Westminster Hall

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 13 December 2011

[Mr David Amess in the Chair]

School Sport

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss an important issue that I feel passionately about.

It has been more than a year since the Government first announced their intention to dismantle the sports infrastructure put in place by the previous Labour Government to deliver our commitment to increase participation in sport and physical activity. It had a clear structure—the Youth Sport Trust was set up to deal with school and youth sport; Sport England was set up to deal with community sport through national governing bodies; and UK Sport was set up to deal with the elite level—and it was renowned around the world. It has also been more than a year since the Government announced that they were ending funding for school sports partnerships and scrapping ring-fenced funding for specialist sports colleges. Next Tuesday will be the first anniversary of the partial U-turn on school sport, when the Government were forced to introduce a hastily cobbled together package of funding.

Why did I call this debate? Twelve months on, the threat to the future of school sport has not dissipated. In fact, the cuts announced last year will devastate the national sport structure that was the envy of the world, and new threats have emerged within the past 12 months that have the potential to create a perfect storm for school sports.

The army of volunteers within our schools and sports clubs are getting on with making the best of a bad deal. We take that army for granted, but on their shoulders rests much of our country’s sporting life. Those volunteers might not be the type to march on Whitehall, but they are still angry, confused and frustrated by the Government’s seeming indifference to their work. Their voice deserves to be heard.

If we do not hold the Government to account at every step, we risk losing the massive strides forward that we have made over the past decade. There has been a fog of misleading statistics, reviews and cross-departmental hand-wringing. If we do not question and challenge the Government every step of the way, we will wake up one day to find that we have abandoned a generation of young people to substandard sport and physical education.

Why does it matter if our kids do not play sport or do PE at school? Children who play sports do not only benefit physically, because research shows that involvement in sport helps general educational attainment. Sport helps young people to develop self-discipline and to learn how to get along with others. Involvement in sport can help tackle antisocial behaviour and youth crime and overcome psychological problems and loneliness. It can also help to tackle problems of bullying in school and help youngsters with disabilities enjoy sport with other children. Furthermore, children get those benefits whether or not they excel at sport. They do not need to be part of the sporting elite, because merely participating makes children healthier, happier and better pupils. The present Government’s policies threaten young people’s chances to take advantage in school of the enormous benefits offered by participation in sport and PE.

We cannot have a debate about any aspect of sport, particularly sport and young people, without mentioning the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics. In Singapore six years ago, when London was awarded the games, we made a solemn commitment to the international community and to the people of this country that we would use the games to inspire a generation of young people through sport. It was a crucial element of London’s bid and set us apart from our main rivals, Paris and Madrid. How can we be serious about that commitment if we dismantle the structures that will help us deliver it and send a message to our young people and our army of sporting volunteers that we do not value sport and are downgrading our commitment to sport in schools?

London 2012 has given us an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to leave a lasting sporting legacy, not of stadiums and facilities, important though they are, but of a new generation of young people for whom sport and physical activity are an integral part of their lives. The Government should not have decided to drop the commitment to involving 2 million more people in sport and physical activity. However, it is not too late. The situation is not irretrievable, but the threats to school sport are so great and serious that Ministers must ask themselves how they intend to meet the commitments to ensure an Olympic legacy if they maintain their current course.

I was proud to serve as Sports Minister from 2007 to 2010. It was one of those jobs in government to covet. I was proud of what we achieved in those three years, but I was even prouder that we made sport a cross-departmental policy priority during our 13 years in government, and made massive progress in putting sport at the heart of Government thinking, especially through our investment in school sport and PE.

Let me remind Members of what we inherited when we were first elected in 1997. It is no exaggeration to say that school sport was in a dire situation. PE and competitive sport were often seen as optional extras, and many schools had substandard sports facilities, if any. What sport took place in schools relied almost exclusively on the good will of dedicated teachers, parents and volunteers. Only one in four schoolchildren took part in two hours of quality PE per week. Playing fields were too often seen by local authorities as development opportunities. An astonishing statistic and a damning indictment of the previous Tory Government’s policy on education and sport is that between 1979 and 1997, 10,000 playing fields were sold for development. That is more than 10 every week for 18 years, which is shocking.

The new Labour Government acted quickly to rectify the situation. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 introduced the toughest ever protection for school playing fields. Further legislation in 2004 made the sale of playing fields an option of last resort, and local authorities were compelled to use the receipts from any sales to improve existing sports facilities. In contrast to the 10,000 playing fields lost between 1979 and 1997, just 192 were lost between 1997 and 2008, and in the majority of those cases, although the playing field was sold, the site benefited from increased sports provision.

Our physical education and sports strategy, which was supported by £1.5 billion in funding between 2003 and 2008 and by a further £755 million from 2008, enabled us to put in place a network of 450 school sport partnerships. Partnerships were centred on specialist sports colleges, which were linked to local secondary and primary schools and sports clubs. By 2010, thanks to the work of the SSPs, 90% of pupils in partnership schools were receiving two or more hours of high quality school sport.

We hear much from coalition Ministers about competitive sport and how Labour supposedly did not prioritise it. I am sure that we will hear the Minister repeat misleading statistics on competitive sport and participation—I hope we do not, but I think that we might. The lead academic evaluator on SSPs criticised the Prime Minister for a

“selective use of statistics that ignore the tremendous improvement over the past decade”.

Competitive sport was increasing under Labour. The number of children taking part in competitive sport, not just between schools but in schools, increased from 58% in 2006-07 to 78% in 2009-10.

Labour did not emphasise sports participation and physical activity because we were a Government of sports fanatics, although there are a few of us about. Sport was a cornerstone in tackling numerous key policy issues, such as obesity and related health issues, antisocial behaviour, educational attainment and citizenship. It was a genuinely cross-departmental priority. Interestingly, there was general cross-party consensus that Labour got it broadly right on school sport, and certainly cross-party support for school sport partnerships. There was no indication that Opposition parties had an alternative agenda.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for focusing on a very important issue for local schools. Although sport and education are a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, the same principles apply. Does he feel that school sports should be twinned with the issue of diet control, obesity and eating habits? Does he feel that the issue is not just about getting fit, but about weight control, too?

[Mr Sutcliffe]

Very much so. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He will know about the statistics on obesity in young people and about the health risks. He is right that sport is an integral part of life skills. Not everybody can be a champion, and not everybody can be elite, but we can be the best that we can be. I do not look like a healthy specimen, but my own involvement in sport through the parliamentary football team, school sport, the friends that we make through sport and the life skills that it gives us, all show that sport is an integral part of what we should be trying to achieve.

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

Of course, we all agree about the benefit of sport, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is about a bit more than that? It is also about getting kids out of classrooms—not necessarily on to a sports field—and into different areas of the great outdoors, which relates to the benefits that he has mentioned. That has been held up as a result of extreme regulation and red tape. Does he accept that the Government have made some progress in stripping away that red tape to get children from the classroom to the outdoors?

[Mr Sutcliffe]

I am grateful for that intervention. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s premise in terms of getting youngsters outside. School sport was fairly stereotypical in that girls played netball and hockey, boys played football, rugby and cricket, and basically that was it. The previous Government were proud—the Government’s misleading statistics come into play—of being able to widen the range of sports on offer. Mountaineering, canoeing, sailing, cycling and so on get people out into different environments. People who are not good at ball skills can get into cycling and other sports. We worked with those sports’ governing bodies to develop this framework. I am sad that that seems to be being reversed. I do not think that that is irreversible, and it can be put right.

There was a cross-party consensus to see that delivered and developed. It was only after the election in 2010 that that consensus seemed to disappear. Labour’s record was rubbished by Ministers as a justification for implementing a scorched earth policy promoted by the Secretary of State for Education, who is known to be hostile to the very concept of organised sport. The school sports partnership network, the cornerstone of school sports policy, was decimated to the astonishment of experts around the world all to save £162 million. The vast majority of that money had been spent on pupils in schools. It was seen as a world-class model and the shock throughout the sporting world was genuine. The director of community sport at the Australian Sports Commission said:

“I am absolutely devastated to hear of the cuts to the School Sport Partnership models. I am astounded that such an amazing and world-leading initiative has been lost to the communities they serviced.”

Labour’s then shadow spokesman for education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), begged the Secretary of State not to dismantle the SSP network. He even offered Labour support for a reduction in funding to SSPs, as long as the infrastructure was kept in place. I am afraid that his pleas fell on deaf ears.

Within weeks, the Government were forced into a partial U-turn because of an unprecedented backlash against their proposals—a backlash lead not just by politicians, but by Olympians, sports bodies, sports journalists and the grass-roots volunteer army. What we got was a cobbled together set of announcements that still leave the future of school sport in jeopardy. SSPs and school sports organisers have been told not to expect funding beyond August 2013. Those cuts will effectively mean an end to the infrastructure that supports the school sport network at the very time that we should be seeking to increase activity in the run-up to next year’s Olympic games and Paralympic games. What makes matters worse is that the Secretary of State has removed the need for schools to collect data on pupils’ progress. That will make it almost impossible effectively to monitor future participation rates and the effect of those cuts.

The much heralded school games, the new flagship Government policy, in actual fact already existed in the guise of the UK school games, which were supported by Sainsbury’s. The funding for the school games represents a massive 60% annual cut for school sport, which is well above the average for departmental cuts imposed as part of the austerity measures. Are we really saying that an annual competition, which is most likely to be of real value only for children at the elite end of their sport, is a replacement for a whole school sport network that improves the life chances of all children? This cobbled together funding has left school sport in disarray and left school organisers, clubs and volunteers with no idea about what will happen after 2013.

There is nothing wrong with competitive sport in schools. I speak as someone who spent a large part of my childhood, and indeed early adulthood, playing competitive sport. I completely understand the benefits of competitive sport, but competitive sport alone does not constitute a holistic Government policy towards PE in our education system. I will tell the Chamber why that is, and it goes to the heart of the problem. There is a fundamental lack of understanding about sport at the most senior levels of Government policy making. The Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport simply do not comprehend that successful participation in competitive sport can be achieved only by first mastering the basics of sport and PE. As the Youth Sport Trust has said, high quality physical education is essential for developing the necessary skills and confidence to participate effectively in competitive sport. Simply throwing all pupils into competitive sport, without first building what the Youth Sport Trust refers to as “physical literacy”, is both unfair and unrealistic, particularly in larger schools. Current Government policy, with its fixation on competitive sport at the expense of all else, is building our sporting future on sand.

What of that future? Talk to people involved in grass-roots sport—in schools, clubs, community sports networks and the national governing bodies—and they will tell you that there is deep concern and confusion. I thank the national governing bodies that have been in contact with me—rugby league, rugby union, tennis and other sports—to talk about how their sports are helping the wider environment. Our sporting volunteer army and our dedicated PE and sports staff in schools are an innovative lot. They will be looking at ways of maintaining the networks that we created over the past decade to ensure that the enormous progress that we made is not lost. In many places, they will succeed. If they do, it will be because of the enormous dedication and passion of those involved. If they succeed, it will be despite Government policy, not because of it. However, I fear that in some schools and communities, school sport will cease to be a priority. As if they did not have enough to contend with, there are threats on the near horizon that could create a perfect storm for school and youth sport.

In January 2011, the Government announced a comprehensive review of the national curriculum. The review is likely to see a slimmed down curriculum for sport in schools. Although PE is likely to be retained as a compulsory national curriculum subject, there is no guarantee that the two-hour offer, never mind the five-hour offer, will be retained. A recent review of global policy in schools showed that all the countries it looked at provided PE time targets, following this country’s lead. How sad and ironic will it be if, after leading the world on increasing children’s participation in school sport, we abandon one of the key mechanisms by which that was achieved?

The national curriculum review will not be completed until September 2012. That creates more uncertainty for all those involved in school sport. Steve Grainger, the then chief executive of the Youth Sport Trust, in response to the review, said:

“The quality and quantity of PE and school sport that is now being offered in schools has improved vastly in recent years. Ensuring it remains a vital part of the national curriculum will allow young people to continue to enjoy the many benefits that sport and physical education can bring.”

I appreciate that the review is ongoing, but will the Minister outline current coalition thinking about exactly what a “slimmed down” sports and PE curriculum would look like? What assurances can the Minister give that the slimming down of the sports and PE curriculum will not lead to the Government abandoning the two-hour commitment?

The coalition Government’s national planning policy framework will undo the protections for playing fields that the previous Labour Government put into place in 1998 and 2004. The Football Association stated, in its written evidence to the NPPF, that the proposals put

“playing fields and facilities at great risk”.

Are we going to see a return to the ’80s and ’90s, where playing fields were seen merely as development opportunities to be sold to the highest bidder? Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that measures contained in the NPPF and the Localism Act 2011 will not relax the restrictions on decommissioning school playing fields introduced by the previous Labour Government? Will he give an absolute assurance that the sale of school playing fields will be allowed only as an option of last resort?

What of the Government’s free schools policy? How will the Government meet the sports and PE offer for pupils attending free schools? How can the Government remain committed to sport and PE, if they are willing to allow free schools to open in buildings where there is no space for outdoor recreation? Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that free schools will not be exempt from providing sport and PE as part of their curriculum?

As hon. Members can gather, it is a source of great personal sadness to me to see much of the work on school sport that we did in government undone in such a brutal and senseless fashion. That has been sanctioned by people at the top of Government, who have little or no understanding of the power of sport to change lives. What has happened particularly saddens me because, during my time as Minister for Sport, there was a general cross-party consensus about sport and school sport in particular. I worked closely with the then shadow Ministers—the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), who was my successor as Minister for Sport—to ensure that sport was not used as a political football, if hon. Members will pardon the pun. Despite their public pronouncements, I cannot imagine that either of those hon. Members is personally happy with the Government’s direction on school sport.

Next year, London will host the largest sporting event ever held in Britain. That should be a catalyst for embedding participation, commitment and aspiration into a generation of young people. However, we risk losing that opportunity because we are sending out a mixed message to young people. We tell them, “Get involved and participate,” but we are taking funding away from them and from the networks that facilitate their participation. The year before we host the Olympic and Paralympic games, we have ended the ring-fencing of sports funding for specialist sports colleges. Yet, last week, I was amazed to hear that an extra £40 million could be found for the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympic and Paralympic games, which is one quarter of the budget for school sports partnerships. What message does the Minister think that that sends out to the hundreds of SSP staff losing their jobs, to the volunteers who give their time and money, and to the pupils hoping to emulate their Olympic heroes?

As I have said, playing sport was a major part of my childhood and early adulthood, and I made many friends through sport. With the decade of sport that we have in this country—the Olympic and Paralympic games next year, the rugby league world cup in 2013, the Commonwealth games in Glasgow in 2014 and the world athletic championships in 2017—we have a wonderful opportunity. These should be inspirational times for our young people, but they will not be if we cannot develop school sport in the way that we did.

I hope that it is not too late and that Ministers will listen. I do not expect the Minister to give in completely to me this morning, but I certainly hope that he will acknowledge some of the points I have raised, that he will have discussions with his colleague, the Minister for Sport, that he will look at what is happening and that he will listen to those parents, teachers and people involved in school sports partnerships who were getting to the primary schools that, in many cases, did not have the facilities for sport. I also hope that he will listen to the young sports leaders whom I met as Minister for Sport who were going into primary schools and helping PE teachers. There is a great opportunity here. I hope that it is not lost, that the Minister listens and that we can have a sensible debate on the way forward.

09:52

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess, and to follow the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), who is an exceptionally well respected former Minister for Sport. I certainly agree with the spirit of many of the things raised in his speech, although I will perhaps tweak one or two points in my contribution.

I speak very passionately on this subject because I benefited from sport. I went to a very challenging school. We were bottom of the league tables and, as I mentioned in last week’s debate in this Chamber on sport and tackling youth crime, two of my friends spent time at Her Majesty’s pleasure. Sport kept me active and by the end of the day, I was too tired to cause any trouble—although some people might say that as I am now a Member of Parliament, I took an even worse path.

I was a councillor for 10 years prior to becoming an MP, during which time I spent four years as the lead member for leisure. I therefore have a lot of first-hand experience of dealing with these sorts of issues in the community. As we know, sport can play a very positive role. It helps to promote a healthy and active lifestyle, which is important in tackling the increasing concern about obesity. Sport channels young people’s energy, boosts self-esteem and provides enjoyment, friendship and personal fulfilment. It can have significant benefits for focusing good behaviour and as I said, that was something I saw at first hand when I was growing up.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a strong supporter of school sport both from his past record as a councillor and since he has been a Member of Parliament. He made a point about prisons. I was the Minister responsible for prisons. What is the busiest place in a prison in terms of people getting involved in sport and physical activity? The gym. Such things made me think as I do about what sport can do for people.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I absolutely agree, and I will come to that point in a bit more detail later.

I will touch on three points: first, the school sports partnerships; secondly, what is physically going on in schools as we speak; and, thirdly, wider community access to schools. I shall then put my personal requests to the Minister.

On school sports partnerships, I raised a number of concerns in debate that led to the Government changing their position. I support the principle of the school sports partnership, but a premise that attracted a lot of criticism of the scheme is that it did not necessarily drive up levels of competitive sport. That was a flawed assessment because, generally, if someone is very good at sport, it is probably because their parents are that way inclined and encouraged sport from an early age by providing access to sports clubs.

School sports partnerships were good for people who were not naturally inclined to sport or gifted at it, because they offered a wider breadth of sporting opportunities. For example, I remember that we played football pretty much every week at my school, which suited me because I liked football. However, some people were not necessarily enthused by the opportunities that football presented. The main driver behind the school sports partnership was that it brought in other sporting opportunities and showed people that there was something out there for everyone. There were encouraging signs that it was making a difference to the majority of children who are not necessarily naturally gifted at sport.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I just heard him say that school sports partnerships did not drive up participation in competitive sport. Can he tell me the figures he bases that statement on?

[Justin Tomlinson]

The point behind my remark was that when the Government were making their judgment about whether the school sports partnerships were delivering value for money, they looked only crudely at the number of children taking part in competitive sport, which was two in five children. That figure did not change. However, what did change significantly was the number of children who were not doing any sport at all who then took up sport. They might not have been playing in regular leagues outside school, but they were at least being active—whether that was just for the two hours a week or whether it led to other opportunities.

