local authorities, and society at large, could and should do better in terms of support for looked-after children. We all know that outcomes for looked-after children are unacceptably poor. We all accept that the fall in the number of adoptions is a concern, and we certainly all acknowledge that an average waiting time of two years and seven months for a child to be adopted is simply far too long. However, I am concerned that naming and shaming local authorities seriously risks painting too simplistic a picture of an incredibly complex issue. Have Ministers considered what impact the threat of tough action against those local authorities will have on the morale, recruitment and retention of already overstretched social workers?

The Government’s performance tables risk failing to present a true picture of a local authority’s performance. Hackney borough council came bottom of the new league table, placing only 43% of children with adoptive parents within 12 months of a decision to do so. However, as Hackney borough council stated:

“Placing a child quickly should not be the only consideration upon which authorities are judged. A placement breaking down is one of the most traumatic things that can happen to an adopted child. In Hackney, we have one of the best records of stability of placements; such is the quality of our placements, hardly any, if any, ever break down.”

There is also the risk of creating perverse incentives for local authorities to push for rushed adoptions—in place of special guardianship arrangements, or concurrent planning that might be more appropriate in the circumstances—to meet what risk being arbitrary targets. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned, we need to listen to Coram, one of the country’s leading voluntary adoption agencies. It stated that the Department for Education’s performance indicators

“don’t tell the full story of the experience of children in care…For example, they do not reveal how delays owing to court processes may affect the speed of adoption or how a child who appears to have been ‘waiting for adoption’ may have in fact been consistently fostered by the same parents who go on to adopt them.”

As well as looking at how we increase the number of adoptions for siblings, black and minority ethnic children, children with disabilities and older children, surely the most important thing we must aim for is to increase the number of successful adoption placements, or talk in terms of permanent arrangements, rather than a simple increase in the number of adoptions. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey). Perhaps the most crucial part of the jigsaw in increasing the number of successful adoptions is improving the level of post-adoption support available to adoptive families and their children. Despite the legal requirements in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to provide long-term support to families after adoption, we are all aware, from anecdotal evidence and constituents’ experiences, that such support is currently not at the level it should be.

Indeed, Adoption UK reports that despite the fact that

“Great strides have been taken in acknowledging the need for adoption support services for families, and delivering some practical support…far too many families still come to Adoption UK, desperate for support.”

I recently received a heartbreaking letter from an adoptive mother of 20 years, who put the issue very succinctly:

“Given the number of adoptions that break down as well as the number of relationships which collapse under the pressure of attempting to deal alone with challenging behaviours, not enough consideration is being given to the consequences of not supporting adoptive families properly.”

She went on:

“I now know that providing a loving family for children who have had multiple carers and suffered abuse will never be enough. The children and indeed their adoptive families will need access to proper psychological/therapeutic support as well as respite and proper pathway planning during turbulent teenage years”.

The hon. Member for Erewash acknowledged this issue and that it deserves consideration and reflection. However, it is a crucial part of the jigsaw if we are to bring about an increase in the number of successful adoptions, which we all want to see.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to the issue of care leavers. Last week was not only national adoption week, but national care leavers’ week. I had the privilege of attending the recent special meeting held by the all-party parliamentary group for looked after children and care leavers. I heard from several young people about the incredibly positive role that being in care had played in their lives, and their disappointment in the way that residential care, and being in care, is so often dismissed. I therefore wanted to put on record my serious concerns about some of the language used by Ministers in the media last week, who referred to children “languishing” in care. That language is not helpful for these young people, or in encouraging foster carers and adoptive parents to come forward.

Implicit in the Government’s decision to publish performance data is the view that adoption represents the gold standard for all councils to aim for. However, as was eloquently put by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, it should not be viewed as a one-size-fits-all solution. Adoption is not the right option for every child. Indeed, that approach has been criticised by the Fostering Network, which believes that focusing overwhelmingly on adoption risks skewing decision making, oversimplifying enormously complex and difficult decisions and ignoring the needs of the vast majority of children who come into care, who neither need nor want to be adopted.

In conclusion, the Government are absolutely right to focus on looked-after children and adoption. I look forward to hearing more about how the work of Martin Narey, the ministerial adviser, will be taken forward in the next two years. However, the Government must also recognise that adoption is not a panacea for looked-after children, or society at large. While being the most incredibly rewarding and enjoyable experience, raising a family can also be one of the most challenging and difficult experiences for people in the best of circumstances. Adoptive parents are not super-human. They, and their adopted children, need ongoing support if we are to increase the number of successful placements.

There is no doubt that the adoption process can and should be sped up, but that must not be done at the expense of ensuring the right path for the child. After all, to completely cut a child’s legal ties with their birth parents and family—choosing a family that can adopt them, making decisions about whether they will be able to live with any brothers and sisters and then moving them to live with a whole new family—is an enormous decision, which must be taken with great care.

I am sure that Ministers recognise that adoption is not the right answer for every child. I want to pay tribute in particular to the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. I am sure that he shares many of my concerns—that we do not focus solely on adoption but on a child-centred approach that ensures results and the best long-term outcomes for all children, whatever their circumstances of care.

10:50

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am not sure that I can exceed the florid language of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson). I congratulate the hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) on securing the debate hard on the heels of national adoption week.

The more observant Members in the Chamber have realised that I am not the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is incredibly disappointed that he cannot be present at the debate today—so disappointed that we spoke twice on the phone yesterday. He apologised personally to the hon. Member for Erewash, but he was in Birmingham yesterday and Sheffield today, speaking at child protection conferences among many other things. I will not say that he would rather be here, because that would cause terrible offence to people in Sheffield, but he was desperate to be present.

The debate has been fantastic—knowledgeable, passionate and informed by personal stories of adoption, whether as barristers or as families, whether as a brother or as adoptive parents. Hard on the heels of national adoption week, it is helpful to be able to do some of the myth-busting of which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke. It is helpful to air some of the myths, then systematically knock some down. We want to be open to many more people as adoptive parents and to be robust in challenging some of the things that have grown up and which prevent people who have an enormous amount to give from coming forward.

The hon. Member for Erewash is a member of the Under-Secretary’s ministerial advisory group on adoption, so she is aware of his particular interest and passion. He is very determined to ensure that more children who have been overlooked are considered appropriately for adoption, in particular older and disabled children, and to speed up the adoption process as much as possible, so that they can be adopted at a younger age.

Over the past year, a great deal of activity has been going on. The Under-Secretary has been leading a wide programme of reform. The Government have issued revised guidance and national minimum standards, and an adoption and special guardianship data pack is available for local authorities to use to challenge the operation and performance of their adoption service. The Under-Secretary appointed Martin Narey as the ministerial adviser on adoption, and approved funding for Barnardo’s in partnership with the Coram Foundation, to engage with 24 local authorities and help them to improve adoption outcomes for children and the adoption services. The Government have approved funding for the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, to raise awareness of and to promote adoption, and for a one-year pilot project with a number of local authorities to gain a better understanding of how the adoption register is used to find families for children in need of adoption, and how matching decisions are made, which picks up on a point made by the hon. Member for Erewash. Findings from the project will inform the work of the register in helping local authorities to increase their matching rates.

As a number of hon. Members stated, disappointingly, adoption figures have fallen this year. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), as well as by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich and for Erewash, that adoption is not the only process. Special guardianship and permanent residency orders might well be more appropriate for some children in some situations. However, today’s debate is specifically about adoption, so what I want to say from here on in is specifically about adoption.

As the Prime Minister made clear last week, for too long, many children have been let down by the whole system, which was a point well made by the hon. Member for Erewash in her opening remarks. One person at fault is not what leaves so many children who should be adopted not getting that opportunity. The system has many different barriers at the moment, such as local authorities or the family justice system. The Under-Secretary has a chart on his wall, on which he can see the particular blocks in the system that cause the delays—a visible image that he looks at every day, to remind himself of the barriers and of where the Government is pushing to make the whole system more efficient.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North mentioned performance tables, which we released last week. I absolutely recognise her point, that we need to get under the skin of what some of those data mean. In some cases, local authorities might appear to have a slower rate, but they may be extremely good at placing older children, for example. However, that is part of encouraging local authorities to look at their practice and perhaps that of their next-door authorities. The lack of such a process, in particular with children in care and adoption, is a continual frustration to Ministers and I have heard the Under-Secretary speak about it. Often, one local authority appears to be completely oblivious of the good practice in a neighbouring authority that is fantastic in some areas. By putting the information out there, we hope that local authorities will speak to one another more and question their own work and that of their neighbours, and so understand how they might improve their practice.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

If the underperforming authority does not improve, would the Minister go so far as to support the authority with good performance taking over the responsibilities of the underperforming authority?

[Sarah Teather]

Local authorities have been working with the Government to improve their performance, with more peer-led performance improvement across the piece, particularly in this area. We are encouraging much more peer mentoring and working together to challenge performance on the ground. I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is brought to the attention of the Under-Secretary when considering what action we might take.

Last week, we published an adopters’ charter, to ensure that anyone who really wants to adopt a child is welcomed with open arms and can receive all the help and support that they need. That picks up on what many hon. Members have said. We want adopters to feel valued and respected for offering a chance to transform a child’s life. Many of the issues raised earlier, such as age, smoking or obesity, are not written into statutory guidance or legislation. Some things build up on the ground, unfortunately, as an expected way in which people will be rejected, but those are not things that the Government are facing or that local authorities ought automatically to use to rule some people out as parents. The child’s needs must always be paramount. I hope that things such as the adopters’ charter will help to deal with all those issues that potential families might face, to ensure that they are given the necessary support.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) asked whether we are doing any research on support for adopted—

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Teather]

I will, but I only have two minutes left.

[Esther McVey]

I have two specific questions, one about the loss of 28% of voluntary adoption agencies because of the 2009 Labour legislation, and what we as a Government will do to fill that huge gap. The other is about support in the education system for children who are adopted.

[Sarah Teather]

On the first point, as I only have one minute left, a number of the agencies that closed reopened under new structures and new names. I will ensure that I or my colleague write to the hon. Lady with more information. On schools, that is exactly why we have commissioned research through Bristol university to look at support for adoptive families. Another specific issue raised was ensuring that the school admissions code, for example, takes such matters into account. How children are considered throughout their school life is something that the Under-Secretary keeps very much in mind. We are considering how we can support young people who might be vulnerable, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, for the rest of their life but certainly during their school life.

I have only one minute left, unfortunately, and so many issues were raised—in fact, it is now 11 o’clock. I thank hon. Members for their many contributions.

Organ Donation

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your stewardship, Mr Davies. We have half an hour in which to debate this issue, and I will try to be brief, because a number of hon. Members have told me that they may wish to intervene, and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) has said that he would like to speak in the debate. I have always found his contributions, whether here or in the House, valuable and I am sure that he will only enhance the debate, and give his personal perspective and the view from Wales.

Organ donation sounds far removed from most people’s lives. They have never considered it, or believe that it is something to consider later in life or when they are in need. We all know people who are waiting for donations and people who have received them. Perhaps the thought makes us uncomfortable, because it forces us to confront the reality of life and death, but we must not ignore the fact that more than 7,500 people are on a waiting list for a donor organ. Whatever the reasons and whatever the causes, profound changes in medicine have provided the ability to save people from illnesses with donated organs, but we are still grappling with a shortage of donors.

Although there are people on waiting lists, things are getting better. Since 2007-08, there has been a 26% increase in the number of people who have agreed to be organ donors after their death, and today there are 18 million donors on the NHS organ donor register, but we must hope for more. With many groups that work tirelessly to ensure that one day the waiting list will be short, I want to raise awareness throughout the country, and to change people’s perception so that being a registered donor will become the cultural norm.

I am here today because I do not believe that those improvements have gone far enough. I am worried that the target to increase the number of people who become organ donors after their death by 50% in 2012-13 will not be met unless the Government take urgent action. I am particularly worried that not enough progress has been made to increase organ donation in black and minority ethnic communities. People of black and minority ethnic origin are three to four times more likely to need an organ transplant, but are significantly under-represented on the NHS organ donor register. When asked, 75% of families of potential donors from BME communities refused to give consent for their loved one to become an organ donor. That must not continue. As a member of the BME community, as well as representing a seat with a large BME population, I know that we must continue to work hard to maintain a dialogue within those communities, and start to break down some of the stigma that organ donation may hold.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this extremely important debate. My constituency has a BME community that is centred around one ward—Abbey—where life expectancy is 17 years lower than other parts of Warwickshire. I am sure that my constituents in that ward will be heartened to hear my hon. Friend’s comments, but does he agree that we need to raise the profile of these important issues, particularly organ donation and transplantation, as well as diabetes and so on, in those communities to try to deal with those health inequalities?

[Paul Uppal]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I know how hard he works with the BME community in his constituency, and he is a champion of such issues. I have been heartened by most of my colleagues, who have shown a wide and passionate interest in specific concerns involving the BME community. He is right to highlight the issue.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. It is great that he is standing up for such an important issue, and for the BME community. The issue affects all hon. Members, whether their constituencies are urban, or rural like mine. I declare an interest in that I once thought I needed a kidney donation because I tore my left kidney in half at Stratford when I was a jockey. That was due to poor jockeyship, and a good doctor saved me. My question is simple. Does my hon. Friend believe that GPs could play a greater role in the community in stimulating more organ donation?

[Paul Uppal]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is a difficult issue, and the nub of the problem is that clinicians and individuals in our communities often find it difficult to talk about the matter and to face reality. I see no reason why it would be harmful if GPs spoke openly and candidly about it to people who attend their surgeries. They could highlight the matter, and spread the broader message among the broader populace about how vital the need is.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he recognise the work of those calling for an opt-out system of organ donation, which includes national campaigns such as the British Heart Foundation, as well as local campaigners, including Valerie Paynter, who underwent a kidney transplant 20 years ago, which saved her life? Her story is very moving. Will my hon. Friend encourage hon. Members to sign my recently tabled early-day motion, although I appreciate that he does not sign them?

[Paul Uppal]

My hon. Friend is correct: I do not sign early-day motions. On the opt-out, we have made some progress, and we should continue on that route, but increase the pace. I have seen some of the research from various task forces. Some work in 2008 suggested that there was no substantive evidence that going down that route would increase organ donation. That is probably a matter for debate another time, but my personal opinion is that we must deal with it sequentially. Let us get to 2013, then see where we are.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

If anyone is in any doubt about the desperate suffering at the moment, they should look at the evidence from my constituent, Matthew Lammas, and his family, who came to the House and talked about their six months of agony while he waited for an organ to become available. There were calls in the middle of the night, and drives of sometimes hundreds of miles with disappointment after disappointment. He came near to death, but finally and happily, he was given the heart that he needed, and he is surviving. Anyone who believes that the issue can be pushed aside should read about that family’s terrible suffering because of the lack of organs. For those who did not attend the meeting, the story is available on my blog. Unfortunately, another constituent died due to lack of an organ.

[Paul Uppal]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. No one in the Chamber would in any way, shape or form underestimate the suffering of those who need a transplant. I am a trustee of a Sikh temple, and I have been approached specifically about the matter and people’s real concern about it. I have felt the pain that many families feel. We may leave the main thrust of the debate today, but I am sure that we will revisit the issue. I accept completely what the hon. Gentleman says, but for the time being we must go along the path of sequential progress.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He highlighted very well the fact that organ donation in urban areas is much lower than in more rural areas. That is partly due to population churn, but also because, as he rightly highlights, it is difficult to persuade people in black and ethnic minority communities to come forward and agree to organ donation. There are some cultural barriers to organ donation. How can we break down those barriers and focus on what really matters—ensuring that people have a chance of life?

[Paul Uppal]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I said, I am a trustee of a Sikh temple, and I think it is important that we continue to spread that message in mosques, gurdwaras, mundas and temples in any shape or form. It needs to be consensual. It is about breaking down stigmas and prejudices that may be out there in certain communities. I would be very much in favour of anything that does that, and I have personally done that in my own constituency.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. Many colleagues are here for this passionate debate, so perhaps next time we should have a full hour and a half for such an important issue.

We have heard the statistics. In my part of the world, Yorkshire and Humber, 581 people are waiting for an organ transplant, and 41 have died while waiting in the period 2010-11. I received a letter yesterday from a young lad aged 11, Matthew Taylor from Salendine Nook high school, which is doing a project on organ donations and the opt-in, opt-out processes. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Salendine high school on engaging with young people and thinking about the processes? We can debate having a soft opt-in or opt-out process, but it is great that schools are engaging young people to think about organ donation.

[Paul Uppal]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important that we raise the issue. That is the function of today’s debate. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that as well. I want to allow time for my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire to make a speech, so I will try to be brief. I will practise the skill of cutting down a speech to a few minutes.

I am concerned that leadership on organ donation and transplantation might be lost and that that will jeopardise the improvements that have been made since 2008. The national clinical director for transplantation, who was overseeing the implementation of the Organ Donation Taskforce recommendations, has now retired and I understand that his post is not due to be replaced. The Organ Donation Taskforce programme delivery board, which supported him in that role, has been disbanded. There is clearly a risk that in the absence of clear leadership, the improvements to date may be lost. Will the Minister tell us who is driving the agenda on organ donation and transplantation in the Department of Health, and whether the Department remains committed to the 50% increase in donors from 2007-08? What additional steps does he plan to take to ensure that that is achieved?

There is also the question of the goalposts being moved slightly further away when we reach 2013. I am sure the Minister is aware that there is no strategy for organ donation and transplantation beyond 2013, by which point all the Organ Donation Taskforce recommendations should be implemented. Will the Department of Health produce a strategy to ensure that the number of organ donors and transplants continue to increase after that date?

Organ donation is a gift, and that fact should be the focus of all policies involving donation, but it would be remiss to ignore those who have given. In previous years, the Government have recognised the incredible gift that organ donors have given by welcoming their families to a reception in Downing street. I would wholeheartedly support a continuation of that tradition. We are having a reception here at the House in December. It will be hosted by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) in his role as chair of the all-party group on organ donation, and we would welcome the Minister’s attendance. I am sure he would enjoy meeting the families and thanking them for what they have done for others.

There are big goals in place for 2013. We are all committed to working so that we have more than 20 million people on the official donor register. As people elected to serve our constituents, we can do no more than set a good example in our own communities, so I will take a moment to encourage all MPs to ensure that they are registered organ donors. We would all like to leave a legacy, and there can be no better one than that of saving a life.

11:13

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Davies. I particularly want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) for raising an issue that is hugely important to many people. Increasing the number of organs available has become a passion of mine. The comments of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) made an impact on me. We all want to see an increase in the number of organs available for donation. We need to look at the evidence available and decide the best route to go down to achieve the increase. Over the years that I have been involved, one of the main issues looked at has been a change to opt out. We have to look at what happened in countries where they moved towards presumed consent from the position of informed consent.

As well as looking at international examples, it is important to look at the evidence of the taskforce set up by the previous Government in 2008. I have looked at the matter in detail. Spain is often quoted by people who favour presumed consent; it was their exemplar, until perhaps 12 months ago, when it became Belgium. Presumed consent was introduced in Spain in 1979, but nothing happened for 10 years. In 1989, a new law was passed in Spain, which introduced a comprehensive transplant co-ordination system throughout the country to raise awareness and understanding. That is what made the difference. From that date on, there was an increase such that Spain is now one of the best examples in the world for organ transplant.

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

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he is doing in this area. Is he aware of the independent analysis of the model in Spain by our former colleagues in the Welsh Assembly? When they went to visit Spain, they were in favour of presumed consent at the outset, but they changed their minds by the time they came back. There is extremely effective evidence that can be contributed to the debate.

[Glyn Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is a point that I want to make. Nearly everybody wants to increase the number of organs available, but we must be careful to look at the evidence to ensure we do not introduce changes that will hinder that. I have read the taskforce’s careful evidence. The Prime Minister of the day said that he wanted to move down this road. Members of the taskforce tended to be supportive of that move at the start, but by the end they unanimously said it was dangerous to move in that direction and that there was a real danger of it reducing the number of organs available.

We must be incredibly careful. I welcome this debate—and indeed the debate taking place in Wales, which started yesterday—because it raises awareness of the issue. Family members will know what the wishes of the deceased were and they will be able to give permission without there being a statutory register. There is no such register in Spain—or at least hardly anyone joins it. The family must know. As long as we raise awareness and understanding of what is involved and have people who can speak to those in a difficult position—because someone has just died, or a machine is about to be turned off—in an understanding way, it will encourage the nation. If we go down that road, I think we will produce the extra organs that we need.

11:17

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I know time is short, Mr Davies, so I will be brief. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the Sign Up, Speak Up, Save Lives campaign, which is currently featuring in Channel 4’s youth engagement “Battlefront” programme. I am grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), has agreed to meet me and Abby and Hope, the young women campaigning to increase the number of people registered on the organ donor register. Given the arguments made in the previous speech, I want to draw everyone’s attention to an alternative suggestion that I have been advocating with Abby and Hope, which is that we use the opportunity afforded by the introduction of individual electoral registration during this Parliament to give all adults the opportunity to join the organ donor register at the same time as they are asked to register to vote.

From the evidence I have seen, it is clear to me that the welcome news about the reduction in fatalities on our roads means that there is a particular need for us to attract young, healthy adults on to the organ donor register. If people get the opportunity to do that with the paperwork that they complete when they join the electoral register, that will be helpful in meeting the objective, which we all share, of encouraging more people to register as organ donors.

11:19

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) on securing this debate, and on squeezing so much in. There were so many interventions that it felt almost as if a 90-minute debate had been fast-forwarded to include everything. I appreciate his approach, and the substantive contributions that we have heard during the short time in which we have debated this important issue. Transplantation is one of medicine’s great success stories, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a keen interest in the subject for a considerable time. He is right to hold the Government’s feet to the fire when it comes to ensuring that we maintain progress in such an important area.

The coalition Government are absolutely committed to increasing the number of organs available for transplantation, and we believe that as many people as possible who need a replacement organ should be given the opportunity to benefit from a transplant. In many ways, the success of transplantation surgery and advances in technology have led to the current challenges of unmet need that have been described so powerfully and with personal examples.

Some 10,000 individuals now require a transplant, and tragically about three adults or children die every day either waiting for a transplant or after being taken off the list because they have become too ill. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) mentioned a blog that details the suffering and misery endured by families while they wait for a transplant, and that speaks volumes about why we must do more work in that area.

The Organ Donation Taskforce’s recommendations, published in its first report, “Organs for transplants”, in January 2008, were broadly based around the need for investment in the donation infrastructure. That is to ensure that the UK maximises its potential for donation rates, and makes organ donation a usual part of health care.

The Welsh Government’s recently published White Paper on organ donation has been referred to, and we will study their proposals carefully. In 2008, however, the independent Organ Donation Taskforce also examined the case for moving to an opt-out system but recommended against it, concluding that, although such a system might have the potential to deliver benefits, it would also present significant difficulties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) rightly drew attention to Spain, and the fact that, despite the enactment of a similar opt-out scheme in 1979, a significant transformation in the level of performance took place only after investment in infrastructure in 1989. The taskforce has drawn lessons from the Spanish experience, and it is right that we are guided by evidence.

I was asked about the taskforce’s intention that we achieve a rate of organ donation of at least 50% by 2013. That is certainly our aim, and we are on track to deliver it. Significant resources have been made available to implement the taskforce’s recommendations—largely through NHS Blood and Transplant—to increase the number of specialist nurses, who are a critical part of the system, and to appoint clinical leads, donation committees and donation chairs in acute trusts to drive improvement locally.

[Dr Poulter]

As the Minister will be aware, in 1994, there were 2,500 people on the organ donor waiting list, and last year there were over 7,500. Only 29% of the UK population are signed up to organ donation, which is woefully inadequate given that 552 people died last year while waiting for an organ transplant, excluding those who were taken off the list because they had become too unwell. It is a big problem; people are living longer, sometimes with multiple medical co-morbidities, which means that more people will need transplants. The problem will become an increasing challenge for health care providers and the Government.

Philosophically, I agree with the Minister and I am not in favour of compulsion. Does he agree, however, that we need a more targeted community-focused approach and, as with the cot death campaign that reduced cot deaths from 2,000 to about 300—

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions must be brief.

[Paul Burstow]

The hon. Gentleman advances an important point. We cannot tackle the issue from the top down; it requires leadership from the bottom up in local communities. That is why NHS Blood and Transplant’s website provides constituency-level information about the number of people on the register, the number of transplants that have taken place, and the number of people waiting for a transplant. That information is invaluable to us as MPs and leaders in our local communities, and we should work with others in our community to break down some of the barriers of misunderstanding and misconception that were referred to by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West.

We have seen an increase in the number of organ donors by around 28% since 2008, and we are on track to meet the 50% improvement by 2013 set by the taskforce. As the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) said, 29% of the UK population are on the organ donor register, and it is interesting to note how levels of registration change from one constituency to another—I urge hon. Members to look at that. The number of deceased organ donations rose to 1,010 in 2010-11, compared with 745 in 2001-02. The year 2010-11 also saw a record number of transplants from deceased and living donors, with 3,740 transplants carried out in the UK, compared with 2,633 in 2001-02.

Despite the considerable progress made over the past few years, however, there is still a shortage of organs donated for transplant. The situation is particularly serious for people from African-Caribbean and Asian backgrounds, because they are three to five times more likely to need a kidney transplant than white people. That is why we cannot be complacent, and we will continue to work with partner organisations to promote donations. That can be done through the Give and Let Live initiative in schools, where new information about the issue is circulated by NHS Blood and Transplant; by requiring people to answer a question about organ donation when applying for a driving licence; or by asking people to sign the organ donor register when applying for a European health insurance card and so on. The African-Caribbean Leukaemia Trust seeks to raise the importance of organ donation in black and minority ethnic communities, and local leadership is a key ingredient in delivering improvement.

Through various public awareness campaigns, NHS Blood and Transplant also publicises the need for more people to register as donors. Work continues at national, regional and local levels further to strengthen the donation programme, to support the excellent work of the NHS in identifying, referring and procuring donor organs, and to make organ donation a usual part of end-of-life care.

I am grateful for the opportunity to reassure all hon. Members in the debate that, as we modernise the NHS, we will continue to focus on driving forward an improvement in donation rates. To maintain that momentum, with the support of all UK health administrations, we have established a transitional steering group that includes health departments, NHS Blood and Transplant, the British Transplantation Society, and the royal colleges. It aims to focus on actions that will continue to embed donation within end-of-life care, and provide a link between oversight of the programme delivery board and the establishment of the NHS commissioning board in 2013. It will also provide a clear link to Health Ministers for any reports on progress.

The transitional steering group will focus on six key areas: increasing consent rates; brain stem death testing in all appropriate cases; donation after circulatory death to be considered in all circumstances; increased donation from emergency medicine; increased and more timely referral of potential donors; and improved donor management. The work of the transitional steering group will continue to drive improvements in the UK’s organ donation programme, and increase donation rates.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West asked about leadership, which is an essential issue. The national clinical director for transplantation, Chris Rudge, has recently retired from that role, although I confirm that he will be appointed as leader of the transitional group, which will provide continuity of leadership. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman, and others, about the Government’s serious intent to deliver on the important target. I can also inform the hon. Gentleman that we will not wait until 2013 to look at what should happen next, and we have already begun to develop a post-2013 strategy. NHS Blood and Transplant is starting to prepare the relevant documents, and is working closely with the transitional steering group.

This has been an incredibly important debate and significant points have been raised. I hope I have demonstrated that, in terms of leadership, intent and drive, we are committed to building on the improvements we have already seen and, where appropriate, to learn lessons from other parts of the world. That will require us all to play our part in raising awareness of organ donation, and of what the consequences for people’s lives will be if donations are not made.

As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West said, donation is a precious gift. We need more people to realise that and give such a gift by putting their name on the register and being willing to donate.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Obesity

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Linda Riordan in the Chair]

14:30

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

It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I am delighted to have secured the debate. I have come to notice, particularly with health-related issues, that an hon. Member may think they are well informed on a topic when they succeed in securing a debate, but once they have succeeded in securing it, the administrative back-up kicks in and all the groups involved start supplying them with significant amounts of promotional material, and they are even more well informed by the time the debate arrives. I thank all the groups involved with this issue for providing me with information.

Sometimes it is wise to start a very serious debate with a slightly humorous anecdote. I am reminded of the overweight gentleman who was sent along to his local well man clinic by his wife, as men are wont to be. She instructed him to go to the well man clinic and to come back with precise instructions on what he was to do to lose weight. When he came back with a smile on his face, his wife said, “There’s something wrong here. What exactly were you told?” He said, “Well, I’m exactly the right weight—for someone who is 7 foot 8.” Unfortunately, that encapsulates part of the problem.

A sedentary lifestyle is not only costing those members of society who are overweight very dearly; it is costing all of us exceptionally dearly. From the correspondence that I have had and my own research, it appears that obesity currently costs us—depending on whom we believe—between £4 billion and £7 billion a year directly and indirectly. Whichever figure is right, the reality in 2011 is that we are talking about an exceptionally expensive but preventable series of conditions. The situation is bad at the moment, but unless we take radical steps and measures, unless we do something fundamental—I will come to that later—the rates of obesity are likely to double in the next 30 years.

Currently, almost one third of children are overweight, so obesity is not a condition that is the preserve of either the elderly or the middle-aged. All of us in society, right across the age spectrum, are being affected. Only 20 years ago, people who visited America—perhaps somewhere such as Florida—would come back here and say, “The United States has a terrible obesity problem. Thankfully we will never be like that.” But we are, and things are likely to get worse.

For example, 25 years ago, about three quarters of schoolchildren walked or cycled to school; now, less than 10% do so. When giving that figure, I take into account the fact that there have been lifestyle changes, school closures and so on, but the fact remains that there has been a significant increase in sedentary lifestyles. There has been a change in attitudes. The unfortunate reality is that more and more of us are spending more and more time at desks, in front of computers. Many people become couch potatoes—unfortunately, that analogy is all too accurate.

I will give another statistic to show how things have got considerably worse. In the early 1980s, roughly 7% of the population were classed as overweight. That ratio has trebled in the past 30 years. We can see the trend. It is likely to double again in the next 30 years. We must get to grips with a problem that, as I said, is proving exceptionally expensive for us all.

Obesity is linked to socio-economic deprivation. The figures that I have been able to establish indicate that the ratio of children in lower-income households suffering from obesity is twice that of those in higher-income households. Again, we see the repetitive nature of the problem, the cyclical response that is indicative, because many obese children are, unfortunately, the children of either one obese parent or two.

Of course, we all know of the additional and subsequent health risks associated with this condition. We are all aware that heart attacks and strokes, coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes are much more likely among the overweight. There is an additional cost further down the line, in years to come, as people who begin to be overweight today begin to show the symptoms of those other conditions only in years to come and then of course have to be treated by the NHS.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Type 2 diabetes is one of those hidden diseases that some people do not know they have. The indications are that there will be a 50% increase in the number of diabetics in the next couple of years. Does my hon. Friend believe that diabetes itself needs a direct Government plan in order for that issue to be addressed, because it is a hidden disease that can kill?

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that the Minister will respond to it. I want to come on to some of the things that Health Ministers throughout the United Kingdom—in the devolved regions as well as here—can do to deal with the issue, but my hon. Friend’s point is certainly well made.

Having diagnosed the problem, as it were, I want to consider what is being done. It is not all negative. A considerable series of measures is being taken, not just nationally but locally. Various councils, various health trusts in Northern Ireland and other bodies are actively engaging in trying to come to terms with the problem. Many programmes that promote healthier food choices are being actively promoted. I am aware of the healthy eating awards, and of course we are all aware of the food labelling issues that have come to the fore in recent years. There have been other programmes aimed at reducing the salt, sugar and fat in some foods. All those things are creating greater awareness among the wider community, but we are fooling ourselves if we think that the measures currently in place will arrest the problem.

I will turn at this point to what needs to be done now and for the foreseeable future. Obviously, the fast food industry is a key player in relation to the problem. Some people in that industry are quite responsible. Some have responded to the campaigns driven locally and introduced more healthy eating options—they are to be commended for doing so—but some have not. We need to see best practice not just nationally but internationally being analysed and then promoted, so that we can see significant progress.

At the moment, there is—certainly in Northern Ireland, and I assume across the UK—a better educational approach in schools. Our young children, particularly primary school children, are now getting information that simply would not have been proper protocol 25 years ago. Many people then would not have even seen the need for primary school children to receive that type of education. That is changing, but again, more needs to be done to increase awareness. We have all seen issues where, for example, healthy eating has gone wrong. Sometimes we see photographs in newspapers that show parents queuing up to give other types of food to children because healthy eating standards have gone awry. We need to ensure that the whole educational process about healthy eating for children is properly assessed and rationally implemented.

When we ally the fast food sector—I do not want to name any of the organisations—with a sedentary lifestyle, I think we can account for 80% to 90% of the obesity problem.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman’s point about a sedentary lifestyle is important. The Welsh health survey 2008 showed that 21% of the population in Wales were obese. Does he agree that encouraging people to exercise and to avoid the sedentary lifestyle that he is talking about is important to reduce the alarming obesity rates, in addition to eating more healthily?

[Mr Campbell]

I agree with that; I was just about to come to the issue of exercising. I love walking, and when I get the time to walk, as I try to weekly, I despair at the rarity of seeing other people walking and exercising.

[Jim Shannon]

Surely, my hon. Friend does not just walk; he marches. When someone marches, they lose more calories, and I understand that he marches often.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us back to basics with a Northern Ireland and Scotland perspective on that. That is true.

I do despair when, for example, I see very few people exercising between October and March or April, and even fewer children.

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

The hon. Gentleman will be aware, as I am, that part of the problem lies in the Department for Education, not the Department of Health. One of the obstacles to kids exercising is that teachers do not want to take them out of the classroom because of the raft of health and safety obstacles in the way. We need to address that in this Chamber as much as we do the health aspects.

[Mr Campbell]

I knew that the dreaded health and safety would come in at some point, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman managed to get it in. I agree with him totally. Many teachers, administrators and principals would dearly love to get their children to exercise more, but they know that all the dreaded health and safety boxes have to be ticked.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I shall encourage him by telling him that I have started to walk; it has not made a lot of difference, but I have started to do it.

Surely fast food outlets have a responsibility in their marketing tactics, which offer “buy one, get one free”. That needs to be addressed.

[Mr Campbell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope the Minister will respond to that. I know that a small number of fast food outlets in Northern Ireland have acted responsibly, but unfortunately they are a small number. It appears that the behemoth of consumerism will simply market and promote the message of “stack them high and sell them cheap.” We have to come to terms with that reality, because it is driving many people to an early grave—it is as serious as that. In 2011, many in the younger generation are not only overweight, but will be diagnosed in 20 years’ time with health conditions that could shorten their lifespan by up to 10 or 12 years, unless we get to grips with the problem.

There is, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) indicated, an educational and health problem. It is for all of us in society to promote a healthier lifestyle. That is where I think we can do more to get role models to do what they can to promote healthy eating and a healthy lifestyle. Some role models, unfortunately, do anything but promote a healthy lifestyle, but we need to ensure that more suitable role models are approached and asked to try to promote such a lifestyle, so that we can address this horrendous and difficult problem.

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

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although good progress on the issue has been made on a voluntary and self-regulatory basis, the time has come for more legislation? We have seen that approach with the compulsory wearing of seat belts and the banning of smoking in public places, which was resisted on all sorts of grounds. That approach has had a beneficial effect on health and public safety. Is it not time for the Government to go further in forcing food and drink companies to act more responsibly?

[Mr Campbell]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. We also need to look at the cost of products on supermarket shelves. Again I refer to some of the correspondence that has come my way. Fizzy drinks are quite attractive to younger people, and to some who are not so young. Is it fair that their low-calorie equivalents, some of which contain one calorie, and the fully fizzed-up versions, which can contain 139 calories, cost virtually the same?

A range of approaches needs to be co-ordinated and best practice needs to be introduced. I hope that the Minister will be able to speak about the devolved Health Ministers, with whom I hope he will have discussions about the best way to promote best practice and to ensure that, wherever practical and possible, close co-ordination can take place, so that across Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland we can begin to address and—I hope—reverse this horrendous and difficult problem.

14:48

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for securing this important debate. I do not want to repeat his message about the economic cost of the problem, but I would say, having been a general practitioner for 18 years, that once someone becomes obese, it is extraordinarily difficult to regain their normal weight in the long term.

I would like the Minister to consider the following points. We need to focus on better identification of those who are most at risk, particularly children, and to target action on those high-risk children. A nudge will just not go far enough, and it is time for more of a bit of a shove. We need particularly to look at the role of liquid calories in obesity among children. I ask the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to update its guidance and review the evidence.

Nearly two thirds of adults are overweight or obese, but they do not start out that way. Around one in five four to five-year-olds are overweight or obese, but by the time they reach 11, that figure will have risen to one in three.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

On the point about NICE, may I give my hon. Friend a reassurance that might be helpful at this stage in her contribution? As she may know, NICE has recently consulted on whether now is the right time to review its original guidance. As a result of that consultation, it will be making a decision later this month.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the Minister for that helpful response and look forward to hearing the outcome of that.

Children at primary school and in the early years before they have reached school are among the really high-risk groups. Some 85% of obese children go on to become obese adults, whereas only 12% of normal weight children become obese adults, so it makes sense to focus on that group of children, but that can happen only if we have better early identification. We should introduce annual measurements of weight and height, so that we can see when children are starting to slip towards obesity. We should target our resources much better on that group.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Years ago, parents with chubby children would be told, “It’s puppy fat and they will grow out of it.” There is still that idea around among otherwise bright and responsible parents. We need to press the point that chubby children grow into chubby adults.

[Dr Wollaston]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We need to be much clearer with parents that their children are at risk and that being overweight is not something that they will grow out of.

We should be much more creative about how we target help to high-risk children. Why not allow all those children to have free healthy school lunches? As poverty and deprivation have such strong links with obesity, considering that high-risk group is particularly appropriate if we are to address the Marmot agenda. Unfortunately, families on tight budgets are much more likely to be pushed towards unhealthy and cheaper choices. If we want to nudge them in the right direction, we must recognise the role that price plays in the choices that they make. We should look at the role of loss leaders. We urgently need a change in what supermarkets offer so that loss leaders are redirected towards healthy rather than unhealthy products.

Why not incentivise exercise in those high-risk families with vouchers for success and free access to good-quality sports facilities? We should incentivise a whole-family approach to cooking skills because cooking is a fun activity. An effective way forward would be to make such a service free and readily available to whole families.

On liquid calories, a survey conducted by the British Dental Association and Ipsos-MORI showed that 47% of children’s fluid intake is in the form of sugary and carbonated drinks. That means that one in five children is consuming 500 calories or more a day just in the form of sugary drinks and 73%—nearly three-quarters of children—are consuming more than 200 calories a day. It is a staggering number of calories that children are consuming.

If we look at adults, we will see that there is a particular issue with alcohol. The chief medical officer has already highlighted that around 10% of an adult’s calorie intake can be through alcohol. What we should understand from that is the role that discounting plays. I have mentioned that before. It really does not matter how disciplined the rational part of our brain tries to be—the irrational and impulsive side will continue to be irrational and impulsive. It is not helpful to see heavily discounted products in super-sized multi-buy packs piled high at the check-outs in supermarkets. If we want to move “nudge” towards “shove”, we should regulate how supermarkets market their products. I do not suggest that the whole answer to obesity lies in regulating supermarkets. I realise that there is a complex interplay between over-supply, pricing, culture, marketing, poor consumer choices and human nature. There is also the interplay between genetic predisposition and a lack of exercise. However, it is unlikely that our current strategy will go far enough in this regard. If we are going to do something about the £5 billion a year that this problem is costing us—the figure is predicted to rise to £10 billion a year by 2050—I suggest and hope that the Minister takes a strong line and abandons the idea of giving the problem a little nudge, in favour of giving it an almighty shove.

14:55

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing this very important debate. I echo many of the points that have been raised this afternoon, but I want to concentrate mainly on the childhood obesity angle. It was mentioned that a third of children are overweight, and that 85% of those will then go on to be obese in adulthood. I want to cover four topics: planning, food, sport and youth provision.

Gardens are a third of the size they were in the 1960s. Front gardens are often more of an aspiration than a reality in new build areas. I am keen that we make greater use of accessible and usable open space. Before becoming MP for North Swindon, I was for 10 years a councillor for a new build estate. I used to complain time and again that there was not sufficient usable and accessible open space, and I was told, “You are wrong. You have more open space than anywhere else in Swindon.” It transpired that that is because the definition of open space includes hedges and heritage sites, neither of which is suitable for a child to play football on, and that is something that needs to be considered.

I am not asking for premier league, standard turf right across all housing estates. When I was growing up, our open space was an almost vertical hill. The twins, Matthew and Paul Gilbert, who were technically gifted at football, got to kick the ball uphill all day long and myself and my friends got the advantage of kicking it downhill. Such is the creativity of young people.

Open and accessible spaces are very important. As a child, I was very sporty. I grew up in the 1980s when children were fuelled with artificial colourings and flavourings—the sort of things that we are now worried about. None the less, I had the balance because I spent all day running around. We copied the television, so mostly we played football. If the Ashes were on, out came the cricket bats. When it was the Tour de France, the bikes came out. When it was Wimbledon, we brought out the tennis rackets. Normally, we brought them out for only two weeks or for one or two days if we were following our British hopes.

I was also the lead council member for leisure. People always said to me, “The emphasis is on creating lots of really good leisure centres.” The reality is that youngsters go to leisure centres only once or twice a year—normally for somebody’s birthday party. It is the jumpers-for-goalposts mentality that matters. It is really important that we build in to developments usable and accessible open space.

It became fashionable to build new public buildings under the private finance initiative scheme. Ignoring the advantages or disadvantages of the scheme, there was a particular problem for local communities in that they could not afford to access those community facilities. Again I know, from my time as a councillor, that we had some wonderful open spaces behind very big fences and the local community could not afford to hire the sports clubs, so that is another issue that requires consideration.

Local authorities are always under pressure on funding. One of the areas that I would like to see prioritised is investment in local country parks. Families would use them and we would see jumpers for goalposts, family walks, people walking their dogs and all sorts of different free activities to get people going.

Councils can be innovative in this area. Let me give three examples from my own local authority. First, £1 million has been invested in Mouldon hill through section 106 money—nothing new there. We had £5 million invested in Lydiard park, of which £4 million came from the Heritage Lottery Fund and £1 million from local private businesses and organisations. The best one of all was the £2 million investment in Shaw forest, which was a tip. We charged neighbouring authorities to put their rubble on top of the tip and then we planted trees and now it is a very enjoyable country park in which to walk the dog.

There have already been some very good contributions on food, so I will just mention my particular bugbears. First, basic cookery in schools should be compulsory. Nowadays, too many people’s idea of cooking is a three-minute wait and then the ping of the microwave. As an MP I have visited a number of schools to see how they provide cookery lessons. I am a big supporter of the £20 million national lottery-funded “Let’s get cooking” campaign, which is coming to the end of its five-year scheme. I hope that it will carry on. The main function of the campaign is to encourage cooking in schools. Last Friday, I visited a cookery session at Warneford secondary school in Highworth. Boys and girls from different backgrounds joined in enthusiastically. Cooking is not a bind for young people; they want to do it and they enjoy doing it. With “Junior Masterchef” and all the other cookery programmes on TV, they are inspired to cook.

The children themselves made another point to me. A lot of professional sportspeople are the role models for young people. Because professional footballers, for example, only train for a couple of hours a day, they have to do something with the rest of their time and a lot of them now are very good chefs, which has filtered through to a lot of young people, particularly younger boys.

I have also visited Haydonleigh primary school, which had what to my mind is the perfect example of cookery in schools. In Haydonleigh’s cookery sessions, the parents or grandparents of children were invited to come in, so that they were cooking with the children, who would then take their skills back home. However, there was also an allotment at the school, so the children got to see the full cycle: they planted the seeds; they grew the vegetables; they cooked in school with their parents or grandparents; and they went home and carried on cooking.

In my role as the vice-chair of the all-party group on heart disease, I fully echo all the points that have been made about the need for clear and uniform labelling of food, which allows people to make informed decisions.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that GPs have a greater responsibility and need to be more proactive in informing people about, and leading people in, healthy eating?

[Justin Tomlinson]

Yes, I absolutely do, but this is an area where the schools can lead, in terms of teaching the basic cookery and giving students the information they need, and I am covering that.

Then there is food labelling. I want to refer to labelling here in Parliament, because people often say, “Does labelling really make much of a difference?” Well, we have the “traffic light” system in our canteens in Parliament. As a general rule, anything that has a red sticker next to it is normally the most attractive thing, but we are able—even we MPs, with our limited intelligence—to say, “I can’t have too many of those,” although I confess that, as I was writing this speech earlier, I was eating a pork pie. So I failed by that rule myself.

I turn to organised sports now. I have already said that the most important element is the open, accessible and usable space on which kids will be creative. But organised sport also plays a very important role and there are a lot of opportunities that we can examine, in order to be more proactive.

I set up a sports forum when I was a councillor and that forum brought together about 60 different sports groups, who shared best practice. For example, there would be one group saying, “We’ve got a facility, but it’s underused,” and there would be another group saying, “We haven’t got the facility, and we need one.” We put those two groups together and between them they became experts at applying for external funding. There are lots of examples of external funding and I will talk about one in a moment.

I was quite an outspoken critic of the plan to scrap the school sports partnerships scheme and I was delighted when the Government changed their mind and delayed the scrapping of the scheme by nine months, to allow the good and successful examples of school sports partnerships to dig in and secure their existence. The principle of the school sports partnerships in schools was not to deal with those children who are already technically gifted, because by and large if a child is naturally good at sport—probably because their parents encouraged them—they are usually already involved in competitive sports clubs. Instead, it was to deal with the three out of five kids who were not naturally inspired to participate in sport and to provide them with a menu of alternative sports, because there is something for everyone.

It is not only a question of getting people to be active. One of the biggest challenges that sports groups tell me about is that they would like to provide lots of facilities but are struggling to do so because they are struggling for volunteers, for example to join the administrative staff and coaching staff who do all sorts of things, such as filling in forms to make all the bookings, to provide the organisation so that the kids can take part in activities.

I will touch on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) has made today, and in previous speeches, which is the need to address the cost of insurance. One of the barriers for a lot of schools is that many teachers are very young and it costs a fortune to insure a teacher to use a minibus. I have pleaded with several Ministers to consider providing some national insurance scheme for all different schools, so that they can achieve economies of scale and make the cost of insurance cheaper. In addition, health and safety issues prevent a number of schools from taking up more opportunities.

Councils should also do more to open up facilities. It is a crying shame that many of our facilities are closed on Friday and Saturday evenings. We are talking about tackling antisocial behaviour and childhood obesity. Where there are leisure centres that are shut, surely we should open their doors and provide facilities.

A good example of how that process works is that we have just had an academy built in the last few years in Swindon; an old school was closed down to build it. However, just before the decision was made to do that, £4 million was invested in a fantastic new sports hall in the old school. Initially and regrettably, the council was going to bulldoze the new sports hall along with the old school, because there was no point in having a random, stand-alone sports hall. Through the sports forum, however, we managed to identify a sports group that could take over that sports hall. It was Esprit Gymnastics and Mark Hows, who runs it, is fantastic at identifying funding opportunities. He had about 250 kids a week in his old facility, but that was at full capacity. However, he had an income, so he could pay a rental income to the council, which is revenue-stretched, and he said, “Just don’t bulldoze it. I will rent it.” Now his group has more than 500 kids a week participating, including potential Olympic athletes, and they are a real jewel in the crown for Swindon. That is a good example of the council being proactive and working through the sports forum to identify other facilities that can be used.