For example, when I was touring my constituency, we saw encouraging signs; people were doing things such as cheerleading and street dancing, which were incredibly popular but because they were not strictly sports in the traditional competitive sense, they were not included in those crude statistics on competitive sport. However, those people were being active. When I was the lead member for leisure, I did not care what people were doing, as long as they were doing something that increased their heart rate. I also say that with my hat on as vice-chair of the all-party group on heart disease. We are keen to encourage such activities.

The change in position allowed nine months for the school sports partnerships to, in effect, go to schools and secure funding. I do not recognise the point about cuts to the funding; it is just that the funding is no longer ring-fenced. The challenge that remains for school sports partnerships is that not every school necessarily identifies sport as a priority. The Swindon school sports partnership has managed to ensure that around 20 schools have signed up to carry on in pretty much the same format as before. However, a number of schools have decided that there are other priorities for that money and, by removing ring-fencing from the funding, they are free to make that choice. I think that such a choice is wrong for those schools and when I meet those who work in them, I regularly push the benefits of providing sport. We must deal with that challenge. It comes down to individual heads; it is fair to say that if a head has a personal interest in sport, it is certainly pushed to the forefront.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman consider that there is a role for private investment and partnership with schools as a way of getting more money for the programme? Is that something he has considered and, if so, how does he think it will work?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I absolutely do, and I will come to that point shortly.

There are some advantages to the changes that have been introduced, but we need to work out a way to ensure that schools continue to see sport as a priority. There was another reason why we had to look again at how the school sports partnerships worked. In my constituency, it was a very good partnership, but we heard in the debates on the subject that in other constituencies people who work in schools were saying, “They aren’t delivering very much. I am very passionate about sport as a head teacher. I would like to employ my own choice of sports coach directly.” To a certain extent, therefore, some schools now have better provision, because they have gone directly to the person they think can provide sporting provision in the areas where they had gaps.

It is also fair to say that the school sports partnerships that are still in existence, including my own in Swindon, have had to step up their performance, because that cheque is no longer guaranteed. They have to go to schools and make a pitch about how they will deliver additional benefits to them. There is still a role to play, however, in helping those SSPs to be in a position to deliver improvements, because, by and large, they are sports enthusiasts and are particularly good at organising sports events. They are not necessarily geared up to be a semi-business—a not-for-profit business—so there should be a role to provide additional help in that way.

In response to the intervention, I would like to see SSPs identify additional partnership opportunities, not just through the private sector, but through working with local authorities, the local NHS and sports forums and local sports clubs. To give a good example, if a school offered only football every week and wanted the SSP to bring in street dance, it should bring in not a one-off coach, but representations from street dance clubs, so that children who enjoy a taster session in school then have the opportunity to join a club and take up the activity on a regular basis. Local authorities can play an important role in that regard. The equivalents of the lead members for leisure and the key officers should sit down with the SSP organisations and say, “You can bring the following people to the table and we’ll help co-ordinate that,” so when the SSP then pitches to individual schools, it will be able say that it will not only provide two hours of street dance, but will bring in supporting clubs and give advice on nutrition and on how to do a variety of other beneficial tasks above and beyond the obvious reasons for it to go into the school. That is about asking what more we can do to make SSPs seem much more attractive to schools and to keep sport as a priority.

On what is happening in schools at the moment, I would like to see changes in relation to two particular challenges. The first is the cost of insurance, which is an issue that I have raised in a number of debates. The majority of teachers are relatively young, and young people are very expensive to insure. We need to be able to bus pupils around in order to promote school games and take them to learn outside the traditional school environment. Many teachers are young and new recruits are getting younger, so the cost for schools—it is a burden—is incredibly expensive. I keep urging the Government to consider a national deal; schools throughout the country purchase things, so surely, as a collective with huge economies of scale, we should be able to get a better deal from the insurance industry. I encourage that.

I have been told by an inspirational local physical education teacher, Julie Lewis, about a second element in relation to insurance. In order to drive a minibus, the driver needs a certain D-class element on their licence. Julie already had that—she is of a similar age to me—so it was a relatively simple process. She just had to go to the local authority and carry out a simple test. She passed and was then able to drive the minibus. The younger teachers now have to do three days of training, which costs about £2,000, so that is another burden that the school has to weigh up: when budgets are tight, is it worth releasing teachers for three days? All too many schools like the idea of doing it, but they cannot afford it, either because of the cash or because they do not have the time to release teachers. We need to look at that.

PE teachers also face a dichotomy in relation to their priorities. Julie told me that she is extremely keen to provide after-school clubs. The children love them and embrace them, and really want to take them up. If she could offer as many sessions as she would like, they would all be full. However, she has to plan them at the same time as she should be planning her lessons, and planning her lessons to make sure that they are delivered in the correct manner is what is judged by Ofsted to determine whether she is a good PE teacher and whether the school is a good school. There is a clash; one area is being judged and rewarded, but it is as if she has to magic up a way of providing the after-school classes that might be of most benefit to the children.

I have talked to other teachers. A friend of mine worked in a challenging school in Oxford. During his first year as a qualified teacher, he was full of enthusiasm and provided a huge range of after-school sports clubs. They helped with behaviour and with tackling crime in the local area, because the children were not hanging around street corners straight after school. They were doing something constructive and positive. My friend then had the opportunity to do one-on-one tuition, for which he was paid. He could not be in two places at once. His heart said that he wanted to do his bit for the children he was there to inspire and for whom he played a positive role, but his brain said that he wanted to go on holiday and that he needed to buy a new laptop. In the end, the financial reward prevailed.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

Is there not an opportunity for national governing bodies to get coaches to help teachers do such things? One of the things that we looked at was the possibility of coaches from a wide range of different sports running after-school clubs, paid for by national governing bodies.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I absolutely agree and I will build on that point shortly.

Schools have some opportunities at present. The school Olympics principle, for example, is fuelled by next year’s Olympics, which will give us a wonderful opportunity to drive up participation, particularly because they will advertise on the television a huge variety of new sports for people to try. When I was growing up, we very much followed the television. We played football predominantly, but out came the cricket bats when the cricket was on and out came the bikes during the Tour de France, and when Wimbledon was on, the tennis rackets would come out for the three days that the British participants lasted.

I have a slight plea on this issue. It is not just about getting people to be healthy and active, although that has to be the priority. There is a chronic shortage in this country of coaches and—this is often overlooked—of volunteers. When I talk to sports clubs, they tell me that they can normally find somebody to organise things, but that they cannot find a club secretary or treasurer, or someone to sort out all the insurance.

[Simon Hart]

As a former parent governor of my local school, Tavernspite, and a keen volunteer cricket coach at it, one of the obstacles that I came up against was the Criminal Records Bureau checks. There was one CRB check to be a parent governor and another to be a cricket coach. For all but the very determined, it was difficult to volunteer.

[Justin Tomlinson]

That is a valid point and I know that the Minister is championing the cause to change that situation. I would like to hear more about it.

To return to the issue of coaches as volunteers, when school games are being organised, the best athletes are selected to represent the school. Incidentally, my school always came last in everything; we were so short of people that I ended up having to do four events in one day and got progressively worse. The key is that we should also identify those who have not been selected to participate and ask one of them to act as the coach on the day, another to organise the promotional posters, and another to be the treasurer and organise payment for the minibus. There are all sorts of other roles, so later, as they grow up, those people could fill the massive gaps in community sport. That is something that we should champion.

I welcome the decision to fast-track troops into teaching. When I talk to school head teachers, particularly in primary schools, they tell me that one of their biggest challenges is that not enough teachers are enthusiastic or confident enough to be able to carry out a wide breadth of PE. It is often the case that the last person to leave the staff room suddenly finds themselves delivering the lesson. One would hope that troops would be sports-minded—they are certainly well attuned to physical activity—which could help to fill a major skills gap.

On the issue of sport helping behaviour, I have visited schools with challenging behaviour problems and, time and again, have seen them use sport as a reward incentive to maintain behaviour in the school. It is amazing that when a child misbehaves and is told that they cannot go to the after-school football or street dance session, that is not only the first time that they misbehave, but the last time, because such sessions are the hook for a lot of children.

Turning to the community, I hear the points about the loss of playing fields and I fully support the call to protect them. There is, however, a further challenge. The vast majority of schools that were built post-1997, which is true of pretty much all, bar one or two, of the schools where I was a ward councillor in a high-density, new-build housing estate, were private finance initiative schools, so they had wonderful playing fields, but after 4 o’clock, a huge amount of money had to be paid to use them. Even enthusiastic PE teachers could not use them, because they were not the school’s property after 4 o’clock, and the local community would have to raise money. They looked wonderful and the turf was great, but they could only be seen through the fence. That is something that we need to look at in future school building. Sports facilities need to be accessible both to the school itself—it is a crime that an enthusiastic PE teacher who wishes to provide after-school sports opportunities cannot do so because it is not the school’s facility—and to the community through sports clubs.

Opening up those facilities should be an absolute priority not only for sports clubs but for youth clubs. I have spoken in other debates about how in the old days, sports clubs dealt with competitive sport and youth clubs were at the other end of the spectrum, but they should be one and the same. Street dance is the classic example; it is not technically an ultra-competitive sport but is something in which young people wish to engage. We can use sport as the hook in the school facilities, and youth workers can come along to where children are being active and can provide the advocacy that youth clubs are normally good at.

I get frustrated when local authorities make mistakes with opportunities. As I mentioned in last week’s debate, Stratton parish council identified £4,000 to provide extra activities for young people. Rather than consulting those young people and asking them what they want to do, the council will spend the £4,000 on providing mobile graffiti walls—nothing more than a training ground for more graffiti artists to wreak havoc in local communities. What the council should have done, to build on an earlier intervention, was to say, “Right, we’re going to open up our schools or community centres on Friday and Saturday evenings and pay for coaches”—it could be a football coach or a street dance coach—“who can then come into our community, and we will only charge the children 50p.” Something—a nominal fee—needs to be charged so that the children take ownership, but without pricing them out, and they can come along and participate for a couple of hours. We would then see children being active and positively engaged in something constructive, and we can build on that. Remarkably, when I go to schools and ask, “What do you want?”, they say they want organised sports provision and opportunities, not silly bits of plywood that they can spray some paint on. That frustrates me. Local authorities and Government are always hard-pressed for money so whenever we have an opportunity to spend relatively limited amounts of money, let us ensure that it is on engagement. Everything should be judged on the maximum number of people participating in whatever it is that gets them active. As I have said on a number of occasions, I do not care which sport it is, as long as something is going on.

Another opportunity that we need to look at is when schools close, as populations shift. In my town, schools are closing in the older housing estates and opening in the new estates, as young families shift across the town, and we need to insure against the loss of not only the playing fields but the buildings. We had a fantastic success story in Swindon involving a successful gymnastics club, with 450 people a week participating. The club was so successful that its landlord served it an eviction notice because the neighbours were annoyed at all the parents turning up after school and taking all the car parking spaces. They got together and said, “Either it moves or we all move”, so the landlord said to the club, “You are very good at paying your rent but I’m afraid you are off.”

To find a new gymnastics facility in any town is a challenge, because high walls and lots of parking are needed. Through the Swindon sports forum we identified a £4 million sports hall that was only a couple of years old and about to be bulldozed; a school was being knocked down because a brand-new £25 million school was being built a few miles down the road, so the sports hall would have been lost. To cut a long story short, we managed to arrange for the gymnastics club to take on that sports hall, paying a commercial rent for the facility, and the old school was bulldozed around it. The club took on the sports hall, which was bigger than needed, so the facility also has the Kirsty Farrow dance academy and the Leadership martial arts club. Now, instead of 450 children a week being active, we have 2,000, with parents dropping children off, one for Esprit gymnastics, one for martial arts and one for the dance academy. We were so close to bulldozing that facility, and 1,550 children —on top of the initial 450—would have missed out. Instead, some joined-up thinking was driven through our sports forum, in which 60 different sports clubs sit together with the council officers. We married together the collective thinking—“This is our challenge, we need a facility”—and the opportunity, not only to the benefit of the gymnastics club but of the other clubs that have piggybacked on it. We should do that wherever buildings or facilities might be lost.

I conclude with my pleas. Collectively, we need to sort out the challenges of insurance, whether the basic cost of insuring people or the cost of being able to drive a minibus, as well as the time. We need to support school sports partnerships to remain a priority for schools, if they are good enough to justify that, and, if so, to give them help and support with business plans and building up their partnerships so that they can offer not only two hours of street dance but additional benefits. We must never forget the need for volunteers and coaches, as well as for getting people to be active in one form or another. We need to make facilities accessible, affordable and open and, wherever possible, not to lose them as populations change.

10:14

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) on securing the debate and on his contribution to sport in this country as a former Minister. He is still highly regarded in the sporting industry and fraternity. As he has demonstrated, he has a real depth of knowledge, and we are grateful to him for the opportunity of a debate. It is a pleasure also to follow the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who clearly has a depth of knowledge. I agree with many things that he said, particularly about maximising participation.

What is school sport about? Why sport? Why do we want to encourage participation? What is the role of schools in sport? If we do not understand what we are trying to achieve, we will get things horribly wrong. As the previous speakers have said, school sport must be about providing a broad experience not only of sports themselves but of things associated with sport. One intervention mentioned experience of outdoors and various other forms of recreation. Dance has been mentioned, which can be associated with sport through the sporting activities that engage young women in particular, but not only young women; I have seen community sports activities involving dance that include young boys, so it is not only about young women, but about that broad experience of sport.

By providing that broad experience, we hope that the understanding of what sport can deliver and the experience of what it can achieve throughout someone’s life will lead to people having a lifetime’s engagement. Whether it is the joy of participating in a team sport or individual competitive sport, or simply physical recreation, such as going to a gymnasium or jogging, such activity improves a person’s health and well-being.

By providing regularly in schools, from an early age, the opportunity for young people to participate in sport of all kinds, to experiment with sport and to understand sport, we may encourage them to participate in those physical activities throughout their lives, with all the benefits for people’s improved health, and perhaps engage them in community sports, so that they do not become involved in antisocial behaviour and things like that. All that flows from what we achieve in broadening experience in school. I have to say that the Government do not get that, which is a real problem.

One of the starkest examples is the slashing, without any consultation, of the money for school sports; £162 million was cut without any discussion beforehand with the school sport partnerships. No one asked what infrastructure we could retain to keep school sport partnerships going and to build on their success, and the Government believed that they were successful, because in March 2010, before the general election, the then shadow Sports Minister, now the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, said in a Five Live debate that it would be wrong to dismantle “13 years of work” and that his party “would build on them”. In April 2010, during the general election campaign, he said:

“There has never been a more important time for school sport, and the Olympic legacy must have school sport at its heart”.

Only a few months later, we had an announcement from the Secretary of State for Education that school sport partnerships were of no value whatever and were to be cut. It was not until the hue and cry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South described that the Secretary of State was forced into an embarrassing U-turn and announced that money would be made available over the following two years to cobble together something to replace the funding that was previously available for school sport. We ended up with £32.5 million for this financial year and the following one for PE teacher release, £11 million for the next five years from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, £11 million for the next two years from the Department for Education, and £4 million over the next five years from the national lottery.

We have seen a 64% cut in investment in sport in schools. Not a single Department has had to suffer such a cut. The Minister will probably say that the Government have removed the ring fence, are not acting in a top-down way and will allow schools the freedom to invest where they choose, but what message is that sending about the Government’s priority for sport in schools when direct funding is cut in that way? A 64% cut is not acceptable. So what do we get then? We get an announcement that we will have school games and an amazing statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, who said:

“I can sum up our sports policy in three words: more competitive sport.

By banishing once and for all the left-wing orthodoxy that promotes ‘prizes for all’ and derides competition we allow sport to do what it does best of all: teach children to learn about how to cope with both success and failure—and most importantly learn to pick yourself up when things don’t go according to plan.”

What a home-spun homily that is. My God, in this modern day and age, what a load of nonsense.

Let us return to where we started. In 1997, participation in sport in schools was one in four in years 1 to 11. After investing in school sport partnerships and so on, that rose in 2003-04 to 62%, and in 2009-10, it was more than 90%. In fact, we had virtually stopped measuring it because we had started to measure participation rates in three hours a week. Our target for the Olympic legacy was to achieve 60% of children in schools doing five hours a week during the curriculum period and after school, and to make sport available at that level. We did that through work with the Youth Sport Trust, and I pay tribute to the trust’s work and what it achieved for participation in our schools, and particularly to the leadership of Baroness Campbell. The Youth Sport Trust has come under attack from a number of people, and there was a ridiculous outburst from Lord Moynihan, chair of the British Olympic Association, who claimed that participation in school sport had not risen significantly.

Let us look at the statistics, the focus on competitive sport and the suggestion that something acts against participation in competitive sport if sport for everyone is encouraged, which is what the hon. Member for North Swindon eloquently suggested is the right thing to do. We did not start to measure the figures for who took part in intra-school competitive activities—competitive sport within a school—until quite late in the process, because obviously we inherited very low participation in 1997. In 2006-07, 58% of those in years 1 to 11 took part in intra-school competitive sport, and by 2010 that had risen to 78%—that was 79% for boys and 77% for girls. That was a very high figure indeed. Regular participation in intra-school sport then fell to 39% for years 3 to 11 in 2010. But let us look at the figures for interschool sport—sport between schools in a local area. In 2004, that was 33%, and by 2010 it had risen to 48%.

The issue is regular sport. The Government have said that only one in five children participate in competitive sport. That is correct; it was about 21% in 2010. But that is based on key stage 2 young people participating in interschool competitive sport three times in a year. At key stages 3 and 4, in secondary school when children have gone to another school, the requirement to be recorded is the number taking part in regular school sport nine times a year. If we are to see a significant increase in teachers regularly taking pupils out of school to qualify under those statistics, which the Government used to justify their determination to increase competitive sport, we must see an increase in the number of pupils who are taken out of school nine times every year to compete in competitive sport. That is a significant demand on resources.