One of the external bodies that provide funding is the Football Foundation, which provides funding through its “Grow the Game” scheme. That scheme aims not only to increase participation but the sustainability of it. I have seen a lot of funding come in and people will put on a one-off session. That is great, but it does not really make that much difference. The “Grow the Game” scheme slants its funding to ensure that it is not just used for one-off things. It targets things such as coaching qualifications to provide additional coaches so that more junior clubs can take part, and paying for facility hire if there is a group of volunteers, particularly in challenging areas where there may not necessarily be a huge amount of funding. Also, first aid provision is funded, as part of the process of ticking off the many items on the very long health and safety list that exists. Already the sports forum has increased participation by 12,000 new players and, crucially, by an extra 2,000 new coaches. That is just one of many, many schemes, but councils and the Government can do more to help sporting groups and volunteer groups to identify the different streams of funding that are available.

My final point is about youth provision. My suggestion is a little bit contentious, but I have road-tested it on a number of schools, youth clubs and colleges. In the past, there was a traditional divide, whereby children were either very sporty and they went to a sports club, or they might choose to go to a youth club, and the divide would never be crossed. But times have changed and when I talk to young kids they are all very keen, either on whatever sport is popular on TV or even on things such as cheerleading or street dance, which are not strictly “sports” but which get the heart rate going.

I think that the youth service and the leisure service in local authorities should be merged to become one service. The chief officer within those areas should be one person and they should not employ armies of youth officers with very expensive youth clubs attended by only a handful of children, where they do things that we may have liked doing when we were younger but which, I can assure hon. Members, these days kids are not particularly switched on by. Instead, we should open up schools, community centres and leisure centres. We would pay for football coaches, street dance instructors and so on, and say, “Right, it is 50p. You come along and for the next two hours you’re in a constructive environment, and you’re doing something that is active.”

That is not just some pie-in-the-sky thing. In Swindon, we have the ice-skating disco on a Friday night for teenagers and 600 kids chase around the ice after whoever they think is particularly good-looking. They are being very active for a couple of hours; they are off the streets; and the youth service could and should be parking its mobile facility outside. Those young children who need the traditional youth service, from which they can get advice and seek help, will find that that is available. For all of the others who might have been put off going to the youth club, because that was the only thing that was available, there is the enjoyable activity of ice-skating. I am very keen to push such projects and we could judge their success by the number of children who are engaged by them.

To conclude, it is for us—whether we are the local authority or the Government—to provide as many opportunities as we can: through the planning system, through making changes in teaching cookery and in food labelling, and also through the power of sport.

15:07

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I will not speak for very long, but it is worth highlighting some of the issues that have been raised in a comprehensive way. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing this debate.

Obesity in the UK is a growing problem. In 1993, only 13% of men and 16% of women were obese, but in 2009, 22% of men—and 24% of women—were obese, which represents almost a doubling of the number of men with obesity. I am not talking about people with a body mass index of between 25 and 30, which means that they are overweight; I am talking about obesity. Almost a quarter of the UK population is obese and I am sure that we all find that unacceptable.

How can we deal with obesity effectively, because whatever previous Governments have done, obesity has not been addressed in a way that has worked or has been effective? First, I will briefly outline how Government policy is moving towards more community-based interventions on obesity, and I will explain how that approach, through the health and wellbeing boards that will be set up under the health care reforms, will be effective and work well. Secondly, I will talk a little about nudge theory, because I am more hopeful and optimistic about it than my medical colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). There is good evidence elsewhere, particularly in Iceland, that it has worked, and I hope it will also work effectively in relation to obesity.

[Jim Shannon]

While the hon. Gentleman is giving us his thoughts, and given his experience in his previous job, will he comment on gastric band operations? Just two weeks ago, I had occasion to visit the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Edwin Poots, with some of my constituents. These people had tried everything to lose weight; they had tried dieting and exercise—some of them were not able to exercise, which was the other problem—but they had clear medical and health problems. As a last resort—this really is the last chance saloon, or the last chance restaurant, perhaps—should regions and Health Ministers set aside money specifically for gastric band operations?

[Dr Poulter]

We certainly have to look at how the Government can help people to take more responsibility for their own health care. That is fundamental to obesity issues, and it is a particular challenge in more deprived areas. People often require gastric bands at the point where the medical problems associated with obesity—diabetes, the risk of heart attack or stroke, or high blood pressure—pose a potentially life-threatening risk. Such people may not have that long to live if a gastric band is not put in place, so it is the only feasible mechanism for dealing with obesity in such cases. Gastric bands have been shown to be an effective mechanism for looking after that part of the population, and there is good medical evidence to support their use. There is also good evidence in terms of the health care economics, as helping people to become slimmer will lessen the burden on the NHS.

The gastric band is good for the patient, because their health improves dramatically when it is used effectively, but the challenge with obesity is to bring about long-term lifestyle change, and the question with gastric bands is whether they necessarily deal with long-term lifestyle changes. In a medical sense, there needs to be greater emphasis on the education that goes with the bigger issues around obesity and lifestyle at the same time as the gastric band is fitted. I hope that that helps to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that celebrities regularly have gastric bands fitted, with the result that the bands are now seen as a shortcut to losing weight? People think that celebrities have them, so we must all have them.

[Dr Poulter]

That is a good point. There is good evidence that the celebrity culture around dieting causes anorexia in young girls. It would be much better for us and for many of our constituents if celebrities sometimes showed greater responsibility in the way in which they behaved. Gastric bands are an effective way of dealing with severe obesity, but they should not be used as a general method of bringing about weight loss. Weight loss is about education and people taking responsibility for their own weight and lifestyle. It is also about putting support in place in communities to let people do that, particularly in more deprived areas.

[Mr Dodds]

I have heard constituents talk about the use of statins and polypills. These medications have enormously beneficial effects for many people, and many people need them, but people almost seem to think, “Well, we have this magic pill available. We can eat and drink as much as we like, and then we can go on this pill.” Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that we need more education about the use of such medications? At the moment, people are under the impression that there is something out there that can solve all these problems without their having to do anything to change their lifestyle.

[Dr Poulter]

Yes, certainly. There is an issue about how physicians prescribe effectively. Statins are an effective way of controlling cholesterol, and there is good evidence that they benefit people with heart disease and high cholesterol and that they increase life expectancy. There has been a lot of research, and I believe that it has been shown that statins may have beneficial effects in reducing the risk of breast cancer, although the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.

The right hon. Gentleman touches on the wider point that the emphasis in this debate needs to be on effective community-led interventions that tackle obesity and health care, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) discussed that very effectively. However, we need to ask how we will make those community health care measures effective.

The Government are setting up health and wellbeing boards, which are a very useful part of their health care reforms, because they will, for the first time, bring together different organisations in a meaningful way. Local councils in certain towns may run good community initiatives that connect GPs with leisure centres, exercise and sport, and some schools may encourage sport and physical activity in an effective way or have good links with local sports clubs. However, that does not often happen in a co-ordinated way across whole counties or, indeed, across the country. Health and wellbeing boards will help to bring together different organisations to address key public health problems, and obesity is a key public health challenge in all our constituencies.

As part of the health care reforms, the health and wellbeing boards will be able to address issues such as obesity. For example, if we know that there is an issue with teenage pregnancy or obesity in certain schools or among certain schoolchildren in my constituency, targeted interventions can be put in place in a much more community-focused way by getting the local authority together with health care representatives at a much more strategic level. That must be a good thing, because it allows much more targeted interventions.

The second thing I want briefly to discuss—I do not want to speak for much longer—is nudge theory. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes has a slightly different view of it. I have more faith in nudge theory than she does, and I say that because we have had debates about agriculture—some of the Opposition Members here today were present—in which we discussed the need for corporate firms and supermarkets to show greater corporate responsibility on issues such as food labelling. We have now seen active movement from some supermarkets on honest food labelling. For example, we talk about food in a store being labelled British only if it is actually farmed in Britain, and not if it is merely processed or sliced here. We are beginning to see such initiatives come through, with supermarkets supporting British farmers. Morrisons is a good example of a supermarket where the British food stamp actually means something, and that allows consumers to make an informed choice. Supermarkets are therefore able to show corporate responsibility when they are asked to do so, although things are not entirely perfect, as we all know.

In a similar vein, the Government have introduced a public health responsibility deal, and it is a good initiative. Almost 200 different companies have signed up to the deal, including supermarkets such as Asda, the Co-op, Morrisons, Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose and many others. Fast-food outlets such as McDonald’s, Pizza Hut and KFC have pledged to remove trans fats and introduce calorie labelling as a result of this initiative. Those are all pleasing and beneficial steps in the right direction.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern, however, that organisations such as Asda, which have signed up to the new responsibility deal, are in some ways undermining it by offering hugely discounted alcohol products?

[Dr Poulter]

There are areas of obvious concern, where supermarkets can go further. As I said earlier, when we were talking about the agricultural sector, even though several supermarkets are backing honest food labelling, and showing responsibility in food labelling and calorie counting to tackle obesity, it is right to highlight the areas in which they need to show greater corporate responsibility. Cut-price alcohol is one of those, and we will continue to monitor it carefully in our work on the Select Committee on Health, and as physicians. My hon. Friend makes a good point.

In preparing for the debate, although I do not normally take an active interest in children’s TV, I found out about an Icelandic TV show called “LazyTown”—the Minister may want to expand on the subject a little later. The show is watched by children all over the world, and we have it in Great Britain as well. There is a healthy sports superhero character, called Sportacus, who motivates children to eat healthily and be active. In Iceland several “LazyTown” initiatives have been run in partnership with the Government and the private sector. For example, children between four and seven years old were sent an energy contract, which they and their parents signed, in which they were rewarded for eating healthily, going to bed early and being active. In one supermarket chain, all the fruit and vegetables were branded “sports candy”, which is the “LazyTown” name for fruit and vegetables. That led to a 22% increase in sales at that supermarket, and improved health and reduced obesity levels in Iceland.

The fact that Iceland’s child obesity levels have started to fall as a result of initiatives of that kind is good evidence in support of such corporate responsibility. Those initiatives are designed to support supermarkets coming together with Government, to make effective use of the nudge theory of improving behaviour, and they can work—and have worked. For that reason, we must support what the Government are doing, because there is evidence that it can work. It is a good thing and the evidence from Iceland is that we need to do what works, with children and communities.

I understand, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm, that the Department of Health has set up a partnership with “LazyTown” and is interested in expanding that initiative in the United Kingdom. We need more such approaches. The reason supermarkets sign up to such deals and initiatives is that it is good not just for the children, who become healthier and less obese, but for the supermarket and its brand image. Supermarkets see that working with corporate responsibility—we see it in our constituencies with Tesco schools vouchers—can enhance their image and custom, and do real good, for example, by reducing obesity levels.

I have greater faith in the nudge theory than my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, and we need to allow similar initiatives to take root in the future. What has been done in the past has not worked very well; obesity levels have been going up. We have good evidence, from examples of corporate responsibility, that things can be tackled, so let us give nudge theory a chance. Let us also look to those health and wellbeing boards to provide community-based interventions that will work. If we do not do something, things will get worse, and the boards are a good way to address the problem.

15:23

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Thank you for giving me the chance to speak in the debate, Mrs Riordan. I had not applied to speak until I arrived today. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing the debate. Obesity is a problem that we underestimate at our peril. We have heard from Members who are medical people—I am not one of them—and have heard figures about the increase in obesity and the problems being stored up for the country. Those problems are to do with both physical well-being and the economy. Late onset diabetes, which can be related to obesity, will have an impact on health spending in the future, for example.

The problem has crept up on our society in the past 10 or 15 years. We have talked about diet, and I am at a slight advantage because I spent two years training to be a chef many years ago. To this day I always try to cook myself a balanced meal, although since being elected—other hon. Members’ experience will no doubt chime with mine—there is a tendency on getting back to the flat to get a little lazy and reach for the frozen ready meal. That behaviour—the sort of thing we are probably guilty of—is what pervades the country. As people cook less, they tend to eat less healthily. We have already heard discussions about school cookery classes. I tend to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) that those classes should be a staple part of children’s education.

As to the cost of ready meals, we have all been to the big-name supermarkets, where there are buy-one-get-one-free offers, ready meals for £1 and so on. I often have an argument with people outside this place about the fact that I still think it is cheaper to cook a balanced meal than to buy a ready meal, whatever its price. Fruit and vegetables are not expensive; they can be bought and prepared quite cheaply. The difficulty is that people are so busy—or the perception is that they are so busy—that they say, “I haven’t got time.” They prefer, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon said, to do microwave cooking—three minutes, and ping. It is a question of education. We need to educate people to understand that it is quite simple to cook a balanced meal and live on a balanced diet.

I was visited some time ago by a constituent who came up with an idea called the Diet Plate. It is a fantastic idea—a plate that is portioned. If someone puts the relevant food group on the right portion of the plate it will be a balanced meal. Kay Illingworth was named in the British female inventor of the year awards in 2002 for that invention. I was given one, which I have in my office, and I am sure that hon. Members will realise, from looking at me, that I use it every day. It is a really good product, which looks nice and is made in this country. It demonstrates how to balance a meal and is a great way of educating people.

We have talked about sedentary lifestyle. I, like my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon, remember the days of jumpers-for-goalposts football—kicking the ball around in the street, playing cricket in the summer, and so on. I still think that a lot of young people like physical activity. I spent 12 years as a councillor on High Peak borough council. We have a new all-weather football pitch in Hadfield. Hon. Members who know the area will know that someone coming down the road can see the floodlights, and every night there are dozens of people playing there. We used to do summer sports in the school holidays, to use the school facilities that were lying idle. Young people like to get out and play physical sport, and we need to encourage that as much as we can. There are two strings to this: it is not only what people eat, but how they burn it off. If the energy is not burned off, what is eaten becomes more important.

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend is making a strong case for children being inspired to take part in sport. Does he have a sense, as I do, that sometimes sponsorship of major sporting events by chocolate or crisp manufacturers creates a slightly false image, by relating unhealthy food to healthy activity? Does he have a view or some advice on that?

[Andrew Bingham]

I was going to come on to other activities shortly. I will watch or take part in sport, but who sponsors it does not chime with me much. However, ideally it would be better for an active product to support a sport. Interestingly, leisure centres all have vending machines full of chocolate. I know from experience that when the chocolate bars are replaced with cereal bars and healthy alternatives, the spend drops, because people like chocolate.

I am fortunate to live in the High Peak, which is a fantastic area with a huge amount of outdoor activity to do, including walking and hiking—the woods to play in. I am lucky, but inner cities do not have a huge playground such as the one I and my constituents have to play in. It is vital that people use leisure centres, and that they are encouraged into them. We can talk about what the Government should or should not do to get people to do that. I agree that the nudge theory will work. We have been subconsciously nudged into the present situation, because people have gone to the quick, easy meal and have taken up a more sedentary lifestyle. We have heard about the PlayStation generation, and we all walk around with BlackBerrys. If texting was good exercise and made people fit, the present generation would be the fittest ever. With young people in particular it is text, text, text. However, that is not active.

[Mr Simon Burns]

I am very interested in what my hon. Friend says and have listened carefully to the interventions. A number of Members have talked about what the Government, the Department of Health, the Department for Education or local government should do, but it strikes me as slightly odd that there has been little recognition of the responsibility of parents.

[Andrew Bingham]

I think that the Minister has been reading my notes. The point I was coming to was that we have talked a lot about what the Government can or cannot do, but this is one of many issues on which responsibility lies with us and with the parents of young people. My generation’s parents taught us how to poach eggs, for example; it is all about education in the home. I know that I sound like a grumpy old man, talking about how it was in my day, with rose-coloured glasses—[Hon. Members: “No, Never”] I will concede on grumpy; old I will argue with, at the moment. We can discuss different demographics, but if people are brought up on balanced, home-cooked food they will carry that on through their lives. It worries me that the more ready meal-type culture we have, the more it will go on and the bigger the problem will get.

We can expect, or ask, the Government to do this, that and the other, but as with many things, responsibility lies with individuals and with the parents of young children. That is where we need to start, with people being responsible for their own actions.

We have a fantastic opportunity with the 2012 Olympics, when we will see athletes from across the world. I will wager that in a year’s time, when Jessica Ennis wins a gold medal—I hope she does—we will see children out doing long jump and triple jump, using their own resources to copy their sporting heroes. We must capitalise on that. I played football in the winter as a kid because that was what was on TV, I played cricket in the summer and we all played tennis for two weeks when Wimbledon was on. We can use the Olympics. We talk about the legacy Olympics, and I would like the legacy to be the starting point for people getting active again.

[Justin Tomlinson]

We all have a role in encouraging our local schools to get 100% behind the school Olympics principle, so that when we have our successful athletes, in javelin or whatever we prove successful in, children can be inspired to take up the sport on a regular basis.

[Andrew Bingham]

Absolutely. There are dozens of sports in the Olympics, and everyone will watch and take an interest in one, so let us foster that and make the legacy of the games a healthier and more active society. We need to take that together with using the supermarkets, to get healthier eating.

We have a surfeit of cookery programmes on television. Every time we put it on there is someone gardening, doing DIY or cooking. Those three hobbies, or whatever we want to call them, can help to produce healthier people and a healthier country. Let us not necessarily rely on the Government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) that the health and wellbeing boards and the reforms in the Health Bill will help, but let us take on our responsibilities and get the message across to our constituents, getting the whole of society involved in this to make for a healthier and less obese Britain.

15:33

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing this important debate, to which we have all been glad to contribute. He reminds us of how many issues we have in common in these British Isles.

I want to focus on the important subject of child obesity, and to talk about the responses so far to the Government’s obesity strategy entitled “Healthy lives, healthy people: a call to action on obesity in England”, which was presented to both Houses on 13 October. First, however, I want to say that some people might feel that Members of Parliament have a certain temerity talking about healthy lifestyles when their own lifestyle is relatively unhealthy, and I speak as someone who has been in this House for 20 years. Perhaps we should give credit to the few colleagues we sometimes see going through the Division Lobby dressed in their running gear after a bracing run. I am sure that Members will unite with me in congratulating those rare Members on that.

We are facing a crisis in childhood obesity. As I said earlier, gone are the days when we could look at a chubby child and say that they would grow out of it: chubby children grow into obese adults. I have to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that a wide range of people both inside and outside this House have expressed doubt about the effectiveness of the Government’s obesity strategy. Before moving on to what I think the Government should be doing, let me focus on the picture in London.

London has higher levels of childhood obesity than any other British region. The capital’s childhood obesity rate is 22%, compared with an average for England as a whole of just 19%. Across the capital, one in five youngsters are obese, with rates varying widely from 12% in leafy Richmond to 28% in Westminster. Childhood obesity costs the capital £7.1 million a year to treat, and the annual bill could reach £111 million if today’s young people remain obese into adulthood.

Research commissioned by the Greater London assembly found that adult obesity costs London £883.6 million a year, and in my own constituency—Members will forgive me for mentioning it—a quarter of all year 6 pupils are obese. That is one of the highest rates in the country as recorded by the national child measurement programme. In 2010 in City and Hackney, 13% of children in reception year were overweight and 14% were obese. The number of overweight children was similar to the national average, but the proportion of obese children was slightly higher. Greater efforts are needed to prevent overweight and obesity at the pre-school stage, because a high proportion of children are already obese and overweight by the time they start school. The escalation of the trend through to year 6 suggests that we also need to implement robust interventions in primary schools.

A number of Members have talked about parental responsibilities. I put it to colleagues that some of the parents who are doing what we might understand as the wrong thing are, in their own minds, trying to be good and vigilant parents. One of the problems that young children in Hackney and the rest of London have is their sedentary lifestyle, and part of what motivates parents to keep their children indoors is this idea of stranger danger. We all know that attacks on children have not gone up in 20 years, but childhood obesity has spiralled. Many parents—not bad or careless ones—think that they are doing their children a service by keeping them indoors, safely watching television or playing on the PlayStation, rather than playing outside.

I was not the most sporty of children, unlike some of the Government Members who have contributed to the debate, but in the summer holidays my mother thought nothing of us having breakfast and then going out to play all day. We might have come in for lunch, or have gone to a friend’s and come back for tea. Nowadays, no London parent would allow their child to play out all day without knowing where they were, and it is that sort of vigilance and possibly unwarranted fear of stranger danger that leads to many thoughtful parents deciding, perhaps because they have not had the education or do not have the understanding, that they will feel better if their children are indoors rather than outside playing.

Let us also remember that in a big city such as London a greater proportion than ever of our children live in flats, maisonettes and other accommodation without a back garden. As a child, if I was not out, I spent most of the day in the back garden, on the swing, climbing trees and shouting at my brother, but many children in my constituency are trapped in flats and it is not obvious to their parents where they can be allowed to play safely.

[Andrew Bingham]

That is a good point. We talked briefly about video games. Does the hon. Lady think that the advent of Wii Fit-type games is beneficial? I have seen young people playing them, and they involve a lot of jumping around and so on, which I suppose is a form of exercise, at least.

[Ms Abbott]

Far be it from me to advertise any particular product in this Chamber, but Wii Fit games are perhaps better than PlayStation games.

[Mr Simon Burns]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady, who is making some valid points. The danger has to do with not simply the age of computer games but the age of television before that. For some parents—this is a generalisation—the easy option is to let their children spend hours watching television or playing games, because it involves less effort on the parents’ part. One must try to educate people that that is not only an easy option but an unfair one.

[Ms Abbott]

I am loth to agree with the Minister, but I think that he is right on that point. A particular interest of mine is the education of urban children and the challenges of getting them to achieve their educational potential. As part of working with parents, especially in urban communities, we must teach them that just putting their children in front of a television set is not necessarily the best thing for their health or their education.

I agree entirely with what has been said about exercise and sport, but we also need a particular focus on girls and exercise. Statistics show that girls give up exercise younger; after they leave school, they do not continue to exercise, as boys do. I was interested to hear about, was it ice hockey—

[Justin Tomlinson]

It was an ice-skating disco on Friday nights.

On the point about getting more girls involved, that is why I proposed merging youth and leisure services to identify opportunities. Girls, in particular, follow what is on television. If street dance, cheerleading or football is popular, let us provide those services and facilities, and they will come flocking.

[Ms Abbott]

I agree. That is the point that I was going to make. We need to be more innovative in the sorts of game that we encourage and make available to children. Girls do not want to play ping-pong, because they are quite self-conscious physically, but they will do things such as breakdancing and ice skating.

As other Members have said, we have a generation of parents, especially in inner cities, who do not know about food, have only the dimmest idea of where some foodstuffs come from and do not know how to cook. Because they are bombarded by advertising for processed food, when they whip out a ready meal from Marks and Spencer, it is not just idleness; they think that they are being good parents: “Look, I’m getting you something from Marks and Spencer which is advertised on the television.” We should work with communities and parents to educate them.

In my view, the Government obesity policy’s reliance on responsibility deals is a little problematic. Common sense suggests that companies that make billions of pounds every year peddling fizzy drinks and foods larded with trans fats will not seriously undermine their profits by genuinely trying to change the public’s eating habits. Although we must applaud the Government for whatever progress they think they have made with responsibility deals, we must go beyond them as they are currently fashioned if we are to stop the epidemic of obesity among our young people.

To return to the Government’s obesity strategy, the message from health professionals, key health groups and experts is clear. We need tough action now and a proper long-term strategy to stem the rising tide of lifestyle-related diseases. Jamie Oliver, probably the single most famous person in public health, has said in the past few weeks that this Government’s obesity strategy is

“worthless, regurgitated, patronising rubbish”.

As usual, he was not pulling his punches. Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said that the Government’s plan

“has no clear measures on how the food and drink industry will be made to be more ‘responsible’ in their aggressive marketing of unhealthy food…Suggesting that children in particular can be ‘nudged’ into making healthy choices, especially when faced with a food landscape which is persuading them to do the precise opposite, suggests this would be best described as a call to inaction.”

Which? executive director Richard Lloyd said that the Government’s approach to tackling obesity was

“woefully inadequate…The Government calls on people to cut down the calories they eat, but isn’t giving them the tools to do so.”

Charlie Powell, campaigns director of the Children’s Food Campaign, said:

“This is a deeply disappointing and utterly inadequate response which represents a squandered opportunity to address the UK’s obesity crisis.”

There is broad agreement in the House about the issues that we must address. It is a mix of issues; there is no silver bullet. Better labelling of food, including in restaurants and cafés, is part of the answer. Fashioning a sport offer for young boys and girls is crucial, as is better education and working with parents and communities.

I would like to say a word about gastric bands. We read an enormous amount about them, particularly in relation to celebrities. As a Conservative Member said, there are cases, if people have tried everything else, where a gastric band might be the answer, but I deprecate the promotion of gastric bands without some of the measures that we have discussed if that suggests to people that they can eat whatever rubbish they like because, at the end of the day, the NHS will pick up the tab for a gastric band. That is not the way forward, either for costs in the NHS or for people’s quality of life. I have read about people who, having got gastric bands, proceeded to liquidise fish and chips so they could continue to enjoy their favourite junk food. That suggests that a gastric band, in itself, is not the answer to the underlying issues.

I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will address the serious concerns raised about the Government’s obesity strategy by a wide range of stakeholders and specialists. I look forward to hearing what the Government plan to do further to address the growing epidemic of obesity among our young people.

15:47

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan, during this extremely interesting and thoughtful debate, to which there have been a number of erudite and imaginative contributions across the range.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing the debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss one of the major public health issues of modern times. He has spoken repeatedly on the subject in the House and should be congratulated on doing so. He knows, of course, the scale of the problem. Most adults in England, 61%, are overweight. Sadly, one third of those are clinically obese, giving us one of the highest obesity rates in the world. As for children, almost a quarter of four to five-year-olds are overweight or obese, rising to one third in 10 to 11-year-olds. I am sure that we all agree that those figures are genuinely shocking. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the scale of the problem in Northern Ireland, to which he alluded during the course of his remarks, is similarly daunting, with 59% of adults and 22% of children overweight or obese.

As recently as the 1980s, obesity rates among adults were a third of what they are now. Although figures for the last few years show that levels of obesity may be stabilising, that is simply not good enough, because excess weight has serious consequences for individuals, the NHS and the wider community. Not only does it cause day-to-day suffering such as back pain, breathing problems and sleep disruption, but it is a major risk factor for diseases that can kill. An obese man is five times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes, three times more likely to develop colon cancer and two and a half times more likely to develop high blood pressure than a man with a healthy weight, and women face equally serious risks. That is not to mention liver disease, heart disease, some cancers and miscarriages, all of which are linked to excess weight.

Although the real and present danger of obesity in terms of immediate health risks is seen largely in adults, obesity also has significant effects on children and young people, as many hon. Members have mentioned. Obese children are likely to suffer stigmatisation, and there are growing reports of obese children developing type 2 diabetes. We also know that if a child is obese in their early teens, there is a high chance that they will become an obese adult, with related problems later in life.

As waistlines expand, so does the amount of money that we spend on the issue. As a number of Members have said, excess weight is a burden of approximately £5 billion each year, and costs billions more through days of work and incapacity. Neither can we ignore the link between obesity and health inequalities. Data from the national child measurement programme show a marked relationship between deprivation and obesity. The Marmot review in 2010 showed the impact that income, ethnicity and social deprivation have on someone’s chances of becoming obese. As things stand, the less well-off a person is, the more likely they are to be carrying excess weight, so we are talking about an issue of social justice, as well as a narrow health issue involving exercise and healthy living.

The hon. Members for East Londonderry and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) both asked, in effect, whether the Department of Health should work with companies that produce and sell products that contribute to the nation’s obesity and alcohol problems. Up to a point, it is the responsibility of the individual how much they consume and what they consume. How do we make sure that people know what they are eating—the calorie, salt and fat content and so on? To my mind, that means clear, easily understandable labelling, and education about what is healthy and what is the best approach.

On the narrow point of the issue mentioned by both hon. Members, improving the health of the public is clearly a priority for the Government, but we need a whole-society approach to tackle the health problems caused by poor diet, alcohol misuse and lack of exercise. To change people’s behaviours, we need to make the healthier choices the easier choices for everyone.

Commercial organisations have an influence on and can reach consumers in certain ways that Governments cannot. They have a key role in creating an environment that supports people to make informed, balanced choices that will enable them to lead healthier lives. Through their position of influence, they can address some of the wider factors that affect people’s health, such as how healthy our food is and how easy it is to access opportunities to be more physically active. Through the work on the public health responsibility deal, despite what the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington has said, we are tapping into that unrealised potential to help improve the public’s health.

[Ms Abbott]

rose—

[Mr Burns]

I will give way in a moment. It is also important to say that, if we can get an agreement with commercial companies to change the way they behave and some of their practices, it will be far quicker to achieve that and put it in place than to wait for the heavy hand of Government legislation, which can take a minimum of a year and sometimes years. Why wait for the heavy hand of legislation that might take a long time, if we can get a voluntary agreement that will work quicker and more effectively to start dealing with the problem?

[Dr Poulter]

rose—

[Mr Burns]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington first, because I promised her, then my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), and then I will make progress.

[Ms Abbott]

On changing commercial practices, when will the Government do something about the practice of so many supermarkets whereby they place rows of sweets next to the checkout? If a parent has fought off their children and not bought sweets on their way around the supermarket, the children then have 10 minutes to whine while the parent waits to pay for their shopping.

[Mr Burns]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, because the charge has been made on a number of occasions and I have considerable sympathy with it. The supermarket at which I shop each week—I shall not name it, because I do not want to advertise for it—does not do that any more. I think that the hon. Lady will find that, throughout the country, the responsible supermarkets have stopped that practice, for the very reasons that she has mentioned.

[Dr Poulter]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to be careful about introducing regulation for alcohol and other relevant products? It could be a very crude measure and have unforeseen consequences. For example, on alcohol, we may be concerned about the cheap sale of white cider, but the bigger issue is that introducing legislation may impact on brands that market themselves responsibly to responsible drinkers. We have to be careful about that sort of thing.

[Mr Burns]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

I will address a number of issues that some of my hon. Friends have raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) talked about the important issue of weighing and measuring children. I hope that she will be reassured by the national child measurement programme. It measures children in reception class—four to five-year-olds—and in year 6. Those measurements and weights are fed back to parents, so that they can not only know the information, but make informed choices about the lifestyles of their children.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) made some valid and good points about the planning regime and open spaces that enable parents and children to exercise. His points were well made and sensible. It would be worthwhile for local government, which has responsibility for the issue, to read what he has had to say, particularly, as the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington has said, because certain inner-city areas do not have the advantages of some of the more rural and smaller town constituencies, which have far more access to open spaces.

As a Government, our general approach to tackling the problem is based on the latest scientific evidence on the underlying issues and causes of obesity, as well as what has worked best previously. Ultimately, there is a simple equation: people put on weight because they consume more calories than they need.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Burns]

No, I will not, because I have only three minutes. People need to be honest with themselves. We need to recognise that we are responsible for controlling our weight. That means eating less, drinking less and exercising more.

We are also calling on the food and drink industry to play a much bigger role in reducing the population’s calorie intake by 5 billion calories a day, to help close the crucial imbalance between energy in and energy out. That will build on commitments that businesses have already made, through the public health responsibility deal, on things such as eliminating trans fats, reducing the amount of salt in food, and proper calorie labelling.

Of course, it is for each of us to make our own decisions about how we live our lives. The best and most sustainable changes come not when people are ordered about, but when they are given the tools to change, given the justification and then take responsibility to do it themselves. That is why we need to work together to make sure that the healthier choices become the easier choices. Everyone has a role to play—the food industry, the drinks industry, the many organisations that encourage physical activity and sport, employers who can support the health of their employees, and the local NHS staff in talking to people more about obesity and its consequences.

Under the new public health system, local leadership will be critical. We want to move away from the days when legislation and demands came down from Whitehall like thunderbolts from Mount Olympus. Local authorities will be supported by a ring-fenced budget and will bring together local partners, including the NHS, to provide the most effective services for their communities. We will support local people and local authorities by making sure that they have access to the best possible data and evidence.

We will not shirk our duty to provide national leadership where it is necessary—by working, for example, with business and non-governmental organisations, and making sure that Government Departments work together in supporting better health. That is already happening. The Department for Transport is providing more than half a billion pounds of funding for local authorities to increase sustainable travel such as walking and cycling. The new teaching schools programme, led by the Department for Education, will explore how schools can support and encourage children’s health and well-being. We will also continue to try to inspire people, young and old, to embrace a healthy, active lifestyle, via, for example, Change4Life. Moreover, the London Olympics, as many of my hon. Friends have mentioned, give us the golden opportunity to perpetuate that legacy after they have finished.

The new national ambitions provide a clear goal that we can all aim for. We should all play our part in raising awareness. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry on securing this debate, and I hope that he sees the benefits in our strategy. I hope that he supports it and that he will continue to be an advocate for his constituents on the matter.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Bryant has withdrawn his debate, so the sitting is suspended until 4.30 pm.

16:00

Sitting suspended.

Fire Service (Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Westminster Hall

16:29

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I thank the Minister for being here to listen and respond to the debate, and for being so open and accessible when I have contacted him about this issue.

I applied for this important debate because, unless the Minister is able to come to our aid or the West Midlands fire and rescue authority can be persuaded to reject the proposals put to it by the West Midlands fire service, the fire service in my constituency is threatened with extremely deep cuts. I will offer a brief summary of how we got to this point.

In 2008, the West Midlands fire service conducted a comprehensive review of its operations to improve its effectiveness and to ensure that resources were best deployed to maximise the level of fire cover across the county. The review recommended that a number of fire stations should be merged, while maintaining the same number of fire engines and crews across the county, to offer a more effective service. Among its proposals, the review recommended that the two fire stations located in my constituency, Halesowen and Cradley Heath, should be merged with a new fire station built at a suitable location between the two towns.

The proposals were put out for consultation at the end of 2008, and a large number of responses were received from different sections of the community. Despite strong opposition to the proposals to replace the two existing fire stations with a new fire station, including a strong campaign mounted by the Fire Brigades Union and submissions from Labour-run Sandwell council, the fire service decided to press ahead with the proposal and the merger was agreed by the fire authority in February 2009.

Although the fire service did not change its plans to merge the two fire stations, it did agree to modify its proposal in one important way following the consultation exercise. The review originally proposed that instead of having one 24-hour pump located at each of the two fire stations, the newly merged fire station should have one 24-hour pump and one 12-hour pump. Following the consultation, that proposal was changed and it was agreed that there should be two 24-hour pumps at the new fire station. That proposal was agreed by the fire authority in February 2009.

After the fire authority’s decision, not much happened. In fact, with regard to the two fire stations in my constituency, nothing happened at all. While the review’s proposals were implemented in other parts of the west midlands, the fire stations in Halesowen and Cradley Heath continued to operate as before. To all intents and purposes, it appeared that the proposal had at the very least been put on the back burner. The first indication that the plans might be back on the table came when the chief fire officer wrote to me last December to lobby me on the local government finance settlement. He said:

“I will do everything possible in order not to close your local fire stations—but at this level of cuts I see some closures as an inevitability.”

The first time that the proposal was publicly resurrected was this summer, when the West Midlands fire service announced that it would press ahead with the decision to merge the two fire stations. However, when that was formally announced, it became clear that the fire service intended to implement only parts of the decision agreed in February 2009. Whereas the 2009 decision explicitly stated that the two fire stations would be replaced by a new fire station that would be built between the two existing stations, the proposals that the fire service now intends to implement could see the fire stations replaced by a rented industrial unit somewhere in the area, or—as seems to be the favoured option—the merged fire station would actually just be Cradley Heath fire station.

I hope that you will not think that I am overly pedantic, Mrs Riordan, if I suggest that closing one fire station and moving the service it provides to another fire station is a very different proposition from building a new fire station to cover both areas and locating it between the two towns. Back in 2009, the fire authority accepted that distinction. In its response to the consultation, the fire authority dismissed suggestions that Cradley Heath could serve the whole area. It said:

“Cradley Heath fire station was built in 1942. It is a cramped old fashioned building with no training facilities and it has been the intention to replace the station for some years. There will be significant costs if the Authority attempts to maintain the station on the present site. The Authority believes that the risks in the areas covered by the existing Cradley Heath and Halesowen fire stations will be better served by having a combined new fire station located between the two existing sites.”

That is as true now as it was in February 2009.

While the physical presence of a fire station in a town is of enormous emotional importance to local residents, and having a fire station locally has significant practical benefits, I recognise that there is some truth in the argument used by the fire service that fire stations do not put out fires—firefighters do. That is why I am even more concerned that, having agreed to preserve two 24-hour pumps in 2009, West Midlands fire service is now proposing that that provision should be halved and the new—or perhaps not so new—merged fire station would have only a single pump to serve the area. That clearly has grave implications for the level of fire cover available in my constituency.

Unlike the 2008 review, the new proposals are not part of a comprehensive assessment of the needs of the county and how best to deploy resources to provide the best possible level of cover in all areas. This summer’s proposals would affect only Halesowen and Cradley Heath, thus reducing the service in my constituency. Clearly, like all services, the West Midlands fire service has had to bear a share of the savings needed to reduce the deficit that the Government inherited. Indeed, because the West Midlands fire service has set a much lower council tax precept than other parts of the country, the overall impact of the local government finance settlement is even greater in the West Midlands than in other metropolitan fire authorities. I urge the Minister to bear that in mind when considering the settlement for future years to ensure that metropolitan fire authorities in general—and the West Midlands in particular—are not forced to make deeper savings than can possibly be afforded without significant front-line cuts.

While there are significant financial pressures on the fire service, it seems that Halesowen and Cradley Heath are expected to carry a disproportionate share of the burden to produce the required savings. As I have said, my constituency is the only area in the county to face a reduction in the number of pumps through these proposals. As I explained earlier, the West Midlands fire authority recognised in 2009 that it was not appropriate to reduce the number of pumps covering the area from two to one and a half, yet the fire service is now proposing that, instead of sharing the burden across a number of stations, the number of pumps in my constituency should be cut from two to just one. It would seem to be basic common sense—something on which my constituents pride themselves—that either the decision to preserve two full-time pumps in 2009 was extraordinarily wasteful or, as local residents suspect, reducing cover to just one single pump represents a serious risk to the local community.

Although the fire service points to the relatively low number of call-outs from the two stations, the local community does not believe that those statistics tell the whole story. Halesowen fire station is close to junction 3 of the M5, and helps to cover call-outs to the motorway network. With the weekend’s tragic accident in Somerset, we saw again just how important it is that our motorways are properly covered by the fire service network.

Halesowen town is changing. The reduction in the number of incidents over recent years is partly the result of effective fire prevention, but is partly due, too, to a decline in the local manufacturing industry. New growth in the town is changing that, but although the new hotel, supermarkets, fast-food restaurants and petrol stations provide a vital boost for the local economy, there is no doubt that they represent a greater demand for the local fire service that did not exist when the review was conducted in 2008. It therefore seems folly on the part of West Midlands fire service to propose deep cuts to the service in Halesowen precisely when demand could be about to rise.

Although there was significant local disquiet about the 2009 decision, the case could at least be made that it was being done to improve the quality and efficiency of the service—my predecessor broadly accepted that argument. However, the new proposal to cut the number of fire stations and fire engines can only be seen as a reduction in service. There is a great deal of opposition to the proposals in my constituency, bringing together the unlikely alliance of a Conservative Member of Parliament, all local political parties and the Fire Brigades Union. The FBU held a well-supported rally in the town centre, and petitions against the proposals have collected more than 1,000 signatures.

Under the Local Government Act 2010 and the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, fire authorities, as best-value authorities—

16:42

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:52

On resuming—

[James Morris]

As I was saying, under the Local Government Act and the Fire and Rescue Services Act, fire authorities, as best value authorities, have a responsibility to consult the public effectively. They must also ensure that consultations comply with guidance from the Secretary of State. This week’s High Court decision on the Royal Brompton hospital serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring that public consultations, particularly on service closures, are conducted effectively and fairly.

When the new proposals were announced in the summer, the West Midlands fire service said that as the decision to merge the fire stations had already been agreed, it was necessary to consult only on the staffing changes. The Minister has extensive experience of local government and knows how a competent consultation process should be conducted. It is questionable whether a three-year-old consultation exercise holds much value in the best of circumstances. However, it surely cannot be right to claim that a decision taken on the basis of a three-year-old consultation process remains valid, but then choose selectively to implement only parts of that decision. Either the 2009 decision should have been implemented in its entirety, or there should be a new, comprehensive review of the fire service’s operations, so that a proper judgment can be reached on how resources should be allocated in order that the service complies with its obligations under the national framework. Even the chief fire officer accepts that the consultation has “not been ideal”. But for parliamentary protocols, I would be tempted to use somewhat stronger words.

There is a real threat that unless the Minister can intervene or the fire authority recognises that the proposals before it have not been properly thought through, my constituents will find themselves with a much-reduced service that is radically different from anything on which they have been consulted and that represents a significant risk to the community.

To conclude, I shall ask the Minister three questions. First, can he provide detailed assurances that the process followed by the West Midlands fire service is consistent with its statutory obligations to consult and to minimise risk? Secondly, will he work with the Secretary of State to draw up clear best practice guidance for the minimum standards required of fire authorities’ consultation procedures? Finally, given the shortcomings in the way in which the fire service has consulted the public and other stakeholders—shortcomings recognised by the chief fire officer himself—does the Minister agree that the best course of action would be for the West Midlands fire service to withdraw its proposals, so that a full and comprehensive review can be conducted of how the service’s resources can best be deployed to provide the fire cover that my residents require?

16:55

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) on securing the debate. I am very glad that he has done so. It is on an issue in which he has taken a very considerable interest and on which he has been campaigning for some time. I am grateful to him for the care that he has taken in providing me and my officials with information about this matter, and for the concern that he has shown for his constituents in seeking a constructive meeting with me, which we had earlier.

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about service provision in the west midlands. There is no doubt that fire stations provide a vital community safety and protection service. Of course, the pumps stationed in them are important, too. Running up the stairs to get back to this debate in time after the Division, I was reminded that they often carry defibrillators as well, because I thought I might need one at one point. Joking apart, these are life-saving, front-line services, and it is right that communities are sensitive about their placement.

Fire and rescue authorities have successfully improved the safety of their local communities in recent years. The number of fire deaths has halved in the past 20 years, and there has also been a fall in the number of fires, so there have been real achievements. That is the background. We recognise the very strong commitment that my hon. Friend has to his local service. However, we have to step back a little and see what the appropriate use is of the Secretary of State’s intervention powers and what the appropriate means are of dealing with the issues of controversy in this case. The Government, like their predecessor, are of the view that fire services are best delivered locally. The Government’s own commitment to localism reinforces that. It involves decisions about local deployment of services generally being taken at local level.

In the case of fire and rescue services, the democratically accountable fire and rescue authorities are the bodies charged with that responsibility. Those authorities are required by the national framework to produce and regularly update an integrated risk management plan, which identifies and assesses local need and sets out plans to mitigate effectively both existing and potential or future risks to communities, because of course those can change as a result of demographics and other matters. It is therefore a very localist process that has been built into the system with the IRMP. Each fire and rescue authority’s IRMP should enable the local authority to decide how best to provide the services. That includes prevention and protection, as well as the service provided by the stations and the placing of the pumps themselves. Strategic and operational matters, such as the manning and hours of operation of stations, and cross-border arrangements can and should be taken into account in considering the IRMP

It is against that background, as I understand it, that West Midlands fire authority has proposed to change the fire cover arrangements in Halesowen and Cradley Heath. I am advised that those proposals have been made in the light of both the assessed risk and the available resources. The matter is of local controversy, as my hon. Friend fairly says. I am aware that the proposals have generated a great deal of debate. In one respect, the debate is a healthy one—the community is obviously concerned about the proposals, and it is speaking up about them and engaging the fire authority. It is much assisted by the work of my hon. Friend, for which I commend him.

I understand that there are concerns about the adequacy and transparency of the consultation on the proposals. The question, however, is whether those concerns justify the use of the Secretary of State’s intervention powers under section 22 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. My hon. Friend has recited the criticisms made about the consultation, which relate to the adequacy of the up-to-date assessment and whether using a consultation from some time ago is appropriate.

The intervention powers are designed to deal with the worst cases of systemic or corporate failure of fire authorities. The 2004 Act is framed in that way. Section 21 charges authorities to have regard to the national fire framework in carrying out their functions. The framework expects that there shall be proper consultation on service changes, but it does not specify in detail the means that such a consultation should take. However, we expect fire and rescue authorities to work in partnership with their local communities on such matters.

The powers of intervention under section 22 are designed to deal with failing authorities as opposed to failures of a particular decision process or a decision on a particular proposal. That is analogous to the situation in Haringey with the case of Baby P, where there was such a degree of failure that the system was not operating at all. On the evidence that we have, the situation raised by my hon. Friend does not seem to come into that category. Our policy approach on Government intervention in a failing authority is set out in that way.

We have set out our expectation that, where there are failures with an authority, first of all, the authority, working with its political and professional leadership, will put in place processes to seek improvement. That should normally be the means of dealing with a situation. Where that does not happen, the powers of the Secretary of State under section 22 would be invoked. They are used only for the most serious failings. Under those circumstances, the Secretary of State may give certain directions to an authority.

On what I have heard, that does not seem to be what we, as yet, have here. The authority has been advised by its professional advisers and the chief fire officer. The decision, which has not yet been taken, is one for the members of the fire authority, who are all elected councillors in their area. Like any local authority, a fire and rescue authority must act in Wednesbury reasonableness in its decision making, and it is therefore susceptible to judicial review. Generally, failures of process and of consultation relating to individual decision-making processes tend to be remedied by applications for judicial review rather than by the Secretary of State’s intervention.

Whether such a review is appropriate in this case is not for me to say, because it is not for the Secretary of State or his Ministers to comment on the merits, or otherwise, of a particular application; I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that. I think that that point is reinforced by the reference in his speech to the case of Royal Brompton hospital, in which a judicial review was seen to be the appropriate route. Section 22 of the 2004 Act does not envision that the merits, or otherwise, of an individual decision should normally be of such a magnitude as to trigger the intervention powers. Against that background, an intervention under section 22 does not seem to be appropriate.

It is worth saying a little about the funding of West Midlands fire authority, since my hon. Friend made reference to that. It is fair to say that, like all local authorities, West Midlands fire authority and other fire authorities have had to take their share in our efforts to reduce the deficit. However, taking into account its other sources of funding, such as council tax precepts, reserves and its formula grant, the overall reduction in the spending power of West Midlands fire authority is 5.6% in 2011-12 and 2.2% in 2012-13, which is the same as nine other single purpose fire authorities.

As West Midlands fire authority is one of the largest authorities in cash terms—perhaps the largest outside London—the reduction is a large one. However, it receives the largest protection of all such authorities from the floor damping system, which is part of the formula grant mechanism. It will receive £5.2 million in 2011-12 and £3.58 million in 2012-13, which is more than their needs indicators would allocate if the Secretary of State had not applied the damping. It is also worth noting that West Midlands fire authority receives £27 formula grant per head, compared with the shire average of £20. If anyone were to suggest that funding alone were a necessary trigger for the changes, I would suggest that the figures do not bear that out. That is not my hon. Friend’s contention, but that might be said in other quarters. It is also worth bearing it in mind that West Midlands fire authority has benefited from an 82% increase in capital grants on the previous year, which brings it to £2.9 million. How the authority disburses the resources is a matter for the authority, acting on the advice of its chief fire officer.