I would be interested to hear what research the Department has done and what consideration it has given to that. It is okay to provide money for PE teacher release, but that is targeted mainly at organising school games and co-ordinating local primary schools in competitive sport; it is not intended to free up PE teachers to ferry about the competitive teams and sports people who will be involved. The Government’s policy is confusing. If secondary pupils are to play sport nine times every year to increase the figure from one in five, I would like to know where the resources will come from, where the planning is and what discussions the Government have had.

We have been told that competitive sport will lead to the national games as though that is something new. The national games have taken place for a number of years, and are extremely successful. Some 1,600 pupils took part in the national school games this year. In fact, records were broken when Jessica Applegate broke the 50 metres freestyle swimming world record for her age group. There was also a 100 metres running championship best and a 1,500 metres running championship best. Competitive sport has not suffered as a consequence of the previous Government’s work with the Youth Sport Trust and in our schools. The suggestion that the Government invented the national games network and that that is a triumph is frankly ridiculous.

The Government have now stopped collecting statistics. The Minister answered a couple of my questions on that very subject. He said:

“The annual PE and Sport Survey collected data on pupils’ participation in PE and sport. While participation rates increased in areas targeted by the previous Government”—

that was virtually everywhere—

“the proportion of pupils playing competitive sport regularly remained disappointingly low... We have removed from schools the burden of having to fill in long, time-consuming and cumbersome sport survey returns, which was a requirement under the previous Government.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2011; Vol. 732, c. 86W.]

So there we have it. The 21% figure for the one in five pupils who are playing regular competitive sport is worthy of using to take money away from the school sport partnerships and focus on competitive sport, but it is not a figure that is worth continuing to collect. If the baseline is 21% participation in competitive sport, how will we ever know whether the Government have improved their performance? They are doing away with that measure, although it is used to justify their case and to do away with the data in the first place. The Government’s policy is very confused indeed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South mentioned the sale of playing fields. Fields in Trust, the Football Association and many others have expressed concerns about the relaxing of restrictions and the requirement to consult before school playing fields are decommissioned and sold off. The Government are like a burglar released from prison after 13 years who immediately goes back to their old ways. Between 1979 and 1997, the Government sold 10,000 school playing fields. We introduced the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and between 1998 and 2010, we sold 230. Almost half were in schools that were closed. Many were in schools that used the sale to improve their sports facilities in the remaining parts of the grounds. A very small number of the others were sold for development outside education. There is a great deal of concern about the Government’s approach to sport in general and how they are straight away starting to relax restrictions on the sale of school playing fields.

From day one, the message sent loud and clear from the Government is that they do not value sport. The active people survey shows that active participation has gone down for the first year since the bid for the 2012 Olympics was won—small wonder with the messages going out from the Government.

Consider the elite end of sport, from the merger of UK Sport and Sport England to distinctive bodies that perform very different roles. One brings our athletes at the top of their game to the podium, so that we perform well at events such as the Olympics. Sport England improves facilities and works within our communities. Consider school sport partnerships, where we saw all the money taken away at a stroke with no consultation whatever, with something having to be cobbled together, including £11 million for two years from the Department of Health. The Department is investing in competitive sport specifically, and I have asked what it is about competitive sport that improves people’s health that general participation in sport does not. I have not yet had an answer, but I am interested in the research that shows competitive sport improves health the most.

Abolishing the collection of statistics is evidence that the Government do not want us to find out what they are doing. Whether it is participation in general sporting activity or in competitive sport, we need to know what is going on in our schools. All those things show that the Government lack any serious commitment to long-term investment in schools. If we look ahead, we know that the Department for Education has told school sports organisers to expect no funding beyond August 2013. The whole thing falls off a precipice in the next 18 months. We are concerned that the people involved in those organisations will already be starting to look elsewhere. Just when we should be increasing participation on the back of the Olympic games, the whole thing falls apart.

We are concerned about the implications of making it clear that funding will end. There is a lack of planning for sport as we go towards Rio, even though there is the Olympic legacy to consider and the interest that will be generated around the Olympic games. There appears to be no concept coming from the Department for Education or from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about how they will harness that interest and take it forward. It is all dumped on the sports governing bodies as though the Government have no role to play whatever.

Can the Minister tell us how participation will be measured in future? He has told us that he is doing away with the annual PE and sport survey, so how will he measure participation so that we know what is going on? It would be helpful if we knew that the Government had a plan. Will sport be protected within the national curriculum and given the status that it deserves? How will we measure participation in competitive sports? We have a measure that has been used as a baseline, which is one in five. I have set out how that is measured, but how will it be measured in future? What is the Minister doing to protect our playing fields? What is he doing about the national policy planning framework? Will he ensure that sports bodies are consulted as part of the decommissioning of education’s playing fields? Will he ensure that the safeguards put in place by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 will still stand and protect places? If we do not protect them, young people will not be able to play sport in future. If we are to have sport in our schools, it is essential to have quality playing fields in which to participate in sport.

10:37

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

I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate on behalf of the Opposition, Mr Amess. I wholeheartedly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate him on his work as the Minister with responsibility for sport in the previous Government, when he worked tirelessly to extend opportunities for engagement in sport to children and young people.

Given the contributions made during the debate today, it is clear that this matter needs to be far from a political game in this House. There have been positive contributions, and I am pleased that there still seems to be cross-party agreement on the importance of sport for children. The previous Labour Government and the coalition have focused on the Olympics in school sport. That emphasis is correct, given our commitment to host the Olympics next year. However, I want to use this debate to urge the Secretary of State for Education, through the Minister responding today, to rethink the Government’s decision to make such drastic and damaging cuts to support for school sport—I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) that the support has been cut—not just to ensure that we deliver on our Olympic promise, but to ensure that young people today get the sporting opportunities that can transform their educational outcomes and their lives.

School sport partnerships were at the forefront of ensuring that the second key Olympic pledge—to transform a generation of young people through sport—was met. Sadly, and regrettably, the coalition Government do not seem to have recognised the value of SSPs, despite their international acclaim. They were one of the reasons—along with the hard work of teachers, sports leaders and volunteers around the UK—why between 2002 and 2010 the number of young people doing at least two hours or more of sport a week rose from 25% to 90%. There has been a marked drop since the figures for 2010 were released, which is extremely worrying.

All the evidence suggests that cutting funding for school sports results in fewer young people accessing high quality sport opportunities. Some reduction in funding was expected, but to announce a cut to the entire £162 million grant so close to the Olympics, and when childhood obesity is such a key public health concern, was clearly wrong and sends out alarming signals.

The Secretary of State’s justification for the cuts is that the Government want to focus on encouraging more children to play competitive sports through the school games project which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham explained, is funded by multiple bodies including the Departments for Education, for Culture, Media and Sport and for Health, as well as the national lottery. There are, however, serious concerns about whether that funding will go any way to meet the requirement for sustainable funding that the school sport partnerships initiative offered our young people, and I seek clarity from the Minister about what consideration his Department has given to school sport post-2013.

Now is not the time to put our children’s sport at risk. One simple reason for that is because the cost of the sporting activities taken up by a young person, regardless of their ability, will negate the potential cost to the Exchequer of treating obesity and health-related problems later in that person’s life. In my constituency, about 25% of pupils in year 6—10-year-olds—are defined as clinically obese. They are not just overweight; they are obese. If the Government do not make a commitment now to provide sustainable funding for school sports, there is a genuine risk, both in Newcastle and around the country, that that percentage will increase, as will the cost of providing obesity-related health care.

We have not yet mentioned the benefits to educational standards that derive from participation in sport. Research from Sport England, and around the world, has shown that young people who participate in sport are higher educational achievers. I do not doubt the Government’s sincerity in wishing to raise educational standards, but I wonder whether they genuinely appreciate the support that schools require to increase levels of participation in sport, and the lost opportunities for academic attainment that will result from cutting that support.

We warmly welcome the funding that has been committed to school sport by the Department for Education and will provide £32.5 million per year for PE teacher release funding over the next two years. There is, however, still great uncertainty about the future of that money and the extent to which it will be ring-fenced and protected. In allocating that money, the Government have deliberately placed a focus on competitive sport. That is important if we are to encourage the talented sportsmen and women of the future, and so that children and young people have the opportunity to engage in competitive sport and enjoy the challenges and benefits that it brings. None the less, competitive sport and non-competitive sport are not mutually exclusive, and we should encourage young people to participate in sport regardless of whether it is competitive. There are clear advantages for the health and general well-being of an individual if they engage in sport and exercise, in whatever form.

The Department for Education must accept that sport plays a key role in encouraging all children to be the best they can, both academically and in the lifestyle choices that they make and the relationships that they form with their peers and others. Sport plays a vital role in that development process, and the results achieved by school sport partnerships in reversing the trend of youth inactivity were clear and—as my hon. Friends have noted—internationally acclaimed.

A huge concern has been raised about the Government’s ability to measure their success or failure with regard to school sport. The school sport survey was conducted annually from 2003-04 until 2009-10, and those data have been invaluable for measuring the success of policies and highlighting opportunities for improvement. When defending their actions on school sport, the Government routinely respond with the claim that only 21% of children regularly took part in inter-school competitive sport. I reiterate the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South who called on the Minister to avoid reeling off misleading statistics when he responds to the debate.

Although arguments about the use of the school sport survey as a measure of success have been well rehearsed, my point is that the Government relied on that survey to make their case for cutting some support for schools, and to increase funding in other areas. That survey has now been scrapped in the name of reducing red tape, and it will make it difficult—I would hate to think that this is intentional—to measure the success or failure of the Government’s policies on school sport, and in particular the level of participation in sport and the effects of the cuts to school sport partnerships. Data from the active people survey show that adult participation in sport has—unsurprisingly—fallen in 19 sports over the past year, and increased in only four. That is the first fall in levels of participation in sport among people aged 16 and over since we won the Olympic bid in 2005.

Although the Government have definite ideas about deficit reduction, it is crucial that short-term savings are not made at a greater expense to the public purse in later years. Participation in sport at school plays a vital role in combating inactivity among young people, which can contribute to ill health, obesity and lower educational attainment.

I welcome some of the constructive comments made by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) about areas in which the Government could invest and improve participation in sport for young people. He made a constructive suggestion about a national insurance deal to aid sports leaders, volunteers and teachers in encouraging out-of-school activities for young people. He also made useful comments about the way that school sport is judged by Ofsted, and whether encouraging sports teachers and rewarding them for their hard work could provide an incentive and help achieve higher levels of participation in sport. Sports teachers contribute many hours to running clubs for young people or sports centres, and that work often goes unrewarded and unnoticed. I am conscious of the number of sports facilities in this country that fall within the remit of the Department for Education. The vast majority of sports facilities in this country are found in schools, and it is vital that those facilities are made available to all young people.

School sport partnerships undeniably played a major role in increasing and supporting wider participation in sport. The Government have not only put those partnerships at risk, but dismantled the means by which the impact of the funding changes can be measured. The health and well-being of our nation is greatly enhanced and enriched through participation in sport—all sport, whether competitive sport or that aimed at increasing a person’s fitness levels or mental agility—and I am sure that all hon. Members share that vision. Will the Minister reassure hon. Members, as well as our young people, their parents and teachers and the army of sports teachers and volunteers up and down the country, that we will deliver not only on our Olympic promise, but on our commitment to helping our nation’s children develop into healthy and active achievers of the future?

10:48

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), a distinguished former Sports Minister, on raising this subject. It is an issue to which he is dedicated, and we all appreciate that. I also thank other hon. Members for their well informed contributions. A lot of questions have been raised, and hon. Members seem to have anticipated what I am about to say. Therefore, in order to confuse those pundits, I will not give the speech that I had planned, even though it does not say a lot of the things that people anticipated that I would say.

Several statistics have been used, in particular by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who cited a recent survey that shows a downturn in sports participation by over-16s and adults. That, however, is the problem, because after the £2.4 billion spent on the previous Government’s programme since 2003, the idea that sport is a good thing has clearly not embedded itself in the ideas of people moving through school and college and into adulthood. It is not just something that young people do because they have to turn out for an hour or two hours a week on a school games pitch. It is something that they have to do because it is good for them and fun; it is a socialising activity; and it is about teamwork and team building. Young people would want to carry that on into adulthood, so why do the statistics clearly show that it has not been embedded? Despite the best of intentions, spending an awful lot of money has not had the desired effect of ensuring that young people in school want to do sport and carry on doing it into adulthood as something that one naturally does.

While I am talking about the use of statistics, I have to say that all the statistics that are used by the Department and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—despite an awful lot of accusations, he is in no way opposed to organised sport; he is a big fan of it—are from the previous Government and have been endorsed by the chief statistician as well.

Perhaps I can take up a few of the points in between the hyperbole used by the hon. Member for Bradford South. I absolutely endorse his comments about the army of volunteers, who are the backbone of sport in the community and sports clubs in our towns and constituencies. We want them to work more with schools, so it is not just a case of sport that people do in school and sport that people do over the weekend at the local football club. We need much more interaction between the two. I am the president of a very successful local football club that typically on a Saturday sees 300 or 400 kids out on the local sports pitches. That is achieved largely through volunteers. The children range in age from five upwards, and both girls and boys are involved. We want to see more of that type of activity. That is one reason why we have given additional funding, through the school games additional funding network to fund further volunteering. I am talking about county sports partnerships recruiting more volunteers to help with the school games and beyond both at level 2, between schools, and at level 1, within schools.

I absolutely endorse the comments from the hon. Gentleman to which I have referred, but he did also make a comment about the school games, which seemed to come under quite a lot of attack. I think that most people agree that the school games will be a good thing as an extra tool to encourage more schools and more schoolchildren to become involved in competitive sport as a matter of routine. More than 11,000 schools have already signed up in the past few months, which is remarkable. We encourage all schools to do that.

[Clive Efford]

I point out to the Minister that the school games did not come under attack. We were merely pointing out that they already exist. To present the school games as some new creation on the back of the emphasis on competitive sport is just misleading people.

[Tim Loughton]

The school games, which were launched last summer, involved more than 10,000 children in the summer pilots. I launched the version in the north-west. They have a particular focus on disability sports, which is something that has very much been missing. They will have a programme of endorsements and accreditations of the schools taking part. That builds on the success of the games that have gone before—sponsored by Sainsbury’s, I think—but is taking it to a whole new level. Surely that should be welcomed, but there seems to be a mindset against competitive sport. I find that extraordinary.

The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) referred to a quote about learning to “pick yourself up”. Sport is not just about physical fitness, important though that is. It is about life experiences, socialising, working together as a team, and winning and losing and moving on. That is what competitive sport is designed to achieve. The hon. Gentleman’s contribution seemed rather confused. He used the statistic about only 21% of children doing regular competitive sport and talked about wanting to move towards children participating in such activity at least nine times a year. Is it really ambitious to want our kids to be involved in competitive sport nine times a year, particularly after so much money has been spent on trying to embed a culture of sport as a good thing that everyone wants to do on a regular basis in schools?

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Tim Loughton]

I had better move on or I will not answer any of the hon. Gentleman’s points, but I think that there is a real poverty of ambition.

Let me return to the issue of disabled sport and the charge about the elite nature of the school games. The opportunity to take part in competitive sport is not elite; it is at four levels. It is within schools, where we want every pupil to be able to take part; it is between schools; it is at county level; and it is at national level, with the showcase of the first national championships taking place next May in the Olympic stadium, before it is even used for the Olympics. Within that, I want to see opportunities for disabled pupils. I think that the former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Bradford South, would probably admit that we have done very badly on encouraging disability sports in schools. If someone happens to have a disability, PE time is when they go to the library or do something else like that, which is entirely unacceptable. We are far more ambitious than that. Part of the programme for the school games is about encouraging able-bodied pupils to help to set up tournaments and to engage with children who have disabilities, so that they feel every bit as involved at every stage. There needs to be recognition of the various challenges that they will have, but those are surmountable.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I know that he has only a small amount of time left. I welcome what he is saying about disability sport. He is right about that, and I welcome his personal commitment to it, but the transport costs for disability sport outweigh the costs for able-bodied people. Has he considered those transport costs and what he needs to do to help people to get around to the different venues?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. That is why, again within the school games, we have made specific money available for promoting disability sport, resourcing the national governing bodies of sports to develop a clear competitive pathway for young disabled people, ensuring the availability of follow-on activity linked to level 3 festivals and resourcing a network of schools to develop and deliver school-centred continuing professional development for teachers as well, and to take into account all those practical difficulties.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), in a well informed contribution, raised a number of important and practical points about embedding sport as a way of turning round poor behaviour. We all agree with that. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us about the many-faceted contribution that sport can make. I set up in my constituency a midnight football tournament. On a Saturday evening, between 10 pm and 12 midnight, when there is not usually sporting activity, we took over a local leisure centre. I worked with the police on this. We had mostly young boys, aged 13 to 17, who otherwise would have been on the streets, getting up to no good. Instead, they were playing football against one another and against the police as well. It was a whole new dynamic. There are so many creative ways in which we can use sport to help with the problems of poor behaviour.

My hon. Friend made good, practical points about insurance and minibuses. I will certainly take those away and consider them further. I am glad that he mentioned the Troops to Teachers scheme. Those teachers will provide a different perspective. We hope that for kids who are more difficult to engage in some of the academic subjects, they will provide the role model and authority figure that is so often lacking.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) mentioned CRB checks. Again, that is something that is standing in the way of ordinary decent people who want to come forward, volunteer and give their time. There is an issue about multiple CRB checks, which the Protection of Freedoms Bill will deal with. We want a common-sense level of health and safety. Things have been regulated out of sight, and we have to get back to where we should be.

We heard the comments of the hon. Member for Eltham. Again, we had the whole business about selling off school playing fields. Let us just remind ourselves that the present Government do not and the previous Governments did not sell off playing fields, because local authorities sell off playing fields. I seem to remember that in the 1990s, when these charges were flying around most of all, Conservatives ran just one council. Rather a lot of those councils were run by the Labour party, which was responsible for overseeing selling off playing fields, so people need to take their share of the responsibility.

On the question of what the Localism Act 2011 will change, there are no intentions to change the level of protection for school playing fields. That may be provided in different ways, but certainly there is no intention to reduce the level of protection as a result of the localism legislation and the planning changes.

An awful lot of red herrings have been thrown about, but the Government are absolutely committed to promoting competitive school sport and embedding it within schools, rather than just assuming that because there is additional money or there are additional co-ordinators, it will automatically happen. Clearly, according to the statistics that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North cited herself, it has not been embedded. That is a problem that we now have to pick up. We hope that the school games will be a flagship way of ensuring that more people want to become involved in sport not just at school but outside the school gates, and that they will want to carry it on into adulthood as well. That is the most important thing that we need to achieve, for all the reasons that we have already mentioned.

The new Government’s approach to school sports has three important characteristics: decentralising power, incentivising—

[Mr David Amess (in the Chair)]

Order. We now move to the next debate.

Welfare of Laying Hens Directive

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

11:00

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

Good morning, Mr Amess. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to see the Minister in his place. I am delighted to have secured the debate. It is a matter of note that it was requested by all the members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who deem it of great importance. The thrust of my remarks relates to the legal position and legal advice on which the Government appear to have based their decision on how to proceed when the ban on battery cages comes into effect. Effectively, the issue is when is a ban not a ban?

Directive 1999/74 on the welfare of laying hens is well known to everybody in this country and across the EU; indeed, it has been in existence for 12 years. It will take effect from 1 January 2012, when there will be a ban on what are normally known as battery cages, and only eggs laid by hens in enriched cages will be allowed. That is an historic decision, which is welcomed by all across the EU, not least consumers. Animal welfare has enjoyed growing momentum across the EU, and this is the first time the Commission has sought to introduce a ban on animal welfare grounds.

Were the ban not to take effect on 1 January, the implications for the consumer would be very serious. Consumers are very much in favour of a ban. This country’s egg industry has invested £400 million in putting new facilities in place for 1 January, and I pay tribute to all the egg producers who have made such a massive contribution, not least Yorkshire Farmhouse Eggs and others in my constituency. There are also serious implications for the next ban—on sow stalls and tethers—which is due to come into force across the EU on 1 January 2013.

I want to focus for a moment on the implications of the legal aspects of the Government’s case. As I said, the directive is due to come into force on 1 January 2012. It was agreed 12 years ago, in 1999, so egg producers across the EU have had 12 years to prepare. The directive will prohibit the use of conventional cages—commonly referred to as battery cages—which contain about five birds, with a minimum of 550 sq cm, or less than the size of a sheet of A4 paper, per bird. In December 2010, such cages accounted for 28% of all laying hens in the UK. The new enriched cages provide at least 750 sq cm per bird and have a minimum height of 44 cm. They also provide a nest, a perching space and a scratching area. In December 2010, such cages accounted for 21% of all laying hens in the UK.

The directive was intended to prohibit the marketing of eggs produced in conventional cages. Here, I turn to the semantics of what the ban relates to. In this regard, there are flaws in the Government’s legal advice, their argument and the basis on which they are proceeding. I pray in aid a letter—I am happy to share it and to leave a copy in the Library and with the Department—from Commissioner John Dalli, who is the person at the directorate-general for health and consumers responsible for implementing the ban. He wrote to the Committee on 30 November, after we had written two weeks earlier—on 14 November—asking for the ban to take effect across the EU. He states:

“Currently available data suggest that there is a risk that more than 51 million hens in at least 11 Member States will still be kept in un-enriched cages on 1 January 2012.”

He goes on to say that he will

“without undue delay propose to launch infringement proceedings early next year against those Member States that appear to not enforce the Directive.”

However, as we and the Commission know—the Committee had cause to share this with a Minister from Denmark, which will hold the EU presidency from 1 January 2012—all the Commission will do then is issue a reasoned opinion against the member states that are in default. As we all realise this morning, that will give those member states three months to reply. It will therefore be le jour de poisson—April fool’s day—1 April 2012, before legal proceedings commence against any of those member states.

In arguing against the Government’s inaction, I rely on a key paragraph from the commissioner’s letter:

“Concerning unilateral action, Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Union law. They have the power and the duty to keep products produced illegally off their markets.”

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

indicated assent.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Minister is nodding. The key phrase is that member states

“have the power and the duty to keep products produced illegally off their markets.”

I put it to the Minister that it is not for manufacturers, processers or retailers to police these things. I pay tribute to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for being the first Department to come forward with a taskforce to remove extra regulations and gold-plating. Under successive Governments, it has been expert at introducing such things, but gold-plating and the addition of extra regulations have cost our industry. It would be completely perverse to offload all the costs of policing these issues on to retailers, processers and others, when it should, as the commissioner says, be the Government’s responsibility to police the ban.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to make a quick comment and to congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward this important issue. Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom have pursued the rules and regulations with almost evangelical zeal. However, it has been reported that battery cages that are now obsolete in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom have been sold to other European countries that flagrantly disobey Europe’s rules. Does the hon. Lady feel that the Government should make strong representations to Europe to ensure that such contravention of the legislation does not take place?

[Miss McIntosh]

The Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I invite him to respond. It is perverse to introduce regulatory costs for manufacturers, retailers and processers at this time.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Miss McIntosh]

I would like to make some progress.

I put it to the Minister that he has three options before 1 January. The first is to do nothing, as he set out in his recent written statement to the House, and to let the ban lapse before it even takes effect and to offload the costs of policing processed products—not shelled eggs, but eggs in powdered, liquid and other forms. That would be unacceptable.

The second option is to take unilateral action, and the Commission clearly states that the Minister would be entirely within his rights to do so. Indeed, he said in the Government’s response to the Committee’s ninth report on the welfare of laying hens directive:

“We will be pressing to ensure that the Commission initiate infraction proceedings against Member States whose caged egg producers are non-compliant”.

He went on to say that the Government would also consider taking unilateral action:

“The Government has thoroughly investigated the possibility of taking unilateral action and bringing in a UK ban on all imports of egg and egg products which have been produced in conventional cages in other Member States”.

What has changed the Minister’s mind between the quite recent date of publication—25 November—and today? The Minister should take unilateral action, rejecting shell eggs or egg products in powdered, liquid or any other form, based on the legal letter and the legal basis of the directive, backed up by the commissioner’s response to the Committee.

The third option that I invite the Minister to consider is to tour European capitals. It is not up to members of the Committee. We had a warm response from the incoming President, the Danish Agriculture Minister, when we made a visit two weeks ago. She asked the Committee which other capitals we had visited, and which other Ministers we had met. I regret to say that I had to respond that we are not allowed out very often, so it is not really the role of the Committee. It is the role of Ministers from the 14 compliant member states to tour member states to secure—if the Minister does not want to take unilateral action—a multilateral ban on their part. There are 14 or 16 other countries—we are not entirely sure how many—who will not comply.

[Mr Paice]

I am interested to hear that my hon. Friend spoke to the new Danish Minister. Did she ask what the Minister was planning to do? I did, last week, and the answer is nothing.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am delighted that the Minister met his counterpart, but that is not what she said to us. She said she was aware that the Commission would take action. I put it to her, as I put it to the Committee this morning, that there will be inaction for three months, while just a reasoned position is issued under the Court proceedings. When we left, that Minister—the incoming EU President—had a completely open mind. As I said to her, it is quite within the rights of the Council of Ministers to overrule the Commission and rely on a multilateral ban. That is a matter of disagreement between the Minister, the Committee and the egg industry, and it would help us this morning if the Minister provided the legal advice on which the Government depend.

In his conclusions in a written statement on 6 December the Minister mentioned marketing regulations:

“Because of a loophole in the egg marketing regulations, we cannot prohibit the marketing of any eggs produced in conventional cages from 1 January 2012 which are sent to processing (whether sent as ungraded or class B), nor can we prohibit the use of any products made from such eggs.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 17WS.]

That is not the case, and I repeat the words of Commissioner Dalli:

“Concerning unilateral action, Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Union law. They have the power and the duty to keep products produced illegally off their markets.”

The Food and Drink Federation is equally concerned and has said, in its briefing for today’s debate, that it shares concern that a number of other EU member states still do not appear ready to meet obligations first set out in the 1999 directive. It continues:

“It is also highly regrettable that the absence of mechanisms to prevent intra-community trade in non-compliant eggs exposes food manufacturers and others to the risk of inadvertently buying them.”

[Mr Paice]

They agree with us.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Minister says that retailers agree with the Government, but with the greatest of respect, retailers and processors do not agree with them. The Government are offloading the responsibility for applying the directive on to retailers, processors and the manufacturers of quiches, pizzas, cakes and other products.

[Mr Paice]

Will my hon. Friend reread what she just read out from the FDF? It clearly states that it agrees that it is a pity there is no mechanism. That is what she read out, and that is the Government’s position. The FDF agrees with the Government that there is no mechanism for us to establish the ban that she wants.

[Miss McIntosh]

That highlights the kernel of the disagreement between the Minister and the Committee. Will he explain precisely what the loophole is in the egg marketing regulations? Are they EU regulations or UK regulations implementing EU regulations? The Committee is at a disadvantage, because we do not have access to the legal advice on which the Government have based their opinion. If the Minister would be good enough, in his response, to clarify the legal position on the importation of non-compliant shell eggs for processing, liquid and powdered egg and egg products contained in prepared foods, it would be a great step forward. Will he also state precisely what loophole in the egg marketing regulations he believes allows the marketing and sale of all eggs and egg products, aside from class A eggs? Will he satisfy us this morning as to whether he really means that because only class A eggs are covered by the egg marketing regulations DEFRA has simply chosen to put that interpretation on the legislation?

As a currently non-practising lawyer, who practised law in two different law firms in Brussels, I accept that asking two lawyers for their opinion might produce two different legal opinions. It seems that the British Egg Industry Council has one legal opinion, and the Government rely on another. It would be helpful for us to learn precisely the terms of that opinion. I have quoted Commissioner Dalli’s belief, which is widely held, that the European Commission is clearly saying that the United Kingdom would be entirely within its rights to choose to prohibit the importation not just of class A shell eggs but also shell eggs destined for processing, and liquid and powdered eggs, from non-compliant sources, from 1 January 2012.

The Commission infraction proceedings will take place only from 1 January, with a reasoned opinion against the 10 or 11 remaining member states that do not comply with the directive. That will mean that no reference to the Court of Justice, or legal proceedings against the ban, can happen until 1 April 2012. The consequences of failing to act are huge. Bearing in mind the fact that we all—consumers, manufacturers and parliamentarians—welcome a ban on battery cages, the consequences of failing to act cannot be quantified.

Consumers were led to believe that the ban would be in place from 1 January 2012. Egg producers have made an enormous sacrifice and invested hugely—£400 million —in enriched cages. There will be huge consequences for producers who are disadvantaged. As to what the costs will be to the manufacturers, processors and retailers who are being asked to check the eggs on import, to make sure that they are compliant, perhaps the Government would like to share a figure with the House this morning. Perhaps we should also look ahead to 1 January 2013.

When the Conservatives were last in power, we imposed a unilateral ban on sow stalls and tethers, which disadvantaged our pig sector and has led to consumers buying cheaper cuts of pigmeat produced with less animal welfare-friendly methods since the early ’90s. I want an assurance from the Minister that a level playing field is not elusive, that we can achieve it, that we can allow our egg producers to compete across the European Union and that we will not accept any imports of shell eggs or any other products from 1 January 2012.

11:20

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

I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and the other members of the Committee on securing today’s debate and on raising an important issue.

I came to the issue because there are a number of small and sizeable egg producers in my constituency, which support the local rural economy and provide jobs. Over the past few years, they have invested heavily in upgrading their facilities. I am aware that, of the £400 million that has been invested across the UK, at least £7 million was invested in my constituency by small and medium-sized firms.

The comments made by the British Egg Industry Council are important to the debate. The critical issue for the producers who have contacted me is that, although they have invested heavily, they are being put at a competitive disadvantage. They are concerned about their businesses in what are already difficult economic times for all rural businesses, and they are concerned that the reward for their investments and for improving what they do is to find their profits reduced and their businesses becoming ever less viable.

[Jim Shannon]

Clearly, in the hon. Lady’s constituency, similar to my own, many people have borrowed from banks at a time when they can least afford to do so. They feel that they are comparatively disadvantaged as a result. Does she feel that banks should give some leniency at this time?

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Certainly, banks in the rural economy have recently tightened up their lending processes, which is regrettable when agriculture globally is ripe for investment and is a good investment. Such businesses are often asset rich, but they need credit, as farmers all over the world do. Banks can do a lot more at present to support the rural economy.

I confess that I was incredulous when the BEIC raised the issues with me. It struck me as bizarre that some EU members are still not complying with the legislation 12 years after it was passed. One of the most pertinent points today is that not just new accession EU countries are failing to comply with the legislation, but long-standing and established EU members seem to be shrugging their shoulders and letting the issue go by.

One of the most significant issues is that there has been a complete lack of foresight regarding compliance measures. I still find it quite incredible that the enforcement measures are so weak. Enforcement measures by member states may be dismissed as a business expense by the companies that are failing to comply with the law. There are big lessons to be learned about how seriously we take legislation. At the heart of the matter, it is a legal issue. It became clear back in July just how weak the legislation and compliance measures were; that is important.

I welcome the fact that the Government have looked at contingency plans. I wrote to the major supermarkets in July this year, asking them to confirm that they would ensure that their own-brand products would comply with the law and that they would not import products. To be fair to Asda, Morrisons and Tesco, they all wrote back to me to say that they could do so with their own-brand products and the eggs on their shelves, but there was no commitment on the other products that they import from suppliers. That is where the challenges lie.

In a context where the law is absolutely ineffective, I welcome the contingency measures taken by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, but they are not a substitute for proper legal enforcement. We still face the issue that liquid eggs from Holland and Germany might originate from non-compliant countries. Until we deal with the legal issue, I do not think that we can move much further forward—it makes a mockery of the law.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton absolutely hit the nail on the head when she posed the key question about the loophole in regulation. Does that originate from our own laws and regulations, or is it an EU-wide issue? I hope that the Minister will address that and share the legal advice that has been given. The loopholes need to be closed with some urgency.

As we consider how we move forward, I hope that we will ask how on earth we will instil any confidence in new legislation if it cannot be enforced. Farmers are already talking about the problems of complying with regulation. If there is one issue that farmers in my constituency—not just poultry farmers, but livestock and arable farmers—are concerned about, it is compliance. They feel that our compliance, regulation and inspection regimes are much more rigid than those in other parts of the EU. In some cases, they are absolutely right, and that makes it more difficult for them to earn a living and operate internationally. If we cannot even enforce the laws that we make with a 12-year lead-in period, it makes a mockery of the law. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

11:26

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is nice to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Amess. I, too, thank the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), for securing the debate; we all supported her in securing it.

I do not think that the Minister should be in the dock this morning; it should be the European Union and the European Commission. As has been said, directive 1999/74/EC is 12 years old. What has the Commission done about it in the meantime? Last June, Commission officials came to see us in our Select Committee, and we had figures from Spain. There are 42 million hens in Spain, of which 2 million are free range and 40 million are either in enriched or in non-enriched cages; people did not have a clue as to how many hens have been put into enriched cages. How can we be confident that Spain is converting? Will it have one or two poultry houses on each farm that have converted to new enriched cages? In that case, an awful lot of eggs produced in non-enriched cages in other parts of the same farm could find their way on to the market as grade A eggs. There are many reasons for the Commission to get strong.

Spain has a record of non-compliance, especially on welfare standards. When I was in the European Parliament, I chaired an all-party group on animal welfare. When it came to achieving welfare requirements, Spain was always one of the worst for compliance. Basically, the responsibility goes from the national Government to the regional and local governments—people pass it from one to another and wring their hands, and nothing gets done.

The Commission has seen this coming. In our Committee last June, we told it that hens, which will lay for 13 months, were going into non-enriched cages. One does not need to be Einstein to work out that, when 1 January arrives, lots of eggs will still come from non-compliant cages. We want to see action taken on that.

It has cost our industry £25 a bird to convert to enriched cages. Let us not forget—I have said this before—that the poultry industry does not receive any money from either the common agricultural policy or the single farm payment. It has to compete on not only a national stage, but an international stage. This country has a good and highly competitive poultry industry, but the industry cannot stand having many inferior eggs, produced under lower standards, coming into the country. The industry reckons that it costs 11% less to produce in non-enriched cages than in enriched ones. We need to take action.

I commend the Minister for his work with retailers. In the end, whether it is the law or not, we must physically ensure that such eggs do not come in. The best way to do that is to look at what we are eating and where the egg has come from. Not only shelled eggs are imported; we reckon that about half the 18% that we import comes in liquid and powder form. That is the area—where they could well get in—that causes me most concern. By working with retailers, we can stop a lot of that happening.

The Commission has a problem because it has taken no action for so long. At this time of higher food prices, it will be difficult for the Commission to smash 45 million eggs a day. That will not look terribly good to the consumer.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I have huge respect for everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) says on such issues and I sympathise hugely. The issue comes down to whether the UK should take unilateral action on 1 January. I think that the Select Committee would agree on everything else. I am interested to know my hon. Friend’s view on whether the UK should take unilateral action.

[Neil Parish]

I am sure the Minister will cover this matter in his summing up, because it relates to legal advice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, one can get two or three lawyers in a room and have two or three opinions. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on legality.

I still maintain that we must look at the market; otherwise we will be left with inferior eggs produced under lower welfare standards. From a food point of view, there is probably nothing wrong with the eggs, but they are not compliant. We must ensure that they are driven down in price, so that it is uneconomic for farms to produce them across Europe, and in the end that becomes a matter of the market. If we can drive those prices down, so that those eggs are only worth half a grade A egg, it will not take too long. Farmers may be many things but they usually work out the law of economics, and they will soon find that it is uneconomic to produce those eggs, especially with the high cereal prices at the moment. That must be our main goal. I am happy to slate supermarkets when they do not get it right, but they have got it right in this instance.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful contribution to the debate. Assuming that the Minister will not say that he has found alternative legal advice and that we can have a unilateral ban, does the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) agree that it is right to have a live updated rolling register positively identifying those supermarkets that comply with the Minister’s request and, by implication, identifying those that do not? The only way to do this through a market as opposed to a legal mechanism is to name and shame, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). Let us recognise the good producers and processors and vilify those who do not maintain the highest standards of animal welfare and British food production.