I am sorry that I am not able to give my hon. Friend all the detailed assurances that he is seeking. We have generally not sought precisely to identify a statutory form of consultation, for the reasons that I have set out—other remedies best apply. As yet, I do not see a situation in which the authority can be said to have acted in breach of its statutory duties under the 2004 Act, because action in accordance with the IRMP, on the face of it, tends to indicate compliance. However, a Minister is not in the best position to judge every detail of the case. As such matters are devolved to local authorities, it is not appropriate for the central Government to advise on the best course of action. They are right to set out the legislative framework, what the remedies are, and the facts, as far as are available, to all those concerned.

That is why I urge my hon. Friend to continue to raise the issues with West Midlands fire authority. I know that he has been in regular contact with the chief officer, the chair of the authority and the other elected members, who include elected members representing the metropolitan borough in his constituency. They are rightly to be held accountable to their electorate for their decisions.

Although the door is always open, I do not want to raise expectations at this stage that the—if I may put it this way—ultimate long stop of statutory intervention power is necessarily the appropriate route in this case. However, I hope that the members of the fire authority and their advisers will listen to my hon. Friend’s carefully and cogently made points. He makes a reasoned case, particularly on some of the issues that he raised about consultation, timing and how up to date the information is. However, as things stand, the matter is for the fire authority and its advisers.

Question put and agreed to.

17:08

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Written Statements

Wednesday 9 November 2011

VAT—Low Value Consignment Relief

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I am today announcing further reforms to the relief from import VAT known as Low Value Consignment Relief (LVCR). These reforms will make a positive contribution to the UK economy as well as contributing towards the fairness of the tax system and reducing the deficit.

In Budget 2011, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government intended to take action to end the exploitation of LVCR, which in recent years has been used on an increasingly large scale to sell low value goods free of VAT to UK consumers, a purpose for which it was never intended. Most of this trade originates from, or is routed through, the Channel Islands.

Our objectives in reforming LVCR are twofold. First, to ensure that UK companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, can compete on a level playing field with companies with operations in the Channel Islands. Secondly, to protect tax revenue for the Exchequer while taking into account the costs of collecting small amounts of VAT.

As the first step towards reform of the way in which the UK applies the LVCR rules we legislated in Finance Act 2011 to reduce the LVCR value threshold, below which items are imported free of VAT, from £18 to £15. That change is being implemented from 1 November.

In taking that legislation through the House I made it clear that it was only the first step towards preventing the exploitation of LVCR.

I can announce today that, as from 1 April 2012, LVCR will no longer apply to goods supplied commercially, as part of a distance selling transaction, from the Channel Islands. Legislation to enact this change will be published in draft on 6 December, for inclusion in Finance Bill 2012.

This will mean that supplies from business in the Channel Islands bear the same VAT liability as supplies from VAT-registered businesses in the UK.

My decision to focus action on imports from the Channel Islands reflects:

By far the greatest volume of all international parcel post to the UK from outside the EU is estimated to originate in the Channel Islands, and much of it appears to be linked to the exploitation of LVCR.

Companies based in the Channel Islands can participate in HMRC’s “Import VAT Accounting Scheme”, which allows automatic collection of UK import VAT at source, thus avoiding delays at sorting offices and VAT collection surcharges. The ease of access of companies based in the Channel Islands to the UK consumer market is therefore very similar to that of domestic UK-based companies, in contrast to their non-EU counterparts.

This measure is expected to increase receipts by approximately £100 million per annum. The final costing will be subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility, and will be set out at the autumn statement 2011.

LVCR will continue to apply with the lower £15 threshold to commercial supplies from other non-EU jurisdictions. I have no current plans for further changes to this threshold but will be watching its operation carefully and will take further action if necessary.

The existing import reliefs for gifts (non-commercial consignments) sent from outside the EU, including from the Channel Islands, also remains unchanged.

Review of the Charities Act

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I am today announcing that Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts has been appointed to undertake a broad review of the legal and regulatory framework for charities. Under section 73 of the Charities Act 2006 a person must be appointed to review the operation of the Charities Act 2006 within five years of enactment. The charity law review will not only consider the operation of the Charities Act 2006, but will also consider whether further changes are needed to ensure that the legal and regulatory framework for charities is clear and effective.

The terms of reference for the review are broad. They include issues that the review must cover as set out in section 73 of the Charities Act 2006, issues that the Government believe should be addressed, and issues that the charity sector has asked to be considered. The terms of reference for the review are available on the Cabinet Office website at: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk, and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the House Library.

Lord Hodgson will set out, in due course, how charities and other stakeholders will be able to engage in the review process.

The aim is for the review to report in June 2012, and a copy of the report of the review will be laid before Parliament.

Call-out Order

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

With the expiry of the call-out order made on 24 October 2010, a new call-out order has been made under section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to continue to be called out into permanent service to support our wider efforts to counter the threat from international terrorism and piracy, and to assist our maritime security objectives. The order takes effect from 8 November 2011 and ceases to have effect on 7 November 2012. Some 98 members of the reserve forces were called out under this order last year and their continued support is greatly appreciated and valued.

Parliamentary Written Question (Correction)

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

I regret that the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) on 25 October 2011, Official Report, column 192W, contained some incorrect figures in the table.

The information provided in the original answer contained some unvalidated data but it has subsequently been brought to my attention that the Department holds more accurate, cleansed and validated data, which have now been provided where available. I have also taken this opportunity to provide the Connecting for Health figures for 2009-10 and 2010-11 rounded to the nearest £1,000, and figures that were previously not available.

A table showing the corrected figures is given below.

Grand Committee

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Grand Committee

Wednesday, 9 November 2011.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)]

My Lords, before the first Motion is considered, I remind your Lordships that in the case of all the statutory instruments, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. In the case of the first statutory instrument, further proceedings in the Chamber would need to be tabled for further action to ensue. In the case of the other statutory instruments, the Motion to approve the instrument will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. As is normal on these occasions, I should also announce that if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:46

Moved By

[Lord Rosser]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules.

Relevant documents: 40th and 41st Reports from the Merits Committee.

[Lord Rosser]

First, I apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. He is involved in the health bill and does not know how long the issue being discussed in the Chamber will last. It may well be brief, in which case he will be required in the Chamber.

The statement of changes to Immigration Rules has been the subject of consideration by the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee. The Merits Committee, of which I am a former chairman, drew the changes to the special attention of your Lordships’ House on the grounds that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House. However, in its conclusion, the Committee also stressed the importance of providing appropriate levels of explanation and visibility for Parliament.

The statement of changes makes a number of amendments to the Immigration Rules, but the most significant is a provision that a person subject to immigration control who has failed to pay NHS charges of £1,000 or more in respect of NHS treatment charges should normally be refused permission to enter or remain in this country, or have their leave cancelled.

The Merits Committee states that the consultation on this issue produced important comments from stakeholders. It noted that the document on the United Kingdom Border Agency website, giving the results of the consultation, provided a relatively full and balanced account of the consultation outcome. However, the Committee went on to say that it was regrettable that this was not matched in the Explanatory Memorandum laid before Parliament, and that furthermore, given the importance of some of the issues raised in the consultation, Parliament could reasonably expect the United Kingdom Border Agency to have used the Explanatory Memorandum to provide greater reassurance that the policy will achieve its objectives.

It would be helpful if the Minister could explain why the Explanatory Memorandum did not match up to the level and standard of information on the consultation outcome provided on the website. Or is it his view that this is not the case and that, as far as Home Office Ministers are concerned, the Merits Committee is being unreasonable? That might well be the view of Home Office Ministers, bearing in mind this is by no means the first time that the Merits Committee has been less than impressed with the quality and completeness of information provided to them by the Home Office, and so far there appears to be an inability by Home Office Ministers to rectify the situation.

The Merits Committee was not alone in expressing its concerns on this point. The committee received a letter from the British Medical Association about the change in respect of outstanding NHS charges, which stated that it had submitted a detailed response to the Department of Health consultation and raised some general points by letter to the United Kingdom Border Agency in response to its parallel consultation.

The British Medical Association said that it had concerns with respect to the way comments relating to the proposed legislation had been represented, particularly in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the statement, which it did not think had adequately represented the balance of comments it had submitted. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the British Medical Association supported the proposals in principle and that,

“the introduction of changes to the Immigration Rules to promote payment of NHS debt seems reasonable”.

The letter from the BMA went on to say that it had raised significant concerns, in particular over the detrimental impact such changes could have on the engagement of vulnerable groups with health services, which were not reflected in the Explanatory Memorandum. Significantly, the Merits Committee went on to say that it shared the BMA's concerns about the United Kingdom Border Agency's representation of the BMA's position in the Explanatory Memorandum. Is the Minister, too, concerned about the representation of the BMA's position in the memorandum, or will he go on the record as saying that the memorandum adequately represented the balance of comments submitted by the BMA—contrary to the views of both the BMA and the Merits Committee?

The Merits Committee report makes it clear that in order to get a better understanding of how the consultation fed into the policy development process, the committee had to seek further information from UKBA about concerns raised during the consultation, as well as about any risks and remaining dissatisfaction with the proposed changes. That further inquiry elicited information that was not contained in the Explanatory Memorandum: namely, that concerns have been expressed, including by the BMA, that an unintended consequence of the rule change might be that it would act as a deterrent for migrants to seek necessary medical care, and that three organisations had raised issues of confidentiality and/or of data protection. The issue of confidentiality was most actively highlighted by HIV/AIDS representative groups because in their view HIV/AIDS is a stigmatised condition.

The committee also received a submission from the National Aids Trust saying that the new rules would have a serious impact on public health by dissuading migrants with HIV from accessing testing and treatment. The National Aids Trust was also of the view that the rules might lead to unlawful discrimination against disabled migrants and indicated that it may mount a legal challenge on these grounds. Will the Minister say if the Government considered whether the new rules could be regarded as constituting unlawful discrimination in relation to any groups or categories of individuals?

Since UKBA said that the rule change was drafted so that an NHS debt would not result in a mandatory immigration refusal, and that the new rule would be applied on a case-by-case basis, the Merits Committee also wrote to the Minister seeking a full explanation of how the new rule relating to NHS charges of £1,000 or more being applied on a case-by-case basis would operate. The committee has now reported on the reply from the Minister responsible for immigration. In the light of that reply, its latest report states:

“The Committee notes that the guidance for decision makers seems to suggest that these medical cases will result in an immigration refusal in all but rare and extreme circumstances”.

Will the Minister say whether he considers that to be a fair interpretation by the Merits Committee of the response from the Minister for immigration?

The Merits Committee undertakes valuable work on behalf of your Lordships' House, considering instruments and drawing them to the special attention of the House where necessary, in line with its terms of reference. Its report on the statement of changes to Immigration Rules raises serious issues about the Explanatory Memorandum and also makes it clear that the committee had to pursue further issues in writing because the level of explanation was less than it should have been. I hope that the Home Office and Home Office Ministers take seriously the work of the committee. If future reports contain further critical observations about the quality, accuracy and extent of the information provided by the Home Office, no doubt there will be more debates of the kind we are having today. The Minister has not been in his position for long. I hope that he will be determined to address the concerns raised by the Merits Committee in the report that we are considering, as well as the not dissimilar concerns raised in previous reports. I beg to move that the Committee do consider the statement of changes in Immigration Rules.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, before coming to the statement, I will say that as we get material changes to Immigration Rules at such frequent intervals and there is invariably a prayer tabled against each one, they ought to be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I would be grateful if my noble kinsman will let us have his views on that matter.

We are considering this statement against the backdrop of several major crises hitting UKBA at the same time. There is the saga of the passport checks and the suspension of three top officials for the unannounced dropping of our guard against terrorists, money launderers and drug merchants—which now appears to have been the bright idea of the Home Secretary. Then there was the robust criticism by the chief inspector of the management of foreign national prisoners, with 1,600 being detained in January at the end of their sentences for an average length of 190 days, costing the taxpayer as much as if they had stayed in the Savoy hotel. A third of them appealed successfully against their deportation, meaning that if UKBA had made the correct decisions, it would have saved the taxpayer millions of pounds. There was the sudden revelation that the agency had discovered another 124,000 legacy cases to replace the 300,000 cases it was supposed to have dealt with over several years ending in July 2011. It is about time that we had a full-scale debate on all the catastrophes that keep engulfing UKBA, including an examination of whether the agency should be put out of its misery and its functions resumed by the Home Office. At least there would then be no question of where the buck stops.

The next general point I want to make is that this instrument, like others in the past covering changes to the Immigration Rules, is being debated after it has come into effect. Parliament cannot be seen to exercise control over legislation in these circumstances because however valid the criticisms we make, they could be accommodated by the Government only by bringing in a further order, which is unthinkable.

Turning to the statement, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has said, the Merits Committee focuses attention on the proposal to refuse permission to enter or remain in the UK to anyone who has failed to pay NHS charges of £1,000 or more and to cancel any outstanding leave to remain for a patient who has run up that level of indebtedness to the NHS. Although the BMA supported the idea in principle, there are serious concerns over making it mandatory, irrespective of the patient's means or the nature of the illness for which she needed treatment. UKBA told the Merits Committee that it would be applied on a case-by-case basis, as the noble Lord pointed out, but has not yet received an answer to the request that the Minister should provide a full explanation of how discretion is to be exercised. I hope we are going to hear something about that from the Minister this afternoon.

An example that was given in the Merits Committee report, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is of patients with HIV/AIDS. This was raised by three organisations in the consultation, one of which was the National AIDS Trust, from whom your Lordships have now heard further. It believes that this proposal is immensely discriminatory and will have an immensely harmful impact on public health. It will cost the NHS far more in the long run because HIV-positive migrants will avoid treatment and become ill and HIV will spread within and beyond migrant communities at an estimated lifetime cost of £280,000 for each new patient becoming infected. The National AIDS Trust says the groups most affected will be asylum seekers, visa overstayers and those without papers who have often been living in the UK for years without lawful residence, not visitors who come here with the deliberate intention of getting free medical treatment.

There is nothing in the statement to cover migrants who simply could not afford to pay large medical bills. Let us take as an example a student on an English-language course lasting under six months who is involved in an accident and needs surgery and a week's hospitalisation. She could easily run up a bill of £1,000. Are we saying that her leave to remain should be abruptly terminated and her future career possibly ruined because of this accident?

If the proposal had been confined to certain categories, such as tourist visitors, who should take out medical insurance when they come to the UK, as our tourists do when they go to the US, for example, I could understand it. The impact assessment says that health and other professionals are travelling to the UK specifically to access NHS services and that in many cases they leave without paying. This means that they are identified by the NHS provider as persons who are ineligible for free medical treatment, and they could be asked to pay for it in advance.

There are a lot of other changes, most of which it seems are to correct errors in previous instruments, but some, whether acknowledged or not, are to accommodate judgments of the courts. It has been suggested that the amendments dealing with the evidence that has to be produced by tier 2 migrants and work permit holders was inspired by the case of Pankina. Although that is not stated to be so, perhaps my noble friend will confirm that it is so. There are amendments dealing with spouses and civil partners, among which is one to reinsert a paragraph that was accidentally knocked out in a previous statement that was considered earlier this year. I am sure that that is not the whole story because paragraphs do not get knocked out by accident and it would be useful if my noble friend could probe this further with UKBA to avoid any repetition of that event, at a time when it is so accident- prone.

16:00

We welcome the belated reactions to the case of MB (Somalia), which was decided in 2008, under which divorced, separated or single parents and grandparents over the age of 65 are to be treated the same as widowed parents and grandparents of refugees and those granted humanitarian protection, but I would like to know why it has taken three years to arrive at this point. There are also what are described as technical corrections to the provisions for other family members of refugees and persons with humanitarian protection. The requirement for those persons not to have one or more unspent convictions on entry or on applying for further leave to remain is deleted because, as a matter of policy, that should be applied only to persons seeking indefinite leave to remain. If I understood it correctly, it amounts to defined family members who are convicted of offences above a certain level of severity being allowed in and being able to get extensions to their leave to remain, but they will be given ILR only once the convictions are spent.

Finally, there are pages of amendments dealing with the special arrangements that will apply between 30 March and 8 November 2012 for competitors in the Olympics and Paralympics and their entourages, known collectively as Games family members. Those arrangements are needed to enable us to comply with the IOC requirement that GFMs can travel without passports using their Olympic credentials, but if a GFM wants to come here earlier than 30 March or to stay beyond 8 November, as I understand it, they would need an ordinary visitor visa. Am I right in thinking that, while here, a GFM is allowed to work in a Games-related occupation? Would my noble friend say how that is being defined? One of the benefits of having the Games in the UK is supposed to be that they provide employment and, if thousands of visitors are mopping up all the temporary jobs that will be created, it takes some of the gilt off the gingerbread.

I have one more question to ask my noble friend about GFMs. Presumably, there is nothing in the IOC rules that requires us to provide non-EU GFMs with free medical treatment. Does the rule change about outstanding NHS charges apply to them, as it would to any other non-EU visitor?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for introducing this debate and also my noble kinsman Lord Avebury for his comments. I start with the Merits Committee and its complaints about this. Many years ago, I was a member of what is still, I think, called the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is a relatively toothless body as regards considering the merits of particular statutory instruments. When I was a member of the Government led in this House by my noble friend the then Lord Cranborne—who is now the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—I was very proud that we brought in the Merits Committee precisely so that it could look at the merits of statutory instruments. That was some time in the mid-1990s, and a very good job it has done over the years. Therefore, we are very concerned about complaints relating to orders that we have put forward and we take them very seriously. The complaints on this occasion are largely about the Explanatory Memorandum, whether we think that was adequate and whether it misrepresented the position of various others. I thought that that Explanatory Memorandum was adequate, but if complaints have been made about it by the Merits Committee we will have to take that seriously. We will have to up our game and no doubt make sure that we do better in the future.

I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred to the letter from my honourable friend Damian Green, which was sent to the Merits Committee after its 40th and 41st reports on this matter and dealt with many of those complaints. I am grateful that it has now been made available to the House and is published on the Merits Committee’s website. As I have said, we will obviously take these matters seriously and will look at the criticisms that it made.

My noble kinsman Lord Avebury also objected to the fact that the statement of changes was subject to the negative procedure and not to the affirmative procedure. I am afraid that we will have to go back in time to the original legislation that created them as negative resolutions rather than primary. I do not know when that was but if we want to change that, it would obviously be a matter for primary legislation. I do not think that there is any Henry VIII power for me unilaterally to change them. That is why I say to my noble kinsman that one of the reasons why very often one has to debate these matters after they have come into effect is that the order comes into effect on a certain date and there should be time for Members of both Houses either to pray against them or to have a debate of this sort in the Moses Room.

I should now like to turn to the substantive questions on the statement of changes to the Immigration Rules and set out our case because it would be useful for the Committee to know why we are doing what we are doing. As all will be aware, the National Health Service is the national health service and its resources in these straitened times are limited. It is right that it should be shielded against misuse by those who incur and fail to pay charges in compliance with law.

The NHS debtors rule is being introduced for a number of important reasons. First, it will deter overseas visitors from misusing the NHS; that is, to deal with the problem of health tourism. Secondly, it will ensure that overseas visitors understand their need to meet their obligations to pay for the NHS services they use. Thirdly, it will reassure the public that we are determined to operate fair and robust controls on migrants’ access to public benefits and services. Finally, it will enable other patients to benefit indirectly from the recovery of NHS resources. That, again, is an important point and we must always remember that those resources are finite.

The rules must also be seen in the context of the joint UK Border Agency and the Department of Health review of migrant access to health services. Following this review and public consultations by the Department of Health and the border agency last year, the NHS charging regulations for England have been amended. This amendment provides extra protection for potentially vulnerable groups, including failed asylum seekers supported by the United Kingdom Border Agency and children from overseas who are in the care of a local authority. They are no longer liable for NHS charges.

I recognise concerns raised that the new rules may deter migrants from seeking necessary medical care. I must stress that although these rules relate to the entire United Kingdom, those relating to the NHS will vary in the four different parts of the UK. In England, primary care as provided by GPs, treatment in accident and emergency departments, and most treatments carried out on public health grounds are free of charge. Furthermore, urgent or immediately necessary treatment must not be delayed over the question of payment.

The United Kingdom Border Agency also has an important role to play in protecting the economy and publicly funded services and their lawful users from the consequences of inappropriate access. The equality statement that was published with the laying of the rules outlines the Government’s view that the rules are a proportionate measure in pursuance of this legitimate policy objective. Nevertheless, all cases will be considered on their individual merits with decision-makers afforded discretion to take account of exceptional compassionate factors and obliged to apply human rights legislation, as we always do, and equality legislation. Applicants will remain able, as now, to raise any compelling compassionate circumstances which they consider pertinent to their application, and these will be considered, as is current practice.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, suggested that these changes were discriminatory and raised the question of treatment for HIV. I have made it clear that the underlying policy objective, that of protecting publicly funded services for those with a lawful claim to them, makes this a proportionate response. Medical information will not be shared between the NHS and the UKBA. However, it will remain open, as now, for applicants to raise any compassionate or medical factors that they consider pertinent to their applications. We will review the question as to whether people living with HIV and not ordinarily resident here should be exempted from their charges for HIV treatment.

I believe that we need robust controls to protect our public services, just as we need robust controls in other aspects of the control of our borders, as was made clear by the responses in another place to the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and in this House when I repeated that Statement earlier this week. Not only do we need to protect public services, it is also right that if someone does not pay the charges they incur for treatment, they should normally be refused any further immigration applications until they have paid their debt.

I hope that that deals with most of the questions that have been raised. I understand the concerns and I go back to the complaints made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, quoting from the report of the Merits Committee about our Explanatory Memorandum. As I said, if we got that wrong, we will try to do better in the future. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that this is a satisfactory and proportionate response to these issues.

[Lord Avebury]

As my noble friend is dealing with the question of NHS charges, does he have a reply to my question about whether, under the Olympics rules, GFMs will be exempt from them?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, if I may, I would prefer to write to my noble kinsman on that point. My understanding from discussions I had earlier with officials is that we are all right under the IOC rules, but if I am wrong on that, I will write to him.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will be brief. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his contribution to the debate and the Minister for his reply, including his statement that regard will be paid to the concerns expressed by the Merits Committee, in particular over the Explanatory Memorandum. That is all I wish to say in response.

Motion agreed.

Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Community Infrastructure Levy Functions) Order 2011

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:14

Moved By

[Baroness Hanham]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Community Infrastructure Levy Functions) Order 2011.

Relevant documents: 29th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, the community infrastructure levy allows local authorities to choose to charge a levy on new development in their area in order to raise funds needed to meet the demands of hosting that development and, in turn, to enable growth. The levy was introduced by the previous Government through the Planning Act 2008. Part 2 of that Act provides for regulations to allow the imposition of the levy. The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 made the first use of those powers bringing the levy into effect from 6 April 2010.

The instrument before the Committee today allows local authorities, if they so wish, to contract other parties to deliver most of the activities they carry out under the community infrastructure levy regulations. The draft instrument is entirely consistent with other contracting-out legislation, made under the same powers, for contracting out of functions concerning the administration and enforcement of the business improvement district levy and council tax and non-domestic rates. Both instruments were considered by this Committee.

The objective of the order is to provide levy authorities with the scope to contract out specified functions and thereby give them the means to meet their responsibility to ensure best value. The order is of interest primarily to community infrastructure levy charging and collecting authorities. We consulted the Local Government Association and representatives of other levy authorities which welcomed the approach proposed by the draft order.

Where an authority chooses to contract another body to undertake a function, that body then does so on the authority’s behalf; that is, the contractor acts as an agent of the authority to undertake the function it is contracted to deliver. Article 3 makes this fact clear by requiring that where a contractor, in doing the work that the authority has contracted him to do, enters into an agreement with another person, that agreement has to make it clear that the agreement is between the authority and the person, not the contractor and the person.

It is possible to contract out only functions that an authority can delegate to a committee, sub-committee or officer, not functions that the authority itself must carry out. Where legislation requires a meeting of the authority—or, in the case of the Mayor of London, the mayor—to approve, that function cannot be contracted out. Article 4 of the draft order reflects these restrictions and reiterates that such functions may not be contracted to another party. The effect is that an authority cannot contract out its functions to propose, implement or withdraw a community infrastructure levy charge in its area or delegate its power to ask a court to consider imprisoning a levy debtor.

These safeguards mean that decisions concerning whether to raise a charge, including at what level the charge should be set and whether to continue to do so, are for the authority and it cannot delegate it. The draft instrument has no effect concerning the spending of levy receipts; the community infrastructure levy regulations already provide for authorities to pass funds to any person they choose and, where they do so, the authority remains responsible for ensuring they are applied appropriately. The functions that this order allows to be contracted out include: gathering evidence to support consideration of whether and at what rate to apply a charge; the administration of the charge, including processes for notifying, collecting and enforcing liabilities; and the administration of the resultant funds.

The order provides local authorities with the flexibility to ensure that their responsibilities are delivered in the most effective and efficient manner possible, be that in-house or through another party. It allows for a competitive process to be undertaken, which will provide authorities with the scope to drive down costs and drive up standards. Importantly, the order does not allow for decisions concerning whether and at what rate to charge a levy on development in an area to be delegated or create scope for another body to spend the proceeds.

I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the order itself is not controversial, so I do not envisage a long debate on it. However, I have a few brief comments to make. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has advised the Grand Committee, primary powers were taken in the Planning Act 2008 to enable the Government to make regulations allowing local planning authorities to set a levy for their area to be paid by the owners and developers of land in order to contribute to the provision of the infrastructure needed to support development or planning in their area. The process was being determined, but the general election got in the way. Local authorities will have the ability to outsource all or part of their functions related to the levy, except where they are specifically prevented from contracting out that function.

I am aware that there has been a consultation process and that all the responses support this preferred option. I have one question for the noble Baroness which revolves around the review. I see that the review of the levy itself is scheduled for 2015. Is the noble Baroness satisfied that that will be soon enough, and were local authorities consulted on that particular point?

[Baroness Maddock]

My Lords, as a former member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, at times I take a keen interest in secondary legislation. This is in an area that I was involved in when I was on the Front Bench, so I have taken a particular interest in it. It has already been said that the order is not controversial. The main legislation was the Planning Act 2008, followed by the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. I wonder whether it was flagged up, particularly in the main legislation, that later on this is how things would happen. One of the reasons the Merits Committee does such a good job is because legislation in recent times has become more and more complicated, and more of the detail comes out in secondary legislation. My noble friend and I have been involved in local government legislation over the years, and we know how difficult this has been. Again, I wonder whether the way in which this was going to be enacted was flagged up in the primary legislation.

I have one another minor question, which might be a little pernickety—I must account for it by saying that I have served on the Merits Committee. I notice that the consultation period was only six weeks. The statutory consultation period is quite often 12 weeks. I have not looked at it closely enough to know whether this was the correct period, and I understand that the Local Government Association and others were consulted, so there are no issues around it. However, I would like to know whether that was the correct period of consultation.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions. I shall start with my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy: 2015 is considered reasonable given that the first charges will start in the new year, 2012, and that time is needed to allow the arrangements to bed down before they are reviewed. Effectively, they will have three years in which to do so.

The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is probably more familiar with the 2008 legislation than I am since I expect she was there, but like me, she may not remember it. The consultation period of six weeks was set out in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, so it fell within the normal parameters, and indeed the Local Government Association was consulted as well. I hope that noble Lords will be content with those replies.

Motion agreed.

West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) (Amendment) Order 2011

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:24

Moved By

[Baroness Hanham]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) (Amendment) Order 2011.

Relevant documents: 29th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Communities and Local Government and was established in 2004. Its purpose is to secure the regeneration of West Northamptonshire, an area identified for regeneration and economic growth, where population is growing at twice the national average.

Over time, the corporation has done a lot of good work, and I recognise all those who have been involved, but this Government’s approach is to promote more locally-led arrangements in a way that does not put at risk key delivery projects. Our priority is the economic growth and potential of West Northamptonshire’s priority sectors, including high-performance engineering. We want to encourage the area’s unique opportunities, including Silverstone, the logistics “golden triangle” and Northampton Waterside Enterprise Zone. The corporation has been very successful in delivering a range of projects to date, resulting in £70 million of infrastructure improvements, levering in a further £200 million of private sector investment, getting approval for up to 10,000 new homes and creating of 2,500 jobs.

For long-term success, this growth needs to be locally led, partly through the local enterprise partnership and partly through the local authorities. This order is a step towards that goal. The purpose of the order is to reduce the size of the board of the corporation from 11 members in addition to the chairman and deputy chairman to seven members in addition to the chairman and deputy chairman. Of the seven remaining board members, six will continue to be reserved for nominated representatives of the four local authorities, maintaining the commitment given to the Lords Select Committee during the passage of the 2004 order. The remaining board member, chair and deputy chair will continue to be appointed through open competition if the need arises, although we do not expect there to be a need for a further round of appointments.

The amendment will bring local authority members into a majority on the board and is another step on the path of the reform of the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation that will see its transition from a statutory body to a local authority delivery vehicle by the end of 2013-14—that is, on 1 April 2014 —in line with the announcement made on the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation as part of the public bodies review in October 2010.

I recognise that there are always arguments for and against a particular date. There are those who would want to see an earlier date and others who want the corporation to continue for longer. I believe that this approach strikes the right balance in supporting regeneration investment at its most critical stage and that the corporation should plan to this timetable. The process for change has already begun with the return of the first phase of statutory planning powers from the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation to the local authorities in April 2011. The full return of planning powers will be completed in April 2012, subject to the completion of negotiations with the local authorities and parliamentary approval.

After the full return of planning powers, the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation will focus on using its statutory powers to take forward five key projects in Northampton. By the end of 2013-14, we expect these projects will transfer to the local authority vehicle for completion. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation for its continuing co-operation in addressing these issues and in working towards new arrangements for the future. I beg to move.

16:30

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her entirely satisfactory explanation of this order and for setting up what is a pragmatic and well considered timetable for evolutionary change. My reasoning in troubling the Committee for a few moments is that, at the time of the inception of the corporation in 2004, I was the constituency Member of Parliament for Daventry, which embraced two of the three areas involved, Daventry and Towcester, but not, of course, the borough of Northampton; nor was I at any stage a member of the overarching local authority, the county council. But I have taken an interest in this as a concept and I am pleased that it is developing as it is.

I thought that the then Labour Minister, in introducing the order, fairly characterised my approach as being one of what he then called pragmatic acquiescence. That is where I am today: I am happy to have the corporation, but I am equally happy to see it evolve back into local authority control. I would also record its achievements over time which have been rooted in common sense in not throwing its weight around and in working wherever possible, for example, on the planning powers with local authorities, moving from a degree of misunderstanding to a much better understanding. I suppose it is incumbent on my new status that I should say for the record that I have not consulted my two very good successors—the constituency was split in the shape of Mr Heaton-Harris in Daventry and Andrea Leadsom in Towcester—or indeed the Northampton MPs, or the development corporation itself. I am happy with the way it is shaping up. Of course, the order will streamline the corporation, which is to be welcomed.

As regards what might be termed the mission and the geography of the situation, my noble friend has already touched on the way in which it has—not been solved—been helped to take forward the agenda for the two parts of the corporation that used to be constituent within my old constituency. We are very lucky indeed to have two new university technical colleges, one in Daventry and one in Silverstone which adjoins Towcester. They are both concerned with technology and advanced engineering, about which I feel very strongly. That is part of the mission for that part of the world.

The Minister has already explained that the main thrust of the continuing activities of the corporation will be in Northampton. I tread carefully here because I would not wish to trespass on a potential non-pecuniary interest which I might have at some stage. I am aware, partly because of connections that I still have around there, of some very imaginative thinking in relation to possible uses of that large tract of land which is not derelict but underused in and around the riverside in Northampton, or the waterside, which constitutes broadly the enterprise zone. There are huge opportunities there; not necessarily the ones that I have heard about but at least there are options for some imaginative concepts. I know that the development corporation is one of the landowners and it may well have a role in assembling other packages or the infrastructure in support of that. I would welcome that and I think that in itself is sufficient justification for its continuation.

I put down one marker of concern. As I think the Minister will know, there is a long history of flooding in Northampton. After the disastrous floods in 1998 which resulted in fatalities, some of that was ameliorated by investment by the Environment Agency. Privately, I would have said to people that this is not merely a technical matter to resolve—although as a former Minister for flood defence, I am aware that there are technical solutions to these problems—but it is also a political matter, although political with a small “p”. If there is major investment in the area, people will have to be convinced that it is viable and that those who live there or pass through it are not at any risk. That is something that has not been attractive for the town and which has not been of economic use. Before closing, I should perhaps mention for the amusement of the Committee that I was once somewhat instrumental in bulking up quantities of grain that were stored in the disused power station and then transported on the railway line, which is now discontinued. That was about 30 years ago, but there has not been much joy out of there over the past few decades and I think the time is coming for an imaginative project and for the evolution of this corporation, which is a rather unusual one, back into local authority ambit and control. It would be a fitting finale to have this particular set of projects safely landed, so I strongly support the Minister.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, this is one of only three urban development corporations in the UK and the only one outside London. West Northamptonshire Development Corporation has a number of wide-ranging powers. These come under three clear headings: investment, planning and development. The corporation has brought considerable sums of money into the local community, in excess of £70 million. It determines strategic planning applications and has wide-ranging powers, including the ability to acquire, manage and sell land and property.

As I have advised noble Lords before, in my previous occupation I spent many happy years in the East Midlands. It is an area I know reasonably well, but obviously not as well as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, although I do of course agree with the remarks he just made to the Grand Committee. The purpose of the order is to reduce the size of the board from 11 to seven members in addition to the chair and deputy chair. I am content with that, but I would like to confirm one thing, although I am sure the answer will be yes. Have the local authorities been consulted and are they happy with this? Obviously, if they are, I am content with the order.

Finally, I thank the officials at the department. A couple of days ago I asked them some questions about this and a previous order. I got the information back very quickly and I was very happy with that.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the general support for these orders and I understand very well about the close interest of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, in this area. Regarding the flooding, I cannot do anything about his bales of hay, I am afraid. The corporation will need to talk to the relevant bodies, including the Environment Agency and any local people who are affected, so I hope he will be reassured about that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his response. Yes, the local authorities have been consulted. They are now going to be the major presence on the corporation, so they will be content with that. I thank the noble Lord for his comments about the department; we are always very happy to help.

Motion agreed.

Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Pupil Information by Welsh Ministers) Regulations 2011

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:38

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Pupil Information by Welsh Ministers) Regulations 2011.

Relevant documents: 28th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, these regulations, which are being considered together with the Statistics and Registration Service Act (Disclosure of Value Added Tax Information) Regulations 2011, are the third and fourth uses of the data-sharing powers under the 2007 Act and the first time that the powers have been used by the current Government. The Welsh school pupils’ regulations make possible the sharing with the Office for National Statistics of data on individual pupils attending schools in Wales. The ONS is the executive office of the UK Statistics Authority, which is referred to in the legislation as the Statistics Board. The regulations follow those made in 2009 that allowed the ONS to access information on pupils attending schools in England.

Access to these data will enable the ONS to improve the accuracy of mid-year estimates and projections of population for local areas in Wales, to develop ongoing research as part of the Beyond 2011 programme, which is to consider possible alternatives to the traditional census in producing census-type statistics and to improve the assessment of the quality of statistics on schoolchildren from the 2011 census.

The other regulations being debated today allow the ONS to receive certain information provided to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in VAT returns. This will enable the ONS to improve its business and economic statistics and to reduce the burden on businesses, some of which will no longer need to supply this information in addition to other information through regular returns to the ONS. The data will also be used for economic analysis and to make improvements to various business surveys run by the ONS.

The regulations permit the sharing of a long run of VAT data submitted to HMRC on or after 1 October 1985 to provide a better economic understanding of the whole economic cycle. Data confidentiality and security arrangements are being assessed as a fundamental part of the preparation of the data-sharing agreement between the organisations concerned. The ONS already works to very tight confidentiality guidelines and has an excellent data security record. It has put the necessary measures in place to protect the data and to ensure that there is no disclosure of any personal information about specific pupils or businesses.

Section 39 makes it an offence for a member or employee of the authority, including the ONS, to disclose personal information it holds other than in tightly defined circumstances. Any unlawful disclosure could result in imprisonment and/or a fine. Both sets of regulations enable administrative data already collected by government to be further utilised but only for the purposes set out in the regulations; that is, for the ONS to improve the statistics it produces on the population and on the economy.

In summary, providing the ONS with access to data on Welsh pupils and businesses’ VAT data will lead to improvements in the accuracy of the statistics that it produces and to efficiencies which will benefit government and society as a whole. Better statistics will inform better policy making. I therefore ask the Committee to support and accept both regulations. I beg to move.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I have no intention whatever of objecting to these regulations, but I should be grateful for one or two points of clarification on the ONS regulations. First, I noted the emphasis placed by the Minister on data confidentiality, which obviously is central to all this. I note that in Regulation 2, the list of details about the pupil that will be made available excludes, of course, the pupil’s home address, presumably because of the dangers that exist. Yet, it includes the postcode. Certainly, with the name of Wigley and a postcode in my area, it would be fairly clear who that person is, although it may be more difficult with the Evanses and the Joneses. Given that, there cannot be a watertight assertion of data confidentiality.

My second point is in regard to Regulation 2(a)(vii), which refers to the,

“ethnic group and source of that information”.

I am not quite sure what is meant by the “source of that information”, but I imagine that it could be a matter for some consternation. Is the Minister in a position to tell me why? If not, perhaps he would be good enough to drop me a note about it because I realise that I may be splitting some hairs on these matters.

16:45

Thirdly, Regulation 2(c) refers to:

“the pupil’s level of fluency in English”.

Given that we are considering the position in Wales, where English and Welsh are equal official languages since last year’s enactment, why is it only English that is required here, as opposed to English and Welsh? In the same sub-paragraph, there is a reference to a “pupil’s first language”. What is the definition of a “first language”? That is not always altogether clear. In a bilingual or multilingual community, is it the language that was the first to be spoken by the child or the language in which the child is more fluent by the time that child is in school? A definition of “first language” would be very helpful. Again in that sub-paragraph, as the pupil’s fluency in English is the key, what is the position of a child who comes over, as a number of children have, from Patagonia to settle in Wales, whose first language is Welsh and whose second language is Spanish? Does that not raise a few questions about the accuracy of information that may be gathered in this way?

My last point concerns the restriction on further disclosure of personal information in Regulation 4(a)(i), which says:

“disclosure is required by any enactment”.

Does that mean that any enactment on either a UK, an England and Wales basis or a Wales basis? Is it all-inclusive, or is it meant to refer only to UK or England and Wales enactments? I would be very grateful for some clarification on those few questions, and I look forward to it.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, the Minister will be delighted to know that I do not intend to oppose or object to these regulations. I can see the relief on his face at that statement. I will make a few comments on the reasoning and the likely outputs, and just touch on the confidentiality point.

The mood of the Explanatory Memorandum seems to suggest that the Welsh regulation—I will only talk to the Welsh regulation—is to facilitate the Beyond 2011 Programme. It does not quite say it, but the language of the Explanatory Memorandum seems almost to suggest that the decision has already been made not to have the 2021 census. In this day and age there are probably three reasons for having a census. The first is as a source of information for decision making. I have looked at the Beyond 2011 Programme and the sense of trying to produce something of equivalent capability for decision making is there in the terms of reference, and that is good.

We have also moved on in what the census is used for. The census has become highly valued in our society for academics, for what it can tell us about history, for the insights produced by past censuses— I am not sure what the correct plural is—that the academics have been able to glean, and the extent to which many citizens of this country find great value in being able to look back into their past, their families and the history of their surroundings. I hope the Government have not made the decision to abandon the 2021 census yet, and I hope that in making that decision they will take all considerations into account, including those that are of value to individuals as well as to the decision-making bureaucracy. Perhaps I should say administration—I would not call it bureaucracy because I like administrations.

My second question is: what are they going to collect? The terms are probably well defined in some administration Act, but I would be grateful if the Minister would flesh them out a bit. The two things that stand out are the ethnic group and the source of that information, and what we mean for these purposes. My wife was foolish enough to buy some tickets to the Millennium Stadium, so I have to be partly Welsh in this. I am not sure whether Welshness is ethnic or not, but as sure as hell it is sensitive. Is a sense of Welshness or Celticness part of what is being gathered here, as well as other things? Clearly it is an important issue in the country. What do we mean by the “source of that information”?

The second area is what is almost the political correctness around asking about a pupil’s level of fluency in English where their first language is neither English nor Welsh. I see that if your first language is neither English nor Welsh, fluency in English is quite important. However, fluency in English is also important if your first language is Welsh, because in the United Kingdom the extent of fluency in English must be important information about the way people live in the wider community. We move about this land from Wales to England. If one is gathering information about fluency in languages, one should gather it comprehensively. We have a peculiar situation where, as I read it, if you are fluent in Welsh your fluency in English is not even a consideration.

[Lord Wigley]

Before the noble Lord leaves that point, I say that I go along with what he says on the need to ascertain fluency in English. However, given the growing importance of the Welsh language in Wales, would he accept that there would be an equal case for ascertaining fluency in Welsh?

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I certainly see that the people of Wales might think that there would be an equal case—and because I am not a brave person, I would support that.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to a series of outputs. Paragraph 7.4(ii) refers to,

“differentiating migrants in order to improve our understanding of moves within and between local authorities in England”.

Once again, I am not clear what a migrant is. Is it somebody moving from Shropshire to Monmouthshire, or somebody with no connection to the United Kingdom who finds themselves in Wales as the first place they come to? Does it include somebody who comes from outside the United Kingdom who goes first to England and then to Wales? What level of granularity are we talking about when it comes to migration? Are we talking about small movements or larger ones?

Finally, I must say a word or two about confidentiality. The essence of much of the data-gathering law in this country is that it puts barriers between departments so that they cannot look at each other’s data, in order to maintain confidentiality. We then break down those barriers in order to use the data in a richer way. That is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but it is equally reasonable that whenever the barriers are broken down, as they are by these regulations, we should seek assurances that we are moving forward on confidentiality. It is no secret that there were unfortunate lapses under the previous Administration. I am absolutely sure that they were not in any way malicious. We acted in good faith and I am sure that this Administration, too, will act in good faith. However, have they made progress towards being able to assure us about improved confidentiality? Are there any new techniques, audits or penalties that will allow the Minister to say that confidentiality when this barrier is taken down will be even better than it was in the past? With those few comments, we are quite happy to support the regulations.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have contributed to this brief debate. I feel that the issues of data sharing and data confidentiality are like the issue of the security of the Palace of Westminster. We start off in entirely contradictory directions. We want to bring as many people as possible into the building because we want to be as open as possible, but at the same time we want to maintain the highest possible level of security. It is extremely difficult to combine those aims. We all recognise that it is much the same with data. The Government collect a great deal of data and it is immensely convenient for the purposes of economic and social policy to share as much of that data as possible, but we all know of the problems of confidentiality and of allowing the state to build up a vast database that reveals everything about every individual. The previous Government passed the 2007 Act as part of the effort to reconcile these contradictory directions and to provide an independent authority which would build in the tension between what Ministers want and what is required in terms of the confidentiality of data while attempting to avoid imposing on individuals and businesses the requirement to fill in forms every other day of the week.

Perhaps I may say a little about the Beyond 2011 Programme and the future of the census. A decision has not yet been taken as to what we will do about the 2021 census, but I recognise from the papers I have read that there are a number of question marks over it. First, this year’s census cost £500 million to collect, and it is estimated that the 2021 census may cost around £1 billion. That is an issue that one has at least to consider. Secondly, the accuracy of the census has been going down from one successive census to the next because people move around much more rapidly than they used to. Preliminary estimates of the accuracy of this year’s census are that for each local authority area it is between 94 per cent and 80 per cent. When one has dropped to 80 per cent accuracy, one is into quite severe problems, particularly in terms of social policy, because it is for precisely those vulnerable communities where children do not have good English and where there are new migrants to this country, whether from Pakistan, Hungary or Patagonia, that all the different instruments of local and national government which combine to assist such communities need to be pulled together.

What is going on in the Beyond 2011 Programme is a series of experiments to see how far we can improve the accuracy of data and how far we can perhaps provide, from alternative measures, a rolling programme of surveys and estimates which will substitute for the census in the future. I recognise that the census itself has immense historical value. In our house in Saltaire, which was built in 1863, we have in the hall the five censuses from 1871 to 1911. They tell us who lived in the house, how many people there were, where they were born and so on. The documents provide a fascinating snapshot of what was happening in a mill village during that period. We would indeed lose a very interesting historical record, but resistance to filling in the census form is sadly also growing. This year we ourselves faced questions such as which of our two houses we should put down, and as our younger people come and go, we wondered who we should list as actually resident in the house.

We have been extremely speedy in getting through our statutory instruments this afternoon, and I must say that the expert officials who were going to give me advice in answering all the questions will arrive within the next half-hour. Therefore, in answer to some other questions that were put to me, it would be better for me to write to noble Lords than to offer them my half-informed impressions.

There was a good question about the definition of a pupil’s first language. Again, it is quite right to recognise not just bilingualism in Welsh and English but, as in the part of England in which I do my politics, bilingualism in Urdu and English, or a whole range of other languages; for example, in Bradford and Leeds I am very conscious that the census failed to pick up quite substantial refugee and other communities. In the last election my wife and I canvassed a street that was almost entirely inhabited by people from Burma. I do not think that had been picked up by the authorities at a national level, but the local schools knew what was going on because that was where their children were going. That is part of the reason and justification for this sort of element.

I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, perhaps on another occasion, just how large the migrant flow from Patagonia to Wales is—one of the many flows that are, as we know, going on in all directions at the moment. West Yorkshire certainly has a very large number of different communities and some of them are extremely mobile. A very large number of Poles, Lithuanians and Ukrainians came in the past 10 years. We do not know how many of them are still in West Yorkshire or how many of them have gone home. Again, that is the sort of thing that these sorts of surveys and statistics help us to discover.

I hope that noble Lords will accept that I will write to them about the other questions that they raised. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Value Added Tax Information) Regulations 2011

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:02

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Value Added Tax Information) Regulations 2011.

Relevant document: 29th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

Al-Qaida (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:03

Moved By

[Lord Sassoon]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Al-Qaida (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011.

Relevant document: 29th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, asset freezing is a vital and necessary global response to the threat from al-Qaeda. It is a tool to disrupt the flow of funds to al-Qaeda, helping to prevent them executing attacks and supporting their networks.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, we are committed to meeting our obligations under the UN charter, and we support the UN’s al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime. The regulations before the Committee today will ensure that we continue to meet our international obligations and prevent funds from reaching persons associated with al-Qaeda. In particular, they reflect UN Security Council Resolutions 1988 and 1999, which were agreed in June this year.