[Neil Parish]

I could not agree more with the shadow Minister; it is a case of name and shame, and we need to know where the eggs have come from. I have looked at where all the beef, lamb and so on in supermarkets comes from. It would be good to discover not only the method by which the eggs have been produced, but where they have come from. I believe that the British public are more and more interested in where their food comes from and are keen that it is produced not only under higher welfare standards, but in this country. It would be a double-edged sword: we would look at not only non-compliant eggs, but where they were produced. That could be very good.

[Jason McCartney]

I join my hon. Friend in praising my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for securing the important debate. I am here because two egg producers from my area got in touch. One has willingly and enthusiastically invested tens of thousands of pounds in new facilities, believing in high welfare standards in the UK. However, I would like to echo the point about the economic argument. At a time when supermarkets are pushing prices down and when people are suffering because of the economy, it is important not to put such producers at an economic disadvantage. We need to support them in any way that we can. I like some of the ideas that we have just heard on naming and shaming and supporting high welfare standards in British eggs.

[Neil Parish]

That anticipates my final point. The industry has to deal across Europe in a single market. The European Commission is not taking the right steps to ensure that that single market works properly; there are inferior eggs on the market, and it is not doing enough about it. I commend the Minister for the agreements that he has made with retailers and supermarkets. If we can work with them to stop as far as possible these eggs coming in and drive down the price of B quality eggs, so that they are uneconomic to produce, it will not take so long for those countries that have not conformed to do so quickly. In the end, we have to ensure that we look after our own highly competitive producers, to ensure that their investment bears fruit and that we have high-quality, good welfare standard eggs, which we can all buy with confidence.

11:36

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Amess. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate. The last parish notice that I want to draw attention to is my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a free-range egg producer.

This matter has been a long time coming. For 12 years, the EU has had the legislation in place. Some colleagues have already referred to the pig industry. In the Sherwood constituency, a number of pork producers have disappeared over the past 10 years simply because we introduced legislation to improve animal welfare and our colleagues in the EU did not do so at the same speed. In effect, we exported our pig industry to Holland and Poland, which produced cheaper pork products due to their lower animal welfare standards. We are in danger of allowing that to happen again to our egg producers, which is simply morally unjustifiable. Any assistance that the Minister can give to our egg industry—I know that he is working hard to make it a fair playing field—would be most welcome.

The matter comes down to policing. Who will police the issue to ensure that the legislation is enforced and that we can deliver that fairness not only for our farmers but for hens crammed into tiny cages for their whole lives? The Government clearly have a role to play, if they can find a way to enforce this. Producers also have a role in ensuring that consumers and the general public understand the issue. It is important to include food production in the curriculum, so that people understand it, because more such issues will inevitably occur.

Let us cast our minds back to how some of our colleagues on the continent took direct action. Many hon. Members will remember images of Welsh lamb being pulled out of refrigerated lorries and burned by our colleagues over the channel and how the Germans put a unilateral ban on British beef some years ago because they decided there was a safety issue. We are very passive in the UK at times—we play by the rules and we play fair—which is sometimes to our disadvantage. We need to find a legal way to ensure that we deliver.

My real call is to consumers of products to put pressure on retailers and food producers to ensure they have the criteria in place, so that those egg products are sourced from enriched cages or free-range units, and not from battery hens. The power of the market will deliver, but that will require consumers to put people under pressure. In a restaurant, if we order a boiled egg, we ask “Is this free range?” but we never ask where our mayonnaise, or products that involve egg paste, come from. If we buy a sausage roll, it is probably basted with an egg wash, but we never ask if the egg is free range.

Consumers have a big role to play in applying genuine pressure. Every time they go for a pub meal, they should ask the manager whether the eggs are free range, and when they buy mayonnaise in the supermarket, they should write to the mayonnaise company asking whether it is made from free-range or enriched-cage eggs. In that way, the market will deliver, and the £400 million that British producers have invested will have been worth their while. Perhaps we can find a way to support British egg producers, who have the highest welfare standards and the best quality eggs in the world. If we can get that message across, I am sure that we will work our way through this.

[Mr David Amess (in the Chair)]

We have plenty of time before the winding-up speeches, if any other colleagues wish to contribute. I call Huw Irranca-Davies.

11:39

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

I will do my best to fill the available time, Mr Chairman, and will happily take interventions. This is a good chance to have a detailed debate.

I welcome the debate, and I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing it, in her role both as a constituency MP and as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I also congratulate the members of the Committee on making this very much a live issue. It should be attracting the attention of parliamentarians and the wider public, and I will consider in a moment how we should deal with the consumer and market issues. I also welcome the expert, knowledgeable and detailed way in which the hon. Lady introduced the debate, and I note—as the Minister will have done—the significant differences that have emerged between her, as Chair of the Committee, and the Government, even though their positions support each other in many ways.

I very much welcome the comments from other contributors, including the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). Am I pronouncing the constituency name correctly?

[Dr Whiteford]

It is Buchan.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Ah, it is a Welsh pronunciation, with the “ch” sound. I am dying to see how Hansard transcribes that. The hon. Lady mentioned the importance of recognising and rewarding good producers and the investment they have made, and that has been a common theme of the debate.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) made a very good contribution about how UK producers’ investment should bear fruit, or at least produce good eggs. He was certainly supportive of the idea, and I saw nodding heads on both sides of the House, of clearly identifying which producers, processors, retailers, supermarkets and restaurants use not only good shell eggs but good liquefied and other processed eggs, and which do not. There is some scope for the Minister. We might have a way forward, together with the UK egg producers and the various representative organisations.

The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) spoke very well about his experience with free-range hens. My household has always had a few, just for our own consumption. It has been a long-standing tradition on our smallholding, but I cannot compete with the hon. Gentleman’s much more extensive expertise. He rightly pointed out that we could do a lot with the power of consumers and the markets, but we have a heck of a long way to go.

I draw parliamentarians’ attention to research by YouGov and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The RSPCA would like to go even further towards free range and away from any sort of caging, but it has done an interesting analysis, which the Minister might not be aware of because it has, I think, come out only in the past few days. It looked at people’s awareness of the legislation, and at their buying power as consumers; 69% of them wrongly assumed what the law would mean for hens and animal welfare. A further 19% had not heard about the legislation at all. A fifth wrongly assumed that all battery cages would now be banned; 8% thought that all hens would now be free range and 1% thought it was something to do with farmers having to play music to their hens. We have a long way to go, not only in working with the retail sector, including supermarkets, but in highlighting the issue to consumers so that they can genuinely drive change in the market, but that is not all that I shall talk about today.

[Glyn Davies]

I cannot allow that 1% figure about playing music to hens to pass without comment. I may be the only person here who has been a farmer, with 20,000 battery cages. It was unheard of not to play music. The whole point is that opening a door should not surprise the hens and make them jump around, so playing music in battery cages is common practice.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I will not exhaust your attention, Mr Chairman, by asking what music the hon. Gentleman played. As an ex-punk, I think my taste in music might startle the hens, but I am glad to hear that music is played. Was it classical?

[Glyn Davies]

Springsteen.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

As we know, Council directive 1999/74/EC will make it illegal to have laying hens in conventional battery cages across the EU from 1 January 2012, after which date egg production will be allowed only in enriched colony or non-cage systems; for example, free range, barn or organic. We have heard today that Members on both sides of the House agree that that is appropriate, and there has been none of the discussion about gold-plating that we often have with EU regulations. The directive has been welcomed, both for animal welfare and for food production standards, and it might well benefit UK production and producers, if we can get it right. It is also good for the quality of the eggs and egg products that we eat every day. The significant problem is that not every EU nation will comply with the directive—13 of them will not—which poses enormous challenges for the UK egg industry. The industry’s response to the Minister’s written ministerial statement on 6 December 2011 was that it feels “totally let down” by Ministers on this important matter, and I want to look today at why it feels that way and at what must be done.

I compliment the UK egg industry on its responsible approach to the directive over a number of years, with investment in the region of £400 million to convert conventional cages to enriched ones. The capital cost of an enriched colony unit is between £20 and £24 per bird place, and the National Farmers Union has stated that for a producer with a medium-sized cage unit of about 100,000 birds the cost of erecting the new units is, on average, in excess of £2 million—not an insignificant amount. Free-range egg producers have also invested heavily in preparation for the directive, and that has been a draw on the industry, which, as has been mentioned, is a competitive market that does not receive EU support. The NFU has also stated that the majority of birds in the UK will be in enriched cages by January 2012, which is to be welcomed, and that all lion scheme producers will be converted in time.

A lot of work has been going on over recent years, with many people investing heavily to comply, but the problem is that the UK is not self-sufficient in eggs and egg products. We import 15% of our egg requirements, and valid concerns remain about whether imports from January 2012 onwards will come from EU nations that comply with the directive, and about the possible impact on the UK egg industry, including on prices. One of the industry’s fears is that prices will be driven down, with cheaper eggs and lower standards.

In a move that was openly welcomed by the UK egg industry, the Minister recently dangled the potential for a unilateral ban on eggs from EU nations that do not comply. However, in his statement last week, he decided that it was “not a realistic option”. Having raised that possibility, why can the Minister not now deliver it? It will leave many egg farmers feeling that he failed them.

What has the Minister delivered? He has given an unequivocal assurance that DEFRA and the devolved Administrations will enforce the conventional cage ban from 1 January 2012. I think that everybody in this debate will welcome that and how the industry, the devolved Administrations and DEFRA have risen to the challenge. He also stated that a risk-based surveillance scheme would be introduced to ensure that imported shell eggs from other member states produced in compliance with the cage ban would be in place from 1 January 2012. [Interruption.] He is nodding.

The Minister also said that Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency surveillance would be conducted on imports of shell eggs, using ultraviolet light analysis, to identify batches of caged eggs that are not from an enriched environment. However, he also acknowledged that due to the loophole in the egg marketing regulations, he could not prohibit the marketing of egg products from conventional cages sent for processing, nor could he prohibit the use of products made from such eggs. That is a significant loophole.

However, the Minister made the welcome announcement that retailers, food manufacturers, food service companies and processors have come out in public support of the UK egg industry. I do not make many puns in debates such as this, but those good eggs, reflecting earlier campaigns on the issue, are to be complimented on the steps that they have taken and will take. The British Retail Consortium, whose members include McDonald’s, Starbucks, the four major supermarkets and many other brand names, will ensure that they do not buy conventional caged eggs or use them in their products. Furthermore, he outlined that the Government would make necessary changes to the Government buying standards’ mandatory criteria to ensure that eggs produced in conventional cages are not used in any form, whether fresh, powdered or liquid.

After that seemingly wide-ranging set of measures, why does nobody in the industry seem happy? I suggest to the Minister that it may be a case of trying to look busy while failing to deliver the one thing that he strongly hinted was possible, a unilateral ban. The industry is now being overwhelmed with many different initiatives as a diversion. Perhaps they will forget the fact that they think they have been led up the garden path. It is a classic case of over-promising and under-delivering, which is never a good strategy.

[Sandra Osborne in the Chair]

The British Egg Industry Council says that the measures are not good enough and that the Government could have introduced a complete ban on all illegal products in the UK. Its chief executive, Mark Williams, said:

“The UK egg industry feels totally let down by the Government. Whilst we have received repeated platitudes of support from DEFRA, it has failed to back these up with any real action. Our legal advice has confirmed that the UK Government is able to enforce UK and EU law by banning illegal eggs and egg products, so why have they chickened out?”

That is his pun, not mine.

Although the National Farmers Union has welcomed the measures taken by Government, it has stated categorically that

“our members will certainly be bitterly disappointed that it has not been possible to take tougher action.”

One British egg farmer, Duncan Priestner, echoed the concerns of many, including the NFU, when he said this week that he feared some food producers would be tempted to buy eggs from illegal systems in Europe, because they will be cheaper. He said:

“It will drive down the prices that farmers get. Like the pig industry”,

which has been referred to,

“that will put us in a very difficult financial position."

[Mr Spencer]

The UK is clearly not the only country in the EU that will be compliant on 1 January. Does the shadow Minister know of any other Ministers in the European Union who will take unilateral action within their own country?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. I will come to that, if he will bear with me. There is a case, if not for unilateral action, then for doing what the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee suggested and considering the possibility that like-minded countries might take multilateral action to enforce the EU directive much more rigorously and aggressively and in a joined-up way. There are like-minded countries out there. With my limited experience of EU negotiations, I suggest to the Minister that that is a fruitful way forward. We should be sitting down with those of the same mind and discussing how to work within the EU directive after 1 January. Even if we cannot do it unilaterally—I will ask about the legal advice in a moment—we could do it in a joined-up way with like-minded countries. As I have given him that forewarning, I am sure that he will be able to tell me what discussions are occurring.

The good work of the NFU Poultry Board has been referred to. Its chairman, Charles Bournes, said:

“We are concerned that although the Government has repeatedly pledged its support for the industry, it cannot prohibit the use of illegal egg products and food manufactured from such products.”

On the back of those comments, I have a series of questions for the Minister.

Given that the British Egg Industry Council and others have stated that their legal advice is that a unilateral ban is possible, will the Minister publish the legal advice that he received on whether the Government would be able to enforce a unilateral ban on the import of conventional caged eggs? As he knows, we requested that advice in a written parliamentary question last week. We expect the Department’s reply any day now, if not today.

In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Sherwood, will the Minister update us on whether he intends to work with like-minded countries to see whether a rigorous form of enforcement or a multilateral ban could be employed by other countries that have complied with the directive and are concerned for their own industries? It is not only about supporting British industry; it is also about supporting higher animal welfare standards. I am sure that those countries would be willing to work on that, with some good negotiation and persuasion from the Minister.

In the absence of full compliance from 1 January, will the Minister commit to making a quarterly statement to the House about the progress he is making within the EU on negotiations, particularly on getting the 13 other members to implement the directive fully, and on what additional work he as a Minister, his officials at DEFRA and UKRep are undertaking to level up the playing field promptly? Will he also update Parliament on the level of non-compliant imports? I think that we will all be extremely concerned if, as a result of the non-level playing field after 1 January, imports increase, particularly eggs and egg products from non-conventional and enriched cages.

We have all seen the recent furore under this Government over humans arriving in airports and ports and being waved through. What hope is there for eggs? What assurance can the Minister give people who are sceptical that imports can be checked for compliance with the EU directive? As an hon. Member said in the debate earlier, what specific additional resources will the Minister make available for policing the directive, and at what cost?

AHVLA surveillance of imports of shell eggs will use ultraviolet light analysis. I understand that the method has not been used specifically to identify different types of caged egg production, although it has been used to identify eggs from alternative systems. What assurance can the Minister give that that type of monitoring is 100% effective? If it is not 100% effective, what level of surety do we have that it is an effective way to monitor and police egg imports? His recent statement made little mention of powdered or liquefied egg. What assurance can he give that imported powdered or liquefied egg will not come from hens in conventional cages?

Will the Minister push the European Commission to take swift action with meaningful financial penalties against any country guilty of non-compliance on shell eggs or egg products after 1 January? Will he take a hard line in discussions with the European Commission on non-compliant countries? That would give some assurance to egg producers in this country that there was at least an attempt, in the way we know other countries do with us, to try and level up the playing field rapidly. What can the Minister do to ensure that the UK egg industry will not be undercut on price by eggs and egg products from conventional cages from any of those 13 non-compliant states? We welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce changes to the Government buying standards mandatory criteria, but why did it take so long to produce them? Why were they so late? Will he guarantee that the changes will be completed and enforced by 1 January 2012, and that all Departments, without fail, will not be using, in this context, conventionally caged eggs in any form—shell, liquid or powdered? It would be wholly inappropriate for the Government to fail to introduce these measures properly, and to fail their own standards, after asking much of the egg industry and many retailers—food manufacturers, food service companies and processors—to invest heavily in preparation for the ban.

Given that the UK’s enforcement strategy is to ensure that all those in the industry have stringent traceability tests in place to ensure that they are not using conventional cage eggs, what assistance is the Minister giving them—not policing, but giving the industry—to ensure that they are fully prepared? Are there additional costs that the industry will now have to take on to ensure compliance, and what assistance is the Minister giving if that is the case? Is he undertaking further action to assist our whole supply chain in the UK to prepare for this directive, or is that now it? They are ready, up and running, and it is a competitive market.

The Minister promised much, but the results have fallen short, as we have heard from the industry. In EU negotiations, there was a failure to level the playing field upwards in favour of higher animal welfare standards, and, I have to say, in favour of UK producers and jobs. However, he had a plan B, which was nothing to do with walking out on negotiations; it was actually to impose a UK unilateral ban. Despite the good promises and the fine words, I wonder whether he has been “Sir Humphried” by his officials on internal legal advice. We must now rely on voluntary enforcement—a sort of big society approach to welfare in UK food production. Perhaps I could suggest to him a reliance on the good and bad in business, highlighted by the Leader of the Opposition in recent contributions.

Finally, when all else has failed, will the Minister work with the industry, hon. Members here today and us to produce a definitive and up to date rolling register of all those who source shell, powder and liquefied eggs from enriched cages? Food processors, retailers, restaurants and others on the list would be demonstrably good eggs, and by implication everybody else would be bad eggs. We would support the Minister strongly in that, but anything else will be seen as a slap in the face for the UK egg industry.

I have already written to all those in the supply chain in the UK, asking in detail what they are doing to comply with the EU directive, both those on the list produced by the Minister and all other significant players. I guarantee our support if the Minister produces a live rolling register, because that seems to be the only tool left in the box at the moment. We have a lot of work to do, as I alluded to with the findings of the RSPCA, and we will do it. If the Minister does not, I am convinced that the industry will do it separately and alone, and we will work with them.

This is by no means a complete list of questions or of the concerns of many inside and outside the UK egg industry, but they are some of the key questions left to be answered by the Minister. I hope that he can provide the assurances that many are seeking—in the industry and in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which has done such good work on this—so that we can drive up animal welfare standards and the protection of the very best in UK food production, as I know he is convinced we must do.

12:04

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for securing the debate and for the way in which she introduced it.

Obviously, I am aware of the importance of this issue. Hon. Members from all parts of the House have written to me about it in the past year to 18 months. Indeed, as I shall come to describe, it is something with which I have been closely involved ever since I took up my ministerial responsibilities. There is much on which I think we can all agree. However, before launching into that, I want to put on the record that I strongly resent and resist accusations that I have done nothing—as my hon. Friend suggested, when she said that I could do nothing, as was clear in my statement. I also reject the hysterical comments that have been made by those who allegedly represent the industry. They are not constructive, and they are not factual in a number of cases.

As hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), have clearly stated, the provision has been in existence for 12 years, since the 1999 directive that bans the keeping of hens in conventional battery cages from 1 January. It has been widely welcomed on all sides of the debate, even from those who would prefer it to go further, as the hon. Gentleman has said. I have said in the Agriculture Council and in this country that every country has had 12 years to prepare. Even the newer member states, which were not members at that time, knew what they were signing up to. There is no excuse, in the Government’s view, for any country not to have done everything it could to ensure that its producers comply.

Clearly, the directive is a huge challenge and great concern to the industry. I join my hon. Friends and hon. Members from other parties in congratulating the producers who have invested approximately £400 million in preparing for the ban by converting either to the enriched systems or to other systems. We know that the vast majority of UK producers will be compliant by 1 January. Of the remainder, we expect many of them will be leaving the industry at the end of the year or shortly after that, as soon as they can get their hens into an abattoir. As has been said, there is a different picture across Europe, with 13 of the 27 member states saying that they will not be ready. It has taken a long while for the Commission to get that information. As several hon. Members have said, there could be approximately 50 million hens in conventional cages across the EU. On 1 January, those will be unacceptable conditions.

We have been working hard to try to protect our producers, who have invested £400 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) has said, that works out at about £25 per hen. I have said several times to the industry, and I do not resile from this, that we will do all that we can to protect it. I believe that we have done that within the bounds of legislation, and I shall come on to that. Alongside what we could be thinking about doing in this country, we are still pursuing the UK’s interests in Brussels. Despite the fact that it is not satisfactory, we have made some steps forward.

It is more than a year ago now—in fact, it was September 2010—when Commissioner Dalli visited this country and came to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. At that stage, I said to him that we were very concerned that member states would not be compliant. At that stage, the Commission felt that it would be “all right on the night”. However, early this year it began to realise that that might not be the case. It asked all member states for a status report by the end of April. Not all member states complied, but it has recently received more information, to which I will refer, and which is the origin of the 50 million figure that I mentioned just now.

We have had a number of further discussions, both privately between myself and the Commissioner and at Council meetings. In September, the Secretary of State wrote jointly with nine other concerned member states to the Commission, urging it to act quickly. However, at the October Agriculture Council—this is very important in light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has said—the Commission ruled out the option of an inter-community trade ban, which it said is not legally possible. That is clearly on the record as a result of that Council meeting. I have to emphasise that it has warned member states not to do so individually. The Commission has told us clearly that there is no legal basis for a ban.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the Minister for clarifying that point. Have he and his officials accepted that, or have they challenged it and sought alternative legal advice to take back to the Commissioner?

[Mr Paice]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that, of course, we have sought our own legal advice. I was going to mention that issue later, but I am happy to address it now. Please forgive me, Ms Osborne, if I read from my notes verbatim, but I need to get it right. I must stress that I am not reading out direct legal advice. Perhaps I can use this opportunity to say to him that I have answered his parliamentary question and that I suspect that he will get the answer today. As I am sure that he knows, I am afraid that the answer is no. Governments do not publish legal advice given to Ministers. That was not the case under the previous Government, and it is not the case under this Government.

The treaty on the functioning of the EU prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports between member states and all measures that have a similar effect, with limited exceptions to that general rule, including where they are necessary on animal health or human health grounds. The advice that we have received shows that it is extremely unlikely that a court would extend those exceptions to animal welfare grounds in these circumstances. The treaty also states that any restriction of trade must not constitute arbitrary discrimination.

Given the traceability issues around distinguishing between imported eggs that have been reared in conventional cages in other member states and those that have not—I will come back to traceability in a moment—any ban would have to be on imports of all eggs from a particular country, whether reared in conventional cages or not. That would clearly penalise compliant producers in other member states, which runs contrary to the principle of the free movement of goods. The hon. Member for Ogmore and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised the ban on sow stalls, which we implemented a long time ago in this country. If we apply the logic of the argument that we are discussing to that, we would have had to introduce a ban on all pigmeat, including that not introduced in sow stalls. Neither the Government at the time nor the previous Labour Government believed that they had the power to do that. It is quite clear that we do not have the legal basis to take such action.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for sharing the advice with us. The sad fact is that if we claimed there was an animal health issue with shelled eggs or their products, we could reject them. I submit to the Minister that the legal basis on which we can rely for either a unilateral or multilateral ban is the EU directive coming into force from 1 January, which finds its legal base in the treaty. We are breaking new ground here. This is the first time that the Commission has imposed a community-wide ban on animal welfare grounds. I therefore submit that the legal instrument is the directive. I ask the Minister to respond to John Dalli’s comments that I read out about having the power and duty to keep products produced illegally off our markets, either unilaterally or, as the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has said, multilaterally. I cannot accept that there are no grounds for a ban, because the EU directive is the legal instrument.

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend is right, but she needs to read that legal instrument to see what powers it gives member states to introduce a ban. The fact is that it does not give those powers. The Commissioner has been through this over and over again. I have had private meetings with him and with others as well. He is absolutely adamant that there are no powers available to him or member states to introduce the ban in the way in which my hon. Friend has advocated

I hope that I can clarify the matter by coming to traceability, which is right at the heart of the issue. Before getting to that, I shall finish my point about the Commission’s role. Once Commissioner Dalli realised that there was going to be a big problem, the Commission started looking for a robust enforcement approach that would avoid a large number of producers having to close down their operations. More importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has said, the Commissioner also wanted to avoid the destruction of millions and millions of eggs, which clearly would not have been right when many people are struggling to make ends meet.

At the same time, the Commissioner wanted to protect producers who have complied with the ban. He came up with the concept of what has been described as a gentlemen’s agreement, which does not have a legal basis. Most of those member states who were expecting to be compliant did not like the idea. Those who were not compliant reluctantly agreed to the idea. I took the view that, although we did not want any slippage in the timetable, we had to face up to the reality that there would be non-compliant eggs and therefore something had to be done. In fact, the gentlemen’s agreement died. There was clearly no prospect of a gentlemen’s agreement, and it has not been progressed.

The Commission has acted on the practical things for which the UK has been pressing. As several hon. Members have said, it has begun pre-infraction procedures. More importantly, it has also asked for the action plans from all non-compliant member states to contain measures to accelerate compliance. In answer to the hon. Member for Ogmore, its intention is for a monthly report of those plans to be given to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, which is known as SCoFCAH for short.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Once again, I thank the Minister for clarification on those points. Returning to the legal advice, has he sought clarification from his officials on the risk of the UK being found guilty and prosecuted for infraction for trying to abide by the very standards that the EU Commissioner wants to apply eventually throughout Europe? Considering the backdrop he has just explained about the EU Commission driving forward pre-infraction procedures, if the UK or other countries were to go for a unilateral ban or a multilateral ban with like-minded countries, what is the likelihood of the UK facing infraction? If a country is infracted for not doing something, it is different from being infracted for doing the very thing the EU wants countries to do.

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Obviously, I cannot tell him what the risk is. This is an extremely important point and, to go back in history, his Government took such a view about earlier issues when the boot was on the other foot. It is very difficult for someone to argue that other people are not complying with the law if they then proceed to break it themselves. Someone would lose a great deal of moral standing if they did that.

I want to make a final point about the Commission before I come back to the key issues. The Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office missions will be targeted from the beginning of 2012 at non-compliant member states and, to help that, all member states have been asked to submit lists of compliant producers. We have asked for all those measures, because they will give some protection to compliant producers in the UK and across the EU. Clearly, that is not enough, which is why we have said that we reserve the right to take our own actions. Yes, we have thoroughly investigated the possibility of unilateral action and, when I have said in the past that we were considering the matter, I was saying it exactly as it was. I think that hon. Members who know me well enough will know that I would be keen to take action, but, unfortunately, the legal advice that I have had from within, plus the statements from the Commission to which I have referred, have led me to believe that we cannot do so. That is partly because of the practical issues and difficulties in enforcing such an approach.

[Miss McIntosh]

rose—

[Mr Paice]

Let me continue, because I am addressing my hon. Friend’s point about the issue of traceability. Perhaps I can also mention the point about the egg marketing regulations, because the two matters are interlinked. The answer to her question about the egg marketing regulations is that class A are shell eggs and they have to be marked with a producer number and a mark defining the production method—in other words, it would be code 3 from a battery cage or, from January, from an enriched cage.

Class B eggs, however, which are mainly used in manufacturing, are not required to be marked with anything—with either a producer number or a code—so there is no traceability, which is the key point. If we were to introduce a ban, it would have to be on all non-grade A eggs or on all powder and/or liquid. We could not differentiate them, which is the nub of the challenge that we faced. Because of that, as I suggested earlier in relation to the legal advice, we would have been accused of a discriminatory approach and would certainly have been in breach of the legislation.

[Miss McIntosh]

Will the Minister confirm whether the marketing regulations are European Union regulations or UK regulations? If they are EU regulations, we, as a country, would have had the opportunity to query them and, presumably, amend them when they were drafted. Will the Minister comment on that? I look forward to his response to other questions, but what will be the cost to the industry—to processors, retailers and manufacturers—of doing what the Government are asking it to do from 1 January?

[Mr Paice]

They are European regulations—there is no question about that—as I am sure the advisers to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will have confirmed to my hon. Friend. We have, in recent months, asked the Commission—and we will continue to ask it—to amend those regulations. That has not happened so far, and I must confess that the Commission officials with whom we have had detailed discussions do not seem overly keen on the idea, so we are faced with having to operate within the existing legislation.

On the issue of what exactly is an offence, it will be an offence to keep hens in those cages, and we would prosecute under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. That is clear. However, it will not necessarily be an offence to be in possession of an egg from an illegal cage, but it would be an offence to try to pass it off as an egg from a legal cage. It is important to be clear about that.

On the efforts that we have made within the constraints, the hon. Member for Ogmore challenged me about the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency and my description of the use of ultraviolet light. He is right that the technique has never been used directly in the way that we propose, but, as he has also said, it has been used to identify eggs from caged hens within batches that have been described as free range or barn eggs. Not until now has it been specifically used to identify different types of caged egg production, but we have had it independently validated, and I have looked at it myself. When an egg is laid, the shell is momentarily a bit soft and takes an imprint of the material on which it is laid. If it is laid on wire, it comes through clearly under ultraviolet light, which is obvious. If it is laid on any sort of softer egg-laying surface, which is a requirement of an enriched cage, that comes through as a completely different pattern.

I must also make it clear, however, that the use of ultraviolet light is simply a marker for us and would not, by itself, be the basis of prosecution. If any suspect eggs are found, we will ask the country of origin to confirm our suspicions about whether the producer—do not forget that the information will be on the egg—is compliant or not. That is how the system will operate. If the eggs are found to be from an illegal system, they will be prevented from being marketed as class A eggs and sent for processing—that is, as I have said, downgraded to class B. I have now explained the point about marketing regulations.

As of today, as far as we can establish, the average price per dozen of class A caged eggs, which are, of course, legal at the moment, is about 54p, while the average price per dozen of class B eggs is 29.4p. That is nearly 25p per dozen cheaper, which is close to 50% of the price. That is a massive price differential. I cannot believe that anybody will seek to import eggs from non-compliant cages and risk losing half the value of the eggs if we detect them. We have to be sensible. The economic impact on anybody who has their eggs downgraded will be absolutely massive, and I do not believe that they would risk it happening. As far as shell eggs are concerned, our measures will be sufficient.

Let me turn to the understandably more concerning issue of processed eggs, which, as has rightly been said, represent about half the imports of egg and egg products into this country and approximately 9% of total consumption. As I have said, they are much less easy to trace, because the eggs are not required to carry any identification. That loophole causes us immense problems, which is why we have been pressing, and will continue to press, to get it closed. In the absence of that, we have had to use what opportunity we have, which, as I have said, is to work with the industry. The hon. Member for Ogmore is right and that is why I published a list in my statement, and was happy to do so, unusually, on the basis of name and shame. I am happy to update the list and, as of today, can add two more processors—Bumble Hole Foods Ltd and D Wise Ltd. That now means that nine of the major processors are on board, reducing still further the likelihood of eggs from conventional cages or their products being imported.

That is the situation. I am approaching the end of my allocated time and have almost finished addressing the issues, but I am conscious that I also need to respond to a number of questions. In the absence of the ability to instigate a ban, we have tried, as I have explained, to throttle the market. That is what it boils down to—we have tried to make sure that there is no market in the UK for illegally produced eggs or egg products.

I have dealt with the issue of legal advice. To return to my earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, I have been in contact with like-minded countries in the EU. In the week before I made the statement, I telephoned them myself and not one of them is proposing any action yet. As far as we can establish, we are the only country proposing any measures from 1 January. Of course, I continue to work with them and, if there are prospects for more unified action, I will take it, but, as I have said, they are not minded to take action.

I have mentioned the regular monthly updates to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for Ogmore, I will ensure that, somehow, that is brought to the House’s attention. I cannot give him the information about non-compliant imports, because of the issue of traceability, which I have mentioned. We do not know whether such imports are non-compliant, and we are trying to ensure that they are not. The European Commission cannot impose financial penalties, which is a matter for the courts following infraction proceedings. On the industry’s issues, it has not provided us with any form of costings. We are open about that. I am sure that if the costings had been onerous, the industry would have been quick to tell us.

Finally, I fully understand the importance of the issue. We have tried very hard to use the weapons available to us.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Paice]

I am sorry, but I must finish. The fact that I have been able to list not just retailers, but all the major bakery brands, such as the producers of Mr Kipling and all sorts of biscuits, and the major caterers, such as Compass Group, BaxterStorey, Sodexo, and a number of, if not all, the major importers of egg products, demonstrates that we have gone a long way to throttling the marketplace in this country for eggs from non-compliant cages. My final point for anybody who tells me that it is too difficult and that the eggs cannot be traced is that the importers of processed eggs have their own traceability systems, because that is what they are trying to do and, they have assured us, what they will do. However, when we are faced with an egg that has no indication of where it came from, we cannot trace it, which is the harsh fact. I hope that the House will accept that the Government are doing all that we can to protect our producers.

West Midlands and Coventry

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

12:30

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

It is a pleasure to be involved, for the first time, in a debate that you are chairing, Ms Osborne. I also take the opportunity to thank Mr Speaker for granting us the debate.

I will start with an overview of the employment situation in Coventry. Coventry suffers from high unemployment, with just less than 10,500 claimants; that is above the west midlands average, which, in turn, is well above the UK average. The public sector accounts for 23% of the total employed, which is more or less the same throughout the west midlands. In the past six months, there have been 1,648 redundancies in the public sector. Coventry was home to a number of national public bodies and has been hit harder by public sector job cuts: 155 jobs have gone at Becta, 153 at the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, with 400 more by the end of the year; and 258 at the Skills Funding Agency. Additionally, at least 620 jobs have been cut by local authorities and other public services; the main casualty so far has been Coventry city council. In the private sector in the past six months, according to Jobcentre Plus, there have been 1,237 redundancies, with 204 in the manufacturing sector and 38 in a small catering company.

Coventry is a city where many jobs can be lost and won in the space of a day. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), will no doubt be aware of the Gateway development, which was designed to create 10,000 jobs and had secured £250 million in private sector investment to develop airport infrastructure, a technology hub and a business and distribution park. However, both bids by the local enterprise partnership, for enterprise zone status and to the regional growth fund, were unsuccessful. I understand that, despite the plans to go ahead, the project could now be in jeopardy, given the Chancellor’s recent announcement of £110 million for highways infrastructure improvements. The money from the Treasury would need to be fully integrated with the Gateway scheme, which has allocated funds to a solution for the Tollbar issue—most of the Coventry and Warwickshire MPs know what I am referring to—or else the project could be scrapped. Can the Minister update us about what he understands to be the progress in that matter?

On the problems facing small businesses in particular, I have already mentioned a small business in Coventry that was forced to lay off 38 people, and there are 9,240 small businesses in Coventry, with 44,090 in Coventry and Warwickshire county. That example is symptomatic of the problems facing small businesses throughout the west midlands; 31% of them miss out on growth opportunities because they cannot get credit from the high street banks and 70% experience late payment and have cash-flow problems. Furthermore, the Government must take steps to simplify the tax system and to introduce targeted VAT cuts for key sectors, as a temporary measure. There are also problems at big companies, and we have held various meetings with the Rolls-Royce combined shop steward representatives. In particular, we have some concern about Ansty, despite the company’s assurances.

On young people’s prospects, I have heard a lot from young people in my constituency about their employment anxieties. To take one example, highly skilled medics are graduating from the universities in the Coventry area and are unable to find work. I am concerned that we are not retaining the skills in the area that are necessary to regain a balanced economy. The Minister might be aware of Coventry’s recently launched plan for 100 apprentices in 100 days, and it is hoped that 100 firms will join the scheme. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will bring forward proposals to encourage firms to take on apprentices, with a view to giving them a full-time job?

Not all is doom and gloom in the region, however. The manufacturing sector has a vital role in the recovery of the west midlands economy. The biggest recruiter has been Jaguar Land Rover, which has two bases in Coventry and is powering ahead with a multi-million pound investment; it has taken on 525 new staff throughout its businesses. The other big recruiter has been Ricoh Arena, with 86 posts, mainly in catering. The most symbolic deal for the city has been the news that car production is set to return—we hope—to the site of the former car plant at Browns Lane.

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

I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend’s comprehensive review of the situation in Coventry. I am pleased that he is emphasising some positive aspects; but, sadly, the return of any sort of car production to Browns Lane crashed when the Government turned down a bid from a local company under the regional development fund, with which we have so far had no success for Coventry city.