I will provide further detail on these changes. First, it is important to clarify that the regulations we are debating today do not apply to the terrorist asset-freezing regime mandated by Resolution 1373. That resolution is implemented in the UK under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 passed last December. The regulations under debate apply only to the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime established under UN Security Council Resolution 1267 and amended by Resolution 1333 and subsequent resolutions. That regime, established in 1999, initially applied an asset freeze only against the Taliban. It was subsequently extended by successor resolutions to apply an asset freeze against Osama bin Laden and individuals associated with al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

The changes we are debating today stem from the latest periodic renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Security Council in June 2011 when it unanimously adopted Resolutions 1988 and 1989. These resolutions split the Resolution 1267 al-Qaeda and Taliban asset-freezing regime into two separate regimes, one in relation to Afghanistan and one in relation to al-Qaeda.

Resolution 1989 provides for the al-Qaeda regime, with which we are concerned today. It maintains sanctions on those individuals and entities associated with al-Qaeda who were designated under the Resolution 1267 asset-freezing regime and strengthens existing due process procedures. The improvements include the introduction of triggered sunset clauses. They will make it easier and more transparent to delist individuals who no longer meet the listing criteria and who are no longer considered to be associated with al-Qaeda. Delisting recommendations by the ombudsperson or requests by the state that made the original designation request will trigger the sunset clause. At that point the person will be delisted after 60 days unless the sanctions committee decides unanimously to maintain them on the list. Resolution 1989 also strengthens the role of the ombudsperson. The resolution recommends increased capacity for the ombudsperson’s office and greater provision by member states of information for case reviews, and encourages individuals to submit delisting petitions to the ombudsperson. The Government believe that these changes represent a very good and very necessary outcome that the UK, together with our Security Council partners, worked extremely hard to achieve.

As your Lordships are aware, the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime is global in its application. All listing and delisting decisions are made by a committee of the UN Security Council, and once individuals or entities are listed, their assets must be frozen by all states as a matter of international law. Throughout the European Union, the al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime is implemented by Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, as subsequently amended, and is directly applicable in national law.

To implement and enforce the al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime fully in the UK, domestic regulations are needed to put in place penalties, and licensing and enforcement mechanisms. The key features of the regulations are that they define: the designated persons covered under the al-Qaeda regime; the prohibitions which apply in respect of designated persons; and the criminal penalties which apply to UK persons who breach the prohibitions. There are also provisions for the granting of licences exempting activities from the prohibitions, for the gathering and sharing of information and for allowing closed material to be employed in proceedings that challenge decisions made under the regulations.

These regulations revoke and replace the Al-Qaida and Taliban (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2010, but I can assure your Lordships that there is no gap in the powers or penalties required to enforce the al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime in the UK. The 2010 regulations continue to have effect until the 2011 regulations come into force.

I know your Lordships understand the importance of the UK meeting its obligations to enforce the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime. The regulations before the Committee are vital to meeting that obligation. Asset freezing is a critical element of the global response to the threat from al-Qaeda, and the UK fully supports the UN’s al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime. At the same time, UN Security Council Resolution 1989 strengthens existing due process procedures, which the UK has been arguing for at the Security Council.

In the Government’s view, the regulations before the Committee today represent an effective, fair and proportionate way of giving full effect to the EC regulation that meets the obligations of the Security Council resolution within the UK. I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I have no objection to the regulations and I will take only a few moments of the Committee's time to seek clarification on a couple of points. From the perspective of my colleagues, it is clearly necessary to tackle not only terror but the funding of terror. This legislation is part of that overall approach. We are pleased to see the strengthening of due process and the sunset clauses that are part of the regulations.

I will ask a couple of very small questions. Will the Minister clarify that no practical implications of any significance will follow from separating the al-Qaeda regulations from those applying to the Taliban? Is this just a measure to fall into line with EU and UN resolutions? In moving from the umbrella of one set of regulations to the umbrella of another, will the process be seamless? Is there any possibility of a slip between the two? Obviously, we would not wish to see such an opportunity exploited.

My second question is perhaps of more interest to the wider community. Will the Minister give us some reassurance that these regulations will not put an additional burden on ordinary people? He will be very aware that the combination of anti-money laundering and anti-terror legislation has put a significant burden of cost on both individuals and businesses, not least when it comes to the long delays in fund transfers that the banks explain by saying that it is necessary for them to go through security procedures and checks, during which time the banks seem to hold on to the money and benefit from the interest rather than either party to the transaction. One must live with measures such as that, but we would all find it unfortunate to see any increase in the burden. I would appreciate reassurance on those points, but we support the regulations.

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I have no issues of principle with this legislation. However, I would like the Minister's help on a couple of issues. The Explanatory Memorandum states that policy in the area of sanctions needs to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. I would like the Minister to address Regulation 14(1)(a) and (b) and say whether the levels at which the penalties are set can truly be described as “dissuasive”. Given the consequences of terrorist action, the proposed penalties appear to be quite modest. I would also like the Minister to explain the level 5 standard referred to in Regulation 14(2).

I would also like to know—this is a very important issue—why a proposed breach of Regulation 8(3) by a financial institution does not incur a criminal penalty. Why are financial institutions exempted from criminal penalties while individuals are subject to them?

I turn to Regulation 9(4)(b). Can the Minister explain the criteria employed by HMT in determining an appropriate publicity strategy, and how the licences will be publicised under the regulations—specifically, where and when?

Under Regulation 20(1), how many licences are currently issued under Regulation 7 of the Al-Qaida and Taliban (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2010, and how many have been issued under the 2010 regulations since they were passed by Parliament?

Finally, it would be helpful if the Minister would confirm that legal aid will be made available to individuals who are subject to freezing orders. The consequences of these freezing orders are draconian and chilling. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that anyone threatened with the consequences of having their assets frozen has access to appropriate legal advice. Will the Minister confirm that that will continue to qualify for legal aid?

17:15

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. Perhaps I may say immediately that this side of course supports the principle underlying these regulations, particularly as they substantially update, replicate and, to a degree, improve the regulations that were introduced by the previous Government on the same topic. Their purpose to keep in place protections for the UK against financing terrorist activity is wholly supportive. We also recognise the necessity of these regulations to maintain the UK’s criminal penalties for breaches of the underlying European Council regulation.

In discussions regarding the predecessor 2010 regulations, a tangential concern was expressed about the UN processes in designating persons on the target list. While all the time recognising that the Council regulation on which these regulations are based does not merely require a replication of the UN target list, it nevertheless takes considerable account of it. I fully appreciate what the Minister has indicated by way of improved protections at the EU side but it would be interesting to hear from the Minister, following the discussions at UN level, what particular developments have taken place in enabling challenges to be made by an individual to their being placed on the UN target list.

I endorse the observations made by my noble friend Lord Myners in relation to the areas in which he seeks clarification. In conclusion, the Opposition support the balance that these regulations strike between security and liberty.

[Lord Sassoon]

I am afraid that I did not quite catch the noble and learned Lord’s question and I want to try to give him the service of an answer. His noble friend asked me lots of questions but since the noble and learned Lord asked only one, I want to make sure that I got it right. Perhaps he would not mind clarifying the question.

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova]

It will be my pleasure. I was seeking clarification or explication of the processes which the UN employs for putting individuals on the target list and the way in which discussions by the UK Government at the UN level have improved the potential for challenge by individuals finding themselves on the UN target list. One fully appreciates that the UN target list is not simply replicated by the EU target list. It applies its own judgment in relation to these. But, given that the EU takes considerable account of what the UN does by way of placing individuals on the target list, it would be helpful to understand how a challenge might be made by an individual at the UN level. I appreciate that this is entirely tangential but it would be interesting to know as this matter has caused concern in the past.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for this focused short debate and for a number of questions which are absolutely to the point. Even though the noble and learned Lord says that his question is tangential, I do not think that it is at all. It goes to the heart of the UK’s concerns to make sure that when the UN did its review of the regime leading up to June 2011 we made sure that there were additional proper protections. I might come back to that in a minute.

I am grateful that all noble Lords recognise the importance of these regulations but it is equally clear that we should get the details right.

In answer to my noble friend Lady Kramer’s questions, I can certainly reassure her that absolutely nothing will slip through the gaps; there is nothing separating the old and the new regimes. We are putting in place something that ensures that there is a seamless continuation from the old combined resolution regime into the two separate regimes.

On whether there will be any additional burdens on ordinary people, I shall expand that to ordinary people and small businesses because it is important that small businesses do not have any additional burdens placed on them. Consistent with my previous answer, there should be no substantially changed burdens from the previous regimes. In fact, there has been some rationalisation of the drafting of the regulations in the process of coming forward with this new regulation. We continue to have a dialogue with representatives of small firms. I can reassure my noble friend on that. She also asked about the burden on people. It mainly will ensure that private individuals, who are in any way conceivably connected to this regime, have legitimate payments flowing to them. I believe that the regime will continue to ensure that that is the case.

I wondered why the noble Lord, Lord Myners, was writing away so furiously and I now understand that he was setting an exam paper for me.

[Lord Myners]

Pass.

[Lord Sassoon]

I am very grateful that, notwithstanding the earlier start time of this business, my Box team was able to get here in good time. The first questions were important ones about the penalties in the regime. I believe that prison sentences of up to two years are dissuasive. We are picking up the penalties from the previous regime and they have, therefore, been considered in the past. On the specific question about level 5, the answer is that it is a £5,000 penalty.

The noble Lord, Lord Myners, then asked about Regulation 8(3) and why there is no criminal penalty on financial institutions. Regulation 8(3) is that which requires financial institutions to tell the Treasury when they credit funds to a frozen account. Indeed, there is no criminal penalty attached to failure to comply with that requirement. Any breaches of that requirement are, I would suggest, properly dealt with as part of the FSA’s supervision of financial institutions for compliance with sanctions legislation, which is required under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which provides a range of powers. Although the noble Lord is right to ask me the question, consideration has been taken of the link through to sanctions that are available under the FISMA regime.

The noble Lord then asked about publicity. If I understood his question correctly, general licences are all advertised on the Treasury website and so they are available to anyone who is interested. Those parties who are in any way involved in this or the other asset-freezing regimes are well aware, and have been for a number of years, of the channels through which the Treasury publicises licences and all other aspects of the regime. That continues, and the feedback that we receive suggests that the publicity mechanisms are effective.

There was a question about the number of licences that have been issued. The total number of licences that have been issued this year under both the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act and the al-Qaeda regime is 41. I do not have the exact split between the two regimes to hand but something of the order of a dozen were in respect of al-Qaeda designated individuals. If the noble Lord would like the exact number I would be happy to give it to him—he is shaking his head—but it is about a dozen out of 40.

Lastly, if an individual meets the normal legal aid tests then legal aid is available. These regulations have no particular impact on the availability of legal aid. It is perhaps also worth noting that legal aid is available from the European Court for challenges in respect of EU listings. Again, I believe there is no gap in the regulations. I hope that that deals with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Myners.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, asked an important question about people getting on the list—and, I would suggest, being able to get themselves off it. Of course, in these and similar situations, getting people on the list will be a matter of some urgency. It is important that there is appropriate evidence and the UK is very concerned to see appropriate evidence produced in all the asset-freezing regimes, whether at a UN, EU or domestic level. I see cases under these regimes when they come forward and I know how seriously that is taken.

The almost more important question is about the mechanisms for challenge and for getting people delisted if appropriate. What is significant about the new regime under Resolution 1989 is that we were able to get in place, as I described in my opening speech, a series of much better protections in terms of the review processes, the way that the ombudsman role is beefed up, and so on. I feel much happier that, just as in the legislation for our domestic regime last year we were able to put in additional and important protections, so in a different regime the UN has moved in that direction. It was something that the UK pushed hard for.

I hope that I have answered the questions that have been brought up. In conclusion, these regulations provide a framework to implement the Security Council regulation effectively and properly. It is critical to enabling the UK to play its part in both preventing terrorist financing and in meeting those international obligations. Therefore, I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 5.30 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 9 November 2011.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Cyprus: EU Presidency

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked By

[Lord Harrison]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take to ensure that both the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities will be involved in Cyprus’s presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2012.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord may be aware, President Christofias has publicly stated that he would like to achieve a settlement before Cyprus’s presidency of the European Union, and it is the United Kingdom’s hope that this is achieved to the benefit of all Cypriots. In such circumstances, both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities will be part of Cyprus’s EU presidency.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, the United Kingdom is, thankfully, one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus, and we are in an ideal position to bring sensible people together from all sides in an attempt to ensure that the presidency of the European Union, over which Cyprus will preside from July of next year, brings credit to all members and all people in Cyprus. Will the noble Lord contemplate thinking about how to ensure that the two sides do joint planning, and that the venues for the six-month presidency are shared so that all can participate in this enterprise?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

This would clearly be the ideal objective, and at the moment many people are working hard on it, including HM Government. Of course Alexander Downer is playing his role as adviser and mediator; and there was the meeting with the UN Secretary-General about a fortnight ago in which there was—I am advised to say—some progress but no breakthrough. So it was not totally negative, but obviously there is a long way to go. The next meeting is in January and we hope that there will be a further basis of agreement after that, as we move towards the kind of solution that many of us have sought and longed for for so long.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, what steps have the Government taken to remind all parties in Cyprus and around Cyprus that the dispute over the exclusive economic zone is one that should be dealt with by peaceful dialogue, not by menaces and threats? Have the British Government made known the view that the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee gives absolutely no right of unilateral intervention in a matter of this sort?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

This is an extremely sensitive issue. As the noble Lord knows, the whole problem of the Levant basin and the discoveries of offshore gas in considerable quantities are relevant to a number of nations in the area. Like all parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, we recognise Cyprus’s sovereign rights to exploit mineral reserves within its exclusive economic zone, and we call on all parties to cease from inflammatory actions or statements. In particular we welcome President Christofias’s statement that any gas revenues that emerge—and they will emerge —will be for the benefit of all Cypriots, even in the absence of a settlement. We hope that a mechanism can be found to ensure that all Cypriots share in the proceeds of gas finds and developments in the Levant basin.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the present Government do not represent the whole of the island? Having joined the EU in 2004, Cyprus has six Members of the European Parliament, none of whom is a Turkish Cypriot. Does he agree that the fact that the benefits of EU membership six years on do not apply to the citizens of north Cyprus—Turkish Cypriots—is, in the words of one MEP, an ongoing scandal?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

This is the kind of asymmetric situation that is bound to have arisen from the lack of a settlement and the fact that the north is not recognised as a separate state by this country and by many other countries, except Turkey. That is the problem. Somewhere in the future lies a better and happier relationship in which the bi-zonal federal solution for Cyprus is achieved and the whole of Cyprus is represented in the European Union. Somewhere beyond that, perhaps even a satisfactory Turkish relationship with the European Union will also be achieved.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, will the Minister expand a little on the question of potential Turkish accession to the EU? Can he give any prospect of success, given the position that Cyprus is taking?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We have always recognised, as I am sure the noble Lord has, that these things are intimately bound up together; and there are dangers. Certainly Turkey has stated that it would freeze further negotiations over the EU unless progress is really made on the Cyprus situation generally and unless issues such as oil and gas and the undersea boundaries can be resolved. So there is always a fragility and a danger that the negotiations between Turkey and the EU will be halted. They have been prolonged for a very long time already, and I am afraid that there are still a number of issues ahead. These things are at risk from the ugly division of Cyprus.

[Lord Kilclooney]

My Lords, increasingly there are doubts about Greece’s membership of the European Union, and especially of the eurozone. Did the same doubts apply to bringing Greek Cypriots into the European Union before there was a settlement with the Turkish Cypriots?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I did not quite catch the full extent of the noble Lord’s question. The aim of all of the processes in which we are involved, with the UN and Alexander Downer, is to create a bi-zonal federation that would be part of the European Union and would have the benefits, conditions and status of full membership of the European Union for a united Cyprus. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s question.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

My Lords, is this not a case where we should remember that once we are in a hole, we should stop digging? Is it not time that our Government stopped digging a hole in terms of a lack of settlement in Cyprus? Was the lack of settlement not brought forward because Nikos Sampson and EOKA-B overthrew the regime of Archbishop Makarios? Why do we still pander to the Greek Cypriots and virtually ignore the Turkish Cypriots in this problem?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I honestly do not think that pander is the right word. We want to see a resolution of the problem. We are all aware of the history—the bitterness and the feelings of unfairness and injustice on both sides. We are all aware that Turkey is a major and responsible nation and would like to seek outside, as would no doubt the Greeks, to see the north and south of Cyprus united. There is no question of pandering; it is a question of working very hard to overcome bitter past differences and difficulties.

Armed Forces: Afghanistan and Libya

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:15

Asked By

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which countries are actively involved alongside United Kingdom forces in action in both Afghanistan and Libya.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Private Matthew Haseldin, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment; Rifleman Vijay Rai, 2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles; Marine David Fairbrother, Kilo Company, 42 Commando Royal Marines; Lance Corporal Jonathan James McKinlay, 1st Battalion The Rifles; Sergeant Barry John Weston, Kilo Company, 42 Commando Royal Marines; Lieutenant Daniel John Clack, 1st Battalion The Rifles; Marine James Robert Wright, 42 Commando Royal Marines; Corporal Mark Anthony Palin, 1st Battalion The Rifles; and Lance Corporal Paul Watkins, 9th/12th Royal Lancers (Prince of Wales’s).

My thoughts are also with the wounded, and I pay tribute to the courage and fortitude in which they face their rehabilitation.

On my noble friend’s Question, as of October 2011, ISAF consists of 49 nations working alongside Afghan national security forces. Denmark and Estonia are the UK’s main operational partners, and Tonga provides support. UK forces also work in close co-ordination with US allies.

In Libya, at the height of Operation Unified Protector, 17 nations—13 NATO and four partners—contributed. These were the US, France, the UK, Italy, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Greece, Sweden, Romania, Norway, Qatar, the UAE and Jordan.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

First of all, I join these Benches in the earlier condolences.

On Monday, our ambassador in Rome hosted a lunch for the Italian air force to thank them for their support in the Libyan operation, which yesterday, at an RAF briefing, the commander of our expeditionary air wing described as absolutely outstanding. Over the years, Parliament has received a number of our service units returning from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan; last week we had 3 Commando back here. Can we not consider hosting a major reception here and perhaps at No. 10 for representative service personnel from all our allies in the Libyan campaign and, in due course, similarly for Afghanistan, to emphasise the partnership in these campaigns, to acknowledge the sacrifices made and to say thank you?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, my noble friend raises a very good point. The UK is rightly grateful to its coalition allies for the contributions that they have made. But in these times of austerity, this may be difficult. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the UK is only one country within the broad NATO-led coalition of allies that has been operating both in Afghanistan and Libya, so we would more likely look to NATO to conduct such an event.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Minister has had the sad duty of reading out the names of nine members of our Armed Forces who have recently lost their lives in the service of our country. On this side, we, too, extend our sincere condolences to their loved ones and friends at this particularly difficult time for them. No words can adequately express the debt that we owe to all who have given their lives on active service.

Will the Minister accept that the Libya campaign illustrated both the strengths and weaknesses of NATO? The strength was NATO’s continuing relevance in a mission that was quick and successful; the weakness was that less than a half of NATO members contributed to the mission. On top of that, there are still issues over the significant number of European nations not meeting NATO expenditure targets on defence. Will the Government use the success of the Libya mission in particular to pursue again this issue of NATO members making an appropriate contribution?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord’s last point. Some allies shared significantly more of the burden in Libya than others and this imbalance needs to be addressed in the future. In practice, we saw a two-tier alliance in terms of operation. Only half of the allies took part militarily, exasperating the limited availability of NATO’s capability.

[Lord Stirrup]

My Lords, the Minister has reminded us once again of the tragic cost of our ongoing operations and the whole House echoed his sentiments. Does he agree that our most important partner in Afghanistan is Afghanistan itself? And can he say what progress the Afghan national army and police are making towards taking lead responsibility for security throughout their country, at which stage our combat operations can cease?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that support for Afghanistan will certainly not end in 2014. It is President Karzai’s aim that by the end of 2014 the Afghans will take lead responsibility for security costs right across the country, and we are on track to meet this aim. The Prime Minister has been clear that we will not have troops in a combat role or in numbers anywhere like current levels by 2015.

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, bearing in mind the huge contribution of Britain’s Reserve Forces to both campaigns, particularly to that in Afghanistan, to what extent have those foreign countries my noble friend mentioned also been using their reserve forces? Can any lessons learnt from their deployments be used and developed in the international fora which exist for discussion on international reserve issues?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point about the reserves of our allied countries. I am afraid I do not have an answer to hand but I will certainly write to him on this and give him a detailed answer.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, a number of us were dismayed that a relatively simple campaign like the one in Libya could not have been conducted by the European members of NATO but needed American enablers. Will the Prime Minister, when he visits and has his dialogue with France very soon, be raising the issue that there needs to be a slight increase in defence as a percentage of GDP among all the European NATO nations, including ourselves?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. Having said that, co-operation between the United Kingdom and France, both militarily and at the political level, has been exemplary and contributed significantly in Libya towards developing the level of co-operation and interoperability envisaged in the UK/France defence co-operation treaty that was signed in November 2010.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Lee, and I hope that the Government will reconsider having a represented reception. We must also remember those who did not return from Afghanistan and Libya. The Minister was very fulsome in telling us all the various nations which have contributed to these conflicts. Will he enumerate the deaths in those two conflicts—those who did not return—and indicate how those unfortunate deaths were split between the various nations which took part?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I have a list here of all the deaths of members of our allied countries. Rather than reading the list out, I will write to my noble friend and I will make sure that a copy of my letter is placed in the Library.

Prisons: HMP Wandsworth

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:25

Asked By

[Lord Hurd of Westwell]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they propose to implement the recommendations identified in HM Chief Inspector of Prisons’ report of 10 August 2011 on HM Prison Wandsworth.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, since the inspection was undertaken in February and March, Wandsworth prison has strengthened its management team and improved access to purposeful activity. The issues of showering provision and access to telephones have been tackled and first-night provision is better. In addition, the primary care trust has commissioned a health needs assessment to identify better the requirements of the prison population.

[Lord Hurd of Westwell]

What were my noble friend’s feelings on first reading this very disappointing report? It details several ways in which Wandsworth prison has fallen backwards since the earlier report and is now holding people in conditions that are unsafe and fall well below the level of human decency. He has listed some things that have happened since the report was published. Can he add to that list and is he satisfied that when those things are carried out, they will solve the problems that the chief inspector reported?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, my noble friend asked me what my reaction was. I was appalled. It is a disgraceful and shaming report that lists many failings. I can say only that the National Offender Management Service has reacted to the faults with proper determination. Wandsworth is a very difficult prison. It is one of our Victorian prisons, with over 1,600 prisoners, which puts a great strain on the staff, but there is no doubt that the inspection revealed many weaknesses. All I can assure my noble friend is that the strengthening of the management team signals a determination that the things that were identified will be put right.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, when I was the Chief Inspector of Prisons I also had the problem of inspecting Wandsworth and producing a report very similar to the one that has been mentioned. We introduced a procedure whereby the Prison Service was required to produce an action plan on what it was going to do, which was copied to the Secretary of State and the chief inspector and was then updated after nine months and 18 months. That report listed who was to do what, and by when, to put the recommendations right. The Minister has listed some things that have happened. Can he tell the House whether that action plan procedure is still in force and, if so, whether one has been instigated for HMP Wandsworth?

[Lord McNally]

I am not quite sure whether the system that the noble Lord refers to is still in action, but I know that Amy Rees, the new governor, has the clear direction to move with all possible speed to implement the action plan. It would be inconceivable if the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Ministry of Justice did not pay the closest attention to making sure that the recommendations made by this report are implemented with all possible speed.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, this is obviously a significant and worrying report and I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, for raising the issue this afternoon. As I understand it, Wandsworth has a larger number of prisoners than any other prison in Europe—some 1,665 at the date of the report. Can the Minister either tell the House today or perhaps write to me telling us how many of those prisoners are doubled up in cells at present? Perhaps I might briefly broaden my question. Can he confirm that capital investment in the Prison Service is generally going down heavily, year on year, and that in fact there will be no capital investment by 2013-14? In the light of the fact that the largest number of prisoners ever is in prison today—the figure on 5 November was 87,749—and in the light of cuts to prison staff, and particularly to probation staff, can he tell the House how the rehabilitation revolution is going?

[Lord McNally]

We will return to the rehabilitation revolution on 21 November when we discuss the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will help me then with the fact that the Ministry of Justice, as part of our deficit reduction programme, has to find £2 billion in cuts. In a department that spends money only on prisons, probation, court services and legal aid, tough decisions have been made. Today it is prison spending cuts that the noble Lord does not like; I suspect that, the next time he gets up, it will be legal aid cuts that he does not like. To govern is to choose, and we have had to make some very tough decisions.

On the question of doubling up, again one of the problems for Wandsworth is that a prison built for just over 1,000 people has 1,600 prisoners. You can work out the number that are doubled up in cells. About the only good thing that I can think of in that circumstance is that they all have in-cell toilet facilities, but even that makes you squirm with horror when you think about sharing a cell containing those facilities.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that the policies on diversity and race relations identified in the report have not been adequately addressed? Would he have a word with Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons to ensure that there will be an automatic review of this issue, not only in Wandsworth but in other prisons as well? At the end of the day, is it not right that all inmates should be treated fairly?

[Lord McNally]

Absolutely, my Lords. One of the reasonable things that came from this report and the prison visitors’ report is that there was no identifiable race problem in the treatment of prisoners. Indeed, 29 per cent of prison officers and staff at Wandsworth are from black and ethnic communities, a figure that I found reassuring, but it is also true that the report said that because of general failures across the board, black and ethnic minority prisoners suffered from those common problems.

On the question of dealing with race relations, I understand that all prisons now have an adviser on such matters, but I will also ensure that my noble friend’s suggestions are drawn to the attention of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector.

Companies: Executive Remuneration

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:32

Asked By

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take to address the disparity between senior executive remuneration and that of the rest of the working population.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)]

My Lords, the Government believe that executive remuneration which is well structured and rewards long-term success is an important way of promoting sustainability and growth. However, there are justified concerns about the disconnect between how our largest listed companies perform and the rewards that are on offer, particularly at a time of economic restraint. We feel that that is unsustainable. That is why the Government have published a discussion paper that explores these issues and invites views on what can be done.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that our top executive pay has gone up by nearly 50 per cent while that of the rest of the population has gone up on average by 2.5 per cent, and that this is deeply offensive to many people who feel that the bankers and others who caused the crisis are now exploiting us? Does the big society not require consent? In the absence of consent, there is a threat to our social cohesion.

[Baroness Wilcox]

Concern over this is coming not just from Government but from investors, business groups and captains of industry, who have all told us that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Business should be a force for good but, understandably, figures showing soaring executive pay are causing resentment towards large companies. We want to see transparency, proper accountability to shareholders and a sense of responsibility from British boardrooms.

[Lord Renton of Mount Harry]

My Lords, would the Minister consider supporting a Bill that would require the chairmen of publicly quoted companies to announce to shareholders regularly, at their annual general meetings, the average wage of the 10 best paid employees, including directors, and the 10 least paid? Might that not bring back some sense of reality?

[Baroness Wilcox]

My Lords, these sorts of suggestions are exactly why the Government have published this discussion paper. By the end of this month, we hope that we will have received all sorts of ideas so that we can come up with some really good suggestions to make for a better balance going forward.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I have experience of corporate boards and was for a number of years the chairman of the remuneration committee of a major multinational, Vinci. Is it not the case that the present position on top executive pay is highly unsatisfactory, utterly unedifying and a threat to the good reputation of our market economy? Most sensible people would totally exclude either statutory regulation of pay or penal taxation as a solution, but simply making speeches, publishing discussion papers or trying to use moral suasion with institutional investors does not seem to get anywhere at all. In that context, may I put two specific practical suggestions to the Minister? One is that we place a statutory duty on public companies to publish the criteria and rationale for their decisions on top executive pay. The second is to adopt the French practice of having two elected representatives of the employees as a whole on the board of every publicly quoted company. Additionally, at least one of those representatives should be on the remuneration committee.

[Baroness Wilcox]

I am interested to hear the noble Lord’s tales of being on a FTSE 100 board. I, too, have been on a FTSE 100 board, so like him I have also served on a committee. We all know that there are problems and that things are not right. The question is how we put it right without damaging Britain’s competitiveness. Those 100 top companies employ so many people and it is very important that we get this balance right. As to his suggestion of worker representatives on company boards in the United Kingdom, we will of course look at this, in the same way that we will look at everything else in the consultation. We would be only too delighted if the noble Lord writes in and makes sure that his views are known on the record.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, have the Government considered the evidence that the greater the inequality in remuneration, salaries and wages in a society, the greater there tends to be a great underclass in that society, which the prison population amply demonstrates? Any addressing of the issue has to take that into account.

[Baroness Wilcox]

My Lords, the Prime Minister himself has expressed concern about this growing divide. He feels that it is wrong for our country and does not make for a happy country. It is so important that we look again at encouraging the very big companies to make sure that there is transparency, accountability and responsibility in boardrooms today.

Privileges and Conduct Committee: Eighth Report

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Agree

15:38

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the report from the Select Committee on the Conduct of Lord Taylor of Warwick (8th Report, HL Paper 210) be agreed to.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

My Lords, in speaking to this Motion, with the leave of the House I shall also speak to the three following Motions on the Order Paper. Noble Lords will be only too well aware of the background to this report and the accompanying ninth report on the conduct of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. Both noble Lords were tried earlier this year for crimes under the Theft Act 1968; both were convicted and subsequently sentenced to prison terms. The offences of which they were found guilty involved false claims for expenses under the Members’ reimbursement scheme. The noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Hanningfield, were guilty of serious offences which have damaged the reputation of the House. They have been heavily punished and have now acknowledged their guilt and apologised to the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, has repaid in full the sum he owed the House. Although the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has not yet been able to repay the money he owes the House, he has undertaken to do so as soon as he can, possibly before the end of the year and at all events before he returns to the House following his suspension. The Select Committee and its sub-committee were clear that neither noble Lord should be eligible to return to the House until the sentences imposed by the court—12 months in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and nine months in that of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield—had run their course. Therefore, we have recommended in each case that the period of suspension should begin on the date of sentence and run for its full length.

I do not believe that I need to say more. The House has now replaced the Members’ reimbursement scheme with a simpler and more transparent scheme of allowances, which is far less open to abuse. We devoutly hope that the cases before the House today will be the last of their type arising from the expenses scandal of 2009.

[Baroness Prosser]

My Lords, I rise briefly to put the record straight regarding some remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in his evidence to the Commissioner for Standards. On page 16 of the report on the noble Lord, he is quoted as saying:

“Lord Prosser paid back £20,000 or something”.

I want to make it absolutely clear that this remark does not refer to me and that at no stage have I been found to have wrongly claimed sums under the Members’ reimbursement scheme.

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, for her clarification, of which I was given advance notice. I fully endorse what she has said.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, I take to my feet with huge regret, a very heavy heart and considerable trepidation as one of the newer Members of your Lordships’ House. However, I feel I must intervene to express my dismay that this House does not have the power to take more robust action in this matter.

I campaigned for the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, in his attempts to be elected as a Member of Parliament. I bear him absolutely no personal ill will; indeed, personally, I wish him well. However, I suspect that I am not alone in being horrified by his lengthy interview in this morning’s newspapers, in which he declares his resolve to resume his place in this House on the basis that his experience in prison will make his input even more valuable. This House does not exist to provide a means of rehabilitation. We are here as individuals to serve a greater purpose. We are here not to serve ourselves but to serve others. The reputation of this House is of far greater importance than the interests of any one Member.

If the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Warwick and Lord Hanningfield, were to return to this House, and perhaps claim further expenses, the damage done to the reputation of the House would be immense. The public would not understand; neither would they forgive. The media would mock. The reputation of this House and of every single one of us would be tarnished. We would be made out to be all the things that we are not—self-serving, mercenary and hopelessly out of touch. At a time when we are asking our young men and women in the Armed Forces to risk—and all too often to give—their lives, it would seem shameless.

We are currently in the process of debating the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, which would give this House powers to expel Members permanently. However, it is not the law—not yet, at least. In the mean time, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has challenged us with his very public, very lengthy and, in my view, desperately unwise interview. This forces me, sadly and with a desperately heavy heart, to make publicly these points which might have been better made more privately. That would have been my preference but this is now all too public an issue.

The noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Hanningfield, have broken the law of this land, for which they are being punished. They have also broken the rules of this House, for which we are about to punish them. However, our powers are limited. We can do no more than formally suspend them for a while. This is all that we can do and I do not believe that it is enough.

I therefore ask the Chairman of Committees if, in addition to moving the Motions on the Order Paper, he will take measures to take the mood of this House, and that he, or a more appropriate official of this House, remind the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Hanningfield, by letter, that the interests and reputation of the House are supreme and override the interests of any one Member; and further ask them, in the wider interests of this House, not to resume their places here.

[The Chairman of Committees]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, for his remarks. As he has said, and as noble Lords well know, the powers of this House to suspend Members are limited. The noble Lord suggests that I or someone else write a letter to the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Hanningfield. I will take back that suggestion to the Privileges and Conduct Committee, but I cannot respond now as to what that committee might decide.

Motion agreed.

Privileges and Conduct Committee: Eighth Report

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Resolve

15:45

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

To resolve that Lord Taylor of Warwick be suspended from the service of the House for 12 months, with effect from 31 May 2011.

Motion agreed.

Privileges and Conduct Committee: Ninth Report

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Agree

15:46

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the report from the Select Committee on the Conduct of Lord Hanningfield (9th Report, HL Paper 211) be agreed to.

Motion agreed.

Privileges and Conduct Committee: Ninth Report

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Resolve

15:46

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

To resolve that Lord Hanningfield be suspended from the service of the House for nine months, with effect from 1 July 2011.

Motion agreed.

Privileges and Conduct Committee: 10th Report

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Agree

15:47

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the report from the Select Committee on the Guide to the Code of Conduct (10th Report, HL Paper 212) be agreed to.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

My Lords, I hope that this report is self-explanatory. Under the Code of Conduct, the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct is required to keep the Guide to the Code of Conduct under regular review. It has done so and has recommended to the Select Committee a number of changes to the guide. We endorse the sub-committee’s proposals and, in turn, recommend them to the House. If the House agrees the report, I understand that the amended guide will be reprinted in the near future. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:47

Moved By

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered 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.

Health and Social Care Bill

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (4th Day)

Relevant documents: 19th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 18th Report from the Constitution Committee.

15:48

Clause 4 : The Secretary of State's duty as to promoting autonomy

Amendments 35 and 36 not moved.

Amendment 37

Moved by

[Lord Warner]

37: Clause 4, page 3, line 9, leave out “manner that it considers most appropriate” and insert “interests of the health service”

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I should like to speak to Amendment 37 as my name has been added to it.

Before getting down to the precise wording of the amendment, I want to give some context to my remarks by talking about what I regard as the total incoherence of Clause 4. I note from the letter of 7 November from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to my noble friend Lady Thornton that the Government now seem to want to treat Clause 4 in the same way as Clause 1. I have to say that that is hardly a ringing endorsement of the drafting of Clause 4. I wonder, privately, how many other clauses we will have this problem with as we progress through the Bill. In effect, the Government are seeking to take these clauses out of the normal consideration of a Bill in Committee. We are getting into rather strange territory where, as we wander through the Bill, we find that, when the Government find themselves under pressure with regard to bits of the Bill, they sweep those bits aside to have another go in some procedure, which is less than clear to the House, and promise to come back later. Before I go any further on the amendment, as I am already unclear as to how the Government are going to handle Clause 1—and, it now seems, Clause 4—procedurally, I would welcome any light that the Minister can shed on how we are going to deal with these clauses and have a proper discussion of them in Committee.

I turn now to Amendment 37. I am completely supportive of reducing or even stopping ministerial and Department of Health micromanagement of the NHS.

[Lord Mawhinney]

I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. Is he aware that the concern which he has just expressed is held by other noble Lords as well?

[Lord Warner]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. The more the merrier, I say, on this theme and I hope that noble Lords will speak out about this issue in our debate today.

As I was saying, I am completely supportive of reducing or stopping ministerial and Department of Health micromanagement of the NHS, which, as I understand it, is the Government’s purpose in framing Clause 4. However, I struggle with reconciling the clause in its present form with the other duties and powers that the Secretary of State has taken unto himself in the Bill. I do not mean just the relationship between Clauses 1 and 4, which itself seems to have produced a hefty dose of confusion and uncertainty, not to mention, in the case of Clause 1, many attempts at drafting alternatives. How will Clause 4, for example, fit with Clause 3, which most of us in the previous session in Committee—except, perhaps the Minister—seemed to favour strengthening in terms of the duty on inequalities? How will it fit with Clauses 16 and 17, with their very extensive regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State, or indeed Clause 18 or Clause 20, which gives the Secretary of State extensive mandating powers, which seem to me to be rather stronger than the new chairman of the NHS Commissioning Board seems to think?

Many people who have looked at the Bill do not understand what the Secretary of State is trying to do in relation to the issue of central control, central powers and autonomy and delegation. Is he trying to let go or to tighten his grip? I do not see, at present, how the Government can retain in the Bill a clause as loosely drafted as Clause 4 and, at the same time, retain all the other powers of the Secretary of State that we will be discussing later. Apart from anything else, this is a recipe for confusion in the minds of many local decision-makers.

Are people to take Clause 4 as drafted at face value? If they do, will they not be wondering whether the Secretary of State or his henchmen and henchwomen in the Department of Health or the NHS Commissioning Board will come down on them like a ton of bricks using other powers in the Bill if they think that they are not acting in the interests of the NHS? What will the courts make of all this? If people do not like a decision taken higher up the line, as the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust is demonstrating now over paediatric surgery changes, do they seek judicial review of the central decisions, praying in aid Clause 4 as drafted? Will not Clause 4 in its present form simply encourage legal challenge and create local uncertainty?

I turn to the wording of the clause and why Amendment 37 is at least an improvement. It is an attempt to improve what is a highly defective clause. As I read Clause 4, it seems to place little inhibition on local decision-makers,

“exercising functions … or providing services”,

in any manner that they consider appropriate. If that means what it says in the dictionary, if people want, for example, to provide a wide range of alternative therapies for which there is no scientific evidence of clinical benefit, they can do so, praying in aid the powers under Clause 4. If they want to remove tattoos or do a bit of cosmetic surgery, I cannot see that there is very much to stop them. Under the clause as drafted, the Secretary of State can intervene only after the event. If he finds out what has been going on, he can, in effect, try to stop it happening again, but that is ex post facto. He cannot intervene earlier, as I understand the drafting of the clause. I am happy to be corrected by the noble Earl, but I am not the only one who thinks that these powers will have that effect.

Amendment 37 is an attempt to require those behaving autonomously locally to apply the test that their actions are in the interests of the NHS before they take their decisions rather than relying on the Secretary of State deciding that they were not in the interests of the NHS after the event. I see that my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is now with us. I suspect that we both agree that it is a far from perfect solution, but it is better than the way that the clause is currently drafted. I know that some noble Lords are very attached to the clause—like me, they are attached to the idea of autonomy—but I hope that they will consider whether in its present form it is really in the best interests of the NHS. I suggest that the Government rethink the form of Clause 4 if they want to proceed with it. As I see it, what would get nearer to their intentions but not create some of the loopholes that I have identified is a kind of drafting that gives a commitment that the Secretary of State would not exceed the powers provided elsewhere in the Bill, would impose only burdens that are totally consistent with those powers and would maximise operational freedoms for those delivering NHS services consistent with public accountability. That seems to me to be the direction in which the Government are trying to go, but the way the clause is drafted does not do that.

I would prefer the Minister to accept that the clause is seriously deficient and either abandon it altogether or take it away for a serious makeover. In the mean time, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and myself, I move Amendment 37, which goes a modest way to improve the shape and drafting of the clause. I beg to move.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, first, I offer my sincere apologies to the House for being delayed. I was also thrown by the fact that that the first two amendments were not moved. I am sorry about that. I am grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for moving the amendment in my absence, and I join absolutely in his comments. I shall try to cover some other points. My name is also on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and I support that too.

As I interpret it, under the clause, as long as the Secretary of State does not think that it is inconsistent with the interests of the NHS, he or she must act positively to allow any other person exercising health service functions to do so in a way that that person thinks appropriate. Although the Secretary of State keeps some form of oversight, it is the views of other persons and bodies delivering health services on how those services are to be delivered that are important.

This duty would therefore require the Secretary of State, when considering whether to place requirements on the NHS, to make a judgment. The challenge for the Secretary of State would be to justify why these requirements were necessary. Does this mean that the Secretary of State has the power to act only when the steps to be taken are really needed or essential, rather than because he or she thinks that something is desirable or appropriate? He or she would have to demonstrate why no other course of action will be followed. Is that a high test to meet on the part of the Secretary of State?

16:00

What happens if the Secretary of State uses his or her powers to impose requirements on commissioning boards—consortia, for example? Would there be a judicial review challenge from a consortium that opposed the requirements on the basis that they infringed the principles of autonomy and could not be justified as necessary or essential? This approach replaces the power that the Secretary of State currently has to make directions. It is the same autonomy duty that is placed on the NHS Commissioning Board, and it is of course the board that will have closer contact with commissioning consortia than will the Secretary of State. This clause gives powers of autonomy way beyond any duty that the Secretary of State would have.

I know that the excuse will be given that this autonomy is required to prevent any micromanagement of the health service by the Secretary of State, but there are no examples of micromanagement by the Secretary of State—I have no doubt that I will hear of them if there are any. Another excuse will be made that this autonomy is required to allow the NHS Commissioning Board and commissioners to reconfigure services. I have spoken before and I am pro reconfiguring services—I think that they do require reconfiguration—but that does not require this degree of autonomy and powers to be given away by the Secretary of State. Like my noble friend Lord Warner, I hope that the Minister will at least indicate that this clause needs amending or abandoning.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

My Lords, I very strongly support the spirit of Clause 4, and I oppose the amendment that the clause should no longer stand part of the Bill. I accept that it could be amended and could be clearer, but I want to hold to its spirit.

In the past I have put down six amendments to two major health Bills in an attempt to achieve something similar to what is in Clause 4. I have to say that my attempts, although I was supported by the King’s Fund, were puny compared with the weight of this mighty Bill. I hoped that my time had almost come. I say almost, because I know that the Minister, in his letter dated 7 November to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, mentioned, is suggesting a strategy. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, does not like this strategy. In contrast, I do. One of the real hallmarks of this House is that we try to negotiate and accommodate what we, as a whole in this House, feel is appropriate.

In revising and amending the Bill, I appreciate that an enormous amount of time and care—

[Lord Warner]

I am not opposed to having a strategy, if I may say so to the noble Baroness, and I thank her for giving way. However, when a Bill reaches this House with a major clause in it, it has been through the other place and has been subject to a lot of scrutiny by Professor Field and his group, the Future Forum, it is reasonable to assume that the drafting does not have the kind of loopholes that this clause has. I am not the only one raising this; other people are raising the same issue. There is a lot of concern outside. We are not opposed to having a strategy, but it is reasonable to expect the Government to have got the Bill into a better shape than it was in before it came here.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

My Lords, I thought that that was the whole purpose of Committee stage. This stage is intended to question some of these concerns and to see whether a resolution can be achieved.

[Lord Warner]

The noble Earl is taking this clause out of the Committee stage, so far as I understand his proposal. If the strategy is to take clauses out when the going gets rough, that does not seem to be in keeping with the spirit and behaviour of this House.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I have no desire to take this clause out of the Committee proceedings. These proceedings are continuing. We have heard the noble Lord and his views, and I look forward to hearing other noble Lords. I am not in the least desirous of inhibiting debate on this clause, which I think is very valuable. However, perhaps noble Lords will consider that, in view of the undertaking that I gave on 2 November, there is a certain amount that need not be said today because I have undertaken to look at this clause on a cross-party basis and with an open mind. It is a clause that the Government were and are satisfied with and they believe that it can stand as worded without amendment. However, I appear to be accused of being too concessionary on this. It is a case of the Government being damned if we do one thing and damned if we do the opposite.

I felt that my offer to the Committee was helpful. I think that there is concern around the Chamber about this matter and I can only repeat my offer to look at that concern and, if we can reach an agreement, to put beyond doubt the fact that these clauses do what I believe many noble Lords wish them to do. I hope that in that spirit the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will agree that, while we can debate the clause today for as long as we wish, the offer is there on the table from the Government to engage in cross-party discussions with a view to reaching consensus.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, will allow a moment’s interruption to her speech, I promise to give way. It is very important to state that a number of us who have tabled amendments to this clause, including those of us who have expressed a desire for it to be omitted, did indeed inquire whether it might not be wise to try to discover more about the precise meaning of the clause. There are some arguments among lawyers about its effect and about whether it should be taken together with Clauses 1 and 10, to which it is clearly very intimately related—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in her role as chairman of the Constitution Committee. Therefore, we must stand accused of having asked the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whether he would be willing to consider taking this group together, not forgetting the long debate that we had on Clause 1, in order to find out whether there is common ground about their precise meaning, their weight and their relationship with one another. The matter will then of course come back to the Committee for wider consideration.

I hope that the Committee will recognise that, with such a difficult balance of legal opinion, it may be sensible to discuss the issue further before bringing it back to the Chamber for the continuation of the Committee stage. In fact, what I thought the noble Lord, Lord Warner, was most eloquently asking for was that the clause be taken away for reconsideration. He went on to say that that might be a good way to deal with the matter. We are in total accord with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and I therefore ask him to allow us to continue with that reconsideration.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who has put the matter eloquently and correctly. I am very much in favour of my noble friend’s wish to try to get some negotiation. As the noble Baroness said, many of us feel that that is the way forward.

This is a difficult issue. It is trying to get the balance right between, on the one hand, the accountability and responsibilities of the Secretary of State, and, on the other, the freedom of those managing the service to do so without interference. Many of us are trying to achieve that balance.

I should like to refer to the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, mentioned because I want to get it into Hansard. My noble friend urges us to consider three key factors in his letter and I quote the second one. He said that,

“we fulfil the policy intention that the Secretary of State should not be involved in the day to day operations of the NHS. Ministers should set the overall strategy, hold national arms-length bodies rigorously to account for their performance, and have the requisite power to intervene if the system is not operating effectively”.

Those are my views entirely.

I am now going to say something that I know is extremely unpopular in the Palace of Westminster: politicians are really neither loved nor trusted by the public to a great extent and I have to say also that they are seldom admired by those working in the NHS. There have been too many decisions that have been taken without any evidence to support them, resulting in very long delays in things such as reconfigurations. Those delays have jeopardised patient care. Reversals have been made at the last minute, ignoring well founded clinical advice from clinicians saying to us that the service is unsafe, yet the position of an inadequate, unsafe hospital or service continues because of political interference. That undermines the confidence of managers to manage.

I want to mention Kevin Barron, who is the Labour MP for Rother Valley—

[Baroness Thornton]

I do apologise to the noble Baroness, but I absolutely cannot resist asking her whether she thinks that the public love quangos more or less than politicians, since the intention is to put our National Health Service in the hands of an extremely large quango. So is it Andrew Lansley or David Nicholson?

[Baroness Cumberlege]

My Lords, I have not seen any evidence from MORI or any other polling organisation that has put that question to the public, so it is left in the air. I have seen the MORI poll that very recently showed that 88 per cent of people who were questioned said that doctors were the most trusted profession to tell the truth, whereas only 14 per cent thought that the truth was told by politicians. I think that is really sad—sad for democracy and sad when it comes to trying to build the confidence of people who are in charge of the National Health Service.