[Mr Cunningham]

I was aware of that, but there are still indications that something might happen, although the possibility is pretty remote given what my hon. Friend has said.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I compliment the hon. Gentleman on securing an important debate on a serious matter, but I was interested in his remarks that not all is doom and gloom. My constituency, which is immediately adjacent to his, has over the past 12 months had a fall in unemployment of 13.2%, which we attribute to a progressive council going out to seek new businesses, bringing them in and having a constructive attitude to development. Does he think that there is some good news and that there is a way forward?

[Mr Cunningham]

I do not know about good news. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the economy goes up and down in patches, so we cannot ever predict what the future will hold. We like to think that things will improve, but we will have to see—I do not want to diversify too much and get on to Europe, but after what happened on Friday, I will be very careful what I say about the future, frankly.

Returning to the Coventry situation, the city has embraced new technologies and is leading the way for the whole of the UK. A Coventry coach company has won £3 million of new contracts and taken on 40 new staff. It will produce the UK’s first electric bus—we hope so this time, although we have been down that road before. Only last week, I visited the Institute of Digital Healthcare, which was established in 2010 and is a five-year, £4 million project, which will have a real benefit for patients and their care support networks. I advise any of my colleagues that, if they get the opportunity to go up to the university of Warwick, the IDH is well worth visiting. It will address a number of health care issues, including the use of monitoring and communication devices to support people in their own homes, the development of new platforms to measure, analyse and communicate health data to support health care and to promote well-being, meeting the information and training needs of clinicians and health care technologists and improving the targeting of activities by health and social care teams.

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

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise some of the positives, but there are some huge negatives, as he is aware. I do not know whether he read the report only the other day in the Coventry Telegraph about the massive increase, because of the rise in unemployment, in the cost to the Government of benefit pay-outs in the city, which is not out of line with what is happening elsewhere and is by no means the worst. That in itself is an indication that the Government will not get the deficit right, despite people being thrown out of work because of the austerity programme.

[Mr Cunningham]

I saw that article in the Coventry Telegraph, and I am also aware that my right hon. Friend’s constituency is probably the top of the list; my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) is second and I am at the bottom somewhere. What I am saying is that, despite the Government’s measures, there are things happening in Coventry. That is the message that I am trying to get across.

Some hon. Members will remember the major improvements planned for the Coventry to Nuneaton rail corridor, which is known as the Nuckle project. It will help to improve accessibility and encourage increased use of the train for journeys that might otherwise be undertaken by car. When Warwickshire county council has received outline funding approval, it will aim for final approval by the end of the year or the start of 2012.

On Friargate, a recent meeting with the local enterprise partnership revealed that the project is making reasonable progress. It is an office-based project with residential, retail, car parking and delivery facilities, and an acclaimed arrival point for rail passengers. It, too, is expected to start in 2012 and has the firm backing of Coventry city council.

We have seen Coventry and the west midlands benefit from private sector investment. However, I am deeply concerned about the prospects for young people throughout the region and, more generally, about the loss of skills in various sectors. We have already seen a fall in university applications of more 19,200 in the west midlands region. We have also seen a fall in the number of skilled graduates in medicine and nursing who can find work in their qualified field because of public sector cuts, and that is against a backdrop of high youth unemployment.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I am sure that there is deep concern on both sides of the House about youth unemployment. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the coalition Government are seeking to extend opportunities for young people in particular through enhanced apprenticeships and the Work programme to ensure that we do not lose a generation of young people? All employers are being galvanised to take youngsters on and to give them experience, so that when the upturn comes, they will be able to utilise the skills that they have developed.

[Mr Cunningham]

There is weakness in what the hon. Lady says. We have been here lately, and frankly we have seen this before. If we really want to give young people work experience, we must pay employers to take them on for six or nine months. Two or three months are not really helpful, because they do not then get another job. If I had my way, I would make it 12 months, but that is another argument.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, who is making a passionate case for Coventry and on issues that affect us all more generally. Is not part of the answer to the hon. Lady’s question that many employers would like to take on more apprentices and provide more skills training, but they need demand in the economy and demand for their products to do so? The Government’s failure to achieve that demand in the economy is leaving it flatlining. We need the plan for growth that the Labour party has suggested.

[Mr Cunningham]

I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend, but I would add that the Government, despite their protestations, must consider small businesses and help with their financial situation and their liquidity problems, perhaps with loans from the banks. If my earlier suggestion about six to nine months’ payment was adopted, they might be able to take on young people. The Government will never crack the problem unless they provide that.

To wind up, I want to ask the Minister some questions. Will he tell us what evidence-based assessment he has made of the Government’s industrial policy? What confidence can he give to global manufacturers with long-term investment horizons? What confidence can he give to companies to take on apprentices? How will the Government support small and medium-sized businesses to retain skills in the region?

12:43

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

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing it. For us in Coventry, it is an important and timely debate, and we look to the Minister to give what answers he can today and some sense of a future for Coventry and similar cities in the west midlands and beyond. At the moment, with the dramatic situation in Europe, the likelihood of a further recession there and the possibility of a double dip in this country, the outlook for employment and prosperity in the west midlands particularly is grim indeed.

I want to follow my hon. Friend in saying that we are pleased to see guests and supporters from Birmingham and Oxford with us for this debate. Its national significance and relevance should not be overlooked. I shall speak first about unemployment. Coventry always seems to suffer a double whammy. The first public sector cuts were pushed through by the Secretary of State for Education, who went for Becta—the Bringing Educational Creativity to All agency—the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and the Skills Funding Agency.

Those good-quality jobs had been located to Coventry from London because it is central and as part of a clear-cut Government policy to promote growth and quality jobs in the region; but they were cut just like that, in a disgraceful and wanton act without notification, without warning and without consultation. The Secretary of State issued a rude letter closing them down without more ado. He then mended his ways to some extent. We had a debate about the matter in this Chamber, and told him that that was no way to behave and that we hoped he would reconsider. I note that the number of job losses is somewhat lower than was announced, but the total number is 1,237 in the private sector, plus 620 in local authorities and public services. That has created a grim situation in Coventry city, and we can do nothing about it until the Government stop the national cuts, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) referred.

There is no salvation for Coventry in isolation, although we shall make some suggestions to the Minister today about what he could, and should, do to help. But in the background is the single objective that the Government have set for their economic policy—the reduction of the deficit, come what may. Whatever cuts and deflation are necessary, that is what the Government intend to achieve. We have pointed out many times, and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South said again today, that they cannot achieve that objective with policies that are destroying so much of the economy. It is as simple as that, and until they change their policies, the outlook for Coventry and Britain is grim indeed.

Where do we stand on some of the Government’s initiatives that were intended to improve the situation? Some were referred to by my hon. Friend. First, we have had no luck in Coventry with the regional growth fund, and the Minister knows the situation with CPP, which was turned down. I do not want to reopen the matter at this stage, but we hope that it will return. It might have restarted car production at Browns Lane, but I do not think that it will, nor do I think that we will have much luck there. We tried for enterprise zone status, but failed for some reason, and I would like the Government to reconsider that and to explain the criteria that Coventry failed to fulfil.

Similarly, Coventry is suffering badly with youth unemployment, and that is the most serious aspect of unemployment. Some unemployed kids are the third and fourth generation of families that have never been in work and will never get into work because they do not know what it is about. That is why the Government were so wrong, when they came to office, to cut Labour’s scheme that was running successfully. They have now scored the unique achievement of promoting 1 million young people out of work. That came as a shock to everyone in the country, not least the Government. They are now trying belatedly to do something about it, but unless they change their economic stance and the sheer deflationary course on which they have embarked, that will simply not happen.

I turn to something else that the Government could do that would be useful to the nation as a whole and to Coventry: credit easing. Where do they stand on that? Various schemes have been suggested, and we are supposed to hear the details of the present scheme in January. Can the Minister tell us when the credit will flow from that and when it will be available in Coventry? As my hon. Friend said, many small companies that are okay at the moment could do so much better with credit easing in place; they could obtain the credit they need for working and investment capital to improve their output and their sales. It is as simple as that, but until we know the details, we have nothing to go on.

The situation with the Nuckle project, which involves transport, is similar. The paraphernalia and bureaucracy surrounding various Government investment projects were supposed to be cut back. It is a good scheme for linking the north-south train run through Coventry. It is a very good project. We have been dealing with it for about five years or more, partly because of Government bureaucracy, but this Government are even worse. I hear now—I think that my hon. Friend referred to it—that they have promised a decision this month, before Christmas. Can we at least have some indication? What assurance can the Minister give us that the decision will not only be taken, but be positive? That would be the most important thing that we could hear from him today. I hope that he will take that on board. If he cannot answer this morning, will he answer as soon as possible?

We are looking for Government action. The people of Coventry are finding it more and more difficult to respond to the situation. There is no future in cuts, in recession and in an economy that is depressed and looks like remaining so. We shall have growing youth unemployment and growing national unemployment, and we will never create the new businesses, jobs and growth that we need to put the deficit right. Coventry is a microcosm of that problem. It certainly highlights all the problem’s worst aspects in an area that has suffered so much in every recession and throughout the period since this Government took office.

12:51

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

I am pleased to have the chance to discuss economic opportunities in the west midlands, particularly in Coventry. I commend the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) for securing the debate. He highlighted several practical issues around job losses and questions for small businesses. I will address all of them, including the specific transport schemes that have been mentioned.

It is worth taking a step back and remembering that the west midlands is a key part of our national economy. If we look at the most recent complete gross value added figures, it accounted for just over 7% of the UK’s GVA in 2008. It is important that the area is successful and prosperous. Clearly, there have been problems. I understand that it is a difficult time for individuals caught in unemployment or facing redundancy. However, there has been positive news. I welcome the balanced view that the hon. Gentleman presented of the challenges and also the good news. The Opposition will understandably challenge what the Government are doing, but we have to be careful that we do not start to talk down Coventry or other areas and that we strike a sensible balance. We must recognise the problems, but we must also look at where the opportunities are, because I think they are strong.

We have seen, for example, the £355 million investment by Jaguar Land Rover at i54. It is not immediately within the Coventry area, but it is crucial for the whole JLR programme. We have seen the £31 million that JCB is putting forward for its next generation of engines, which will form a crucial part of the skills base in the west midlands. We have also seen investment in BMW at Hams Hall, just outside Coventry. This is welcome news because not only is it good for businesses, it is a tribute to local workers. I want to put that point on the record. The hon. Gentleman and I have met the trade unions with regard to Rolls-Royce at Ansty. I hope that conversations between unions and management will persist to ensure that is somewhere that can remain competitive.

[Lorely Burt]

For many of us in the coalition, it seems that there is tremendous potential for the west midlands, because of the tremendous skills base. The Minister mentioned Ansty; he did not mention the fact that in my constituency of Solihull, Land Rover is creating 1,000 jobs in addition to the ones that he has already mentioned. There is so much potential for jobs and for the development of research and technology in our west midlands area, particularly close to Coventry.

[Mr Prisk]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s contribution. I will come to the broader Jaguar Land Rover issue, because it is crucial for the whole network of engineering and manufacturing in the region. We must be careful to remember where the roots of the problem lie. In 1975, GVA was ahead in the west midlands—above the national average. In the first decade of this century, from 2000 to 2008, the increase in GVA per head in the region was the lowest of any part of the country. In Coventry, the decline is clear. In 2000, we saw GVA per head 10 points above the national average; by the time we get to 2008, it is eight points below, so there are significant challenges. Indeed, the west midlands was the only part of the country where the number of private sector jobs fell between 1998 and 2008, so there are real underlying issues.

We are committed to rebalancing the economy; that includes sectors and geography. I turn to the specific areas of activity that I think are relevant. First, local enterprise partnerships are crucial. In the few months that they have been in existence, the Coventry and Warwickshire LEP has established a business mentor network; it is working with the banks to unlock credit at local level in addition to what we are doing at national level, and it has also identified key development and infrastructure opportunities. If I may, I will come to the question of Tollbar End and the development of that site in a moment. I know it is very important.

We have put £248,000 into the Coventry and Warwickshire LEP to get it up and running. That is not designed to provide a vast administration. I am not sure that we want a vast administration. We want outcomes. That is why the LEP is getting its funding strategy in place; it is why it is putting in place its evergreen fund and it is why we are making sure that there is a portal in place so that it is actually able to engage with small businesses.

[Mr Ainsworth]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Prisk]

If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way, because I want to try to answer some of the points raised. There are important issues that will advantage his constituency in Coventry as well.

I entirely agree that apprenticeships are crucial. The LEP is addressing that issue with its local project, on top of the work that we are doing to help small and medium-sized enterprises. I can direct the hon. Member for Coventry South to the new programme recently announced to make it easier and simpler for SMEs to take on apprenticeships. We are providing funding to the tune of up to £1,500 per apprentice. I agree that there is an issue around making sure that SMEs are able to do this. Accessibility will make it easier for Coventry’s SMEs.

There are 24 enterprise zones. I am aware that the Coventry and Warwickshire LEP will have been disappointed that its own bid did not make it. However, just beyond the area, the MIRA technology park will be of some importance to local businesses. On transport and the Tollbar End commitment, the Government have brought forward their intention to ensure that £110 million is available to sort out the congestion. We recognise that there are still live issues about whether the development next door could be hindered by it. I have made that clear to officials and they are engaged in discussions with the LEP to see whether we can keep the £110 million to get the investment, but not lose or unduly delay the development programme.

[Mr Ainsworth]

Members representing the whole of the LEP—from both parties—met earlier this week and will be seeking a meeting with the Minister to try to make absolutely certain that his Department is focused on that problem, because it is enormously important. Can the Minister give us a commitment to meet a delegation from the whole Coventry and Warwickshire area on that issue?

[Mr Prisk]

I understand the issue. Given that the Department for Transport is in the process of finalising its decision, I should not pre-empt it. If it becomes necessary for Ministers to have a meeting, I am sure that I or my colleagues will be willing to do that.

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said that Coventry had not had any successes with the regional growth fund. Perhaps I can bring him up to speed. In fact, £3.6 million from the second round of the regional growth fund has brought two relevant projects to the area. There is the Aston Martin body construction facility with £1.6 million of public investment, unlocking between £5 and £6 for every public pound put in. There is also, perhaps more importantly, the LNX distribution programme with £2 million of investment from the Government, which should bring some 340 manufacturing jobs directly to Coventry. I understand the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raised and that he may have been disappointed by the bid, but there has been some success, particularly in Coventry, and I hope that he welcomes that.

I welcome the points that have been raised; we need sensible dialogue about them. Parties may disagree on the bigger economic issues, but we are committed to ensuring that businesses and workers in Coventry and the wider west midlands are able to unlock their potential. We need to support them through skills and investment, to make sure that they can fulfil their potential and overcome their historical problems.

Children’s Access to Parents

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

12:59

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I am delighted to have secured this important debate. Week in, week out, our constituency surgeries are all too often full of parents who are struggling to see, have contact with or have access to their children. Evidence suggests that around 3 million children in the United Kingdom live apart from a parent, and 1 million of them have no contact with the non-resident parent three years after separation.

In recent years, the number of court applications, and the number of backlogged cases in the system, have increased. In 2005, there were 110,330 court applications, compared with 122,330 in 2010. The CAFCASS—Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—case load has also been growing: in 2007-08 there were 39,432 cases, but in 2010-11 there were 43,759. A massive delay in family court cases is not in the best interests of children or parents.

Although the numbers of court applications and cases in the CAFCASS backlog look slightly better than last year, they are still far too high and I suggest that mediation would be a faster and better way forward. Mediation is cheaper at £752 per case compared with £1,682 for full court proceedings, and on average it takes 110 days, while court cases take 435 days. Some 95% of mediations are complete within nine months, while only 70% of court cases are over within 18 months.

In such circumstances, time is of the essence to provide stability for the child and their parents, and to ensure the protection of the child’s welfare and that there is closure and a settlement regarding how they will be looked after, with arrangements for parental contact and access. It is important that such situations are dealt with quickly, and from paragraph 115 onwards the Norgrove report promotes mediation, which is to be welcomed. My only caveat, however, is that the report goes on to state that if people do not like the results of mediation, they should still be able to apply to the courts. I do not agree; one needs closure as soon as possible, and parents who are busy arguing with one another should not be allowed further bites of the cherry.

A key issue is the right of children to see their parents following a separation. It is not an issue of dads’ rights, or fathers’ rights, or about those of the mother; it is about the fundamental and basic rights of the child. I believe that child welfare is best served by ensuring that children know and have a relationship with both parents after separation. Too often, parents sink their children’s rights in a sea of acrimony when they split up, which must be fundamentally wrong.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is right to say that such cases should be about the rights of the child, but does he agree that those rights also extend to a child’s right to see their grandparents?

[Charlie Elphicke]

The right of grandparents to see their grandchildren is important, although not, I hasten to add, in the teeth of the unity of both parents if the grandparents are, shall we say, of the more interfering busybody variety who destabilise families. In general terms, however, a relationship between a child and their grandparents is positive and should be encouraged. It is not good if one parent who has custody of the child tries to frustrates that relationship, just as they should not try to frustrate the non-resident parent. My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate of grandparents’ rights, and once again he makes a powerful and forceful point. If there is acrimony between families, it is flatly wrong for parents to inflict their mutual loathing, which too often exists in a relationship breakdown, on the child.

In its conclusions in paragraph 109, the Norgrove report states:

“The child’s welfare should be the court’s paramount consideration, as required by the Children Act 1989. No change should be made that might compromise this principle. Accordingly, no legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents. For that reason and taking account of further evidence we also do not recommend a change canvassed in our interim report that legislation might state the importance to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents after their separation where this is safe. While true, and indeed a principle that guides court decisions, we have concluded that this would do more harm than good.”

The most important words are,

“no legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents.”

The difficulty with the report is that it confuses the issue of time with that of an emotional bond. An emotional bond—love and affection—is not about the amount of time spent with someone. A person could have a best friend from university they have not seen for years. When they next meet, however, the friendship will pick up as if it had been only five minutes and that is because a relationship exists. The person may not have spent much time with their friend over the intervening years, but they know and have a relationship with them. That, in essence, is what we must ensure for our children, because they have the right to know both their parents and to have a relationship, reasonable access and contact with them following a separation.