One real problem, which exists even if the same party is in power for a length of time, is a lack of a consistency of leadership. The Secretaries of State are here one minute and gone the next. Really successful organisations—I am thinking of schools, hospitals, companies—benefit from continuity in leadership. I read the other day that Sir Alex Ferguson has been in charge of Manchester United for 25 years. If we had had that inspiring leadership for a real length of time, I wonder what difference it might have made to the NHS. Since 1997 we have had seven Secretaries of State. Frank Dobson was in charge for 17 months. Alan Milburn, the longest serving Secretary of State, served for four and a half years and some might think that he was the most successful. At least he had time to draw up the NHS Plan, which made an impact on the service and he had time partially to implement it. John Reid—now the noble Lord, Lord Reid—Patricia Hewitt and Alan Johnson all served two years, and Andy Burnham less than a year.

Those of us who have served in government know, as Ministers, that you take up your post with enormous enthusiasm and unrealistic aspirations. You want to do things. Above all, you want to improve the NHS. You believe that you are in charge and that you can set policy. But, no, the first thing that happens is that you inherit the policies of your predecessor, which are not your policies that you know and love. They are not yours, but you do your very best to implement them. Then you have a chance to set your own policy but, before you have had time to implement it, you are off again. In the mean time, you are expected to make some very courageous, unpopular decisions about institutions that you may know very little about and about people whom you have rarely met. So how do you exercise judgment and build relationships when you are there for such a very short time, possibly just two years? That contributes to an NHS that gets confused and fed up and is mistrustful of its masters.

16:15

The NHS Confederation, the organisation representing chairs, non-executives and managers, has stated in its briefing for the Bill:

“Providing the Secretary of State’s overall accountability is clear”—

on which your Lordships are working at the moment—

“we strongly support these clauses as they should discourage unnecessary micro-management of the system. For example, political interference on previous decisions to reconfigure services has in some instances led to significant delays in the process which can only damage patient care”.

Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I followed this up and asked the confederation for some examples. Many of us know them: Chase Farm, the south London reconfiguration and a number of others. The noble Baroness, Lady Wall, who is in her place, is the chair of Chase Farm. After years of dithering and of advice that it was an unsafe place to be treated, she has now almost resolved the problems, and I am delighted.

The response from the confederation was: “How many examples do you want? We have so many and they cross all three political parties”. I can quote examples where herculean efforts have borne fruit in that the public, staff, clinicians, the media and others involved have agreed to a change in service only to find that the party-political systems have overturned those decisions, in one instance—and I know it well because I was a regional chair at the time—overnight.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will say to me—because we have had similar debates to this in the past—that individual MPs who are rightly concerned about local facilities and may not agree with the decisions that are being taken will represent their views not only to the NHS Commissioning Board, which will be their right, but also to the Secretary of State and Ministers. That is part of the democratic process and, quite rightly, Clause 4 does not stop that happening. But what Clause 4 does is give the Secretary of State an opportunity to exercise his duty to promote autonomy and resist the temptation to meddle in and micromanage the NHS when he feels it appropriate so far as it is consistent with the interests of the health service.

In my early days, when I was working in the NHS, I felt that there was much more trust in governing boards. To be honest, I do not think that the calibre of members was any higher at that time than it is now, but when people asked the Department of Health to intervene, the stock answer was always: “This is a local matter”. Knowing that there was confidence in our judgment made a huge difference to us in reaching decisions and implementing them, and to our willingness to take a bit of a risk and innovate.

It was no accident that the White Paper setting out the philosophy for the Bill was called Liberating the NHS. We should not be timid in allowing liberation: indeed, I think we should encourage it. I am confident that when we have worked through these issues on the Secretary of State’s accountability, as suggested by my noble friend, that will come into place and be much clearer. However, I am concerned that in negotiations we do not lose the spirit that is in Clause 4, and that we protect the NHS from the whims and wishes of politicians to meddle, micromanage and maul the NHS to its undoubted detriment.

I am, therefore, seeking an assurance from my noble friend that he will safeguard the spirit of liberation that is contained in this and related clauses. When he negotiates with noble Lords in seeking an agreement on the Secretary of State’s powers of intervention, I hope he will hold on to this very important principle: to allow managers to manage and to ensure that, although the democratic process takes place, we have enough safeguards to enable those who are really determined to make and implement decisions to do so. We must ensure that they will be much more free to put into place what they know is right on the ground, and that we do not lose that spirit.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the first thing I want to say in the light of the Minister’s comments a moment ago is that of course I read his letter dated 7 November to my noble friend Lady Thornton, which was copied to a number of us. I think the Minister deserves considerable credit for it. I have no doubt at all that the letter was written in total good faith and was totally sincere. The Minister is trying to see if a compromise is possible: whether there is something that would be an improvement both to the existing text of the Bill and to the various amendments that have been put down. It is a creditable initiative on his part. I have tried in the past as a Minister myself to do things in that direction and I do not think the Minister should be penalised for that in any way.

Equally, as he said himself, the Minister does not want to inhibit the freedom of debate in any way this afternoon. It is very important that we express our views, because they can be taken into account when those informal consultations subsequently take place. If in fact his aim can be achieved and we can get something that we can all agree to, everybody should be happy. That is because we will be content that the Bill will be improved and the Government will find that they have a much easier ride on Report and Third Reading. If there is an agreed solution to this and other problems, I trust that the whole thing will go through Report and Third Reading like a dose of salts. Everybody could be satisfied with that outcome.

This group of amendments includes a clause stand part debate, and this clause raises two very important issues. First, I do not think that micromanagement is ever a good idea. You cannot run a business on that basis; when running a business you must appoint the best people you can find and let them get on with the job. It is exactly the same thing in respect of the armed services. Micromanagement is always a mistake in running or managing any human institution. That pretty much goes without saying.

The problem is that good management sometimes needs the ability to intervene very rapidly in a crisis, when things are going wrong. You cannot allow yourself—if you are going to have a well managed organisation—to be inhibited by bureaucratic procedures or rules from taking the necessary action to make sure that things are set right on the front line. That is probably more important for the NHS than any other human institution I can think of, because, literally, the activities of the NHS are a matter of life and death. Of course, that happens to be true of the armed services as well, but there are not many institutions of which that is true. The general principle is there.

My first point is that many of us are worried that, if the Bill is passed, there will be insufficient ability by the Secretary of State to take that necessary action, perhaps very dramatically, in a crisis. That is a matter of deep concern. There is of course—and I hope I do not offend either the noble Earl or others on the other side of the House by saying this; they know this perfectly well—a real concern out there in the public that the reason why the Bill has been drafted this way and why the Secretary of State’s powers have appeared to have been, or some people feel they are being, emasculated, and the reason why autonomy is being emphasised, is that the Government think there is going to be a crisis in the NHS. The Government are not going to be funding the NHS at the same rate as the last Government did.

I accept that a lot of the money that we spent was not spent with enormously good value and probably too much was spent on paying more for inputs—perhaps excessive pay rises—rather than buying new outputs. A lot was spent on bureaucracy. Nevertheless, the bulk of it was spent immensely usefully. It was an incredible achievement to get maximum waiting times down from 18 months to 18 weeks. There is a general feeling out there that that progress is not going to be sustained and that this Government are not going to be committed to funding the NHS in the same way. They are trying to make savings of £15 billion to £20 billion, we hear. There is going to be a crisis and some nasty news coming through; hospitals are going to be closed and so forth. At that point, the Secretary of State is going to be able to turn round, because of the effect of this Bill if it becomes an Act, and say, “Don’t talk to me—it’s not my responsibility. Go and talk to the national Commissioning Board or your local clinical commissioning group. Go and talk to anybody. Don’t talk to me”.

We have that already. I am a total supporter of the independence of the Bank of England. I refused to vote with my then party, the Tory party, when it opposed that independence. However, an inevitable consequence of making the Bank of England independent is that when we have questions here on monetary matters, the Minister who is responding—quite normally and naturally—says, “Don’t talk to me about it, go and talk to the governor or the Monetary Policy Committee. Don’t talk to me”. We do not want that situation to arise in relation to the NHS. That is the issue raised by this particular clause.

Secondly, I do not think that micromanagement or political management is actually the real problem in the NHS. I am sure there has been unfortunate political intervention and interference over the history of the NHS, and there is no doubt that is the case, but that is not the real problem. The actual, fatal tendency of the NHS—the besetting sin, if I can use a theological concept—is something quite different. Its fatal tendency is bureaucratic or producer capture: the tendency of any organisation that is in a monopolistic position to be run for the convenience and in the interests of those who are providing the service, whether doctors, nurses, managers or whatever. That is the problem we should really be addressing.

However, I am awfully afraid that the way this clause is drafted at present, far from acting as a barrier or corrective to that unfortunate tendency, may actually reinforce it. The text we have before us says that any person,

“exercising functions in relation to the health service”—

must be,

“free to exercise those functions or provide those services in the manner that it considers most appropriate”.

That seems almost an invitation to bureaucratic or producer capture.

I am not actually sure, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Warner—whose knowledge in this area I greatly admire—that his amendment fully addresses that. The amendment says,

“leave out ‘manner that it considers most appropriate’ and insert ‘interests of the health service’”.

That is a little ambiguous—the interests of the health service could indeed be what I define as the producer interest of the health service. I would much rather that it said “in the interests of the patient”, or “according to the principles of the NHS”. That would be clearer and would address the point that I am making.

Something needs to be done to redress the balance against this fatal tendency for the NHS to be run in the interests of producers, where the patient simply sits in line and then is grateful for what he or she receives. That is a culture we want to oppose and against which we must introduce long-term, structural, corrective mechanisms. That is a vital task for anybody framing a Bill to manage the future of the NHS.

16:30

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister points out, the autonomy clauses are to form part of the Government’s discussions with other noble Lords about the Secretary of State’s duties. These clauses are of considerable significance. In my judgment, Clause 4, relating to the Secretary of State’s duty, and the new Section 13F, relating to the Commissioning Board, threaten the Secretary of State’s primary duty to secure provision of services, however that is ultimately worded after discussions are concluded.

In principle, promoting autonomy is to be welcomed; so is avoiding micromanagement within the NHS, as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege so eloquently pointed out in her speech. One of the best features of this Bill is that it establishes a well-defined decentralised structure in which decisions about arranging and commissioning services are made at a local level in accordance with local needs and conditions. However, as the Government have recognised, it is also essential that final responsibility, both for the quality of the health service and for the very large sums of taxpayers' money spent in providing it, should rest with the Secretary of State, and that he or she should be accountable not only to Parliament for the exercise of that responsibility but answerable in the courts for failure to exercise it in accordance with the law.

I will say a few words now about how the difficulty arises in drafting provisions that strike the right balance between decentralisation and the Secretary of State’s ultimate responsibility. As we all know, under Section 1(2) of the National Health Act 2006, the Secretary of State had a primary duty to,

“provide or secure the provision of services”.

That was underpinned by a direct duty under Section 3 to provide a list of specific services such as hospital accommodation. That duty was in turn supplemented and buttressed by powers under Sections 7 and 8 to delegate and give directions to other NHS bodies. So there was under the 2006 legislation a simple linear structure down from the Secretary of State. Under the Bill, the position is more complex, because under Clause 10 the Section 3 duty to provide the specific services is devolved to the clinical commissioning groups, and the general powers to delegate and give directions are removed. That is why it is challenging to provide for an overarching duty on the Secretary of State to secure the provision of services under Clause 1, and to provide for the exercise of all his other functions to that end. It is that challenge that is principally to be the subject of discussions.

If the Secretary of State is bound by a duty to promote autonomy, as proposed in Clause 4, the force of his duty to secure provision of services is weakened, because his failure to intervene in any given case would be very difficult to challenge on judicial review, except in an extreme case. Generally, the Secretary of State could respond to any challenge regarding a failure to act on his part by claiming in his defence that he was declining to act pursuant to his duty to promote autonomy. It does not help that the Secretary of State would only be bound to promote autonomy,

“so far as is consistent with the interests of the health service”,

in the context of any such challenge. That is because the arbiter of what those interests were would be the Secretary of State himself. A court would not substitute its own view of the interests of the health service for his unless it was satisfied that his view was irrational; and that is too high a bar. It follows, in my view, that there is an inconsistency between the proposed duties to promote autonomy and fulfilment of the Secretary of State's overall responsibility, however it is to be expressed.

The problem with proposed new Section 13F is that it is proposed that the board, with regard to its autonomy provision, be similarly bound to promote the autonomy of the commissioning bodies and others. So the board can argue that it should decline to intervene with the commissioning bodies in accordance with its duty to promote autonomy. That could be relevant if the board were challenged by judicial review on its failure to exercise its intervention powers or, alternatively, relevant if the Secretary of State wished to exercise his powers in respect of the board on the board's failure to intervene where the Secretary of State thought that the board ought to intervene. Thus, while it is desirable— and I entirely agree that it is—for the chain of responsibility to allow plenty of slack as a general rule, when the chain needs to be tightened in the event of failure or threatened failure, the danger is that the chain will be found to be weak in two important links.

I look forward to the discussions to be held with my noble friend the Minister and pay tribute to his and his department’s willingness to hold those discussions on a cross-party basis. I hope that we will see some way as to how this conundrum may be resolved, to retain a strong legal chain of responsibility without encouraging or permitting micromanagement of the bodies in the NHS, to which powers are rightly to be devolved. If we find a solution, that in itself will do a great deal to assist in the confidence that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege rightly points out is lacking among the public and the NHS in the political process.

I add only this. In my view, these two clauses could simply be deleted without doing any violence to the purposes of the Bill. That is because the principles of decentralisation and autonomy and the avoidance of micromanagement are defined and limited by the Secretary of State’s powers woven into the very structure of the Bill and into the way in which the bodies relate to each other under the provisions of the Bill. I suggest that these clauses merely serve to muddy the waters.

[Lord Mawhinney]

I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, pointed to me when he talked about making a theological point about a besetting sin. Because I was going to compliment him and say how pleased I was that he did so, I will happily share that endorsement with the right reverend Prelate.

The noble Lord also made an extremely important point, and around that point I want to speak for a few minutes, with the House’s indulgence. His second point was right; the problem with the health service is bureaucracy—it is not anti-liberation or shackles, but systems and procedures and a pressure coming from all sides that nobody should rock the boat. I listened to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, and I shall come back in more detail in a moment on what she said, but I suspect that I cannot be the only one in this House to think that, for every case where outsiders did not like some political intervention, outsiders, including patients, did not like the lack of intervention from inside the health service.

On the whole, my experience of over 30 years at both ends of this Corridor has not been that patients come to me and say that the problem with the health service is the politicians. They more frequently say that the problem with the health service is the management or, as we discussed the other day, the doctors who will not admit when they have got something wrong, or the nurses who simply do not provide even the most basic care for the elderly in today’s health service. So the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, did us a favour when he pointed out that bureaucratic point.

I remain extremely grateful to the Minister for the willingness that he expressed the other day to take away Clauses 1 and 4. Those in the House for that debate will know that it was a widely held view across all the Chamber—and the Minister not only agreed to do it but did it with a tone and spirit that was widely admired. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her contribution in support of that. I would not want anything that I or others say to make my noble friend feel as though the House was reneging on the request made to him to take Clauses 1 and 4 away, which he showed a willingness to do. My contribution to this particular debate is to suggest a few of the things that he might like to think about when he does so which may need to be clarified, resolved or excised, so that when we get back to this on Report he will have a much smoother run—one which I and I suspect other noble Lords hope that he will be able to enjoy.

When the noble Lord, Lord Warner, made his comments, I intervened to say that he is not the only one in the House who thought what he thought. I was referring to a very pertinent phrase which he used. He said that he was not clear whether the purpose of Clause 4 was for the Secretary of State to be engaging or disengaging. I think that is part of the problem of the drafting of this clause. Those of us with some knowledge of the health service are still unclear whether this is meant to help the Secretary of State engage or disengage.

That takes me to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. She and I served happily together in the department. We conspired for the common good on many an occasion, both in public and over a cup of coffee in our offices. She knows it to be true that there are few people in the health service who I hold in higher regard for a lifetime of work. But I am going to add a “but”. On this occasion, while I admired the tenacious adherence to what she read as the spirit of this clause, most of the rest of what she said left me wondering exactly where she was trying to go. Nobody is claiming that democracy is a clean and simple process. It can be messy. Part of my noble friend’s argument was that Ministers were not to be trusted and that it would be much better to hand it over to the professionals. I respect my noble friend for that view but I do not think it carries a lot of weight. I, too, read the NHS Confederation’s paper. In fact, I have it with me. Every time I read what it said on Clause 4, I thought to myself, “There is just the chance, Brian, that you are giving these people more credit than they deserve”. Perhaps this is a politically incorrect thing to say, but I was reminded just a smidgen of Mandy Rice–Davies in the sense of, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”.

The problem with this debate is that you have the masses of the health service with their procedures and bureaucracy intermingled with outstanding professionals who, I know from my experience, feel as frustrated with their colleagues as sometimes Ministers feel with the bureaucrats. On the other hand, you have this messy democratic process that occasionally shifts Ministers. Listening to my noble friend, you would be amazed by the claim that the NHS is the envy of the world. I think it is only the envy of the world in certain aspects and that there are other aspects where the world thinks it can do a better job than the NHS. The health service is right up there competitively but given the history of the past 40 years, in which Ministers have played a leading role, it is hard to envisage the outcome that my noble friend talked about. Therefore, I have to say to her that I had a real problem with what she was trying to convey to the Committee. If you do not have democracy, you do not have any public accountability.

16:45

[Baroness Cumberlege]

Does my noble friend agree, however, that when I was putting forward the case, I said that we would not negate democracy but that this was a method whereby we could give the Secretary of State more discretion when he wished to interfere—or, rather, not to interfere but to let local people run the service? As a manager, I know that if you are going to achieve things you have to win the hearts as well as the minds of the people who are running the service. I sense that my noble friend is trying to ensure that I will be isolated in these arguments. When I proposed this, I said to your Lordships that I knew that the line I was taking would be unpopular in the Palace of Westminster. Of course it is, because the House is full of politicians. However, I would like to explain to my noble friend that it is not just my view.

Kevin Barron, the Labour MP for Rother Valley, who is a previous chairman of the Health Select Committee, told his colleagues—this was at the Labour Party conference, which understandably I was not at but I read the report—that he recalled looking at statistics for the east of England, some years ago, which were worse than for the rest of the country. The region had retained more local units, which corresponded with marginal constituencies and he said that it was his belief that health experts’ advice, rather than party politics, should determine how and where facilities were provided.

In addition, Paul Corrigan, adviser to No. 10 when Tony Blair was Prime Minister, said that “the public want accountability”—we agree with that—“but are not very keen on the fact that the responsibility lies with elected politicians, who they do not altogether trust”. I serve on a lot of committees, have been on a lot of platforms and have talked to a lot of people over the years in the National Health Service. The question that is often put to me is, “Can you not depoliticise the NHS?”, because it is seen as a very real problem. I accept that we cannot, with this democratic process that we are in, but, as I was saying, there is a balance to be struck. At the moment, unless we have something similar to Clause 4, I cannot see that balance being achieved.

[Lord Mawhinney]

I am grateful to my noble friend. The answer to her question is no. No, I was not trying to isolate or misrepresent her and no, you cannot run a publicly accountable health service without politicians—and without politicians being in charge. In her first speech, my noble friend prayed in aid the tendency of politicians to micromanage. There is one noble Lord in this House—who I will not name, for reasons that will become obvious very soon—who came to me when I was party chairman. He wanted to micromanage politically the hospital in his constituency. He was shown the door pretty quickly by me, precisely because that is not the sort of micromanagement that even politicians want to buy into, much less the medical profession, the nursing profession and all those who work in the health service. That is not micromanagement; that is pure political interference for self-interest.

I am not at all clear what micromanagement really is. Occasionally, as my noble friend pointed out, decisions are so difficult and tricky that they take quite a lot of time. I invite her to cast her mind back to those heady days when we shared Richmond House.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

That sounds very suggestive, my Lords.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was right to refer to besetting sins behind me.

[Lord Mawhinney]

Moving on, I remind my noble friend of the times we sat with a cup of coffee and a private secretary or two—just to make her feel better—and we wrestled over some fairly difficult and complex issues. Either she or I would say, “We need a bit more information about that”, the civil servant would say, “Yes, Minister”, and in due course, when diaries permitted, we would sit down again with a bit more information. That can be said to be good ministerial governance—or it could be said to be politically motivated delay when others in the health service knew better, and if only we had got out of the way they would have done what they wanted, but they would do what those in power at the time happened to want, ignoring the contrary views of those who did not happen to hold the management positions at that moment.

I want my noble friend to accept that I still hold her in as high regard as I did before this debate started, but we part company fairly fundamentally on the issue of the accountability on a spend of £128 billion a year. As I said in an earlier debate—I have expressed this privately to the Minister, and my noble friend had the grace to say that he understood—my difficulty is that if you are spending £128 billion of public money, the public whose money are spending are simply not going to say when big problems arise, “Well, that’s okay, we’ll listen to him or her because he or she is chairman of a quango”—even a quango as highly thought of as my noble friend no doubt hopes the national Commissioning Board will be.

There is no debate in this House about the fact that the Secretary of State must be held accountable by Parliament. My noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames made the point, which has to be right, that the Secretary of State must also be held accountable by the courts. However, the Secretary of State also needs to be held accountable by the public and the patients, who have not had a huge showing in our debates thus far. I have concerns about this clause because I am not at all clear how the Secretary of State is going to satisfy X billion people by putting in £128 billion that he is accountable to them for if they are absolutely determined that they want him to be accountable to them.

To help the Minister when he takes this clause away and thinks about it, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that I was not convinced by the amendment. I am happy that he has made that part of his contribution to the review that my noble friend will conduct, but I hope that he does not press it to a vote because I for one would not be able to support it.

There are parts of the clause that the Minister really needs to look at, such as the phrasing in new Section 1C(a):

“any … person exercising functions … or providing services … is free to exercise those functions or provide those services in the manner that it considers most appropriate”.

From that, I am not clear—I do not necessarily want the Minister to tell me this today, but I ask him to think about this—at what point these actions start to become health service policy in their own right. We quote precedent in here. If someone takes an action because they think it is right in the circumstances, does that become a policy or a guideline? Where does the Secretary of State play any role in developing a policy for the NHS?

New Section 1C(b) goes on to say,

“unnecessary burdens are not imposed”.

I have to say to my noble friend that I do not understand what that means. Who decides whether it is a burden? Who decides whether the burden is unnecessary, and where can you challenge the decision whether a burden is a burden and when it becomes unnecessary? It is okay if you consider your action to be the most appropriate in the circumstances. My party occasionally gets criticised for being inclined to being a bit too individualistic, but you cannot run a health service in which everybody can make the decision that they think is most appropriate in the circumstances without a well defined political framework within which they would be expected to act.

I will tell my noble friend something that I have said to him in private but do not mind sharing in public. I spent 26 years at the other end of the Corridor. In all that time I never once voted against my party. Some in this House will see that as wimpish and craven, and some will see it as a fine expression of loyalty. Frankly, I do not mind how you see it. It is how I see it that is important to me.

I have not done a Committee stage of a Bill since I left the Cabinet in 1997, so I want Members of your Lordships’ House to understand that I am not having much fun in these Committee sittings. This is not something that comes naturally to me, and I have tried to reassure my noble friend that my participation in these debates is because of my commitment to the health service and my desire that it should be as excellent as possible. This is for the sake of my former constituents, who are patients. In that spirit, I hope my noble friend will take away Clauses 1 and 4 and think about them again.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord on his speech and say that we hope to see him every day of this Committee.

[Baroness Murphy]

My Lords, could I try to cheer up the Committee? We are getting very gloomy about this topic. To me, this is one of the most important clauses in the Bill and we must support it. I hope that we can reassure colleagues on the opposition Benches that there is no intention, as far as I can see, to withdraw any accountability, which we have discussed at great length. Nor is there any intention to interfere with the ability of the Secretary of State to intervene when necessary. It is clearly written in the Bill that the Secretary of State has a mandate and a multi-year setting of objectives, but he has to stay clear of interfering until something is really at crisis point, is going wrong or is urgent. There is plenty of opportunity for him to interfere.

I want to intervene because we have gone into the stratosphere with ideological and constitutional issues. We have certainly talked about political interference, and I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, about this. As a senior manager, I have a little list of Ministers around this Chamber who I can tell noble Lords did or did not interfere. I am delighted to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was one of the least interfering of Ministers. Others around this Committee must wait for my judgment elsewhere.

17:00

However, we are forgetting the impact of the status quo on patients and their care. For me, this is the most important clause because it underpins the move away from the strangulation of the management chain from the centre to every part of the service, down to the healthcare assistant, towards a devolved, regulated system. What is more—and this is, I have to say, very irritating—this has been the intention of all Governments for the past 20 years. It was very strongly pushed by the Opposition when they were the Labour Government, and reducing this micromanagement has remained a key policy. I will tell the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, what micromanagement is because I have often experienced it.

Clause 4 is being called a hands-off clause but, as I have said, the mandate that is given over a multi-year period, with annually refreshed objectives, gives the Secretary of State a great deal of freedom to determine which policy objectives will be given priority. If the Secretary of State wants to interfere, he must come to Parliament to change that mandate and justify his reasons, but he can still do so.

The key role of autonomy will be given teeth—not just the autonomy of the Secretary of State and various bodies such as the national Commissioning Board and the foundation trusts, but that of the clinical commissioning groups. This goes all the way down through the system. To be described as autonomous, an NHS body must be responsible for strategic management, procurement, financial management, human resource management and administration. By strategic management I refer to defining the overall mission of the service or hospital, setting the broad strategic goals, managing the service or hospital’s assets and bearing ultimate responsibility for the hospital’s operational policies.

In the past few decades many countries have adopted various styles and degrees of autonomy, often giving autonomy to providers and to local purchasers and commissioners in public health systems. In countries as diverse as Thailand, New Zealand, Singapore and Spain, there have been a number of successful initiatives. In particular, I point to Catalonia, where, over the past 20 years, the public health system has been devolved to local commissioning organisations allied to the local authorities. This has freed providers from the predations of central government, which has had an enormously beneficial effect on the quality and efficiency of the public hospital system.

Let us look at the UK and the imposition of what the central chain of command does. It manifests itself in performance targets. Targets are always popular—they are brilliant and, what is more, the NHS always meets them. It may take some time but, usually, if you tell the NHS to manage something and hit a target, eventually it will get there. In practice, a project board forms. Some hospitals have as many as 500 projects going on at the same time. That was the number that was found by one consulting agency. It found an enormous number projects under way to deliver these targets, often with external consultant help from the centre or the assistance of external consultants such as the big five. It can be demonstrated very easily that when a project is going on it is possible to reduce admissions, for example, by 60 per cent, with positive effects on cost, quality of outcomes, follow-up and discharges. It is possible to reduce the proportion of beds occupied by patients who are medically fit for discharge by 25 per cent to 30 per cent and so on.

[Baroness Thornton]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I am listening carefully to her because she has great experience. Is she not talking about transferring the setting of targets, projects or whatever from the responsibility of Andrew Lansley as Secretary of State to Sir David Nicholson as head of the NHS Commissioning Board? If the problem, as she sees it, is the setting of too many targets and projects—although I do not know what that has to do with Clause 4— I am not sure what safeguards there are to stop that from happening anyway.

[Baroness Murphy]

Perhaps I may respond. It is a direct result of that chain of command that goes from the Secretary of State, to Ministers, to Sir David Nicholson and to everyone inside the Department of Health. It is a direct result of the impact on the management system.

[Baroness Thornton]

My point to the noble Baroness is that I do not believe that it will change.

[Baroness Murphy]

I am sorry but I think it is the direct result of Clause 4. I shall continue my theme, if I may.

It is vital that we do not get lost in the impact of what the setting of targets does to the management structure. If the Government set goals and we have key performance targets, at the moment hospitals, services and local commissioners have no responsibility for their strategic direction or goals. I talk as someone who has been a strategic health authority chairman and I know exactly what micromanagement of health authorities and trusts means. I will come on to foundation trusts and why it has not worked entirely with them.

The targets are passed down through commissioning organisations without any understanding of the capacity to deliver. No sooner has one directive been issued than another set of politically interesting goals arrives as an additional directive—without removing the first. All this has no connection to how healthcare is delivered at the front line to patients and it creates a sort of parallel universe of management that never really touches operational patient care.

In mental health services, the care programme approach was an absolutely classic example of something that was implemented without any thought being given to how the service was really delivered and it therefore took 10 years to put in place. In successful businesses, managers focus their time and attention on operational realities—on how to help staff solve problems and improve day-to-day operational performance. This is the front-line machine that implements management decisions. However, in the NHS, managers are not interested in the front line. At every level, they focus upwards to the next level and, as a health authority chairman, I was pretty horrified to find that at least 25 per cent to 30 per cent of my CEO’s time was taken up at meetings and other activities, to which we referred as “feeding the beast” of the Department of Health or of Ministers. I understand that in many trusts some 50 per cent of this time is taken up with managing the centre.

The preoccupation with satisfying the centre leaves front-line staff—unsupported and often demoralised—to cope with broken systems, unless they have a substitute in a charismatic clinician who leads them instead. That is why high-flying specialist units work exceptionally well and why everyday bog-standard services are often a disgrace. That is why meeting targets is often a game. Data are manipulated and money is diverted from one front line to another to achieve a target temporarily until the Minister’s attention is diverted to the next enthusiasm.

The four-hour waiting time target at A&E is a very good example. This was an admirable target—some would say it was not tough enough—but it was achieved only with horrendous diversion of funds from other front-line areas and a reordering of clinical priorities, but with no real change in hospital behaviours or any understanding by staff as to why they were doing it. Metrics for the purpose of compliance are almost always different from those that one would wish to collect to understand and improve patient care pathways. A&E services targets were achieved at the cost of diverting increasing numbers of patients into medical assessment units and we have ended up with an 11.8 per cent increase in emergency admissions and vast numbers of patents being admitted from A&E who would not previously have been admitted—all in the interests of reducing a particular target, but without any fundamental change in the way that hospitals are run.

That is what this autonomy clause is meant to assist—we seem to me to be forgetting that. We must have organisations within the health service which set their own objectives, manage them properly and start concentrating on the front line of patient care. There is ample accountability in the Bill to ensure this along with the proper regulatory system. I know that autonomy can lead to machismo behaviour and that it can go wrong. We do need tough regulation, but we need tough light-touch regulation, with a mandate that has been agreed beforehand. With that, we will see that this autonomy clause is utterly vital to the way that we should be developing the health service.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I wonder whether I may contribute. It is perhaps rather rash of me as it will be obvious that I have not been here all of the time, partly because I had not anticipated that we would have such a lengthy debate after the agreement that I thought we had reached on Clauses 1 and 4.

It is perhaps appropriate that I should intervene, not least because I am the third former Conservative Health Minister to speak in the debate. I ought to make it clear to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege that it is 2:1 to my noble friend Lord Mawhinney, as indeed I made clear to her in a more private conversation yesterday. Nevertheless, I am unhappy to find myself disagreeing with her, and also, for the second time in two days, disagreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. However, the fact is that I do disagree with them.

I cannot claim the record of my noble friend Lord Mawhinney of not having spoken against the Government since 1997. My record is much more sinful. I agree with every word that he said. I shall say that, rather than repeat it all. The problem with micromanagement is that what it means is to some extent dependent on the perception of the trouble that it is causing. Picking up the report published today, is it micromanagement for the Secretary of State to say that it is unacceptable to be leaving patients screaming all night, not to give them water, not to make sure that they are getting a proper diet and not to look after them or clean up for them? That could all be micromanagement, but the public will not regard it as micromanagement. They will say, “This is the NHS. You are responsible for the NHS. Get something done about it”.

At the core of this is a point that my noble friend made and I made in different terms much earlier in our discussions. The notion that the Secretary of State can wash his hands of certain things is for the birds. Two of us here have been Ministers for Health and others in the Chamber have also had that position. If things went badly enough wrong, the Secretary of State could not go to the Dispatch Box and say, “Nothing to do with me, guv. Go and ask the Commissioning Board. Go and ask Monitor”. It is nonsense, and we need to recognise that.

17:15

[Lord Darzi of Denham]

My Lords, I enter the debate speaking as a professional working in the health service, but also as someone who has had the opportunity and privilege of serving in government. I might know something, therefore, about the accountability of driving quality and improvements. I also had to learn fairly quickly about the accountability in this democracy and the accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, put it very clearly, about the expenditure of the health service.

I will use the example of a piece of work that I had the privilege of leading. Many noble Lords in the Chamber helped me through it. It was a review of the London healthcare services, called Healthcare for London: A Framework for Action. I led this piece of work with 150 clinicians, in addition to 100 Londoners—members of the public and also patients. The work took place in 2006, after a formidable amount of expenditure and growth in the expenditure of the NHS. As someone who worked and lived in London, looking at the quality of some of these services, the case for change was quite striking. Thirty-one organisations in London were providing stroke services but none of them was meeting the international guidelines and standards for stroke services. One-third of our primary care providers were single-handed and patient satisfaction was well below the national average.

I will put inequality in health on one side, but there are inequalities in healthcare not far from this building. If you take the Underground from Westminster to Canning Town, you will find that life expectancy there is about eight years worse. Those were striking issues that had to be dealt with. The question is who deals with that important issue—the accountability for quality in improving and changing services. That was a fairly long, democratic process. It had very important principles. It had to be clinically led, locally owned and evidence-based. We made a strong pledge: if change is to happen, an alternative needs to be described to the local population and patients before such change happens.

A year later, a significant amount of public consultation ended in an agreement to drive those fairly radical changes in a city that is competitive globally, whether considering its financial services, its scientific output or its universities. That was 10 years after another review by my noble friend Lord Turnberg in the same city, trying to address the same challenges facing us back in 1996-97.

I could not agree more about accountability. I say that having had the privilege of serving in government. Ultimately, accountability has to rest with the Secretary of State. It is important to recognise that. However, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to a degree. I will mention the K factor. I am not sure how many noble Lords have heard of the K factor. It was well before “The X Factor” was invented. The K factor refers to Kidderminster, where something interesting happened. There was a significant change in a little hospital, for which the whole driver was quality and improvement in facing the challenges of that local health economy. A local MP lost his seat and was replaced for a decade in the other House by a retired physician, who is no longer there. The K factor created a huge amount of sensitivity within the political world—in all political parties in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, was a brave man to throw out the person who came to challenge him about that reconfiguration. I was not the Secretary of State; I was the most junior Minister; I was starting on the learning curve and I wanted to be the most junior Minister in the department. I cannot remember a single week in which I was not lobbied about a change. It was never written; it was all mentioned over cups of tea.

There is a challenge. On the one hand, the Secretary of State needs to be accountable—I could not agree more about that—but at the same time the Secretary of State must have regard to evidence, if independently proved by groups of professionals, to make change happen. There must be a clear red dividing line between what I call the politics of saving votes and the politics of saving lives. There is a fine line between the two. One deals with accountability to the public purse and expenditure; one deals with accountability for quality. I have seen Secretaries of State who have had the leadership and strength to balance those two. I do not believe that such balancing could be written into legislation. It requires political leadership and political strength to make some of those tough decisions.

Change is happening all around us. Scientific discoveries have meant that life expectancy has increased by about 10 years since the creation of the NHS. We should not contaminate that with our own local agendas. It is unfortunate that even up to now our consumers—our patients—have not been empowered with the knowledge that I and other noble Lords in this House have of what is good and what is not good. Transparency is extremely important. I see evidence of that being reinforced by the Bill that I had the privilege of taking through in the past. Transparency is one way of getting the balance right between the politics of saving lives and the politics of saving votes.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, I want to say only a few words. I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that members of the public do not trust their Members of Parliament. Unfortunately, there have been a few problems, but surely we have moved on from there. I have just been to a meeting with about 20 Members of Parliament of all parties, who are supporting their constituents over the children’s heart surgery unit in Leeds. They trust their Members of Parliament more than they trust the people doing the review.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I hesitate to join in this debate, because it has been fascinating and wide ranging, and I hesitate particularly to come in after the noble Lord, Lord Darzi of Denham. However, I would like to pull out two factors which are important here.

First of all, there are inherent tensions. Fears have already been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in particular. One of the fears is whether we will have a National Health Service or a national health insurance, which will actually be an insurance programme. Those who belong to a GP and are part of a clinical commissioning group will then access those services which that clinical commissioning group determines to commission, irrespective of who the provider is, and there will actually no longer be a National Health Service.

That is linked to autonomy, because the worry in this clause—the second anxiety—is where the boundaries of that autonomy lie. This clause does not seem to stipulate any boundaries to the autonomy at all, nor indeed, whose autonomy overrules another’s. Will it be the Commissioning Board, or the clinical commissioning groups? Where is the hierarchy? Health services are actually a spectrum. You cannot divide the actions of one from another, because they have a knock-on effect. A clear and very simple example is that delayed diagnosis in primary care results in later presentation and more expenditure in secondary care, but more importantly, in poorer outcomes for the patient, who has effectively been withheld from accessing expertise for too long.

Behind all that is a worry, because general practice per se is not an NHS employed service. GPs are individual contractors whose general medical services contract is remarkably poorly defined. It may be that the autonomy of the Commissioning Board will allow it to define very clearly what is in general medical services and what is out. The whole concept of GMS suffered hugely when the 24-hour responsibility went and out-of-hours services came in. That fragmented, to a large extent, what GPs did.

It is completely mistaken to believe that liberating the NHS depends on these clauses in the Bill. I have my name to one of the amendments to delete one of the clauses, but I do not see, from the debate that we have had today, how deleting the clauses will stop the changes to liberate the NHS that everybody has been arguing for.

Unfortunately for patients—and the NHS service is there for patients—the NHS has indeed become risk averse in a culture where the managers have become frightened, for whatever reason, of speaking out, and of taking patient-oriented decisions, and have often put pressure on clinicians to not do what they have wanted to do. I fear that behind that, too, there has been peer pressure and a mistaken view that it is unprofessional to show that you care. There has been a view that, if you step out from the local culture to do what is right for the patient, even though it may not be right for the service or the system, that can result in severe disciplinary action against an individual. We see the extreme of that with people who whistleblow and speak out for services. However, I do not think that any of that will be affected whether the autonomy clauses are in or out of the Bill.

In the past, I have argued with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that the NHS should not be a political football and that there should be some distance between political interference and the way that the service is delivered on the ground. However, I must admit that I had never imagined that we might be discussing what could potentially be complete fragmentation of the service.

I should like to run through some of the boundaries that I think are very important in discussing this matter, and I know that we will be debating this further in relation to the role of the Secretary of State. Like others in the Committee, I commend the Minister for the way in which he handled the debate on Clause 1 and for his very positive approach to the discussions that we all need to have on these clauses at the beginning of the Bill.

Do the people with the autonomy have the skills and capabilities to exercise that autonomy, and how will those skills and capabilities be measured? How will autonomy interact, when you are trying to drive forward collaboration and integration and trying to drive performance management, with a decent level of services and consistency to improve quality if one part of the system decides, for whatever reason, that it does not want to provide a particular service or part of it? Will there be a requirement on these autonomous bodies to publish the evidence of their performance, or would such a request be deemed to be burdensome and to be impeding their autonomy?

I was particularly struck by a line in the impact assessment, which states that the reforms will create,

“a statutory basis for the NHS Commissioning Board and consortia, to protect them from interference in commissioning decisions at both a local and national level. To ensure their autonomy, both board and consortia remain solely responsible for their commissioning decisions, and neither are obligated to gain approval from local councils or health and wellbeing boards”.

In other words, the K factor would not be able to function.

In the past, I have understood the concept of earned autonomy, where the power and ability to take decisions at a more local level come when there is proof that quality has been driven up. However, I fear that these clauses will not do that, and they may just give unfettered autonomy to organisations which may be ill equipped to cope with the range of responsibilities that will suddenly be thrust upon them.

[Baroness Tonge]

My Lords, I intend to be very brief because we have already had a long debate, but I am bursting to say something. We have heard very erudite and learned speeches, not least from my noble friend Lord Marks, who put the situation very clearly. However, I am a simple soul. I told your Lordships at Second Reading that I was a barefoot doctor trying to protect patients and my staff from the ravages of health service reorganisation, and I want to try to tell the Committee briefly how they see the combination of these two clauses.

If Clause 4 were adopted, that could lead to different sorts of health services all over the country. Provision would not be equal throughout the country and people would not like that. On the other hand, if Clause 1 were amended after discussion to make sure that the Secretary of State had a duty to provide certain services, that would rule out Clause 4—there would no longer be autonomy because, as I understand it, the Secretary of State would be able to say, “No, you must provide this tariff of services”.

17:30

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, pointed out this afternoon—it was a long time ago now—that Clauses 1 and 4 do not affect just each other. They affect other clauses in the Bill, such as Clauses 17 and 20. An awful lot in this Bill is affected and it all interacts. That leads me of course to say: will the Government please go home, do a bit more homework, look through this Bill and take out all the clauses that are interdependent and cannot be decided until another one has been decided—in other words, start all over again? I fear that this Committee stage is going to degenerate into a sort of mad hatter’s tea party and we shall end up with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, taking off his wrist-watch and putting it in his glass of water.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this has been an important and thoughtful debate which I am sure will inform the discussions which the noble Earl is about to embark upon with colleagues across the House. I rise to speak to Amendment 38 on a much narrower point. In the spirit of that amendment I will undertake not to impose any burden on the Committee in terms of taking a disproportionate amount of time to deal with it. The amendment refers to paragraph (b) of new Section 1C, which the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, also referred to in what I thought was a masterly and devastating critique of Clause 4 as a whole.

The amendment would replace “unnecessary” with “disproportionate” in terms of the relief of burdens on organisations within the framework of the health service. The noble Lord is quite right to say that “unnecessary burdens” could mean anything. He might think that “disproportionate burdens” could also mean almost anything, but at least it gives a sense of direction which would be more acceptable to your Lordships. The Government as a whole are somewhat obsessed with burdens in the belief that almost any duty—whether in terms of employment law or other issues, notional concerns about health and safety or even human rights legislation—is deemed to be somehow a dreadful burden. What is a burden to one set of people may be a perfectly reasonable duty in the eyes of others. In this particularly sensitive context of a key public service affecting everybody in the country as a patient or potential patient, it seems necessary to err on the side of caution when setting out a stall which could lead to great difficulty in any sensible degree of regulation. Of course one can overprescribe regulation. One can also underprescribe it. As it stands the clause appears to err very much in the direction of the latter. I hope therefore that the Government will look again at the drafting of the clause and that some move can be made in the direction set out in Amendment 38 in my name and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet]

My Lords, I had not intended to participate in the debate because I did not arrive until it had started, but I have been here a long time now and want to share with people how it feels on the ground. What the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said is absolutely true. I do not envy the noble Earl because I think that the analysis that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, gave is exactly how it feels. There is that dilemma. The noble Baroness congratulated us on now having a decision from the Secretary of State. We do, but the decision is bound up in another clause, which brings about another kind of action that we must take. It has not removed anything; it has just given us another dilemma and delay in what we must do.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, that I only wish that everybody in his position did what he did. Though I have five years of experience, I am not medically qualified; I am just somebody who cares about the people that I have responsibility for as the chair. My experience from those years was often of political interference. I ask noble Lords to forgive me for being emotive about this, but it is absolutely true. We had consultation for many years, authorised by the independent review body. The Secretary of State at the time, Alan Johnson, said, “Whatever the review body says, we will go with it”. That was perfect. Then we had a hold-up and a change of government. The new Secretary of State, Andrew Lansley, then came to our trust and said, “This isn’t going to happen. We want people on the ground to be able to say, ‘Yes, if I want this service, I can have it here, and, yes, if I want my baby here, I can have the baby here’”. Both those services were questionable in terms of their clinical reliability. They were not unsafe, because we would not be doing it otherwise, but certainly questionable. And so we started all over again.

A year later, we have gone through not a consultation but the four tests, where the clinical members of the local authority team went through the same process as was involved in the previous consultation—is it clinically safe or is it not? It took a year or so for the Secretary of State to come back with another response to that. That was another stall until, just a matter of weeks ago, we received a letter from the Secretary of State addressed to the local authority—because it had put the case to him—which said, “Yes, I think that the BEH strategy should go ahead, but, actually, I think that you should consider other things as well”. Those things cut right through the BEH strategy.

Local MPs are very open about the fact that they have interceded and expressed their views. They are very proud to say, “I’ve spoken to Andrew about this and I’m not going to have that”. This goes on all the time—I am not sure that this is inappropriate language to use in this House I ask your Lordships to forgive me if I am saying things that I should not; I am just trying to tell noble Lords what it feels like as somebody who is working in the health service on behalf of patients. That is how it feels. I do not know whether political interference by the Secretary of State, as I see it, can be removed by having the national Commissioning Board make the decisions, because my view would be that MPs will always go to whoever can make an intervention in Parliament. That goes for MPs from all parties; it is not about the present Government.

I do not envy the noble Earl in the decisions that he has to make about this, but the view of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, is very much attuned to what I see in reality. There is a dilemma; there is that interference. But, on the other hand, there are major decisions that have to be made that can be made only by the Secretary of State in the sense of his or her national perspective. I have no words of wisdom, but I have a lot of feelings. Please can we get this right?

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I have added my name to those opposing Clause 4. We have had a very good debate, to which my noble friends Lord Darzi and Lady Wall have brought an element of reality. However, their remarks do not take us from the point of wondering whether this is the right clause in terms of autonomy. They have both succeeded in pointing to the problem that exists, and I am not sure that the Bill solves it.

Autonomy, from the ancient Greek, means,

“one who gives oneself their own law … In medicine, respect for the autonomy of patients is an important goal … though it can conflict with a competing ethical principle, namely beneficence”.

It might be thought that a health and social care Bill would reflect the second part of the above definition—culled, I have to say, from Wikipedia—given the concern for the interests and dignity of patients. However, such is not the case. Clause 4 seeks to insert a new section into the National Health Service Act 2006 under the rubric: “The Secretary of State’s duty as to promoting autonomy”. The clause requires the Secretary of State when exercising functions in relation to the health service, so far they are consistent with the interests of the health service—not, it may be noted, in the interests of patients—to act with a view to securing certain things that the clause then goes on to list.

I had a discussion about this clause with the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, yesterday or the day before. I say to her that the fact that we both seem to have completely different views of what this clause seeks to do actually tells us something about it and its drafting. We totally disagree about what we think this clause seeks to achieve. That alone should make us think that perhaps we need to go back to look at this clause.

Clause 4 places upon the Secretary of State a duty to promote autonomy, as we have said. We feel that this clause is part of the general shift of the Bill to denude the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, because—viewed alongside of the removal of the Secretary of State’s current powers under Section 8 of the 2006 Act to give directions to PCTs and SHAs—it significantly dilutes the Secretary of State’s powers to influence the provision of health services. Independent legal advice from Stephen Cragg QC, for example, commented on the consequences of Clause 4:

“If the Secretary of State attempts to use his or her powers to impose requirements on commissioning consortia, for example, then there could well be a judicial review challenge from a consortium which opposed the requirements on the basis that they infringed the principle of autonomy in the new Section 1C and could not be justified as necessary or essential. This approach replaces the, more or less, unfettered power that the Secretary of State has to make directions currently to be found in Section 8 of the NHS Act 2006 with a duty not to interfere unless essential to do so”.

The emphasis on autonomy links to the change in the role of the Secretary of State, as was explained wonderfully and adequately by the noble Lord, Lord Marks.

Since the founding of the NHS, the Secretary of State has always had powers of direction and intervention over NHS bodies, which enabled him or her to control the system. While some providers such as foundation trusts could be given earned autonomy—as was referred to by other noble Lords—the Secretary of State retained control through commissioning and the nature of contracts with foundation trusts.

This is a very important clause, and nothing that has been said in this debate makes me think that I was wrong to put my name on behalf of these Benches to the Question relating to clause standing part of the Bill. I appreciate that we will be having a broad discussion of these matters along with Clauses 10 and 1 but, unless the Minister has something very significant to say about how he sees this clause evolving, I absolutely have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that this can come out of the Bill because of all the other powers that remain in it, which we will look at in due course.

Finally, I thank the Minister for his letter to me, which was circulated around the House. I thank him and his staff and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and her colleagues for the fact that we are finding a way forward to having a discussion which I hope and trust will bear fruit.

17:45

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I, too, think this has been a very valuable debate and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to it. I do mean that. Ministers always like to hear support, and I have had some of that today, but at the same time no self-respecting Minister would wish to brush aside the kinds of concerns that have been voiced this afternoon about the effect of this clause. I certainly do not wish to do that; hence my offer to engage in discussions with those noble Lords whose concerned voices have been heard.

Following the consensus that we reached at last week’s Committee session on that proposal, I express the hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment at the end of this debate and that we will use the time between now and Report to reflect on the concerns that we have heard expressed about Clause 4—and, indeed, on Clause 1 last week. I recall from discussions in the Chamber on 2 November that the Committee had little appetite to hear me dwell on Clause 1 or the amendments to it. I am therefore going to keep my remarks brief. However, I hope that the Committee will find it helpful if I provide a bit of context to this clause.

As I said at Second Reading, our proposals for the NHS involve a fundamental shift in the balance of power away from politicians and on to patients themselves, as well as to doctors and other health professionals. This is not an abdication or divestment of power by politicians but a shift. I think that we all agree that empowering front-line organisations offers enormous potential to unleash innovation and to drive up the efficiency and quality of services. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, to my mind, said it all. That is why the Bill retains the key powers that the Secretary of State needs in order to remain properly accountable but removes his current sweeping powers to delegate and give directions to other bodies.

Instead, the Bill sets out roles and responsibilities in primary legislation that local commissioning will be carried out by clinical commissioning groups—with their own distinct statutory duties, set by Parliament—rather than by PCTs acting under the direction of the Minister of the day. Ministers will have specific but extensive powers to set requirements for commissioners, in particular through the mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board and through regulations known as standing rules. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, observed, I am sure that we will give some thought to the impact of the autonomy duty when, in future Committee sessions, we debate the clauses that give the Secretary of State these powers.

However, there is a clear need for Ministers to have sufficient flexibility to respond to changing circumstances in the health service. Given that, there is very little limit on what or how many objectives or requirements the Secretary of State can impose. That leaves open the risk that a Government—or indeed the board, which has an equivalent duty at Clause 20—could introduce process targets or burdensome rules that inappropriately interfere with front-line clinical decision-making. That is the last thing anyone wants. To my mind, this makes it vital to have some kind of countervailing force to establish the principle that Ministers should use their powers carefully. We believe that the autonomy duty provides this important safeguard, enabling organisations to act in the best interests of patients, free from the risk that Ministers or the board revert to a command-and-control style in order to achieve their objectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, put the point very well.

The duty is therefore an important symbol of the shift of power that the Bill seeks to achieve. I agree with my noble friend Lord Marks that the autonomy duty must be subsidiary to the general duties of the Secretary of State, including, in particular, his duties under Clause 1 of the Bill to promote a comprehensive health service and to exercise his functions so as to secure the provision of services. Although we believe that the duty of autonomy would not inhibit the Secretary of State in exercising his overarching powers and duties as set out in Clause 1, I recognise, as I say, that there are concerns about legal clarity. I therefore welcome the prospect of further discussions with my noble friend and other noble Lords outside this Chamber as to how we might put this matter beyond doubt.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting during the Minister’s conclusion but I hope this will be helpful. I want to explore whether he can just help me by describing what he sees as the scope of these discussions, in terms of the clauses to be discussed. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, pointed out for example in his very helpful intervention when he made passing reference to it, the proposed new Section 13F of the 2006 Act, at Clause 20 in the Bill, is very relevant. It may be helpful to the House to know that the Constitution Committee was invited to look at this again. We have met since the last day of Committee and have agreed to look again at Clauses 1, 4, 10 and 20 precisely because of that interrelated matter. Could the Minister help us on that?

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. As she has indicated, there is certainly a read-across from Clause 4 into Clause 20, and I readily accept the suggestion that we should factor in issues that emerge from Clause 10.

I am clear that a successful process will be one that can take account of views from all political parties and the Cross Benches. As well as hearing in full from those Peers, many of whom have put their names to amendments and have become particular experts on this issue, there is also an implicit legal perspective to this and I believe that an important building block will be to engage with the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House and other legal experts in this House on these points. To start that dialogue, I propose to meet next week with a number of noble Lords, if they are willing, to explore the process for going forward. Following that, I will write again to all Peers setting out the proposed process in more detail. I hope that that is helpful.

I have very clear answers for the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Warner, and other noble Lords to the concerns that they have raised. However, for the reasons that I have set out, if they will bear with me, I shall refrain now from providing a detailed commentary on the amendments in this group. I hope that, with the prospect of future discussions that will factor in the valuable points in this debate, the noble Lord will feel able, for the time being, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, there is a film showing in local cinemas called “We Need to Talk About Kevin”; I think that this excellent debate has shown that we do indeed need to talk about Clause 4. I do not intend to comment on all the excellent contributions that have been made. I just want to say two things in conclusion.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has provided an excellent forensic analysis of what is wrong with this clause. My personal view is that he has holed this clause below the water-line. I hope that the Minister, in conducting these cross-party discussions, will really keep in the front of his mind the easy solution that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has helpfully given to the Committee, which is that we simply drop the clause.

Secondly, I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that I do not disagree with her about many of the issues that she raised. However, if she is really concerned about reducing political interference in decisions on service reconfiguration, I would direct her towards Amendment 304 in the names of myself, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. There is room for another name on that amendment, which will indeed actually reduce political interference in this area. So I commend it to her. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

Amendment 38 not moved.

Clause 4 agreed.

Clause 5 : The Secretary of State’s duty as to research

Amendment 39

Moved by

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

39: Clause 5, page 3, line 16, leave out “have regard to the need to”

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

My Lords, if I may, I will say to your Lordships’ Committee that this group of amendments is about Kevin. It is also about Kate. This is perhaps the first time that we have had an opportunity to look at a group of amendments that will have an immediate and direct effect on the patients and patient outcomes. In moving Amendment 39, I will also speak to Amendment 41 standing in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Warner.

I should say from the outset that I am extremely supportive of other amendments in this group from noble Lords. Indeed, the fact that noble Lords from every quarter of the House recognised the importance of research and wanted to support this group of amendments demonstrates the real commitment that there is in seeing research at the centre of the new National Health Service.

I listened to the previous debate, and much of the debate on Clause 1, and so far a great deal of the debate has been about structures. Not one piece of empirical evidence has been brought forward that demonstrates that the proposed structures, either now or in previous health Bills, have been there with evidence that they will improve the service. On what we are about to discuss now, there is a mass of empirical evidence to demonstrate that putting research at the centre of the National Health Service will improve patient care and outcomes—and that, if I may respectfully say so, is really what this Bill should be addressing. How do we make things better for our patients and how do we give clinicians the very skills, tools, drugs and procedures that they need to make it better?

Your Lordships received this week a lovely bound book by the British Heart Foundation entitled 50 Years at the Heart of Health. Throughout it there are a number of very interesting statistics. One that I draw to noble Lords’ attention is fact number 24. It says that in 1961 somebody died from cardiovascular disease in the UK every 98 seconds; in 2009, it was every 174 seconds. The reason for that dramatic change was twofold: first, the clinicians dealing with those patients; and, secondly, the research they had at their disposal to make the treatments more effective. We celebrate the fact that we ended up with a significant drop of some 78 per cent in outcomes of deaths, but the reality is that far too many patients still die of cardiovascular disease, and we need the research and new techniques to be able to deal with this.

At the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, an experimental new treatment using gene therapies to help prevent the onset of blindness is in its early stage of clinical trials. The use of gene therapies and of genomics and bioinformatics will make a radical difference to how we deal with our patients in future, offering them if not personalised healthcare at least far more targeted support for whatever disease they have.

Other noble Lords will speak from great professional and personal depth about the use of research and its importance. I declare two interests: first, my belief that training the workforce in giving access to research is the best way in which to improve patient outcomes—and I think noble Lords would agree with that; and, secondly, I chair the Association of Medical Research Charities, whose 127 member charities contribute more than £1 billion a year to medical research, some 30 per cent of all expenditure in this area.

We see daily the results of good clinical practice and research, but we also see the challenges that lie ahead. Of course, the UK starts from a very strong position. We are simply—and again there is clear evidence to support this—the most productive health research nation on earth when you judge the dollar input against research success. That fact was confirmed just last month by the global research report from Thomson Reuters. What we do not do nearly well enough is bring research to clinical practice quickly enough or exploit our advantage vigorously enough. To deal with that we require a quantum change in the regulatory framework and we need to use our NHS patient database far more effectively, which is why I am delighted that Amendment 40A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, who I will call my noble friend, begins the debate about how we use the National Health Service database much more effectively.

18:00

Patients want to be involved in trials and they want the NHS to be involved. In June 2010 the Association of Medical Research Charities commissioned MORI to ask people whether they wanted their local NHS to be encouraged or required to support research. Ninety-three per cent said yes. The National Institute for Medical Research in its work with INVOLVE got exactly the same results when asking patient groups whether they wanted to be involved. The public have a thirst to be involved in research and we need to take that up.

To be fair we ought also to congratulate the work that went on under the previous Government. The National Institute for Health Research, led by Professor Sally Davies, and the work that has been done since the Cooksey report on identifying NHS research resources and how to apply them has given us a huge start. We have recognised where the resources are. We know what the capabilities are. It is now a matter of using them. I welcome the fact that, for the first time in the history of the National Health Service, the Secretary of State will have a duty to promote research, as will the NHS Commissioning Board, the clinical commissioning groups and Public Health England. That is a huge step forward in putting research at the centre of the national health.

I welcome, too, and recognise the importance of the changes that have come to this Bill. The fact that none of these things was in it when it began its journey and yet, following the review, we now see that research is in the Bill is something to build on and to commend the Minister and the Secretary of State for.

The amendments that we are discussing today are probing, but they are the beginning of a process to elicit from the Minister how the duty of the Secretary of State will actually be carried out, because having a duty without defining that duty is a hollow gesture. What will be the extent of it? How will it be assessed, and who will assess it? How and to whom will it be reported? Crucially, how the culture of an organisation that is to see ever greater levels of devolution will retain the ability to require a research culture at the heart of everything it does is quite frankly beyond me, and we are looking for the Minister to explain how that will happen. These amendments seek to explore how far the research duty of the Secretary of State will compel him to lead the embedding of research across the National Health Service and public health systems at a national level.

Amendment 39 seeks to leave out the words,

“have regard to the need to”.

They are totally unnecessary. The Bill should say simply, “The Secretary of State must promote”. That is a clear definition, a clear statement of intent. Perhaps the Minister will explain the meaning of the words. Surely if this new duty is to have real meaning, the words,

“have regard to the need to”,

must be removed. Can the Minister provide more clarity on how this duty requires the Secretary of State to act to promote research and to use research evidence across the NHS? What powers will the Secretary of State have to make often overburdened clinicians, chief executives and governors put research at the heart of their own trusts, GP practices and commissioning groups? How will this duty extend to those who are private-sector or third-sector contractors? If a great deal of our services are to be delivered outside what we regard as the normal NHS structures, how will these people be encouraged to put research rather than profit or pure service delivery at the heart of their practices, or will it apply only to those organisations delivering NHS services within the NHS?

Can the Minister provide more clarity on the extent of the Secretary of State’s duty to promote research and the use of research evidence contained in the very strange phrase,

“research on matters relevant to the health service”?

What does that actually mean? The phrase is incredibly broad. Virtually every aspect of health and social care that impacts on the treatment of patients could come within this responsibility. Surely that is not what is meant. Can the Minister provide further clarity on the research captured by this definition and reassure us that this will incorporate all research supported by the health service for the purpose of protecting the public in England from disease or other dangers to health?

Amendment 41 seeks to make the duty of using research in the field of public health more explicit by adding,

“research supported by the health service for the purpose of protecting the public in England from disease or other dangers to health”.

This amendment begins to explore for the first time the duty of the Secretary of State to protect the public from pandemics or other national health threats. If there has been a devolution of those responsibilities to other boards, where does the Secretary of State’s power begin and end, and what is his duty to ensure that there is adequate research in order to prevent those pandemics affecting the public as they have done in the past? It also begs the question of whether, if the Secretary of State is to lead and embed a culture change whereby no health research should fall outside his responsibility, this should include research in public health. Without rerunning the past debates about duties, I fully recognise that the Secretary of State will need responsible officers to help him perform or carry out his duties.

Can my noble friend explain who will be the executive officer responsible to the Secretary of State for research in the NHS and in Public Health England? In a recent Answer to a Written Question I put down the Minister said:

“It is not expected that Public Health England will, itself, directly hold funds to commission research … the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) will continue to take responsibility for the commissioning of public health research”.—[Official Report, 7/11/11; col. WA 20-21.]

But how will the NIHR, now to be wholly subsumed into the national Commissioning Board, carry out that function? Will the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Sally Davies, retain the equivalent of her current responsibilities as head of the National Institute for Medical Research, and by definition her responsibility for NHS research, or will that go to Sir David Nicholson as chief executive of the new national Commissioning Board? And what will happen to the £1 billion currently allocated and ring-fenced to NHS research, currently within Sally Davies’s budget and the NIHR? I ask this because there is an obvious concern that the Nicholson challenge to save £20 billion in four years could seriously affect NHS research if, in fact, it were deemed to be part of the pot led by Sir David Nicholson within the board. What guarantee can the Minister give that current research budgets in the National Health Service will be protected? We have those guarantees within the research councils, particularly the Medical Research Council. We need to have exactly that same guarantee within the Department of Health.

I recognise, as I hope most people in the House do, the fantastic commitment we have seen through the CSR both for the Medical Research Council and the NIHR. We have seen the commitment to the new Crick centre in terms of basic and translational research. We can do nothing other than welcome the direction of travel of the Minister and the Secretary of State. This is not a carping set of questions; it is a genuine attempt to find answers. I do not expect my noble friend to have all the answers today. This is a probing set of amendments that seek to start a debate about the duties of the Secretary of State towards health.

I hope that by the time we finish this preliminary skirmish about research we will be a little bit clearer. It would be extremely helpful if the Committee could have an organigram, or at least some diagrammatic form, of where the responsibilities will actually lie so that we know what the research landscape will be. That would help us to concentrate our minds on finding productive solutions. I beg to move.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I warmly support this group of amendments, so ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. The questions which he has posed to the Minister are of considerable importance. I do not propose to repeat them, but I look forward to hearing the answers.

In my professional lifetime, there is no doubt at all that research has transformed the practice of medicine. Research is the lifeblood of medicine. After all, antibiotics have been effective in depleting very many of the infectious diseases which I knew as a young doctor. Programmes of vaccination and inoculation have been successful in banishing smallpox from the world and, in the near future, it is probable that poliomyelitis will become a disease of yesterday as well—it is likely that there will be no such cases in the world in future. The conditions of childhood which so ravished children when I was a young doctor, such as diphtheria, scarlet fever and, to an extent, measles and German measles have been successfully controlled by vaccination. In particular, in relation to rubella or German measles, that programme has prevented the birth of children with many birth defects which resulted from infection with that virus in pregnant women.

There is no doubt, too, that the developments in diagnostic techniques, imaging, computerised tomography and other techniques, such as magnetic resonance imaging and so on, have transformed diagnosis. So, too, have many other techniques which have been introduced into medicine in the course of the last few years. Now, many painful and devastating operations have been prevented by interventional radiology, whereby under X-ray control, for example, in people with heart disease the passage of catheters into the coronary arteries can deal with that disease, even though in some cases there is a need for open-heart surgery. I could go on: there is hip replacement and joint replacement of all kinds, or the use of steroids in the management of autoimmune diseases. These have transformed the progress of medicine and, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, today's discovery in basic medical science brings tomorrow's development in patient care. This is a lesson which we all have to recognise. That is called translational research; you translate the result of the basic research in the laboratory, or basic clinical research, into effective treatment of disease.

All of these things are happening all around us and, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, the evidence is clear that when one looks at research citations and publications in learned journals, for instance, there are many more published in the United States but, if you translate those citations according to population this country, the United Kingdom, in its research productivity in the field of medicine, stands the highest in the world. Yet obstacles and problems which have been encountered over the years have to be overcome.

Fifteen years ago, on behalf of your Lordships’ Select Committee on Science and Technology, I chaired a sub-committee inquiry into research in the NHS. From its very beginning, the National Health Service provided limited funds for research purposes and there was a locally operated clinical research scheme. It was helpful in that it helped many young doctors and medical scientists to take their first steps in research by receiving small grants to help them to conduct such investigations, but the actual amount of money expended in that way and the results of this research were very limited.

18:15

The outcome of the inquiry which I chaired was that the Culyer report followed, presented by the Government, and when my report was debated in your Lordships' House the Government of the day committed 1.5 per cent of the total expenditure of the NHS to research. Since that day, in fact, it has risen slowly from 0.7 per cent to 0.8 and 0.9 per cent, and has stuck at that figure. Nevertheless, as the actual costs of the NHS have escalated, so the money becoming available from that background has increased substantially and it is this that has led to the establishment of the National Institute for Health Research which, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, is so ably chaired by Dame Sally Davies, who is also the Government’s Chief Medical Officer.

We must not of course forget the contributions that have been made by the Medical Research Council. I was involved with the MRC for 16 years and was on the council for four years, and so got to learn a good deal about its productivity. It had a series of priorities, many of which related to the incidence of disease in the community in which it promoted research. Fundamentally, however, it looked to support research in the universities and in research institutes which were often orientated to specific problems.

Alongside that, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, we must not overlook the contributions of research charities such as the Wellcome Trust, the Cancer Research Campaign and very many more, with many of which I have been specifically involved. They have made a tremendous contribution and, as I have often said in teaching medical students and young doctors, not only does research nurture patient care development but the resultant research has meant that although there are still many incurable diseases in medicine, there is none which cannot have its effects modified to a greater or lesser extent by pharmacological, physical and psychological means. These have made a major contribution and I have to pay tribute to the work of the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom which, despite problems which it has encountered, nevertheless in my view remains the jewel in Britain's industrial crown.

These are crucially important issues, but why is research in the NHS so specifically important? It is because the availability of excellent records and very well defined populations has meant that, for instance, in epidemiological research and in research into the effects of drugs as tested in clinical trials the NHS has been a wonderful source for such activities. In the course of the last few years, however, clinical trials have been prejudiced, not least by the complexity of requirements for ethical approval—particularly in the case of multicentre trials, where a whole series of different organisations have been required to give ethical approval. There has also been a more recent problem from the European Union directive on clinical trials, which has to some extent had a difficult effect.

However, the recent report of the Academy of Medical Sciences on research governance and support—a review chaired most ably by Sir Michael Rawlins—has brought clarity and extraordinary new developments into this field. I am happy to say that the Minister and the Government appear to have recognised that this report is one of great importance and that, when implemented, as the Government propose, in a health research agency, which will be created as a new special health authority, it should streamline the process of research in the United Kingdom and make clinical trials very much easier to carry out.

Leaving aside clinical trials, though, NHS research involves other activities such as operational research, research into how health procedures can be carried out, research into their effectiveness and a whole series of research activities that have a sociological context—looking at the care of the elderly, for instance, or the development of new drugs and management mechanisms for dementia. I was delighted that recently a major grant from the Department of Health went to the Institute for Ageing and Health in Newcastle, in which I have personal interest and which is one of the most outstanding research depots in the world, examining the effects of ageing upon the human population and bringing up ideas to overcome some of its most devastating effects.

So, developments are happening. I seek support in principle from the Minister for the amendments, which are intended to put flesh on the bone. Clause 5—strengthened, I hope, by Amendment 39, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Willis—is actually all right so far as it goes, but it is crucial in my opinion that there should be more detail. I would also like an assurance from the Minister that when the National Institute for Health Research is absorbed into the National Commissioning Board, as it will be, its funding, based upon the Culyer and Cooksey reports of long ago, will be preserved and indeed ring-fenced. I support the amendments most warmly.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 40 and 42 in my name and those of other noble Lords. I also support Amendments 39, 40A, 41, 74, 89E and 199ZA in the names of other noble Lords and to many of which I have added my own name.

The noble Lord, Lord Willis, did us a great service in setting out the argument for strengthening these provisions regarding the Secretary of State’s duties on research. There is a bit of a conundrum, as he put it very well, about how a Secretary of State and indeed the NHS protects research and development in a devolved NHS. That is a difficult issue, and it is not good enough simply to have a general duty on the Secretary of State. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, says, we need more flesh on the bone that gives some comfort to the idea that the Secretary of State, whoever he or she is, will actually take an interest and pursue some other aspects around the duty of promoting R&D. It is difficult to see how that duty could be protected without some degree of capability to intervene and ensure that the NHS pulls its weight in co-operating with R&D.

I turn to Amendments 40 and 42 in my name. I speak from the background of having been for two years the Minister responsible for NHS R&D when we started the reforms of the structure of R&D in the Department of Health and the NHS to produce much more focus to the R&D programme, to streamline some of its approval processes and to improve the translation of research to clinical care—the so-called movement from the lab to the bedside.

I, too, pay tribute to the work done by Dame Sally Davies—she was just plain Sally Davies in those days—and the leadership and persistence that she has shown in this area. The ideas that we were putting forward then for a National Institute of Health Research, which to some extent was based on the NIH model in the US, were not uniformly welcomed, if I may put it that way, by everyone across the NHS. It was deemed to be a bit too interventionist in some of the activities that were going on in the name of research and development in some of the dusty corners of the NHS. We have come a long way in that period. That is the background from which I speak, because I am keen to ensure that we do not go backwards in this area as we devolve more autonomy to the NHS.

It is relevant that I was also a member of this House’s Science and Technology Committee, where I had the privilege of working on the inquiry into genomic medicine under the extremely skilful chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. That experience has convinced me that we need to feature R&D much more prominently in the Bill, particularly the issue of translating R&D findings into clinical practice that benefits NHS patients. That is what Amendment 40 attempts to do.

However, Amendment 40 goes further in two other aspects of successful development of research findings and their application in clinical practice: the back-up of information technology and the informatics skills, which are often inadequate to back up basic scientific discoveries. One of the things that the—in my view much maligned—national programme for IT did was to make it easier for researchers to access the very important patient database that the NHS provides for them, and it makes it easier for them to collect the kind of patient samples, if I may put it as crudely as that, that they need for their research. However, the genomic medicine report also showed that we have some serious problems in this country about informatics skills in carrying forward R&D in the health and life sciences area. That is why those parts of the back-up services get a special mention in Amendment 40.

I turn to Amendment 42. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, put his finger on it: if the NIHR disappears into the maw of the National Commissioning Board, how will its budget be protected? Will there not be a temptation, if times are hard, to dip into that pot and use it for operational matters such as the delivery of services? As a Minister and a civil servant who has worked in this field for many years, I can say that there is a great temptation when the going gets rough financially to—I shall put this as kindly as I can—reach into the pot of R&D, and indeed the pot of education and training, which we will be coming to later. I have watched people, who shall remain nameless, find themselves unable to resist that temptation. That is why I feel strongly that we should put something in the Bill along the lines of Amendment 42 to try to ensure good conduct.

Sometimes R&D is a bit slow in spending its budget. That is quite convenient if you are running into a bit of financial difficulty during the financial year. What happens is that money gets held back because of some pressing need and it will not really matter if we take a bit longer to get on with this bit of R&D. I assure the House that I have observed a Chancellor who managed to announce the same NHS R&D budget increase in two successive Budgets, and he was not spotted by anyone in the media. It is possible for some of this “peas under the pot” manoeuvring to take place. We are talking about political temptation, and Amendment 42 would provide some encouragement to resist it. The temptation to dip into R&D budgets is of course not confined to the NHS, but we have an opportunity with the Bill to ensure better behaviour in the NHS regarding R&D.

18:30

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 40A and 199ZA in my name. I also want to comment on some other amendments in this group. I speak as a one-time medical researcher, a trustee of a number of medical research charities, and as a scientific adviser to the Association of Medical Research Charities. In that I work closely with my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Willis.

Research, as we have heard, is not an optional extra. It cannot be added on to the NHS as and when someone thinks it is needed; it is a vital and integral part and it is good to see an acknowledgement of that in the Bill, even if it falls a little short of full endorsement. Research is no cottage industry, with more than £1 billion coming from the research charities every year and almost the same amount going in from each of the Medical Research Council and the NIHR. That is a total of around £3 billion a year. As for the Department of Health’s contribution of almost £1 billion, I want to say how much Dame Sally Davies's role in securing that is appreciated, as indeed is that of the noble Earl who has been a great ally. However, Amendment 42 raises the question of whether this funding is secure for the future.

I can only re-emphasise what the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Warner, have said. Even though research funding amounts to less than 1 per cent of the NHS budget—a pitifully small proportion in an organisation of this size—can we be reassured that it will not fall easy victim to the cuts we are going to see over the next few years? Is it really essential for this to be distributed through the Commissioning Board? Is it possible that it could come more directly via the Department of Health? I hope that the noble Earl will give us some comfort on this amendment. This is clearly of some importance and we almost certainly will have to come back to it at a later stage.

As we have heard, medical research in the United Kingdom punches way above its weight. By any measure, our outputs of research findings come high in any international league table and the fruits of our research are having a major impact on our health. We are living longer and healthier lives and one has only to look around your Lordships’ House to see evidence of that. I suspect that there are few of us who are not taking one or more pills, keeping us in fine fettle. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, the public at large is well aware of the benefits. According to a number of surveys, more than 90 per cent of patients and the public want us to do this research and, furthermore, want to be engaged in it as patients. They want this even if it does not benefit them directly but benefits only future generations. However, they also know that any patient who is part of a trial incidentally gets a better deal and better care as part of the research process.

They are enthusiastic supporters but that is not the only reason why we should be supporting research. There are considerable economic benefits too. The most recent of several studies that have shown this, Medical Research: What's it Worth? supported by the Rand Foundation and the Wellcome Trust, clearly showed that we gain between 35 and 40 per cent return per annum for every pound we put in. Although it takes several years for research done now to bear fruit—today it is coming from research done some years ago—the returns come from less sickness and absenteeism from work, greater productivity and less sickness benefit payments.

Research is a good thing all round and this Bill is a great opportunity to make sure we gain its full benefits. Amendment 39 emphasises the need for the Secretary of State to take his expressed desire to support research seriously and I strongly support that amendment. Amendment 199ZA, in my name, brings the same pressure on to the clinical commissioning groups and alters the wording in exactly the same way. It is at this level where I fear we have seen one of the biggest obstacles to promoting clinical research up to now. The same survey I mentioned earlier showing that patients are keen to be involved in research also showed that GPs by and large were antipathetic to and at best uninterested in research. Few GPs engage in research directly themselves, but that is not the main problem. It is their unhappiness at having to spare any time, for example, in seeking the approval of their patients for them even to be approached by researchers and asked for their consent.

Researchers have to ask patients for consent but can do so only if the GP asks the patients for them first, and they are not at all keen. They say that there is not enough time. Yet their role is critical, not only to facilitate clinical research performed by others but to be responsible, through the CCGs, for commissioning those extra support costs that arise when research, funded by charities, the MRC and so on, is carried out. Research on patients supported, for example, by the British Heart Foundation or Cancer Research UK, often results in additional costs due to extra visits or more routine blood tests. Traditionally these should be funded by the commissioners of services. This Bill provides just the opportunity we need to make sure that those at the coal face, responsible for commissioning, can facilitate and fund this research.

I hope the Minister will consider the need to accept this or a similar amendment and examine how we might provide the inducements necessary to GPs and CCGs. A failure of CCGs to take on responsibility for creating the right environment in which we can gain the full value of external funders will be damaging.

I come now to the difficult issue of the use of patient data. How can we make sure it is possible to use clinical information about patients for research purposes? New Section 14X, to be inserted by Clause 23, describes the duties of clinical commissioning groups to promote research and includes the need to promote the use of evidence obtained from research for improving the health service. That is very good, but it says nothing of the other way round; of how we can use patients’ data for research purposes. The amendment in my name, Amendment 199ZA, emphasises this point. The difficulty has been well rehearsed: how does one gain access to identifiable information about patients for research into their diseases while at the same time protecting their confidentiality and giving them all the reassurances that they need? It so happens that well over 90 per cent of patients are happy for information about them to be used for research, but the current system of safeguards goes well beyond the requirements of the Data Protection Act and is stifling much important research.

When data about patients are fully anonymised—a horrible word—and it is impossible for anyone including the researchers to identify a patient, then there is little or no trouble. However, when it is necessary for the researchers to know who the patients are, we get into problems. If, for instance, a researcher needed to use the cancer registry to look at whether patients with a given cancer were subject to some factors in their environment—for example, whether they lived near electricity pylons or some hazardous waste plant—then they would need to seek consent from each patient. But what if many have died in the mean time or are untraceable because they have moved away or gone abroad? It becomes impossible to do the research. The National Information Governance Board was set up for this purpose, but it is no more. I know that the Government intend to try to help with this now. I know that as a first step the patient information leaflet produced by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, explaining how data about them can be used, has gone out to GP practices in Scotland and soon will be sent out in England and the rest of the UK. That is an excellent start. The Clinical Practice Research Data Link has also been set up, but I wonder whether the Minister can say how far we have got with that? Will it achieve what is needed: the rapid access to data for researchers with the approval of patients? Meanwhile this amendment seeks to flush out the need to address this hurdle to some important research.

Amendment 41 brings up the important issue of funding for public health research. Here I speak as a former chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service, the forerunner of the Health Protection Agency, which is also disappearing. I cannot speak too highly of the marvellous work it did and does in protecting the public’s health. It is a fantastic organisation. It works on outbreaks of food poisoning, epidemics of flu and immunisation programmes against a whole host of infections, to say nothing of its work in radiological protection and on all sorts of biohazards. The point is that this organisation is at the forefront of its field and is the envy of the world because it is able to do fantastic world-leading research. It is highly dependent on a continuing research effort to keep ahead of the infections and other hazards that are continually evolving. It is vital that it continues to have access to research grant funds, particularly external grant income from the whole range of potential funders to which it has access now, such as the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and so on. I hope the noble Earl will reassure us on this. His Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, yesterday did not give any confidence that the Public Health Laboratory Service will be able to apply to external bodies for funding.

Then there are the directors of public health and their teams. They, too, should be enabled to conduct high-quality research. The amendment makes that clear. How will they receive the necessary support and encouragement when they transfer into the local authorities? It is not at all clear that local authorities are keyed into this, so some reassurance on this point would be helpful. Most of these amendments are probing—I think they all are—and seek simply to gain a greater understanding of the ways in which I hope the Government will support the research effort.

[Lord Ribeiro]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 40 and 42, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, are very much appreciated and welcomed. They reflect the Government’s acceptance of the importance of research and making this an express duty on the Secretary of State.

Some years ago, Professor Sackett made the medical profession aware of the term “evidence-based medicine”. I should like to think that we have all adopted it in our clinical practices over the years. As a surgeon, I speak from a surgical perspective. In the 18th century John Hunter was approached by Edward Jenner with his dilemma about children in Gloucestershire who were being afflicted by cowpox. He wrote to John Hunter, saying, “I’m thinking about doing something about this and would like to cure the children in this area with a vaccination made from cowpox”. John Hunter replied, “Don’t think about it, do the experiment”. We in surgery consider Hunter the father of scientific surgery but our problem is that we are, perhaps, not quite as cerebral as our physician colleagues. All they have to do is learn the discipline, acquire the knowledge and prescribe the tablets. On the other hand, we not only have to learn but must then apply our knowledge in carrying out the operation. There are two skills that we must acquire. For us poor surgeons, it is often a long sentence—spent not only in a laboratory but in the theatre, putting into practice what we have learnt.

Earlier, a noble Lord—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Warner—used the term “from the bedside to the bench”, which is very important. The whole concept behind translational research has been to get our trainees and doctors away from idea that all they have to do is stay in the lab, beavering away. It is about the patient. One of the things that surgeons try to do is take a problem from the bedside into the lab, apply stringent tests to it and then bring it back in the form of treatment, which might be by medication or an operative technique.

18:45

The problem for surgeons is that research and the assessment of research often lead to new innovations, treatments and operations, which have to be learnt. Time must be put aside for them to be learnt. Surgery has, in many ways, been the Cinderella of medical research. I say this with some feeling because of the NIHR budget of £1 billion, some of which goes to medical research, plus all the other funding that comes in from charitable causes. The share of the NIHR budget that goes to surgery is less than 2 per cent. Twelve million people a year are treated medically in this country. One-third of them will be exposed to surgery somewhere along the line. Yet look at the pittance of research money that goes to surgery.

I know that I will hear from my noble friends, as I am often rightly told by Dame Sally Davies, that you will not get anywhere unless you put the right papers and research in, and you get the quality of research that is published in Nature and Science. However, that has been a real problem for us. There have been many ways of assessing research. The research assessment exercise was a brilliant exercise in universities but it looked at the criteria of publication and scientific worth. Surgery is about patients and clinical research. In surgery, that has led to a reduction in academic surgical professorial posts from 30 to 15 in the past 10 years. The number of clinical academic posts has been reduced and, despite the wonderful work done by Sir Mark Wolpert in getting clinical academic posts, there are not enough. Many of our surgical trainees are not getting the training in research that they should have. Therefore, it is very important that surgery and all aspects of medical practice should be underpinned by an ethos of research.

I shall tell noble Lords one little story that perhaps explains some of the problems that can arise if you do not do this. I am sure noble Lords will recall, from the 1990s, a terrible scandal in the newspapers about a lady who had a laparoscopic operation and developed a major bowel complication. I think her name was Silverman. At that time there was a big newspaper campaign about the botched surgery that was undertaken by surgeons who were ill trained. The reason for this was that it happened at the time of the introduction of laparoscopic keyhole surgery. I am a general surgeon. Give me a knife and fork and I can operate, but to use a telescope with long, thin instruments while looking at a television screen you need hand-eye co-ordination. Nowadays all our kids are brought up on Playstations and so on. They can do it; it is not a problem. Go to any fairground in the country and you will see kids who could be surgeons. However, my generation had real difficulty in converting from open surgery, where you look at what you are doing, to operating through a television screen with your hands moving independently. Quite a few of those surgeons who tried to take on this new operation did not realise that they did not have the hand-eye co-ordination to do it. The net result was disasters and complications, and patients suffered.

As a direct result of the fallout from Silverman, the Government of the day—I am sorry to say they were the party on this side—agreed with the Department of Health to set up a national training programme. This was based at three centres in London, Leeds and Guildford. They set up the Minimal Access Therapy Training Units. The idea was to teach doctors—not just trainees but consultants as well—how to perform this operation properly, and for them to be properly scrutinised in doing so.

I am sorry that he is not in his seat, because the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, was our college’s first laparoscopic tutor. He was the person given the responsibility of rolling out this training programme. With some money and help from the department at the time, we were able to kick-start this programme, which has become a national programme whereby nearly every hospital has access through a regional network of some sort or another. I declare an interest, in that I am proud to say that I was president at the time when we opened our own much bigger minimal-skills training unit at the college. I have come from the college where we are running a military operative surgical training course in those facilities.

We are benefiting many people who need the practical skills to do surgery. Therefore, in answer to Amendment 42, which addresses funding, it is essential that the ring-fencing suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in the context of the NIHR is absolutely essential. We have a situation that I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Warner, remembers well—in fact he referred to it. In 2006, when I was president of the college, I remember quite a few of my pronouncements in the newspapers about my absolute horror that the training programme for junior doctors was being raided by the Department of Health. I am not sure if the noble Lord was there at the time.

[Lord Warner]

I think that I got out in time.

[Lord Ribeiro]

I rather suspected that the noble Lord did. That is why I felt able to make that reference. None the less, I launched a big campaign at the time because here was a budget—part of the NPEC budget—for nurses, doctors and so on that was being raided. It should have been a ring-fenced budget for training, yet the money was taken out of that budget to meet the NHS deficit. There is a real danger for the present Government if a situation should occur whereby the £1 billion budget—and there is no reason why it should be more than that—that has been set aside for research, particularly as the Secretary of State has taken responsibility to promote research, was found to come under the auspices of the chief executive of the NHS Commissioning Board, and that at times of trouble and trial that that money could be used.

I wanted to speak in line with what I said yesterday, although some noble Lords may doubt that I have spoken briefly. However, I speak in strong support of Amendments 40 and 42.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, my brief is brief—and I shall be brief. First, I congratulate the Government on putting the need to promote medical research at the centre stage of the Bill. We have criticised a lot of things and we may criticise some more, but the recognition that medical research is important to improve healthcare has been stated throughout the Bill.

It would be surprising if I said that I do not support these amendments—I support every one of them. By the way, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, that he was lucky that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, was not in his place when he said that surgeons do not do research. He might have given the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, a tour around his department.

[Lord Ribeiro]

I gave a historical perspective. We started research in the 18th century. We may not have done it as well as the physicians, but that is when we started.

[Lord Patel]

I should also tell the noble Lord that his laparoscopic training is also historical because robots are used now.

I have brief comments, but I shall focus particularly on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that refers to the need for informatics to be properly established to promote research in healthcare. One of the key areas in biomedical and clinical research in the UK is focused on translational research, as other noble Lords have said, to try to get research into clinical care.

Informatics plays a key role in our ability to do translational research. There are three domains of informatics in biomedical research—biomedical informatics, medical informatics and translational research informatics. Translational research informatics is about getting multidisciplinary research into clinical practice, with clinical trials being the first step to it. As we have heard, we have notable successes from our medical research into clinical translation. I say with hesitation that we think we are leaders in the world, but we are not quite the leaders—although we come pretty close. However, we can do better, and to do so we have to have what is required to promote research and its use into translation. Therefore, we will have to develop all three domains and incorporate what we already have—health information involving the medical records to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred, and the development of electronic medical records. I know that other amendments address that issue. We should also be able to carry out statistical analysis.

The noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Warner, referred to the rapid sequencing of the genome—whole-genome sequencing—that will impact on the whole of medicine. Recent rapid developments in DNA sequencing technologies have dramatically cut the cost and the time required to sequence a human genome to a point that it will soon be easier and cheaper to sequence each patient’s genome and keep it in their notes. Every time they are diagnosed with or treated for a disease, a genome will be used to extract information. By combining that with our advancing understanding of genes and diseases, whole-genome sequencing is set to change the current clinical and public health practice by enabling more accurate, sophisticated and cost-effective genome testing.

Understanding the health impact of individual genomic variance presents a considerable challenge for analysis, interpretation and management of data. Managing that data will require bioinformatics to be established. The NHS should urgently develop clinical bioinformatics expertise and infrastructure to ensure clinical technical support for medical analysis and interpretation of genomic data. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that includes informatics is crucial in identifying that. If we are to succeed in applying the results of our research to patient care, we need to establish all these issues.

I should briefly mention Amendment 74 in my name. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned research in public health, as did the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. My amendment relates to Clause 9 on,

“Duties as to improvement of public health”,

and the functions of local authorities and the Secretary of State as to improvement of public health. The amendment merely tries to,

“establish promotional research, and acting on research evidence into the causes of ill health”.

It is important that local authorities recognise that public health directors should be involved in research in the agenda that is being developed in the prevention of disease. Those are my brief comments.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

My Lords, I was really pleased to see Clause 5 extend the duties of the Secretary of State with regard to research and its use. Clause 5 is a necessary acknowledgement of the extremely important role of medical and scientific research in ensuring that we deliver high-quality healthcare. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, and other noble Lords have spelt out graphically the dependence of improvements in treatments on research.

In his response to questions raised at Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, repeated the Government’s assurance that a culture of research and innovation would be embedded in the structural changes to the NHS proposed in the Bill. It is a fine promise, but I am concerned as to whether the Bill in its current form is able to deliver this in practice. The lack of detail or clarity across the Bill about the role of and commitment to research in the reformed NHS has been noted by a number of noble Lords. For this reason, Clause 5 needs to be stronger and more explicit.

Embedding research across the complex NHS system requires proactive, top-down, leadership. Clause 5, as it currently stands, does not define how the Secretary of State would provide such leadership. Acknowledging that such research needs to be promoted stops short of an active commitment to promote research, or indeed of saying what that action would look like.

19:00

We need a clearer indication of the strength of the research duty on the Secretary of State. I therefore support the amendments to Clause 5 which are in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Willis, Lord Walton and Lord Warner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I applaud their call for more clarification of the extent of the Secretary of State’s duties towards research.

Amendment 40 takes an important step in explicitly introducing a responsibility on the Secretary of State to promote the development of research findings for clinical application in the health service, and to ensure that we develop the necessary information skills and technology to support this application. Developing an environment in the NHS where research findings are taken up in support of the development of clinical applications is vital if we are to integrate innovation genuinely into the fabric of the NHS. Only with this happening will we ensure that the best care is provided quickly to patients and that we have more cost-effective health services. Only by embedding a research culture in the NHS which is driven from the top will we continue to attract commercial investment and R&D into the UK.

As the Association of Medical Research Charities has observed, having one of the largest single healthcare systems in the world should offer us a unique strategic advantage in terms of resources for medical research and innovation. Yet we know that in practice the adoption and spread of innovation within the NHS can be slow and unsatisfactory. The innovation review being carried out by the NHS chief executive is exploring how we can accelerate the adoption and diffusion of innovations in the NHS, but I have no doubt that strong leadership from the Secretary of State will be required to support this.

I also strongly support Amendment 42 in its attempt to establish an explicit responsibility on the Secretary of State to safeguard the funding of research and its application to health services. This amendment seeks to clarify how the bodies within the new structure of the NHS—the clinical commissioning groups and the NHS Commissioning Board—will take responsibility for treatment costs currently incurred for patients taking part in research funded by the Government or by research charity partner organisations. These excess treatment costs are currently distributed via PCTs’ commissioning budgets, but the Department of Health has no enforcement powers to ensure these are paid. We need more clarity on how the CCGs will be supported to build expertise in this area.

In addition, the duties of the NHS Commissioning Board regarding research are unclear. I believe it is necessary to toughen up the board’s commitment to promote research, rather than require it merely to,

“have regard to the need”,

to promote it. I know that amendments to later clauses in the Bill have been tabled to address both these points.

The new duty on the Secretary of State to promote research reflects the core role of research in the NHS and is a very important step. The overriding aim of these amendments is to achieve a clearer commitment from the Government on the extent of the duties of a reformed NHS towards research. We need stronger, clearer language, and more detail as to what these duties will mean in practice. I hope the Minister is able to give us answers to the comprehensive range of questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willis.

As has been noted in this debate and at Second Reading, medical research in the UK—through our universities and hospitals, our health research charities and our medical science industries—has been a long-standing success story. Its importance to a world-class National Health Service is not in doubt. Embedding a culture of research and innovation in the new structures of the NHS is one of the key challenges to be met by this Bill, but we have some way to go yet before that is achieved.

[Lord Rea]

My Lords, I have a short question, on a subject mentioned by my noble friend Lord Turnberg and others. The National Institute for Health Research is now directly related to the Department of Health. Is it going to stay there, or is it going to be moved over, as was suggested, to the NHS Commissioning Board? Is the funding going to be assured? I do not think that we are quite sure about these things.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I was delighted to lend my name in support of these amendments. We have had a tremendous debate, which is a sign that the Committee stage of the Bill is starting to get down to business and focus on some of the nitty-gritty, now that we have moved on from some of the more extremely high-level principles about whether or not we should see Clauses 1 and 4 in the Bill.

I very much support the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Willis. He is chair of the Association of Medical Research Charities. I declare an interest myself as chief executive of a medical research charity, Breast Cancer Campaign. We are members of the noble Lord’s association, and are very grateful to him for the leadership that he gives.

There are very few points I want to add to the debate, as it has already been very comprehensive. In thinking about this, I want to stress how incredibly important it is that we understand the role of research in the NHS as a driver for quality and improving outcomes for patients. Only today at the AMRC AGM, I heard someone describing research as one of the three pillars, alongside service delivery and education, and stressing the role that research plays in driving up quality and outcomes for patients.

We know that this is something that is not lost on the public. We have already heard what importance the public place on research delivery in the NHS—93 per cent of people asked by the AMRC in a MORI poll said that they wanted their local NHS to be encouraged or required to deliver research locally. That is an enormous vote of confidence in research in the NHS.

The public do not just say this in answer to surveys. They vote for research through their wallets, as we have already heard from a number of noble Lords. Medical research charities contribute £1 billion to research in this country. That is an enormous achievement.

The contribution that the NHS makes to medical research worldwide is very special indeed. It is quite simply a no-brainer that research has consistently delivered real progress for patients. I believe it is agreed that the NHS has a special and unique role to play, which is unparalleled in the world. We have already agreed around the House that in this country we punch above our weight, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said very eloquently, we know that the UK generates over 10 per cent of the world’s clinical science and health research outputs and has created nearly a quarter of the world’s top 100 medicines. That is a great achievement. Now that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, is back in his place, I can remind the House that in the earlier debate he commented on how life expectancy continues to rise, following on from the success of medical research.

As I said at Second Reading, there are many examples where the special nature of the NHS has contributed to progress. I mentioned particularly the million women study, supported by Cancer Research UK in partnership with the NHS, a collaboration that revealed the role of hormone replacement therapy in breast cancer risk—an enormous study, made possible by the NHS. I also talked about a project that my own charity is involved in. It is a real challenge. Noble Lords have already made many points about the difficulty in establishing informatics systems. We are working to establish a tissue bank, to look at breast cancer specifically, and to drive forward the vital role that genomics plays. This is also made possible by the NHS. There are many examples, as I have said.

I welcome this duty. It is the first time we have seen a duty of this nature on the Secretary of State, and it is a very important step forward, but if the duty is going to be meaningful we need to know—so I would like to hear from the Minister—what the Government will see as success in executing that duty. I want to understand what success will look like—what will be the benchmarks that the Secretary of State will use to know whether his duty has been executed successfully.

Will we continue to evaluate the contribution that NHS research makes to GDP? How will the NHS research duty play in to the research assessment exercise that is undertaken in higher education? Could that be used to show how effective partnerships work in the NHS, because it is often those partnerships between NHS trust and academic institutions which are so important? What could Monitor or the Care Quality Commission do to help us understand the contribution that research has made to improving outcomes in various settings? Will we have an impact rating for NHS foundation trusts relating to their promotion of R&D? Will we be considering the number of patients in clinical trials as a measure—that is something that many people are worried about at the moment? Should we be looking at the number of clinical fellows or clinical professors in surgery?

What will success look like for the Secretary of State? I have heard talk that a research tariff is being developed; that has been referred to in correspondence. I would be grateful if the noble Earl could explain whether it is and what the consultation process might be. There has been a suggestion that a diagram or an organigram might help us here when looking at how the funding streams might work. We had a meeting with Dame Sally Davies when that was on the agenda. We have been reassured that funding will work in the same way as in the past. I am not sure whether it can, so I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure us on how that would work and perhaps produce a diagram for us.

[Baroness Emerton]

My Lords, I have appreciated all the contributions on the amendments on research. There is just one thing that I take issue with: the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, who said that his profession was the Cinderella of research. Other professions would describe themselves as being Cinderellas in terms of research funding. Obviously, I speak for nursing and midwifery, but also for the other healthcare professions, which are all graduate professions and which are concerned to give evidence-based practice wherever they are in the NHS. Perhaps the noble Earl could re-emphasise that it will be multiprofessional research. All the contributions this evening have been on medicine and scientific research, but the other professions can contribute an enormous amount. Nursing is very reliant on charitable, voluntary funds for its research and has done some tremendous research exercises in clinical procedures, as have the other professions—midwives and physiotherapists. Will the noble Earl consider this being a multiprofessional research board?

[Lord Darzi of Denham]

My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 42. I declare an obvious conflict: I am a recipient of funding from the National Institute of Health Research; I am also a senior fellow in the NIHR.

We should all be very proud that huge investment has gone into research in the NHS. The reforms of the past decade have been significant. We have been used as the exemplar across the globe not just on funding but on the structure and the processes, driving research within the NHS.

I should like to cover not just the health gains but the economic gains of research. Whichever way we look at it, the life science industry is worth about 4.3 per cent of our GDP. That is a significant contribution. The life science industry employs between 170,000 and 180,000 people. We are still very attractive to the pharmaceutical companies, which come here because some of the best brains are coming out of our universities. We need to work on making the NHS as attractive as the university sector. That is why safeguarding of funding within the National Institute of Health Research is vital for that important mission if we are to contribute to future economic growth.

19:15

Many noble Lords have already mentioned one of the most exciting disruptive innovations around the corner: the concept of stratified, personalised medicine. The NHS in the UK is in a unique position to attract funding into that area. Having a single patient record, if we have the right informatics, the right genotype and phenotype, we can drive innovation in that very important field, which will completely transform not just healthcare but the way that we deliver healthcare in future.

To do that, we need not just to incentivise the NHS with funding but make it more attractive by driving through research. It is a well known fact that there is a very strong correlation between organisations that do research and the quality of healthcare that they provide. That is well established, and that is why it is extremely important to ensure, when the Commissioning Board may be inundated with different challenges—a significant amount of effort is going into this under the leadership of Dame Sally Davies—that we maintain and protect research funding in these turbulent times as the NHS refashions itself.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

In intervening in this interesting debate, I shall be very brief. I simply want the Minister to explain where the levers will be in the commissioning decisions to make sure that the principle of research that is being embedded across all the professions happens, given the multiplicity of providers and, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, clearly outlined, the relative paucity of research in primary care but an increased push for more people to be cared for in the community across all the disciplines involved. A simple example of that is the problem that we now have with antibiotic resistance. There is potential overprescribing, but much of that prescribing is going on in primary care in the management of relatively simple conditions. If those are not researched into, we miss a fantastically important opportunity.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I support many of the amendments in the group. I do so as a biomedical research and clinical academic, therefore benefiting from many of the opportunities that the current systems for biomedical research in the National Health Service provide.

I start by congratulating Her Majesty's Government on having included for the Secretary of State for the first time in a health Bill responsibilities to promoting research. That is hugely important, because it allows us to secure what has been achieved to date in structures and funding going forward in the National Health Service.

There are, of course, anxieties, which we have heard in this important debate, which need to be addressed. Can the noble Earl provide clarification in three areas, notwithstanding the fact that the Bill already emphasises the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Health? First, how is it is envisaged that the funding for biomedical research will be protected when that fund moves to the NHS Commissioning Board? Secondly, how will the clinical commissioning groups be responsible for promoting research in future, how will that be supervised by the NHS Commissioning Board, and will any form of instruction or performance measure be included in the supervision that the Commissioning Board provides for clinical commissioning groups?

Finally, how, within the proposed structure of the Commissioning Board, will there be encouragement and support for academic health science centres, as they currently exist, and in the future, potentially, academic health partnerships? They provide the opportunity both to drive forward opportunities for biomedical research to improve healthcare and the health gain for our population, and to drive forward the economic opportunities that attend the biomedical sciences industry in our country. However, they also drive forward opportunities for a broader population health gain through a focus on the tripartite mission of improved clinical care, education, training and research.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and other noble Lords who have spoken in it very persuasively about the importance of research.

At heart, there are three particular questions that we put to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. First, how is funding for research to be protected? Secondly, how are we to ensure that strong leadership will be given from the centre? The third is the question of levers. What levers are there in this system to ensure that research is given a prominent place?

First, there can be no doubt whatsoever, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, of the direct link between research and the quality of patient care. That must be at the forefront of our consideration. Secondly, he is also right about public health. Research into public health, evidence and epidemiology is vital if we are to improve the overall health of people living in this country. Thirdly, we have the contribution that research makes to UK plc, and specifically the contribution of the pharmaceutical industry.

When I chaired the competitive taskforce with the industry some years ago, we found that out of the 100 most important branded medicines at the time, 30 had been developed in the UK. Although the UK share of global spend on pharmaceuticals was about 2 per cent, our R&D contribution, including that of the industry, was about 10 per cent. I suspect that those figures have slipped a little since that report, but there is no question that the pharmaceutical industry in particular makes a huge contribution to our economy. We cannot be complacent about that in the future.

On the question of leadership, I was fortunate to be present at the recent annual conference of the NHS Confederation. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, that, “They would say that, wouldn’t they”, when it comes to this rather foolish idea that somehow if you just leave it to them everything will be all right, but I recall a speech made by Dame Sally Davies in which she talked about the importance of research. She argued that the NHS itself has to make a greater contribution to research. This was not about funding; this was about NHS organisations recognising that research was important. It was a brilliant speech. It is essential that we continue to have that kind of national leadership in research funding.

There is a big question about what exactly the duty of the Secretary of State will be with regard to research if we end up with a highly devolved structure in which the levers left to the Secretary of State will clearly be limited. It is clear that the day-to-day concerns of most people in the NHS are going to be diverted into a market-orientated culture, where, frankly, the kind of collaboration that research requires across NHS organisations may well be regarded as collusive behaviour by economic regulators and the competition authorities.

I speak with some experience of economic regulation. Ofgem was the last economic regulator with which I had regular dealings as Minister for Energy. What struck me was that regulators’ concerns are much more about day-to-day issues than they are about the long-term viability of a particular industry. We found, with Ofgem, that we had to change the law to make sure that it had some regard to future customers rather than simply being concerned about the actual price of energy to the customers of today. If we have regulators whose main concern is about driving day-to-day competition, I wonder where issues of research come into play.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the primary duty of Monitor, as the noble Lord will have observed, is to patients. That is its overriding duty.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Yes my Lords, but so was the overriding duty of Ofgem to the customer. The problem is how a regulator defines that responsibility. Since the Government are intent on this very foolish drive into competition, I believe that the risk is that the regulator will also be driven into thinking that that is its most important aim.

There are some real questions here, which I put to the noble Earl, about ensuring that there is sufficient concern, investment and leadership on the question of research. I would also ask the noble Earl how we protect and ring-fence the research budget. I ask him to think of the national Commissioning Board, faced with a hard winter, huge public concern and political pressure about funding, and the temptation to dip into the research budget. We all know that that happens. My noble friend Lord Warner and I were debating earlier who was responsible when there was real pressure on the training commissions. I thought it was my noble friend, actually, but we can continue to debate that.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, things went downhill when I left at the end of December 2006.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, with the greatest respect, I will not go into who left me the junior hospital doctors issue. He will recall that my first day as a Minister was actually the first day of Committee on the glorious Mental Health Bill, and that was a blessed memory, I must say.

My experience was that the health service let us down on training commissions, because at the time they were facing a financial difficulty and it was all too easy to cut those commissions. The result was that Ministers essentially took it upon themselves to put central controls back into the system. My concern is that if the NCB simply has research in its budgetary responsibility and there are severe pressures, it is just too easy to dip into it. The problem is also, as my noble friend Lord Warner said, that, as we know, sometimes research budgets take a little time to kick in, but once you do it you are funding for three, five, seven years. Again, in each financial year, an amount is probably available in the winter that had not been spent. The problem is that you will never get that resource back again.

The second point that I would like to put to the noble Earl is about clinical commissioning groups. How do we ensure that their commissioning decisions support research? My noble friend Lord Turnberg said that research is no cottage industry, but clinical commissioning groups are the epitome of a cottage industry. He also referred to the fact that GPs have little history of undertaking research and commitment to it. Yet we are handing them billions and billions of pounds, quite remarkably, on the basis of no evidence whatever that I can see that they are fitted to discharge that responsibility. I ask the noble Earl where we can have assurance that clinical commissioning groups will be prepared to invest in services where there is a strong research base.

The third challenge is to NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. The noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, put his hand on it when he talked about the reduction in the number of clinical academic posts. I believe that NHS trusts have a great role to play in encouraging their clinicians and in encouraging joint posts with universities. Again, I worry that the focus on job plans and the productivity of clinicians will discourage research because the emphasis will be on patient throughput. How are we going to ensure that that does not happen?

19:30

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, about surgeons’ practical skills. What about simulation centres in training to help surgical teams to work together and the research base involved in that? What about nursing and AHP research? Also, what about clinical trials? There is a real risk of losing clinical trials to other countries. If the pharmaceutical industry feels that clinical trials are not encouraged in this country, there is a risk that it will take some of its R&D work abroad as well.

I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said about the need to streamline the approval process. I welcome the Government’s proposals and commitment to improve and streamline that process, and it is something that we on this side of the House very much support.

Above all, we need to deal with the question of implementing research. Earlier, we talked about besetting sins. It has long been a besetting sin that the NHS has been very slow to implement proven research, and I am very concerned about this. The pharmaceutical industry continually makes a point about the UK’s slowness to take up new medicines. Although the PPRS puts a cap on profits, it allows the industry to set a price for each medicine, and the industry has always regarded this as a good situation in which to be because that price can then be set in other countries.

The noble Earl talked only two days ago about the proposed introduction of value-based pricing. Without going into the methodology, I should like to ask him whether, through such pricing, the industry is going to lose the flexibility to set prices. Is there not a risk that we will make the UK a less attractive place for the industry to develop R&D in the future?

That brings me to the Department of Health. Although it was there to sponsor the industry, there was always a risk that, because of its concern about NHS budgets, ultimately it would be much more concerned about holding down prices. In the great endeavour to ensure that this country continues to have a strong research base in the health sector, I should like an assurance from the Minister that, in its sponsorship of the pharmaceutical industry, the department will be as concerned to ensure that the industry is strong as it will be to hold down prices.

I know that this has been another long debate, but I think that nothing is more important in this country than health-based research. Tonight, our concern is not so much about the wording of the amendments as about hearing how the Government will ensure that we continue to prioritise research in the future.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I agree that this has been an absolutely excellent debate and I have listened very carefully to all the contributions.

Clause 5 places a duty on the Secretary of State, for the first time, to have regard to the need to promote research within the health service. It also places equivalent duties on the Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups. The duty applies to research into matters relevant to the health service—I shall come on to that phrase later—and the use within the health service of evidence obtained from research.

I turn straight away to the amendments, beginning with Amendments 39 and 199ZA together, as they make the same changes to the research duties on the Secretary of State and clinical commissioning groups. Amendment 39, tabled by my noble friend Lord Willis and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, would require the Secretary of State to promote research within the health service and to promote the use of the evidence obtained from that research. The Bill as drafted requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to promote research in the health service. This means that the Secretary of State must bear in mind the importance of research when exercising any of his functions and consider how the exercise of those functions might in itself promote research or how it might influence the promotion of research by others. I have reflected on these two amendments and I can tell noble Lords that I sympathise with the arguments behind them. Of course, I fully recognise the importance of ensuring that research is promoted within the health service. Therefore, I now give a commitment, following this debate, to undertake a closer consideration of this duty.

Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Patel, requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to develop research findings for clinical application in the health service. I agree with the noble Lords that this emphasis is important. We need to ensure that, wherever possible, research outcomes are translated into clinical practice. This is how the health service moves forward. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, as so often, was completely right in all that he said on that subject. As the duty is currently drafted, the Secretary of State is already required to have regard to the need to promote the use of evidence obtained from research. Therefore, we believe that this amendment would duplicate the existing duty.

Amendment 40 also refers to the need to ensure that staff have the relevant training and support where new technologies are introduced. We have brought forward an amendment to introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to exercise his functions so as to secure an effective system for education and training within the health service. The word “effective” is there for a purpose. Similarly, the NHS constitution makes a public pledge that all NHS providers should provide all their staff with access to appropriate training for their jobs, together with line management support to succeed. Therefore, again, in my view this amendment is unnecessary.

It may also help to reassure noble Lords if I refer to our consultation document, An Information Revolution. In this, we state that information management and IT capability are essential if we are to achieve improved healthcare outcomes. Our forthcoming information strategy will recognise the importance of informatics skills within the health service, and I hope that this will reassure noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Warner—that we are fully aware of the need to ensure that staff are able to maximise the benefits that new technologies can offer.

I now turn to Amendment 41, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Willis and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. This amendment would place an additional requirement on the Secretary of State to promote research into public health issues. Again, I agree with the principle behind the amendment—it is indeed true that advances in public health are shaped by research and evidence, and the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, gave us a number of examples. In fact, this amendment can be dealt with quite simply. The duty on the Secretary of State, the board and clinical commissioning groups to have regard to the need to promote research applies to “the health service”. That phrase encompasses both the NHS and public health services, and therefore the duties already apply to public health.

There are other clauses in the Bill that focus specifically on research into health protection. Clause 8 lists research and other steps,

“for advancing knowledge and understanding”,

as examples of action that the Secretary of State may take under his wider duty in relation to protecting public health. Clause 14(13) expressly gives the Secretary of State, the NHS and local authorities the power to commission or assist research.

My noble friend Lord Willis asked me how the duty on the Secretary of State would be fulfilled in practice. It may be helpful if I briefly set out the work that is going on beyond the Bill to ensure that research is embedded in the new system. The department has recently published a document setting out initial proposals for the NHS Commissioning Board. Among other things, it emphasises that, to fulfil its purpose, the board should support,

“a culture which promotes research and innovation”.

There is also a clear indication in the department’s document, Developing Clinical Commissioning Groups: Towards Authorisation, that clinical commissioning groups will be expected to demonstrate how they will promote research. These documents can be found on the Department of Health’s website. I should be very happy to expand on this in a letter to my noble friend and other noble Lords.

In this area the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked what the levers for research would be, and that question was echoed by a number of other noble Lords. I will expand on this in writing, but there are a number of parallel levers across government that will do this, ensuring that the UK’s commercial and industrial landscape is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rightly emphasised, an attractive place to do research, and that we do not neglect any aspect of research—basic, translational and clinical—so it is about research across the piece. It is also about the pricing of medicines, about our skills base as a country and about encouraging the concept of clustering, linking universities and the NHS and industry. We have announced recently a large sum of money which will go towards biomedical research clusters and units. It is also about deregulation, streamlining research and creating the Health Research Authority to do that, the drivers in the NHS such as the tariff and, not least, holding bodies in the NHS—CCGs no less than others—accountable for the duties that are in this Bill. Accountability is the counterpart to the concept of autonomy.

I cannot say much to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, about the tariff. We do not envisage a separate tariff for research, but we will ensure that the systems and processes that the board and CCGs use for commissioning patient care ensure that research is supported and that treatment costs are funded by the NHS. This will specifically include a tariff. It is essential that the tariff for patient care incorporates the costs of patients who are taking part in research, and we will ensure that it does.

I turn to Amendment 42, which was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lord Ribeiro. This amendment seeks to safeguard the funding of research by placing a requirement on the Secretary of State to ensure that there is adequate funding for research and the application of that research to the health service. The amendment also aims to ensure that clinical commissioning groups will fund the treatment of patients involved in research. I share the desire to protect research funding—as Minister for research, how could I not do so? My noble friend Lord Willis need have no fears about our intent in this area. The Government have signalled their clear and strong support for research by increasing the research budget of the Department of Health in real terms over the current spending review period.

I heard from many noble Lords the concern about the research responsibility for the NIHR transferring across to the NHS Commissioning Board and how the budget could be protected in that event. I do not know where this idea has come from, but it is not accurate. The budget for the National Institute for Health Research is centrally held within the Department of Health and will remain so. The budget for research commissioning will not transfer to the NHS Commissioning Board. Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, retains a responsibility for the National Institute for Health Research and for the budget that is allocated to it to commission research. I hope that that reassures my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Walton, Lord Warner, Lord Turnberg and Lord Rea, and all others who have expressed worries on that score.

With respect to the research that takes place within the health service, alongside the Secretary of State’s duty to have regard to the need to promote research, Clause 14(13) already gives him the powers to commission research or assist any person conducting research, including by providing financial assistance. An equivalent duty and powers are conferred on the board and clinical commissioning groups. We therefore believe that there are robust arrangements for safeguarding the funding of research already in place.

19:45

Amendment 74, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would add the promotion of research and acting on research evidence to the list of steps that local authorities may take when exercising their new functions in relation to health improvement. The importance and value of high-quality research and evidence to public health are clear and well understood. We agree entirely that local government should make evidence-based decisions and we expect that Public Health England, the new executive agency, will help it to do that. We also agree that local government should be able to undertake or support research of its own. While this is not listed in Clause 9, because that list was drawn from the current functions of the Health Protection Agency, it is included in Clause 14(13) of the Bill. This clause gives local authorities a specific power to conduct, commission or assist research that is connected to their functions as part of the comprehensive health service. The list in Clause 9 is not prescriptive. As a rule, it must be for local authorities themselves to decide how best to use their own resources as autonomous bodies. Therefore, including research in Clause 9 would not make it mandatory. For that reason, we believe that this amendment would not add anything to the existing provision in Clause 14 and it is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment 89E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would remove the power of the NHS Commissioning Board, clinical commissioning groups and local authorities to conduct research in relation to their health service functions. It would leave intact the existing paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 to the NHS Act 2006, which confers the power to conduct or assist research solely on the Secretary of State. I am taking it now that the noble Lord did speak to that amendment. I confess to a measure of confusion over its intention. Currently, the Bill recognises that research and evidence-based care are needed throughout an effective health care system, a principle I would hope that all noble Lords would agree with—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I should apologise to the noble Earl. The amendment was put down to probe the issues.

[Earl Howe]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. In that case I shall not dwell on it at great length.

Amendment 40A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and other noble Lords, would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to promote the use of information derived from patients for research purposes while taking full account of the confidentiality of information. I welcome the intent behind this amendment, but it is in fact unnecessary. We recognise the important role that patient data, if treated carefully and confidentially—and that I hope goes without saying—can play in improving the quality of health research. I spoke earlier about our consultation document An Information Revolution, in which we propose that the most important source of data is the patient’s or the service user’s care record generated at the point of care. Information in these records also provides much of the data needed for other secondary purposes: for commissioners, for managers, for care professionals and, importantly, for research. We are using the responses that we received to the consultation, together with the findings of the NHS Future Forum, to develop an information strategy for health and social care in England. This will highlight how increased transparency and greater access to information supports improvements in care and research. It is the major work stream. I can reassure the noble Lord that we value the use of patient information where confidentiality is appropriately protected as a source of research and that we are looking at ways to embed its use in our information strategy.

[Lord Turnberg]

Can the noble Earl give us any idea of the timescale over which we might see something emerging from this? It has been on the agenda for a very long time and we really need to move on it.

[Earl Howe]

I hope that I am not putting my neck on the block, but within a month the noble Lord should hear news that may cheer him on this front.

A great many noble Lords have asked me questions, some of which I have covered, but I suggest that in the interests of time it might be helpful if I followed up this debate in writing and in a way that will enable me to answer the questions in greater detail than I would now in any event.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, in doing that will the Minister clarify what “health service” means? As I read the Bill, it sometimes looks as though public health is not included in that definition. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some clarity on that and point us in the direction of an authoritative definition.

[Earl Howe]

I should be very glad to do so. The noble Lord may not be surprised to hear that, when I was being briefed for this Bill, I had to ask myself that very same question. The definition is there, but I think that it would be helpful if I set out the import of that phrase in its fullest sense.

I hope that I have said enough to encourage noble Lords not to press their amendments, but, in doing so, I reiterate my thanks to all noble Lords who have made such an excellent contribution to this debate.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for, as ever, a very courteous and thoughtful response to many of the issues which have been raised, in particular his response to Amendment 39 and his undertaking to reconsider “have regard to the need to”, which appears to be a little bit of clumsy draftsmanship that would be unworthy of the Minister himself.

The Minister raised a number of important issues, including that to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred. We have now had a definition of “health service” which includes public health. That means that public health research could lie within some local authorities, because a significant amount of public health will be devolved to local authorities. While I was pleased to hear the Minister say today that those people moving from the National Health Service to local authorities for public health matters would retain National Health Service terms and conditions, the reality is that they will be working under a local authority aegis and that research would therefore be an issue for local authorities rather than Public Health England—or so I understand, but we will probe that later.

On protecting funding, I was particularly grateful for the way in which my noble friend the Minister responded to the idea of ring-fencing. He spoke not of ring-fencing, but said that there had been an increase in budget. It would have been good if he could have made that comment. However, he did say that NIHR would remain a stand-alone organisation. That was news to me; I thought that it was going to move into other organisations. Quite frankly, that is good news. It has a reputation which demonstrates that research is very important and we can track how it is used and when. I thank the Minister for that.

I apologise profusely to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, for indicating that “research” meant the work that is coming out of universities and being translated for use at the bedside. She was quite right to remind us that “research” for the purposes of this Bill was all research, and that what should underpin all public policy, in the NHS or anywhere else, is research which gives you evidence to inform policy decisions. I thank her for that rebuke.

[Lord Warner]

I do not want to prolong this debate. I will read very carefully what the Minister said about protection of finance. We may want to come back to this issue to be reassured that all is well.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 39 withdrawn.

Amendments 40 to 41 not moved.

Amendment 41A

Moved by

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

41A: Clause 5, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
“( ) the proper conduct of research by establishing such structures and procedures as he deems necessary to prevent, detect and impose sanctions on research conduct”

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

I shall be very brief. In simple terms, the Secretary of State now has a duty to promote research. Clearly, that research must have integrity, and this amendment is about protecting that integrity. I think that we all agree that medical research is crucial to the UK’s healthcare system, the economy—as the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, made clear in our previous debate—and our standing as an international research community. I make it clear to the Committee that the claim that the incidence of malpractice is widespread is wrong—there is not widespread malpractice in health research or in any part of our research base—but it would also be wrong to say that we have a perfect system and there is not some malpractice.

While peer review is an extremely robust method for assessing the quality of the science and the research, it was never intended as a mechanism to detect fraud. There is an assumption when you peer-review a piece of research that the data are accurate and that what you are doing is looking at the methodology, the evidence and the conclusions to see whether they stand up to scrutiny. You do not simply go back and look at the whole of the data.

We know that there are a number of irregular goings-on at various levels of research, particularly at junior level, from ghost-writing and guest authorship to plagiarism and falsification of data. As science, particularly medical science, relies on trust, it is important that we have a robust system in place which guarantees research integrity as far as it is possible. Andrew Wakefield, who built the case against the use of the MMR vaccine, based his evidence on a very small sample, falsified the data and manipulated patient records. It is clear that we need a system that would prevent that happening again. The reality is that it took seven years before that research was fully retracted and, to this day, the level of MMR vaccine uptake remains below the 95 per cent that we would regard as sufficient to confer immunity on the population. In other words, that incident of malpractice continues to have an effect. Children are being affected as a result and mothers in particular are worried.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee recently looked at peer review in scientific publications and reported on 18 July. One of its recommendations was:

“Oversight of research integrity in the UK is in need of revision. The current situation is unsatisfactory. We are concerned that the UK does not seem to have an oversight body for research integrity that provides ‘advice and support to research employers and assurance to research funders’, across all disciplines”.

Interestingly, the Government said in response:

“The Government agrees that action on assurance of research integrity is required”.

They went on to say, quite rightly, that it was the responsibility of employers, whether they be universities, research laboratories or private organisations, to guarantee the integrity of their research. They said that they did not want there to be a new research integrity agency or an equivalent, but, instead, a “Research Integrity Concordat”, which brought together universities and bodies involved with research and which the Government would oversee.

20:00

My reason for this amendment is to ask my noble friend the Minister what progress is being made to form a research integrity concordat. When do we actually expect that to be finalised? While there is evidence in Australia, Norway and the United States, where there are defined offices of research integrity, the Government have said that they do not want to go down that road; they actually want a concordat. For what it is worth, I support the Government on this; I think that that move is right. It is only right, however, if that concordat becomes a reality, so my real question to the Minister is about when it is going to become a reality. When can he assure the House that we do not need to have a different organisation in order to ensure that the duty of research—which is now going to be imposed on the Secretary of State—does not blow up in his face at some future date? I beg to move.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has raised this extremely important matter. Research misconduct is rare, but it happens. Several years ago, there were a number of quite cogent reports produced by Dr Frank Wells of the British Medical Association, Dr Stephen Lock, who was the editor of the British Medical Journal and his successor, Dr Richard Smith, which actually demonstrated that in a number of rare cases research results had been fabricated. This issue has been highlighted by a number of similar events in the United States and elsewhere. The universities, the research councils and a number of other bodies have looked at this matter and made a number of recommendations. I am not at all certain that this is the right place in this Bill for this issue to be raised, but the question needs further consideration by the Government—for instance, to decide whether this important issue should be in any way part of the remit of the proposed new medical research agency.

[Baroness Thornton]

The noble Lord raised a very interesting and important point, but I do not intend to delay the House by expanding on it.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, Amendment 41A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Willis, will require the Secretary of State to set up a system to ensure that research is conducted properly and ethically and that there are sanctions in place in cases of misconduct. Let me say straight away that I am in agreement with the intention of my noble friend in tabling this amendment; the proper conduct of research is very important, just as proper conduct is critical in clinical practice. All my noble friend’s comments on that theme were extremely pertinent.

Looking at the amendment as it is worded, I can assure my noble friend that there are already systems in place to ensure that research is conducted ethically. Research, as he knows, cannot proceed without ethics committee approval. I realise that this is a probing amendment, but equally, as it is worded, it overlooks an important element in the current system of accountability, because it would risk undermining the clear responsibility in research, as in clinical practice, that employers have for the conduct of their employees and that professional councils have in regulating their members. Both can impose sanctions on researchers if their conduct is found to be inappropriate. I do not see that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to impose sanctions on clinical professionals, and it should not be his responsibility to do so for researchers. In the future, the Health Research Authority will continue the good work of the National Research Ethics Service, working with others to prevent misconduct by ensuring that the ethics of research have independently reviewed by research ethics committees.

This evening, I am able to give a new commitment to my noble friend. I am happy to tell him that we intend to publish the draft clauses on research for pre-legislative scrutiny in the second Session of this Parliament. That scrutiny will enable my noble friend and other noble Lords to comment on the detail of our proposals for the Health Research Authority and, in turn, enable us to ensure that future legislation is fit for purpose. I hope my noble friend will welcome that pledge.

If I may, I will cover the question my noble friend asked me about the concordat in a letter to him following this debate. I hope I have reassured him that there are systems in place to ensure good conduct in research. Nevertheless, his points are well made and I shall reflect fully upon them. I can only say at the moment that the Health Research Authority intends to build on these systems. In the light of what I said, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that response. In view of it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 41A withdrawn.

Amendment 42 not moved.

Clause 5 agreed.

Amendment 43

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

43: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“The Secretary of State’s duty as to education and training
After section 1D of the National Health Service Act 2006 insert— “1E Duty as to education and training
(1) The Secretary of State must exercise the functions of the Secretary of State under any relevant enactment so as to secure that there is an effective system for the planning and delivery of education and training to persons who are employed, or who are considering becoming employed, in an activity which involves or is connected with the provision of services as part of the health service in England.
(2) In subsection (1), “relevant enactment” means section 63 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 and any other enactment under which the Secretary of State has functions which could be exercised for the purpose of securing that there is such an effective system as is mentioned in that subsection.””

Amendment 43 agreed.

Amendment 44 not moved.

Amendment 45

Moved by

[Baroness Wheeler]

45: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“The Secretary of State’s duty as to national workforce structures
After section 1D of the National Health Service Act 2006, insert—“1E Secretary of State’s duty as to national workforce structures
The Secretary of State has a duty to maintain a national pay and bargaining system for healthcare staff, to cover those staff providing NHS services and services for the improvement of public health.””

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, I am pleased to move this important amendment, supported by my noble friends Lady Thornton and Lord Hunt. The amendment would provide some much needed morale and security at a time of great upheaval for NHS staff. In turn, it would reassure patients that the morale of those treating or caring for them will not impact on the quality of care they receive. Let us just imagine how NHS staff must be feeling now, no matter how dedicated or determined they are to carry on providing the best care possible. There is the Nicholson challenge to implement £20 billion-worth of savings, which they know will seriously impact on patient care, they are facing huge disruption to services and patient care as primary care trusts and strategic health authorities are abolished under the enormous upheaval of reorganisation, and there is massive uncertainty about the future bargaining arrangements for their pay and conditions.

The amendment calls on the Government to commit to the continuation of national determination of pay and national collective bargaining for terms and conditions for NHS staff under the reorganised NHS, leaving employers and trade unions nationally to agree what local flexibilities should operate. The Government have so far failed to acknowledge the need to retain national workforce structures for terms and conditions, pay and bargaining. The Bill prescribes nothing on the pay systems that clinical commissioning groups should adopt, giving them greater leeway to break away from the existing long-established and well-tested pay systems for NHS staff.

Agenda for Change is the single, national pay system in operation for the NHS and applies directly to all staff, excluding doctors, dentists and some very senior managers. It is well established, much respected by employers and staff and delivers equality-proof pay and grading schemes. However, the Liberating the NHS White Paper threatened the viability of a stable, national collective agreement, potentially undermining the NHS pay review body, which makes recommendations on the remuneration of all staff paid under Agenda for Change and employed in the NHS. The current Bill applies only to England, but the implications for national pay determination across the UK are significant.

We know that most staff do not work in the NHS to get rich, despite the constant, distorted picture in some parts of the media about the levels of public sector pay and pensions. Nurses’ pay starts from £21,000 a year and healthcare assistants from as little as £14,000 a year. The average public service pension is around £7,800 a year, but the average pension for a woman working in the NHS is only around £3,500 a year. If staff do not work for the NHS to get rich, what do they value? Job security is no longer the public sector staple employment motivator that it was: 13,000 redundancies have resulted from the current reorganisation. A recent survey by the Royal College of Nursing showed that an estimated 15,000 nurses and healthcare assistants expect to be made redundant in the next 12 months. Staff are not able to value job security any longer, but they do value fairness. Agenda for Change has delivered that, as well as equal pay.

In the uncertain environment caused by the reforms, having some guarantee about access to a fair, national pay system would at least provide an element of security. If, in the future, foundation trusts, with the heavy financial pressures they will face, start to abandon established pay rates and conditions, we fear that this will lead to the rapid downward spiralling of pay for staff, which will be particularly hard in these economic times. Staff morale and motivation are already suffering, and local pay bargaining would make it harder for the NHS to recruit and retain the best available staff, so in turn affecting patient service. Undermining staff pay and moving to local pay bargaining would also have a detrimental impact on patients. We must have an equitable spread of doctors, nurses and other professionals across the country. If local pay bargaining leads to many health staff moving away from a particular area, we could see the quality of service reduced there or patients having to wait longer because vacancies have not been filled. Agenda for Change is generally considered across the NHS to be a vast improvement on the previous fragmented and complex arrangements. It is seen as providing a firm basis for taking forward important, substantive issues, particularly equal pay, new ways of working and workforce reprofiling.

The amendment also explicitly refers to public health staff, because this is one of the major concerns for the NHS public health workforce, who continue to operate in limbo, unsure of exactly who will be employing them and on what pay, terms and conditions. The Government have promised a detailed public health workforce strategy in the autumn to support effective transition to the new system. When is the strategy to be published and what will be the consultation arrangements for all stakeholders? All we know now is that the directors of public health will transfer to local authorities, but precious little else is known yet about the arrangements for the remaining public health workforce, a factor highlighted by the House of Commons Health Committee last week. The committee stressed that,

“uncertainty has inevitably been created by the transition to new structures; this is undermining morale and causing people with valuable skills to leave the profession. Uncertainty around staffing issues must be resolved as quickly as possible. It is also important that the public health specialty is fully integrated into the Government's forthcoming proposals for healthcare workforce planning, education and training”.

The amendment would give the Government a chance to provide some much needed solace for public health staff by committing that they should be covered by the same pay system as other health workers. It would also give hope and reassurance to all NHS staff about their future pay bargaining arrangements. I urge the Minister to respond positively.

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 45 and to follow on from my noble friend Lady Wheeler. I have spent quite a lot of my working life negotiating pay and conditions for staff in the National Health Service. I sat on four NHS Whitley councils for a very long time—one of them for 21 years. As a nurse, I was privileged to lead negotiations on behalf of Britain’s nurses and midwives for quite a few years as chairman of the staff side of the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council. So I know a little about the subject of this amendment and the possible consequences of any breakdown in national pay and conditions of service for National Health Service staff.

We have had nationally agreed pay and conditions ever since the inception of the National Health Service, with occasional attempts to break this down, particularly in the late 1980s. The Government of the day thought better of it and backed away. The old Whitley system stood the National Health Service in good stead for many years, but it was far from perfect and there was not always peace and harmony. There were problems in some years, going back, for example, to 1972 for ancillary staff, 1974 particularly for nurses and 1982 for most staff groups. The most recent that lingers in my memory was the ambulance dispute, which I think was in 1990.

Not all staff unions in 1983 agreed that the Government should set up a pay review body for nurses and midwives and professions allied to medicine. However, it was in my view an entirely sensible move, which by and large took a lot of heat out of relations between management and staff organisations for these two groups of staff. Why was the pay review body the right solution? The review body was independent and the staff unions were forced to undertake very detailed research into their pay claims. We used to spend many months getting that evidence right. The management side and government put in evidence as well. The Office of Manpower Economics, which provides the secretariat to the review body to this day, also carried out its own research. The review body took oral evidence from all of the parties. I led that for a number of years on behalf of the staff side. The members of the review body—academics and professionals—put us through the hoops, and any half-baked evidence would have been very quickly exposed. There was no question of any staff side taking inflation, doubling it and—metaphorically at least—banging the table. That clearly would not work.

20:15

The pay review body provided, for the most part, fair uplifts in pay. Sometimes we were disappointed but often the real anger from nurses and professions allied to medicine was more often directed at Governments, who had a habit of staging pay awards—except of course in election years. Other pay groups were brought into the purview of the review body in 2004 following the very long and detailed work to bring in the new pay structure, Agenda for Change, to which my noble friend Lady Wheeler referred. In 2007, all the remaining groups of NHS staff except doctors and dentists were brought into the National Health Service review body. The plethora of NHS Whitley councils—I think there were 10 when I was involved—has now been reduced to one.

Staff unions, NHS employers and the Department of Health have invested very heavily in making Agenda for Change work. The structure is underwritten by comprehensive job evaluation, a knowledge and skills framework and the national pay scales. Particularly importantly, it is equality-proofed. It provides some built-in local freedoms for employers, one example being to allow for recruitment and retention payments. It is supported, as my noble friend Lady Wheeler said, by staff, employers and trade unions. The worry is that we have already seen some efforts by some foundation trusts to impose alterations to Agenda for Change outside of the agreed local freedoms. Instead of the relative harmony that has existed over many years now, we have had unnecessary local hotspots with the inevitable problems of distrust and effects on morale.

The pressures on National Health Service staff over the next few years are going to be enormous. The most important focus should be—must be—on improving quality and driving efficiencies. We do not need that focus upset by employers and unions doing battle over local pay and rations. The last thing we need is fragmented and inconsistent systems of pay and conditions of service. The ratcheting up or down—probably mostly down—would in my opinion lead to equal pay litigation issues if the equality-proofed Agenda for Change structure breaks down.

This amendment will ensure that clinical commissioning groups and foundation trusts are not able to break down the systems so painstakingly put together in the past few years. Let us not move away from that tried and tested system where staff unions and employers can put their energies into giving evidence to an independent pay review body rather than expend these energies on local bargaining, which could create disharmony, industrial disputes and issues of morale. I hope we hear from the Minister that we will continue to have national pay bargaining in the National Health Service.

[Baroness Murphy]

My Lords, by now it will be no surprise to the Opposition that I do not support this amendment. It seems to be an extraordinary pedalling-backwards amendment. I ought to remind colleagues that foundation trusts already have the ability to negotiate local terms and conditions of service, so at least two-thirds of mental health trusts and half of all acute trusts already have it. They have not used those freedoms for very sound reasons, but there will come a time when gradually they will want to do so. It seems extraordinary that we would seek to remove those freedoms. I say to those who are anxious about pushing pay downwards that that has not happened at all with consultant grades of pay, where freedoms have led to much greater flexibility and a real and genuine recognition of the rarity of some consultant specialties in some areas, so it is not a good idea to remove that pay bargaining and that flexibility locally.

I do not see the Agenda for Change as being successful. Yes, it was better than the Whitley Council, which had 250 different scales and you did not know where you were; it was pretty grim. However, Agenda for Change has not been implemented with the learning and skills framework alongside in any more than 50 per cent of trusts. It has not led to productivity gains. It led to an uplift of pay but did not actually deliver what employers wanted it to deliver.

In my view, a good employment framework for local organisations must take account of local economic circumstances, the social demographic mix and the skills available in the local communities. Therefore, it must give local employers greater flexibility, as part of the autonomy of those organisations, and the ability to move away gradually from the situation that we have at the moment of profound skill shortages of nurses in some areas and an oversupply of some skills in other areas. If we could be more sensitive to local circumstances, we would get better values and rewards for staff in the NHS. I therefore very much support the Government’s approach to this and do not support this amendment.

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I intervene briefly in this debate. It also gives me the opportunity to apologise to the House. I removed Amendments 35 and 36 at 10 pm on Monday because I could not guarantee to be here at 3.30 pm today. I apologise if it caused confusion, but I could not be here today at that time.

On Amendment 45, I would like to know the Government’s position, because the noble Baroness said that the Government maintain their position. In some ways, the temptation for fragmentation is enormous. I am not sure whether the NHS is still the largest employer in Europe. As a totality, I think it probably is. However, we are talking here about England—or are we? The issue of devolution is crucial. I served for 12 months as a direct rule Minister in Northern Ireland, and I came across problems there relating to people doing the same job here. Also, of course, moving around Whitehall, as the Minister probably discovered himself, you go into departments and meet people doing more or less exactly the same job on vastly different salaries. The temptation of fragmentation was accepted at the centre of government, and that has led to significant problems of mobility for people moving even around Whitehall.

I am no expert on the NHS—I only know it as a patient and a family member of patients—but as far as I am concerned, it is a team effort. It is a bit like the argument we had with the firefighters. You are sending people out on a team to do a job, and they are not going out on different rates of pay, different pensions and different contracts. The one way to keep it cohesive is to maintain national pay bargaining. It does not mean that one size fits all, but the fact is, as my noble friend who kicked this off said, the industrial relations implications are enormous, given the potential for disputes that nobody wants. A dispute is created because of a festering sore on something else. The facility is not there if you have a system of national pay bargaining for healthcare staff.

The amendment refers to,

“services for the improvement of public health”.

Quite clearly, there will be transfers of public health staff who are working in local government and who are perhaps working to and with NHS rates of pay. That in itself will be a difficulty if people are going to work with colleagues in local government under a different scheme. While the Government take account of that, the temptation will be to level down to local government to get one size fits all at the local level. I do not think that that temptation ought to be accepted.

As for the issue of regional break-up, there was an argument about this many years ago when there was an attempt to pay teachers more who were prepared to go and work in the inner cities. You can have a local premium, and you can do some local work where there are factors, but in the case of nursing staff, particularly the lower-paid, and their ability to move around the country for career opportunities and to move their family, they are working within one service. Everybody knows that it is the NHS—the “N” is still there—but they are faced with the issue that, for the same job in the next region or the next but one region, they may be paid up to 10 per cent less and their pension and terms and conditions may be different. That could cause enormous problems.

I only spoke in the mental health debate last week, but the overall theme of the Bill and the many allegations that have been sent to noble Lords, of which the Minister will be aware, are that this is a grand plan—not now, but in the end—to fragment and break up the National Health Service, a plot hatched in the 1980s by Members of the other House who are currently members of the Government. The introduction of market forces into both the provision of care and other providers, and the temptation then to break up national pay bargaining to fit the new regime, which is supposed to be patient-oriented, is an enormous pressure on the Government. Ministers will be told that this will make sense at the local level. It may be asking a lot for the Minister to give a definitive response to this tonight, but the issues of industrial relations and pay bargaining in the NHS have to be settled well before the passage of this Bill, if only because during the period of implementation we do not, as my noble friend said, want discord among the staff as they implement what will be, I accept, many positive changes in the Bill.

The other issue that has to be raised, because we are talking about services to patients, is the pay and bargaining within service providers as the issue gets broken up. There will be some debates about charities, the third sector and social enterprise involvement where industrial relations and pay bargaining may be affected. However, there are other issues relating to the private sector doing jobs using NHS staff. It offers mobility as teams move. People do not have one place of work but may move between two or three different establishments, one of which may be the NHS, in which they may be based. They are expected to perform as part of the team locally, providing the services to patients in the round. What happens to pay bargaining in those situations?

If we allow fragmentation at a local level, it would be wise for the Minister to say that the status quo will be maintained. I accept that the status quo has flexibility built in, as the noble Baroness said, but it is a flexibility that does not appear to have been used. This is a bit like the Scottish Government. They had the flexibility to put up income tax by 5 per cent, but it has never been done. This is the reality. You put in that flexibility but for various reasons there are barriers to actually using it. In this case, the evidence is that the flexibility has not been used except perhaps in extreme circumstances. I do not think that it would be a good idea if we went down this route. I think there is enough evidence to keep people working together as a team with a national perspective that allows job mobility and promotion without people being afraid of moving within the same service because of the pay and conditions. I do not think that it is a good idea, and I hope the Minister will be able to take a more positive approach to this issue, even if he can only state it in general terms.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, seeks to impose on the Secretary of State,

“a duty to maintain a national pay and bargaining system for healthcare staff, to cover those staff providing”,

both NHS and public health services. This would cover not only existing NHS organisations but any organisation providing services to the NHS. The amendment, as worded, goes against the Government’s view that employers are best placed to determine the most appropriate pay and reward package to ensure that they recruit and retain the workforce that they need.

Our clear view is that it would be inappropriate to require independent and voluntary sector providers to adhere to NHS pay when NHS foundation trusts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, rightly pointed out, already have such freedoms. The Government believe that to deliver the best care for patients, this freedom should be extended to all NHS organisations. I also take the noble Baroness’s point that while foundation trusts have the power to apply local terms and conditions for all staff, medical, clinical and administrative, very few trusts exercise those freedoms. There are around 400 trusts, and only one foundation trust—Southend—has departed from Agenda for Change, and the differences that it has negotiated are marginal.

20:30

Employers can continue to use national pay. I would just make it clear that nothing that I have said means that the Government see no role for national contracts and negotiating mechanisms. We believe that many providers will want to continue to use national contracts as a basis for their local terms and conditions. However, employers, not government, should be in the lead on negotiations on national contracts. Of course, employers who move away from national terms and conditions would need to ensure that any new system did not expose them to equal pay challenges by delivering a fair and objective pay system, as Agenda for Change has achieved nationally. We do not intend to abandon the national pay frameworks, and we will expect them to be maintained for those employers who want to continue to use them. We will discuss with the staff side and the employers in the sector the appropriate approach to the national pay frameworks.

The noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, spoke about the pay review bodies. The Government recognise that the review bodies bring an independent and expert view, valued by the Government and those representing public sector staff and employers. In the longer term, we will work with NHS employers and trade unions to explore appropriate arrangements for setting pay. He also highlighted the risks of local pay bargaining. The Agenda for Change pay system includes all the right checks and balances—for example, the national online job evaluation system—so employers locally can ensure equal pay for work of equal value, which is of course important. When employers decide to move away from national pay frameworks, they must of course continue their legal obligations under equalities legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, spoke about the implications of pay devolution and enlarged on the theme begun by the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie. I understand that the NHS Staff Council is engaged in constructive discussions with NHS trade unions about the challenges facing the NHS across the UK and the scale of the financial problems facing employers and their staff. NHS employers and trade unions recognise the contribution that national pay frameworks have made to the development of a modern and effective NHS and agree that it needs to be fit for purpose for employers, staff and patients in the short and longer term. Talks are continuing between the unions and employers; my understanding is that they want to work within national pay frameworks.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, asked specifically about the public health workforce strategy. We have been discussing with the NHS local authorities and others how the transition for public health can be managed most effectively for staff. We are working hard to get this right; we do not envisage applying a top-down approach to determining public health teams within local authorities. We will expect good employment law principles and practices to apply and any transfer that is a relevant transfer under the TUPE regulations will engage the TUPE principles. Additionally, the principles of the Cabinet Office statement of practice may apply.

I hope that, with those comments, noble Lords are reassured, although I cannot go as far as the amendment would invite me to go on imposing mandatory national arrangements across the piece. However, I hope that I have said enough to encourage the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Rooker]

For the public health directors, who will be the employer? Will it be the local authority? In the sense that you can pay a director of education or children’s services market rates around local government, will that be the same for the directors of public health, so that their salaries vary around the country? It would be the beginnings of a new service, in that sense. Do we know the answer to that?

[Earl Howe]

They will be employed by local authorities. It is too soon to say to the noble Lord what the pay grade of those people will be, but clearly they will be very senior officers within the local authority. Yes, strictly speaking, if there is freedom to set pay locally, there could be some variations around the country, but I would envisage that the pay grade of directors of public health will gravitate towards a certain figure, whatever that may be.

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein]

The Minister spoke about the value of the pay review body being independent, but I was not clear whether he saw a future for that body. Could he clarify that first?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we value the pay review bodies, and there are no plans to disturb them at the moment. I sought to indicate that we continue to look at how pay arrangements are best structured. The pay review bodies do an extremely valuable job at present, as they have done for many years.

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and other noble Lords who contributed to the debate, particularly my noble friend Lord MacKenzie for his reminder to us of the history of the establishment of the pay review bodies and the contribution that they have made, particularly to improving pay and industrial relations in the NHS.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for a number of comments that he made in support of the amendment, particularly the point that he made about operating the same job in a nearby locality for different pay and conditions, which would be likely to cause serious detriment to industrial relations. We are very concerned about that.

I deeply disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. This is not a pedalling-back amendment. The foundation trusts, I would contend, have not implemented local pay bargaining because they know the implications for industrial relations and local employment rates and so on. Agenda for Change has introduced equal pay, as the Minister said, and provided a good framework for addressing issues of equal pay for equal value. It has certainly proved its worth.

I regret that the Minister is unable to offer any real comfort to those in the House who believe that honouring the long-standing pay and bargaining arrangements for NHS staff at national level is not only the fairest thing to do but the wisest course if we are to ensure that NHS staff morale does not plummet even further. It is an important issue and I give notice that I intend to raise this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 45 withdrawn.

House resumed.

Energy: Wind Farms

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

20:39

Asked By

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of current and proposed wind farms and their supporting infrastructures on the communities and landscape of mid-Wales and Shropshire.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I welcome and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on her first venture to the Dispatch Box. It is a pleasure to see her responding to this debate. I declare an interest as a former president of the Montgomeryshire Society with strong links to the Vrynwy and Meifod valleys. Together with my noble friend Lord Hooson I was engaged in resisting successfully the proposals to drown the Dulas valley near Llanidloes in the early 1970s to provide a regulating reservoir for Birmingham.

Two or three years ago my noble friend Lady Walmsley—my wife—and I visited a school in Llanfair Caereinion to present prizes given by the Montgomeryshire Society. While we were congratulating a bright young boy on the excellent prize he had won, I asked him, “What are your plans when you leave school?”. He said he wanted to be a farmer. I asked whether it was sheep, cattle or arable farming that he had in mind. “No,” he said, “Wind farming”.

This is a timely debate, having regard to the KPMG report Thinking About the Affordable published this week. The report says that government plans for wind farms are too expensive and should be shelved in favour of cheaper nuclear and gas-fired power stations. Government plans to cut pollution by a third by 2020 rest heavily on wind power and will cost £108 billion to implement. The report says that shifting away from turbines towards nuclear and gas-fired power stations would slash the bill by £34 billion, which is equal to around £550 for every person in this country. Wind power is accordingly one of the most expensive forms of electricity generation to build. Wind farms are expensive to operate as they depend on nature, which means they often do not run at full capacity. It is claimed that they run at 31 per cent of capacity but analysis of past performance in the UK suggests that 21 per cent is nearer to the truth. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister the Government’s reaction to this report.

In 2005 the Welsh Assembly Government issued TAN 8, the technical advice note meant to guide planning decisions relating to renewable energy projects. TAN 8 identified seven strategic search areas as suitable for concentrated, large-scale wind farm development, three of which were in mid-Wales. The focus is on mid-Wales because Snowdonia National Park lies to the north and Brecon Beacons National Park to the south. Targets for capacity have varied from 1.1 gigawatts originally to 2.5 gigawatts in 2007, falling back to 2 gigawatts in 2010, all to be constructed within the SSAs by 2015.

In mid-Wales, schemes have been proposed for 800 turbines up to 600 feet tall, spreading through the Severn valley and into the hills above the Meifod and Vyrnwy valleys. Of course, there are no connections to the national grid in the area so these schemes require a network of electricity pylons, running to a substation at either Abermule or Cefn Coch, spread over some 28 acres. That substation will require a link of 154-feet-tall mega-pylons across the rest of Montgomeryshire and into England, all the way through Shropshire to Telford some 45 miles away. There are currently some 200 pylons in existence in Powys. ScottishPower Renewables is into the second phase of its proposals to build a 135-megawatt wind farm of 35 pylons—the highest in Europe at 600 feet—on land that it has leased from the Forestry Commission in the Dyfnant forest. They will tower over Lake Vyrnwy and the beautiful countryside around. In response to the proposal for these pylons put forward by ScottishPower and National Grid, some 500 people turned up to a protest meeting at the Meifod rugby club—and this is a very small village—at the end of March. In May the biggest protest demonstration in the Welsh Assembly’s history took place in Cardiff with some 2,000 people. In Welshpool in June, 2,000 people attended to protest and to watch on a large screen the proceedings of Powys County Council where a motion calling for the review of the TAN 8 policy was passed unanimously with only one abstention. Shropshire County Council has also declared itself to be unanimously against this proposal and all the parish councils involved have expressed their opposition. As a result of all this pressure Carwyn Jones, the Welsh Assembly Government’s First Minister, realised finally what the previous Government had let loose with TAN 8 and in a reversal of previous policy said on 17 June:

“Planning guidelines on the number of wind farms should in future be regarded as an upper limit. The Welsh Government wants the UK government to devolve powers over large-scale energy generation projects. We cannot accept a position where decisions made outside Wales will lead to inappropriate development for the people of Wales. The Welsh Government believe this level of development is unacceptable in view of its wider impacts on the local area”.

Mr Jones hoped that the United Kingdom Government would respect his announcement and would not allow proliferation when they take decisions on individual projects in Wales. He concluded by saying:

“My government would not support the construction of large pylons in mid-Wales and my ministers are pressing this case with National Grid Transmission and with Ofgem”.

What is this Government’s response? They have rejected Mr Jones’s demand for further devolution but surely the Department of Energy and Climate Change will not ride roughshod over the express will of parish councils, county councils, the Welsh Assembly Government and, most importantly, the whole community of Montgomeryshire, Shropshire and beyond. According to the Telegraph on 9 October a spokesman for DECC said:

“All applications for wind farm developments and electricity network infrastructure should be dealt with on a case by case basis, taking into account the views of local people”.

Who exactly is going to deal with these applications? Name the Minister. Who will balance the antagonism of local people, the expressed hostility of their representatives, the obvious environmental considerations, and the impact on tourism and the local economy against the expensive and limited capacity for generating electricity that these wind farms possess? The impact on the people and the beautiful countryside will be devastating. I do not share the gleam in the eye of those who try to tell us that turbines are a thing of beauty. It is all a question of proportion. The countryside can absorb a certain number of these structures. Indeed, in Dulas valley near Machynlleth, the first community-owned wind turbine in the United Kingdom was erected in 2003 and serves the local population, who own it, very well. But 800 turbines in the area proposed will be completely and wholly out of proportion. If localism means anything at all to this Government, the ruination of the hills should be taken by bodies that are accountable locally.

For those who think that mid-Wales is an empty and barren land that does not matter, I advise them to read the report commissioned during the Dulas valley inquiry of 1970 from the University of Aberystwyth, which stressed the value of the strong community life, the strength of the culture and the human effects of the proposed development upon a mid-Wales community. At that time, the Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Cledwyn, determined and announced that no Welsh valley would be sacrificed again. It is time for the Secretary of State for Wales in the present Government to step in and to follow that precedent.

20:49

[Lord Williams of Elvel]

My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for introducing this subject and for concentrating on the theme of localism, which I want to follow up on because it is vitally important. It is a matter that has got slightly confused over the years. Let me start with TAN 8, which the noble Lord introduced us to.

TAN 8 went through a consultation process, a recent analysis of which has shown that 66 per cent of consultees opposed it and 7 per cent were in favour. Even at its promulgation, TAN 8 was unpopular with all the consultees who the Welsh Assembly Government had invited to comment. That went through to the selection of the SSAs. These strategic search areas were identified by a Danish company, Arup, on the grounds of simple criteria. Social conditions were not part of the criteria to identify them. The result was that we had three SSAs in mid-Wales, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, quite rightly points out—they were B, C and D, to be technical about it—where the criteria were basically the number of people who did not live there; that is, the most beautiful wildernesses in mid-Wales.

The result of TAN 8, curiously enough, has been slightly perverse. It was designed to stop what is known as pepper-potting, with wind turbines being put up all over Wales, and to concentrate on serious and strategic areas. The problem with that, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has pointed out, is that this gave rise to large applications because if you were going to try and meet the targets which the Welsh Assembly Government had set in terms of carbon emissions from Wales, you had to make sure that the applications were of large sizes. The result is that we have a number of applications—I will not go through the whole list—with, for example, 160 megawatts, 150 megawatts, 140 megawatts or 170 megawatts of installed capacity. It is a long list and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has given us a graphic idea of the total, so what happens then?

What happens is that these applications are outside the control of the Welsh Assembly Government, the local authority and local people, so they come to Westminster—originally under the Electricity Act 1989 but now, because of rearrangements in the planning mechanisms, these applications would come through the Infrastructure Planning Commission. We read in the Localism Bill that that commission is to be abolished, so that it will become an infrastructure planning inspectorate inside the general inspectorate. The ultimate decision would be for a Secretary of State. I have no quarrel with that remedy but I have a quarrel about which Secretary of State would be responsible for this—I follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. Would it be the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who sits for an English constituency? Would it be the Secretary of State for Wales, who sits for an English constituency? Would it be the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who sits for an English constituency? In any way, it would be determined by somebody who has no particular interest in ensuring the benefits of mid-Wales.

We had an example of this in the previous Government, which I attacked then and would attack now. The wind farm at Cefn Croes, in the middle of the Cambrian Mountains—one of the most beautiful places in the world, let alone the United Kingdom—was opposed by every planning authority in mid-Wales. It went to London and one of my colleagues in the Westminster Government simply signed it off. Did he go and visit the site? No. Did he consult with various people? No. It was simple ideology: he wanted to ensure that there was enough capacity in whatever it was, however it was done. It is that which we must avoid.

What happens when an application for a wind farm of over 50 megawatts of installed capacity comes to the Secretary of State? Will he or she look at the criteria that Arup introduced to define these selected areas? What is important, wilderness and wind speed or social conditions and communities? What happens when the Secretary of State receives the application and says, “I’m not bothered about mid-Wales. That is not my interest at all”? We have to ensure that localism means something rather than simply being a theory. It would be perfectly possible to ensure by some mechanism or other that localism actually counted, and I hope very much that the Minister will give us that reassurance.

20:55

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I am very aware that I am not a resident of Wales so I shall be careful in what I say. However, some months ago, as part of a business trip—nothing to do with energy or renewables—I passed through central Wales. I stayed there for the evening and enjoyed the hospitality, the scenery and the countryside. I noticed a number of signs and placards there around renewable energy, so I fully accept that this is a major issue in that area. I live in another Celtic part of the United Kingdom, one that has high wind potential with regard to renewable energy. It has a number of wind farms and similar issues to those of Wales, although maybe not to the same degree.

It is important to remember the slightly broader context to this debate—that is not a justification, but it puts the debate in a broader context—of global warming and the need to decarbonise our electricity supply chain in this country and indeed further afield than that. Global warming exists, it is happening, it is dangerous and it will have major effects not just on our own country but much more widely. The Berkeley earth surface temperature study has recently taken place. A study that was originally very sceptical about the question of temperatures and global warming looked at the University of East Anglia results and the controversy about the Hadley Centre, and came back to say that global warming was really happening.

We have to go through the process of decarbonisation and the Government have some excellent strategies towards that: energy efficiency; new nuclear, which some of my colleagues might disagree with rather more; carbon capture and storage; and renewables. Why those four different things? Because this is such an important issue that we cannot have just one approach to it. We have to have a multifaceted approach to the problem, and that is true of electricity generation as well.

One small point about the KPMG report is that onshore wind generation is not one of the most expensive technologies but quite the opposite: it is actually one of the least expensive. Offshore wind, wave, geothermal and various other technologies are more expensive than onshore wind; that is not even slightly contestable. The other thing about the report—and I was rather surprised that KPMG put its name to something that was so shaky in its economic analysis—is that it looks purely at capital cost. Those of us who have had anything whatever to do with business or industry understand that, in terms of cash flow or assessing projects, looking only at capital cost means nothing. In fact, if we looked purely at that, we as a civilisation would still be in the stone age rather than where we are now. Some people might welcome that, but I personally am not one of those who are into deindustrialisation.

The important thing about renewables is that the ongoing fuel cost is far less. If we look at those countries such as Denmark and Spain that bothered to invest in renewables way back in the past, we see that the energy prices where there is a much higher renewable content have not increased at anything like the rate that our own energy costs have in the UK. I remind the Minister that in the five-year period 2004 to 2009, electricity costs went up by 75 per cent and gas costs by 120 per cent—far higher than any costs that would have resulted from renewable energy.

In fact, if we invest suitably in renewable energy we will have a much lower cost increase in future. Onshore wind generation is a good solution in terms of renewable energy and decarbonising the economy and a good way of tackling global warming. One of the cheaper ways of producing renewable energy is hydro—including dams in the type of area where my noble friend, quite rightly, campaigned. However, there is less ability in the UK to build extra hydro than onshore wind generation.

The crux of this argument, with which I absolutely agree, is about the concentration of wind turbines in a particular area and providing access to the national grid, such as by building pylons. I have sympathy for Wales, and central Wales in particular, because the plans that have come back to the Welsh Government have delineated specific areas and there is a problem with that. What is required is for the Welsh Assembly and Government to look at changing those criteria and moving it away from DECC, which should not make those sorts of decisions for the UK. We would then have the right solution for Wales that would also challenge and affect global warming.

21:02

[Lord Rowe-Beddoe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for securing this short debate on a subject which clearly deserves a considerably longer hearing.

The current plans to construct a further 600 to 800 onshore turbines in mid-Wales are unacceptable on two counts. First, there is the wanton destruction of an extraordinary environment, which has already been referred to. Secondly, there is the further development of an inefficient and absurdly expensive solution to achieving the targets for CO₂ emissions that the UK has undertaken, and for increased use of renewables.

As the Member for Montgomery said a few weeks ago in the other place, mid-Wales truly,

“is a place of great beauty … it underpins the most important and largest part of the local economy—tourism”.—[Official Report, 10/6/11; col. 347WH.]

Although mid-Wales constitutes some two-thirds of the land mass of our country, its population is small and, apart from sheep farming, tourism is the only other major sector upon which the economy is dependent. In addition to these 800 new onshore turbines, there is the installation—as has been mentioned—of a 20-acre electricity substation and 100 miles of new cable, mostly carried on 150-foot-high steel towers. No wonder the local populace is protesting.

According to the Country Guardian website, by August this year 275 different groups had been formed throughout the UK to object to the impact of planned wind farm developments, 30 of which are in Wales. That is 11 per cent of the total, which is disproportionate to the 5 per cent of the UK population that the area represents. It is too easy for Government and other industrial protagonists of this vandalism to characterise the protestors as guilty of nimbyism. That is a slanderous description. Their approach is not “nimby”; if anything, it is “nioby”—not in our back yard, and not in the nation's back yard that is the beautiful and unique topography of these isles, which both this Parliament and the devolved Administrations must have a primary duty to protect.

Financial analysis is available to all. Anyone can see that the costs far outweigh the effective generation of electricity in comparison to other sources. What can Government do to take the heat out of this most contentious issue and give leadership to the development of alternative forms of electricity production? It will not surprise your Lordships if I return to the Severn barrage, a mega-project that would generate more than 5 per cent of the total UK electricity requirement by using the power of the second-largest rise and fall of tide in the world. Ironically, this year is the 100th anniversary of the first reference to a Severn barrage for energy purposes, made by a Frenchman in 1911. Since then, between 1926 and 1989, there have been many government and privately-sponsored investigations. Since the Sustainable Development Commission’s report of October 2007, which was largely constructive in its approach, Governments continue to be reluctant to give the scheme their backing.

Despite past cross-party support in the other place, led at that time by the previous Secretary of State for Wales, little has happened until now. A private sector consortium, Corlan Hafren, has set about the task of making it happen. It should be supported. Its plans appear to incorporate the most recent engineering developments, with environmental outcomes that are,

“no worse than at present, and possibly better”.

In addition to its extraordinary relevance to achieving UK targets, the construction and associated infrastructure of the barrage would be set to create 100,000 jobs. Perhaps the Minister would care to note the Financial Times report of 24 November 2010, in which the Secretary of State is reported as saying that,

“there would be no state funding for the Severn tidal power project”.

The Energy Minister followed this by stating:

“My officials are talking to private sector consortia about their ideas”.

Later, the Secretary of State is reported to have said:

“I think the Severn barrage will eventually happen and will provide about 7 per cent of all the electricity in the UK. When it does it will involve a lot of different businesses. But investors will need assurance that the government is behind it”.

Therefore, the question is: when?

Finally, at the other end of the scale is biomass. In Wales the use of biomass fuel lags well behind that in Germany and other countries. The technology is proven, there are grants and funding incentives and a supply infrastructure is in place. Wales has an abundant timber resource: 13 per cent of its land mass is woodland, of which some 75,000 hectares is unmanaged private woodland. Biomass systems are not designed just for individual domestic use. Already there are examples of their use in Wales by organisations such as the new Rhondda hospital in Llwynypia and the Office for National Statistics in Newport. The Welsh Government happily lead the way, with a biomass system installed in the Senedd building.

There are alternatives. Let us pause and reconsider the effects of these policies in destroying our beautiful countryside. If we do not, the ugly results will be the inheritance of future generations at grossly unacceptable cost.

21:08

[Lord Howie of Troon]

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in what is clearly a Welsh evening but I am happy to come to the aid of my fellow Celts on this occasion. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, on securing this debate and on the powerful manner in which he introduced it.

I should say that I have a kind of background in Wales. Older Members of the House, if there are any present, may remember that I spent a lifetime in the construction industry and younger Members should take note of that now. In my civil engineering days I was involved in the Milford Haven power station, in a coal mine near Llanelli, in a gas works near Neath and in the Wylfa nuclear power station in north Wales. I have a background in the energy business, although I was on the construction side of the infrastructure for the industry.

I am with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in that I want to widen the debate from the specific mid-Wales aspect. I regard that as a microcosm of what is likely to happen through the rest of the country. Many years ago, as a relatively new Member of the House—I think that Jim Callaghan was the Prime Minister although I am not too sure—I drew attention to my experience with Milford Haven and suggested to the House that if we were to replace the Milford Haven oil-powered station, which produced 2,000 megawatts, we would have required something like 2,000 windmills, as we called them in those days. They have now been upgraded to wind turbines. I said at the time that they would stretch from Cardiff, at roughly every 100 yards, around the coast to the Mersey. The turbines are stronger now and would stretch for only half that distance—but that is the scale that we are talking about. I reminded the House more recently that if you took the Thames array—an offshore assembly that is no longer called a farm but an array—it would stretch from the House here in one direction as far as the Tate Modern and in the other direction as far as King’s Cross railway station. We are talking about covering large swathes of the country with wind turbines, or windmills—call them what you like.

Speaking as an engineer, I would not mind that if they actually produced the energy that they are thought to produce. However, they do not. If one looks back to the coldest day of the winter in December last year, wind power produced 0.04 per cent—I repeat, 0.04 per cent—of the energy required to heat the homes of this country on that day. That figure is derisory. The idea that wind power, which is intermittent, can replace any other form of electricity production is a miasma at best. In order to make up for the periods when windmills are not producing electricity, there has to be a back-up. I refer again to Milford Haven. If we had had the 2,000 megawatts of wind power in Wales that failed, as it happened, last year, one would still have needed Milford Haven power station as a back-up. One would not have replaced it. The idea that windmills will help us is an illusion.

I shall conclude by drawing attention to a book published two years ago by James Lovelock. It is entitled The Vanishing Face of Gaia. He was a guru of Greenpeace at its beginning, but is now thought of as an apostate. We need 70 gigawatts of electricity. He said that the footprint of a nuclear power station producing 1 gigawatt is 30 acres. The footprint for 1 gigawatt of wind power is 1,000 square miles. I tend to giggle at that thought.

I shall not go on any longer, but I should say this. The Minister and the shadow Minister on the Front Bench should get hold of Lovelock’s book and read it. If they read it and apply its message, they would save all the bother in mid-Wales and in the rest of the country as well.

21:15

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, the background to this debate is a very confused situation. It is confused because renewable energy development in Wales is divided between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, with 50 megawatts, as you have heard, as the dividing line. It is also confused because, to be honest, the Welsh Government have got themselves into a particular pickle over TAN 8, which is the guidance that has been referred to. This was never a good document, but it is now badly out of date. It was always too heavily reliant on wind power: there are 12 pages of guidance on wind power, but three pages on every other type of renewable energy.

It is also out of date because the capacity targets it refers to appear to be greatly exceeded now in terms of potential. In each of the seven designated areas, the capacity targets seem now to be understated. In fact the Welsh Government do not seem to know whether they are targets or maxima; various Welsh government documents refer to them variously as targets, or, on the other hand, as maxima. Yet the report last year by Arup showed that the planning applications in the pipeline at the moment far exceed the capacity targets. It is quite logical: as time goes on, technical capacity increases and therefore the targets that you set in 2005 are out of date by the time you get to 2011. Indeed, earlier this year the Welsh Government said that it was their aspiration to reach 2 gigawatts as a target in the seven areas by 2013 to 2015. Faced with an absolute uproar in mid-Wales, they are now rowing back from that. However, we do not know whether it is a target or a maximum.

I obviously agree with noble Lords who have stated how strongly they feel about the beauty of mid-Wales. I am a strong supporter of renewable energy but I believe that we have to preserve our best, and the wonderful and unique scenery of mid-Wales comes into that category. It is important to remember the importance of the tourism industry in that area as well. An area which has difficulty in attracting jobs cannot afford to lose its tourist industry.

There is a particular problem in mid-Wales because of the lack of grid infrastructure. This is what has sparked the latest opposition. At the moment, people feel very strongly about the mid-Wales connection project. TAN 8 is hopelessly optimistic on this as well. It said that if extra grid capacity were needed as a result of the wind farm development, it should come via underground cables. We know that that is far too expensive to contemplate on the scale which would be necessary. However, I have a letter from the Minister, written in July, which said:

“Where new grid is required, we expect the grid company and regulator to ensure that it is located, designed and installed as sensitively as possible, using appropriate techniques, including the use of undergrounding”.

Including the use of undergrounding is different from burying all cables underground. There is plenty of anger and plenty of confusion.

One point of confusion could be overcome if the power over developments of more than 50 megawatts could be delegated—devolved—to the Welsh Assembly. At the moment, the UK Government decide whether a wind farm can be developed and the Welsh Government decide the detail, if it is more than 50 megawatts. That is inappropriate. I strongly argue for devolution of those powers. The Silk commission has recently been established to consider the extent of Welsh devolution, and I very much hope that it will consider this issue as part of its remit. Given that TAN 8 envisaged that 1,700 megawatts in total would be coming from the seven SSAs, the 50-megawatt limit is a very low threshold. It is completely arbitrary. I argue that it appears increasingly out of date.

Finally, I return to my point that the balance of TAN 8 was wrong. Too much emphasis was placed on wind. We need much greater exploitation of Wales’s greatest assets: its rivers and tides. The Severn barrage was sensibly abandoned by the coalition Government. It was too costly, it would come in too late and it would have destroyed a major SSSI, but there are good alternatives, and many of them.

21:21

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, your Lordships' House should thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for doing us a service by holding this debate in his name this evening. It has been a timely and stimulating debate with a great deal of interest in this House and beyond. It makes us understand the strongly held views on the issue. I shall take my lead from the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Howie of Troon, in addressing the general issues and lead from that into the specific ones.

I was interested in the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the Severn barrage. Whatever form of energy we suggest, there will be strongly held views on all sides of the argument, as we have heard this evening. However, we cannot underestimate the challenges that we face in seeking to improve the security of energy supply and to meet the Government’s target to reduce carbon emissions. Today's report from the International Energy Agency has not been mentioned, although KPMG has. That report makes it clear that if no substantive action is taken to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and reduce carbon, we will have lost the opportunity to tackle climate change in the next five years—a sobering thought.

The UK is committed to increasing the amount of electricity generated from renewables, such as wind and solar, from 7 per cent to 30 per cent by 2020—although I have to say that, given the Government’s appalling decision on the feed-in tariffs, it will be interesting to know how they can possibly reach those targets. The solar business has been virtually destroyed: 77 per cent of businesses that responded to a poll for BusinessGreen said that they will now scrap their plans to install solar PV; only 6 per cent said that they will carry on. I welcome the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box tonight. Can she say anything about how the Government intend to achieve the 30 per cent by 2020, and whether that commitment remains? That would be very helpful.

In the light of that decision, there will be greater attention on wind power. I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches, interesting, as the Liberal Democrats were even more ambitious than the Government at the time of the previous election, and made even greater commitments in their election manifesto to renewable energy, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned. That manifesto stated:

“Climate change is the greatest challenge facing this generation. Liberal Democrats are unwavering in our commitment: runaway climate change must be stopped … We will set a target for 40 per cent of UK electricity to come from clean, non-carbon-emitting sources by 2020, rising to 100 per cent by 2050”,

with three-quarters from marine and offshore.

At that time, I understand that the party was not in favour of new nuclear, so the remaining 25 per cent would have to have included significant onshore wind. Despite that commitment to offshore wind, it is significantly more expensive in both installation and maintenance—as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said—and is probably not as efficient as onshore wind. As people worry about turning on the heating as it gets colder, every effort must be taken to protect the consumer from even higher bills. If renewables, including wind power, can play a part in energy security and in keeping those longer-term costs down, we must act responsibly in the interests of the consumer. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, quoted KPMG’s report; I was interested in the demolition of it made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, as I had read the same report. It is unfortunate that we do not have a full report from KPMG, so we cannot analyse the figures that it has put out. However, if we look at the options that the report seems to prefer, we can see that the costs that also have to be taken into account for new nuclear, as well as the capital bill—which would be less than for wind power—include not just the construction but the fuel, security and clean-up costs, which run into very large amounts.

The questions that we need to ask ourselves are: does onshore wind have a role to play? If so, is it cost-effective? If that is the case, how do we achieve it, and how can we minimise the concerns that have been raised and best address those issues of location and infrastructure that cause such concern? Compared with other European countries we are not maximising our potential, despite government commitments. The population of Denmark is 10 per cent of that of the UK, yet it has 84 per cent of the amount of onshore wind. Twenty per cent of Danish energy is supplied by wind, with electricity costs about 14 per cent lower than the UK, and in Germany they are about 7 per cent lower.

The greatest concerns we have heard on costs are the capital costs. It would be helpful to know whether the Government have made any assessment of how those costs could be reduced, using the European examples of economies of scale, for example, or of any plans to do some kind of assessment of how the capital costs—the initial costs—could be reduced. I apologise for not giving the noble Baroness advance notice of that, but perhaps she could write to me at some point.

The other issue on wind power is the consequential effect of job creation. A survey in Wales indicated that the average wage in the wind energy sector was around £44,000 a year. There is an opportunity for the Government here, and it was articulated just two weeks ago by 100 leading economists in their Plan B: A Good Economy for a Good Society, when they identified that a green new deal would create thousands of jobs, stimulating growth through investing in SMEs and new technologies and, in particular, nurturing the UK renewables sector. It is clear that there are benefits to be gained, but very important issues have been raised tonight about location and infrastructure. The noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Williams of Elvel, both referred to the planning process, and I agree that there is a lack of clarity since the Localism Bill about transitional arrangements. That is an issue that would have benefited from discussion during proceedings on the Localism Bill in your Lordships’ House.

The point that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, makes, is a very important one. There is plenty of evidence that, although the public as a whole support wind farms and renewable energy in principle, in practice they also have very genuine concerns about where they are to be sited. It is wrong to dismiss those concerns when they are genuinely felt, but it would also be wrong to fail to proceed with the contribution that onshore wind can make if those fears can be addressed.

We have heard today about the very specific issues in Wales, and the concerns that decisions will be taken in London—in Westminster—rather than locally, where Ministers can hear local concerns and address problems themselves. There are issues, as we have heard, about the national grid, the infrastructure and pylons. I see the noble Baroness the Whip on her feet—I am winding up very quickly. In regard to the questions put by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Williams of Elvel, what discussions have the Government had with Welsh Ministers on the scale and routing of the national grid to TAN 8 areas? Along the lines that have been discussed by many noble Lords this evening, are the Government minded to devolve the consenting rights for larger projects to the Wales Government?

[Lord Wigley]

Can the noble Baroness give a commitment on behalf of her own—

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, if you do not mind me interrupting, already the Minister has not got the 12 minutes she was allocated, so if we could allow her to reply it would be very helpful.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am happy to have put those questions.

21:29

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for initiating this debate and I am grateful for the contributions from all noble Lords.

The introduction of wind farms is a significant matter and, like any significant matter that brings about change, it will always attract comment and some concern. On matters such as this, it is important that people have a chance to voice their opinions and that Ministers listen. I am certainly grateful for the opportunity to listen tonight and to respond to some of the points that have been raised.

With something of this significance, it is usual for people in their communities to want to understand what the overall objective is and what we are trying to achieve. People will want to know about and understand the process. They will want to know how decisions are made, what criteria determine those decisions, whether all issues that are of concern to them are being taken into account, and whether they can have a say. People also, quite rightly, want to know what the gains are from these decisions and whether they are gains from which they, too, can benefit.

Perhaps I should start by reminding your Lordships that the Government have three strategic aims in relation to energy and climate change: to secure the supply of energy—what we often talk about as keeping the lights on; to minimise costs to consumers; and to cut fossil fuel emissions so that we play our part in taking care of the planet for the sake of future generations. Renewable energy is vital to delivering our strategic aims and we are committed to it. Appropriately sited onshore wind needs to be part of our energy mix because it is one of the most cost-effective and established renewable technologies.

The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for whose expertise in and knowledge of all matters engineering I have great respect, talked about the intermittency of wind energy. Wind power is not in and of itself the answer—no one is suggesting that it is a solution—but it is an important part of the mix. Other noble Lords talked about other renewable technologies that are out there. The noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, and my noble friend Lady Randerson mentioned the Severn barrage and asked what is happening with it. If a private company were to come forward with a new proposal for a Severn barrage, the Government would listen and would definitely want to hear what it had to say. However, it is worth my pointing out that even an option such as that would still require major grid reinforcements to connect it to the national grid.

Noble Lords also asked about other options. The noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, asked what other renewables we are considering and mentioned biomass fuel. I take this opportunity to remind noble Lords that in July this year the Government published their renewables road map, which set out the various renewable technologies that would form part of their plan for hitting the target of 20 per cent of renewables by 2010. The noble Baroness mentioned a figure of 30 per cent but the target is actually 20 per cent. Biomass plays an important part in that. Indeed, it is one of the leading contributors.

Returning to wind power, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and other noble Lords mentioned the recent KPMG report and its criticisms of wind power. It is important that I point out, as did my noble friend Lord Teverson, that, in focusing exclusively on the upfront capital costs of technologies, the report does not take into account the long-term benefits to consumers of energy sources that involve no ongoing fuel costs. Let us be clear: unlike other types of fuel, wind is free. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, asked how we can go about reducing the capital costs of wind farms. I shall have to explore that and will write to the noble Baroness.

Affordability obviously figures in all our decisions. Nothing is more important to consumers today and that will continue into the future. That is why we are reshaping our renewable subsidies to get a better bang for the buck, targeting support where it is needed and driving costs down in the long run. For example, we are consulting on proposals to reduce the level of support to onshore wind by one-tenth in the renewables obligation banding review. I am talking about the subsidies to those who operate onshore wind farms. We are also consulting on the proposed introduction of new feed-in tariffs for solar panels based on the evidence of falling costs. Although some might question the reduction in subsidies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, did, let us not forget that the cost of all these subsidies is paid for by bill payers. These subsidies are not met from general taxation. Overall, the long-term national interest lies in cutting carbon and keeping the lights on in the most cost-effective way possible and substantial amounts of renewable energy will be needed to do that.

If that is the what and the why of what we are trying to do, let me now turn to how we decide, which has been an important topic of today’s debate. Clearly I recognise, as do the Government, that proposed onshore wind developments in Wales and their associated energy infrastructure have raised a lot of interest and debate in recent months. Your Lordships will understand that I cannot comment on specific applications, but let me say something about the process. First, the Welsh Government’s TAN 8 policy has designated specific areas in mid-Wales as strategic search areas, sometimes known as SSAs, as potential locations for major wind farms. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend Lady Randerson questioned the validity of TAN 8, but that is a matter for the Welsh Assembly. It is not something for me to comment on. It is a devolved matter.

Local authorities in Wales are responsible for deciding planning applications within the devolved planning policy for smaller—less than 50 megawatt—farms. The Westminster Government are responsible for deciding on major energy infrastructure projects that affect Wales. Some may argue, as some of your Lordships have this evening, that it is not appropriate for UK Ministers to make decisions on major infrastructure applications in Wales, but UK Ministers are accountable to Welsh voters, as they are to English voters. We believe that it is appropriate for UK Ministers to take these decisions on major infrastructure of national importance and of relevance to the UK Government’s wider strategic aims that I have already outlined.

I will not take up your Lordships’ time by trying to describe the different processes and policies that are followed, because they are quite detailed, but the key thing for me to stress is that regardless of whether applications are dealt with nationally or locally, communities must be and are being consulted on all proposed developments before decisions are reached. Crucially, all decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis so that local factors can be taken fully into account.

Mid-Wales is a beautiful part of the United Kingdom. It is important that wind farms are sited correctly and wind energy developers are guided away from the most sensitive landscapes, such as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Moreover, protections are in place to ensure that detailed environmental assessments are made in the preparation of planning applications, including, most importantly—and I will stress this—an assessment of cumulative impact.

I know that it is not just the wind farms that are causing concern. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and others have asked about the supporting infrastructure. As there is no existing high-voltage network in this part of Wales, the necessary infrastructure to make these connections will have to be built. Connection options are currently being developed by National Grid and ScottishPower Energy Networks. The applications for these connections will be decided by the appropriate planning authorities. Many people feel very strongly about pylons and the impact they can have on the landscape. Effective consultation with local communities and other interested parties is therefore a vital part of the planning process and this is ongoing. An important point I would like to stress is that National Grid has also recently announced that it will put greater emphasis on mitigating the visual impact of its new electricity lines, while balancing this with the obvious need to minimise household energy bills. People in areas potentially affected can therefore be reassured that alternatives to overhead lines are being actively explored.

I wanted to talk about the economic benefits of wind farms to us as a nation and to local communities. My noble friend Lord Teverson has covered some of these already. I would like to pick out a couple of points. The wind sector in Wales is creating high-value jobs. The average wage for those jobs is around £44,000 a year. The annual contribution to the Welsh economy is estimated at £158 million a year. We have consulted on a proposal for communities in England to retain the business rates generated by renewable energy developments. This matter would be devolved in Wales, but I would urge influential noble Lords with connections to the Welsh Assembly to highlight what is happening in England and the benefits that may be enjoyed in Wales if it was to follow that idea. A good example of a wind farm developer making sure that there are direct local benefits is the Cefn Croes Wind Farm Community Trust, funded by Cambrian Wind Energy.

Appropriately sited onshore wind farms make a vital contribution to our strategic aims. They are also important to our economic growth. This coalition Government support appropriately sited onshore wind. We will make decisions about where they are located with great care. We will make sure that communities can benefit directly from renewable energy developments in their area. I shall of course ensure that all the points made this evening are relayed accurately back to the department. I thank once more my noble friend for initiating this debate.

Education Bill

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

21:41

Clause 8 : Functions of Secretary of State in relation to teachers

Amendment 1

Tabled by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

1: Clause 8, page 12, line 22, at end insert—
“( ) The list must be linked to a database of those individuals who have obtained Qualified Teacher Status.”

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

On the basis of assurances given, I shall not move the amendment.

Amendment 1 not moved.

Clause 38 : Constitution of governing bodies: maintained schools in England

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

2: Clause 38, page 43, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) persons elected as student governors,”

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, Amendment 2 would enable students to become full members of school governing bodies, as was the case before 1986. Following government amendments, the Bill's requirements for governing bodies more accurately reflect the make-up of the school community. However, one significant absence is that of students.

I was not able to be in my place when this matter was last discussed in Committee on 20 July and I extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for speaking to the relevant amendment in my absence. I understand that the Minister has today received a letter from members of the National Participation Forum, which includes the Schools Network, the British Youth Council, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, the National Children’s Bureau and UNICEF, all of which support the proposal.

These organisations and many more support children's rights to be involved in decisions that affect them. Children spend a substantial part of their lives in school and it is only right that they should be able to sit on school governing bodies as full members. At present, students can become only associate members, with no voting rights for under-18s and limited voting rights for over-18s.

The existence of school councils and other mechanisms for student participation, useful as they are, should not rule out the possibility of student governors. No one would argue, for example, that teachers should be excluded from governing bodies, or given fewer voting rights, simply because they already benefit from union representation. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has specifically called on countries to put into legislation children's rights to participate in school boards and committees. This Bill presents us with an excellent opportunity to ensure that schools consistently involve children in their governing bodies. This crucial perspective would result in better decision-making for the whole school community.

21:45

With the right support, students of all ages can be involved effectively in governing bodies, as they already are on the boards of many charities. Isambard Brunel Junior School in Portsmouth, for example, has involved students as young as eight years old in governing body decisions relating to the school curriculum and budget. As long as the child understands the responsibilities they are taking on, there should be no barrier to them becoming full members. I can remember going around a school where the children of the school had been involved with the architects in consultation and deciding particular parts of the school that were important to them; the result was a much better building.

Enabling students to become full members of the school governing body would not put them at risk. Liability for decisions broadly rests with the governing body as a whole, and schools already have arrangements in place to cover potential liabilities. Regulations also establish that no governor should be involved in a decision where their personal interests conflict with those of the governing body. This would ensure that student governors would not be expected to make decisions regarding staff or student discipline where there was a conflict of interest.

I hope, albeit at this late stage, that the Minister and his colleagues will give further consideration to enabling students to become full members of school governing bodies. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, the Minister will know that I have always promoted the importance of young people having their say in issues relating to them—in particular, at schools. I have an Oral Question on exactly this subject on 23 November. I certainly support the principle of what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, is asking for today.

When you are in a coalition, there has to be a bit of “give” and a bit of “take” on both sides. During the passage of this Bill, I think we have had that; we have had some “give” and “take” from both of the coalition partners. I thank my noble friend the Minister for that, and in particular for the fact that we managed to persuade the Government not to remove the schools’ duty to co-operate and about when part-time students start to repay their loans. These are some of those very important things that are now in the Bill.

There have been other examples of where we have considerably strengthened the guidance—for example, on searching and on same-day detentions—and we have made changes to Clause 13. My noble friends and I are still somewhat unhappy about both Clause 13 and Clause 43, but I accept that you cannot have everything in a coalition. In some cases, we have had excellent reassurances from the Dispatch Box, and I think this issue falls into that category. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that the Government will do everything they can to ensure that wherever children’s interests are concerned, their voices will be heard and their views taken fully into account. It is very important that that should be done in schools.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, we have some sympathy with the aims behind this amendment, and understand, as I am sure many noble Lords do, the advantages that can flow from giving young people a practical demonstration of democracy and representation. As the noble Lord, Lord Hill, said in an earlier debate on this issue, the previous Government went some way towards expanding pupil representation and consultation with governing bodies. As I understand it, specific provision was made in the Education and Skills Act 2008 to require governing bodies to invite and consider pupils’ views, but this has not yet been enacted. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether the Government are now going to implement the provision in the previous Act.

In the mean time, I listened very carefully to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, but would still sound a note of caution on the wording of her amendment. It would seem, as it stands, to apply equally to pupils of all ages, and we are not convinced at this stage that that is the right way to proceed. As the noble Baroness indicated, some primary school pupils might struggle to understand some of the issues on governing body agendas, and there is, as has been pointed out, the issue of whether it is appropriate for them to deal with teacher discipline and conduct issues. It is therefore perhaps more appropriate to find a level of involvement for young people in governance issues that is more age-specific. However, we very much support the idea of strengthening pupil engagement and hope that the Minister is able to suggest other ways in which this might be achieved.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for returning to this issue. As she said, unfortunately she was not able to be present at Committee stage, where some of the important points that she has raised tonight were debated, although she kindly gave us advance notice. I am glad that she has raised them again tonight.

The noble Baroness spoke eloquently of the importance of encouraging pupils to participate in decisions that affect them. I think that support for the principle that she is seeking to achieve is shared on all sides of the House, by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and by my noble friend Lady Walmsley. I would certainly agree with her that involving pupils in that way can help to make sure that decisions properly reflect the interests of pupils, contribute to their development and encourage them to feel a sense of involvement and pride in their school. It is also of course a fundamental principle of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which this Government are a signatory.

The evidence also shows that schools themselves share the views expressed by noble Lords today on this issue. We know that the vast majority of schools involve their pupils in a variety of different ways. Over 95 per cent of schools already have a school council. Pupils of all ages can serve as associate members of governing bodies, which means that they can attend and speak at governing body meetings. Governing bodies have the power to invite pupils of any age to attend and contribute to governing body meetings. That is extremely important.

I share some of the reservations expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, as to the specific amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, in that it would add to our current arrangements a requirement on all governing bodies of all maintained schools to have an unspecified number of student governors. The amendment would apply to the governing bodies of all maintained schools, including nursery schools. It would force all governing bodies to change their instrument of governance and appoint pupil governors, even if they already had effective arrangements for pupil participation in decision-making.

I am keen to continue to talk to the noble Baroness about these issues and about governance more generally, as I think she and I have a shared interest in this issue. However, as she might expect from the conversations we have had on governance, she will know that placing this additional prescription on the constitution of governing bodies runs counter to the Government’s broader policy on school governance, where we are trying to give governing bodies more freedom to recruit governors based on skills and to minimise prescription around the proportions of governors required from different categories.

I have reflected on the points that were made in Committee and again today, but I continue to believe that there are sufficient ways for governing bodies to take account of pupil views. I do not think it would be right to place a mandatory requirement on all maintained schools—including primary schools—to appoint pupil governors. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, mentioned the Education and Skills Act provisions on pupil consultation. There is a requirement on schools to have regard to guidance on pupil consultation, an issue which my noble friend Lady Walmsley raised. We will be talking about that further in response to her Oral Question.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, knows that I am always ready to talk to her about governance, and I am happy to talk further about this issue. While I agree with her on the importance of involving pupils and the benefits this can bring, I cannot support this specific amendment. I would therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who said a few words, some in support and some not in support of my amendment. I am particularly grateful to the Minister because he has been extremely helpful in many respects as far as the role of governors is concerned. Wearing my NGA hat—I should perhaps have said earlier that I am president of that organisation—I know that it, too, is very grateful for the value that he and the Government place on the important role of governors.

I am obviously sorry that the Minister cannot move quite as far as I would like to move. However, I shall continue to hope that I shall live long enough to see my particular wish come true. With that, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Schedule 12 : Further education institutions: amendments

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

3: Schedule 12, page 115, line 29, after “membership” insert—
“(ba) the members to include—(i) staff and students at the institution, and(ii) in the case of a sixth form college corporation, parents of students at the institution aged under 19,”

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to government Amendment 3, which maintains a requirement for colleges to have staff, student and, in the case of sixth form colleges, parent governors. It addresses the commitment that I made on Report to return to the House with an amendment that would give effect to what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, sought to achieve in laying down her amendment on Report. I am glad that this amendment has her support, and I am grateful to her for raising this issue with my honourable friend Mr Hayes, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning. We have stuck to her amendment as closely as we could. The only change that we have made is to add parent governors for sixth form colleges, which I am sure is what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, would have intended.

It was not our intention to encourage colleges to remove staff, student or parent governors. We merely wanted to ensure that any legislative requirements did not affect any case to the ONS for the reclassification of colleges back to the private sector. We believe, as I know the noble Baroness does, that it is possible to reconcile both those important objectives, and this amendment does that. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I am grateful for the earlier discussions held with the Minister and his colleague, John Hayes. As the Minister said, he indicated on Report that the Government were prepared to reconsider the issue of staff and student representation. I am pleased to say that this commitment has now been honoured in both spirit and practice in the amendment before us.

It was, of course, the Government’s own amendment that created the issue of representation being withdrawn and quite rightly caused consternation among students and staff. However, on this occasion the Government have been quick to acknowledge the error and put it right. In fact, I would go further and acknowledge that their amendment is indeed better than that tabled by those on our own Benches on this issue, so I am very pleased to support it and for our proceedings on this Bill to end on such a positive note.

Since this will be my last contribution on the Bill, perhaps I could say a few words, particularly on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hughes—who cannot be here this evening but is now the proud grandmother of a baby girl—and also my noble friends Lady Crawley, Lord Young and Lord Stevenson. I thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for the courteous and good-natured way in which they have responded to the wide, varied and sometimes extremely controversial issues that noble Lords have chosen to raise on the Bill as we have progressed through it over the months. We started debating the Bill in May, and at times it has truly felt like a marathon. However, throughout the time the Minister has maintained an open door policy and has genuinely sought to answer and deal with our concerns, and for that we are very grateful.

I would also like to thank the Bill team for its hard work. At one stage I thought that I might have to employ a secretary just to keep track of its daily letters. When it started to send letters summarising the previous letters that it had sent, I realised that it was not just me who was having trouble keeping up. I appreciate that all that was intended to be helpful, and it certainly helped us to improve the scrutiny of the Bill.

At the end of the day, the Bill is a better Bill and the time was, in retrospect, well spent. However, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State is as we speak fervently brewing up his next grand plan and that it will not be long before we find ourselves back here again. But, for now, I thank the Minister and urge support for the amendment.

22:00

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for this amendment. I am somewhat relieved, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who cannot be here tonight, because it was our amendment about the ONS issue that really sparked the whole debate about student and staff representation in further education colleges. I am grateful for that. In conjunction with the other thanks, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for their contribution to the Bill on the higher education elements that we had earlier. I am extremely grateful to all the Ministers for the concessions that we had in guidance and in other helpful ways, which have happened during the passage of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has said, that has helped to improve the Bill from its original state.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support for this amendment, which strikes the right balance between raising the issues raised with respect to college classification while safeguarding staff, student and parent voices on the governing body of a college. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for the spirit in which she approached the issue, which summed up how noble Lords on all sides of the House have approached the Bill overall. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, it is over five months since the passage of the Bill started. At that point, we were moving towards the longest day and we are shortly approaching the shortest day. During that nearly half a year I have been extremely grateful for the advice that I have received from all sides of the House.

As a result of the detailed scrutiny to which the Bill and I personally have been subjected, however painful at times, it is a better Bill. We have brought forward a number of amendments in response to concerns that have been raised—on Ofqual enforcement powers, the duty to co-operate, admissions and inspections, teacher anonymity, colleges, apprenticeships and direct payments. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley said, we have also committed to use statutory guidance or regulations to address concerns raised about behaviour and discipline, careers and part-time students in HE. So I would like to thank in particular my noble friends Lady Walmsley, Lady Brinton and Lady Sharp for their advice, which has helped us. I thank, too, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who I hope will pass on my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, for the constructive challenge that they have provided throughout. There have been very important contributions on this Bill from all sides, and from the Cross Benches—particularly on SEN issues and the duty to co-operate—and from the Bishops’ Benches, which have underlined the important role that faith schools play across our education system.

I am particularly grateful for one piece of advice that I received from my noble friend Lord Lucas, which I thought summed up our deliberations on this Bill. It is a quote from John Stuart Mill, who must have been sitting in Committee when he said:

“Education, in its largest sense, is one of the most inexhaustible of all topics … and notwithstanding the great mass of excellent things which have been said respecting it, no thoughtful person finds any lack of things both great and small still waiting to be said”.

I thought that was a pretty good summation of our debate.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I put publicly on the record what I hope the members of the Bill team know privately—that is, my gratitude to them, as they have been exemplary in every way. I have been very glad to receive lots of praise from many noble Lords about how they have behaved, and I am glad to have the chance to say to them, although they always want to be anonymous and nameless, how much I appreciate the work that they have done and how much it has helped all of us arrive at a better place with the Bill.

Amendment 3 agreed.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

House adjourned at 10.05 pm.