The Norgrove report has confused those two issues. A relationship is not about time but about that bond, that sharing between parent and child, and the love and affection that goes with it. A clear social message needs to be sent out, which is why I have tabled the Children (Access to Parents) Bill, and why I secured this debate. A relationship is not about the amount of time spent together but about the bond created, and that lies at the heart of my case.

We need action because 1 million children do not see both their parents. Society has changed and is still changing, and social change means that over the past few decades, both parents have become more actively engaged than was previously the case. One study showed that parental involvement by fathers rose 200% between 1974 and 2000, and the change in work patterns seen over recent decades suggests that there is more joint parenting. According to research that I requested from the House of Commons Library, the number of men in part-time work has risen from about 500,000 in 1985 to 2 million today, while the number of partnered mothers in work rose from 52% in 1986 to 71% in 2010. That suggests that parents are sharing work and bringing up their children, and all of us, particularly the younger Members of the House, know that the work-life balance includes more juggling and sharing of parenting and parental responsibility.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this extremely important debate. He has mentioned some of the latest data but is he aware of recent research by the insurance company Aviva showing that the number of stay-at-home dads has doubled in a year? That is part of the trend that he mentions.

Together with taking on more of the burden and responsibilities of parenting should come more of the rights. I agree with points raised earlier about the rights of the child, but there is also an issue of securing paternal access. I have heard cases in my constituency surgery where although an access order has been passed by the court, it is flouted, sometimes dozens of times, by the other partner. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must take a firmer, clearer look at enforcement action against recalcitrant partners?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. I will come later to the key issue of orders being flouted.

Parents share work and the bringing up of children, and that should not end at separation. It should not be a case of falling off a cliff; it should not suddenly be the case that children never see one of their parents any more. That is a mad way to proceed and it is destabilising for the child. The welfare of the child is best served by ensuring a continuing relationship with both parents.

The same is true in respect of educational attainment. In December 2010, the Fatherhood Institute published a report showing that better school results, better behaviour, lower criminality and less drug abuse are associated with children having the type of relationship with both parents that I have described. That is why it matters that the child has the right to know both parents and have a relationship with them through reasonable access and contact. It is essential to the rights of the child, the welfare of the child and the success of the child.

My hon. Friend made a powerful and telling point: too often, court orders are flouted. One sees this from the Norgrove report and the sixth report of Session 2010-12 of the Select Committee on Justice. People say, “Oh, there’s no need to change anything. We can see from the court figures that it all looks perfectly fine. In only a couple of hundred cases is contact denied.” However, the reality is that even if orders are made, they are just ignored. Even if people go down the route of a court process, they may be forced into abandoning it simply because of how long it all takes.

That is why a change in the law should send a social message as much as a legal message. I urge the Minister to reject the aspect of the Norgrove report that I have described and to support a change in the law. We need that change to send a clear message to the courts, but also to all parents who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) said, deny their children the right to see and know both their parents through reasonable access and contact. That right should be enshrined in law. I hope that if I end my contribution now, it will allow a little time for my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) to speak.

13:09

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Osborne. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who has expressed the feelings of millions of people throughout the country in what he has said. As ever, his speech contained an enormous amount of research and interesting facts.

I will speak for only a minute or so, because other hon. Members want to speak. I want to talk about just two things. First, there is a father in my constituency of Harlow, Mr Colin Riches, whose children have been denied access to him. It is a tragic case, which shows why the law must change. Secondly—this relates to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) has said—I am campaigning on behalf of the Grandparents’ Association, whose headquarters is in my constituency. We are asking for children to have the legal right to letterbox access to their grandparents. Put simply, that is the right to send and receive cards at birthdays and Christmas.

I have worked with Mr Colin Riches to table an e-petition—No. 23102—and I have raised his case many times in Parliament with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and others. The crux of his e-petition is this:

“Shared parenting should become the natural position in the UK. It’s in the best interest of the child. The law should be there to protect children’s relationships with both parents. It needs to show children that both their parents are treated with equality. So that children who have been cared for by both parents and grandparents do not suffer the pain of a living bereavement.”

I welcome the fact that the Government are looking into this matter, most recently through the family justice review, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. That review was a ratchet in the right direction, because it accepted this point:

“More should be done to allow children to have a voice in proceedings.”

However, although I welcome some of the review’s contents, it does not go nearly far enough to help families such as that of Colin Riches.

I have had a very positive letter from the Minister—by chance, it arrived today—regarding my constituent, Mr Riches. In that letter, the Minister mentions that the review stops short of recommending a change in the law, because of the risk that a change could both encourage litigation and compromise the key principle of the Children Act 1989. As has been said, however, the law is clearly balanced too far in one direction—it is weighted against fathers and grandparents—and we need a change in the law to redress the balance.

I am nevertheless grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic response to my letter. He says that the Government will

“explore possible options for strengthening the expectation that both of a child’s parents should continue to be involved with the child’s care, post-separation”.

Will the Minister meet me and Mr Riches to discuss these issues more fully?

Secondly, I want briefly to ask the Minister about the work of the Grandparents’ Association. Last Thursday, I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole at No. 10 Downing street to hand in a petition with more than 7,000 names calling for children to have the right to letterbox access to their grandparents—the right to send and receive cards on special occasions. That is a very small but symbolic thing, especially in the run-up to Christmas. Sadly, throughout Britain today, thousands of children are denied any access to their grandparents, even on birthdays and during the holiday season, which is often caused by family conflict.

Again, to be fair, the Government are considering the issue. I had a very positive response from the Leader of the House last week, when I raised the matter at business questions, but if the Minister could give a clear commitment to examine the issue, it would be hugely welcomed by grandparents in my constituency, the Grandparents’ Association and millions of grandparents up and down the land. It would be a tiny gesture, but it could transform the lives of many families. Ultimately, this is about the right of children to know who their family are and to have a chance to communicate with them. In the context of what the Government are doing to support the family, surely that is the right thing to do. Both the issues that I have raised fit with what we said in opposition, so I very much hope that we will be able to do something in the months and years ahead.

[Andrew Percy]

rose—

[Sandra Osborne (in the Chair)]

Order. Not all hon. Members have given notice that they want to speak. I am sure that they will want the Minister to have adequate time to respond.

13:17

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

I apologise for that, Ms Osborne. I will make this an extended intervention. I just want to agree with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who delivered the petition to No. 10 Downing street, and to give two quick examples from my constituency. I have two ongoing cases of constituents who have lost access to their grandchildren. In the first case, that was, very sadly, through the death of the daughter. In the second case, it was through a daughter’s new relationship with someone who exercised considerable influence over her. Consequently, the children left the country before legal processes could be put in place by the grandparent. I have met my hon. Friend the Minister to discuss this matter before, and I would welcome an opportunity to discuss it with him again. Those of us who are campaigning for grandparents’ rights fully accept the rights of parents, but at the end of the day this is about the rights of children, and those rights should extend to including grandparents. I hope that the Minister will meet us—I will end there, having taken less than a minute.

13:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

I will try to get through as much as possible of my speech in the time left to me, but I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) on securing the debate. I agree with virtually everything that he said and with other hon. Members who raised points as well. The whole point of mediation is that it is quicker and cheaper, and we are of course examining that through the various devices being promoted by the Ministry of Justice and with which the Department for Education is involved. I agree with the points made about grandparents. Part of establishing greater stability for children who find themselves in a broken family is that grandparents often offer an anchor of continuity when parents split up. I am sympathetic to those points, and we are looking at various ways to make sure that, wherever possible, grandparents remain engaged. Too many of them do not, as I know from my constituency.

This is a highly emotive issue, and one that is important to the well-being of hundreds of thousands of children and young people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover mentioned, an estimated 240,000 children experience the separation of their parents every year. Overall, more than one in three children will see their parents split up before their 16th birthday. That is a huge number, and I am afraid it is a reflection on society today.

There is great pressure on the courts at the moment, not least on the public law courts, post Baby P, which is having a knock-on effect. It is therefore absolutely right and urgent that we sort out some of the often acrimonious cases in the private law courts. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he talks about parents sinking a child’s rights in a sea of acrimony. In too many cases, parents use their children as pawns, and the instability and emotional pressure that causes for children cannot be good for them. For all concerned, but particularly for the children, we must make sure that we do a lot better.

Just about everyone agrees that a child’s welfare is best served if both their parents are as actively involved in their upbringing as possible, unless there are good reasons for their not being involved, and the child’s welfare would be undermined—that must remain the safety net. All the evidence tells us that children genuinely benefit from a relationship with both parents, with the potential for each to make different contributions to their child’s development. Yet, as we have heard from my hon. Friend, many children grow up with little or no relationship with one parent—usually, although not exclusively, the father.

This is a topical issue. My hon. Friend mentioned his Bill, which had its First Reading in March. Since then, the family justice review has carried out its consultation, and it produced its final report last month. It is right that we consider the issue of a child’s contact with their parents in that wider context.

I would just make two points. The Norgrove report, excellent thought it is, is a Government-commissioned report, not a Government report. The Government will, I hope, produce their response to it in January. I am working with colleagues from other Departments, including the Ministry of Justice, to reflect on many of the issues that have arisen from the Norgrove review, with which we are very familiar.

Some of the review’s concerns about having a presumption in favour of shared parenting were based on its visit to Australia. However, I think there were concerns about the Australian experience because, too often, the focus was interpreted as being about equality of time. As we know, we cannot carve up a child’s existence on the basis of some spurious 50:50 split in terms of time. As Members of Parliament, we probably know that better than others. We are not good role models as parents. If, heaven forbid, I were to split up from my wife—she has tolerated my being an MP for 14 and a half years—it would be bliss if I was expected to spend 50% of time with my children, because it does not happen now. However, we need to be realistic and not to base things on artificial equalities in terms of time.

There is, however, a much broader issue about the culture of parenting. The culture has shifted away from the traditional view that mothers are primarily responsible for the care of children. Increasingly, society recognises the valuable and distinct role of both parents. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) mentioned the Aviva survey, which pointed to the increasing existence of stay-at-home dads and dads’ wish to be much more involved in their child’s upbringing.

The Government are doing much to encourage that societal change, promoting fathers as equal parents and encouraging them to be fully involved with their children from the earliest stages of their lives. Co-operative parents, both actively involved with their children, are more likely to continue that pattern after separation, and a co-operative, flexible approach is more likely to lead to contact arrangements that actually work. In that, I include the important role of grandparents.

As we know, however much education and awareness-raising we carry out, many parents separate in a hostile environment that fosters selfish perceptions. I am not seeking to downplay in any way the trauma of relationship breakdown, particularly where children are involved. Rebuilding a new life after separation or divorce can be one of the hardest things any of us will face. It is a sad truth, though, that the outcome, all too often, is that loving parents are frozen out of their children’s lives, and those who stand to lose the most are the children themselves.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton spoke about the serial flouting of contact orders in too many cases. Too often, the resident parent can use the weapon of delay to freeze out a non-resident parent, such that a large portion of non-resident parents lose contact with their children altogether within two years. Whatever changes we do or do not make to the law, we need better enforcement of what exists now. That is absolutely essential, and I have been holding conversations to that effect with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the family courts themselves.

A relatively small proportion of families—about 10%—end up seeking help from family courts to resolve disputes about contact. These are the most complex and difficult cases, often involving multiple problems. The examples mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) reflect some fairly acrimonious marriage breakdowns.

We should not kid ourselves that the remaining 90% of separating parents, who do not seek help from the courts, are happy with the degree of their involvement in their children’s lives. Of course, many manage to put their children’s needs first and to reach an amicable settlement, but far too many non-resident parents feel they must accept unsatisfactory or unfair contact arrangements, because of the fear of long, drawn-out and expensive court procedures. That is why up to a third of non-resident parents have no meaningful contact with their children. Once that happens, it can be almost impossible in some cases to resume contact, particularly where young children are concerned. At every stage, we must remember that the most important part of this whole equation is the child. The delay and continued uncertainty caused by an acrimonious dispute going through the courts over a long period can only be damaging to the child.

That is a tragedy, and one the Government intend to address. Our vision is to establish a clear expectation that, under normal circumstances, a child will have a relationship with both his or her parents, regardless of their relationship with each other. We want to achieve that by creating a climate in which separating parents are able to see through their personal differences and to recognise the importance of their both remaining involved in their child’s lives. For those who need support to focus on their children’s needs, there will be a range of interventions to facilitate the making of practical and lasting agreements.

This will be a society where family courts are a last resort, used to determine only the most difficult cases, particularly those where there are welfare concerns. This court system will be transparent and accessible to those who need it, with no perceptions of bias based on sex or resident or non-resident status. Children will feel that their views count and are listened to, and the minority of parents who take their dispute to court will do so in the knowledge that it is only in exceptional cases that a child will not be able to maintain ongoing contact with both parents. Crucially, parents will adhere to court orders in the knowledge that action to enforce breaches will be swift and decisive—if I am reading quickly, it is because I am determined to get to the end of my speech.

Whether the Government achieve that vision is only partly in our hands. We cannot prevent acrimonious break-ups or change the way individual families choose to organise their lives. However we must do everything we can to improve the system so that it gives children the best chance of growing up under the guidance of two loving parents.

As I have said, the family justice review panel reported last month. It paints a grim picture of the experience of families in a private law system that is too slow, too expensive and too emotionally damaging for children and parents. The panel’s view is that shared parenting is best encouraged through education rather than legislation. It proposes a range of measures to encourage out-of-court dispute resolution and to support parents in putting their children’s needs first. Such pre-court processes would focus on giving parents effective tools to resolve their problems and change their behaviour. They would include mediation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover has said, parenting information programmes and the drawing up of parenting agreements. Most of us would agree that those are sensible. In addition, an online hub would, in the first instance, provide information and advice on a wide range of issues faced by parents. The Government are carefully considering the panel’s proposals for reform and will respond to them early in the new year. However the rationale behind these pre-court plans—more support for parents to make child-centred agreements, and fewer parents going to court—fits with the vision I outlined earlier.

I turn now to the nub of my hon. Friend’s proposal, which is legislation to promote shared parenting. As we have heard, the family justice review opposed such a move. It is concerned that any such changes to legislation risk creating the perception of a parental right to shared time with their children. It has also taken on board the concern that legislation could be seen as undermining the fundamental principle under which courts operate—the principle in the Children Act 1989 that paramount consideration is given to the welfare of the child. As I have said, I have some concern about that.

This debate has been raging for some time. Five and a half years ago, I myself argued in the House for an amendment to the Children and Adoption Bill that would have inserted a presumption in favour of shared parenting into the 1989 Act. The concerns that gave rise to that have not diminished today. It would be wrong for me to try to pre-empt the Government’s decision, but I can say that we are looking closely at all the options for promoting shared parenting through possible legislative and non-legislative means.

The debate is often polarised around two issues. On the one hand, we have the frustration that an obstructive resident parent can stop the non-resident parent seeing their child. On the other, there is, understandably, considerable pressure for robust safeguarding processes to ensure that potential welfare issues are properly identified and that care arrangements are safe. Ultimately, both concerns centre on harmful impacts on children, and any solution we come to must maintain a clear focus on the welfare of the child.

The Children Act 1989 is a landmark piece of legislation, and we approach any debate about amending it with the utmost caution. We are clear that the paramountcy principle, which has universal support, must not be diluted.

Empty Homes (Hyndburn)

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Osborne—for the first time, I think. It is also an honour to have secured this Adjournment debate on empty homes in Hyndburn, an issue close to my heart and a huge problem in my constituency. The debate is very welcome, after the recent launch of the Government’s housing strategy, with much surrounding national publicity.

The causes of empty homes and the issues and problems connected with them are complex and vary around the country. In Hyndburn and other parts of Pennine Lancashire, the biggest factors are over-supply and low demand. Hyndburn has a total housing stock of 36,447, but there are only 34,201 resident households in the borough. Simply put, we have more residential dwellings than households that require homes. Most up-to-date figures indicate that we have 2,546 vacant dwellings—nearly 7% of the total housing stock—of which 1,579 are long-term empties. Vacant housing is therefore almost inevitable, as we do not have a housing shortage.

The causes and solutions go beyond housing. We need support for growth, which will stimulate the local economy. We need to boost the local gross domestic product. Our housing offer needs to support the growth agenda, so we need to provide greater choice and flexibility, as well as affordable homes. Unfortunately, choice is limited in Hyndburn, and more than 50% of our housing stock is terraced, most of it with two bedrooms. There is nothing wrong with terraced housing—I live in a terraced house—but we need to modernise and improve those houses; otherwise we will not retain households or attract new ones. In fact, demand for new housing only exaggerates the problem of the older stock.

Demand and modernisation are the focus in dealing with empty homes in Hyndburn. Nearly half the vacant homes are in neighbourhoods surrounding the centre of Accrington and most are pre-1919 two-bedroom—as we would expect—terraced houses, many of which are in serious disrepair; the climate is of course damp, and private landlord activity is significant, at around 30% of overall tenure. We currently have 1,310 people in need on the housing register, mainly because of inappropriate housing and related poor conditions. The reasons for homes being vacant vary, and in Hyndburn the reasons are certainly different from those described by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), when he raised the matter of empty homes in the House on 29 November. Our problem is not overdevelopment, but over-supply and a lack of choice.

High concentrations of long-term vacant dwellings blight our neighbourhoods and the solution that is needed is a long-term, comprehensive approach to regeneration. Although the housing market renewal programme was not perfect, it was as close as we have come to a comprehensive approach. The ending of the programme has left a legacy, and community expectations remain. The recent award of £2.3 million transitional funding allows us to meet our remaining legal obligations, as well as to relocate a number of households that are trapped in potential clearance areas. However, low demand has not gone away and there is a continuing need to regenerate some of Hyndburn’s neighbourhoods that were never included in the HMR programme.

I welcome Government support for new house building, but I am seriously concerned that elements of it will not work in areas of low housing demand. Government housing policy remains driven by the south, ignoring the nuances of the housing problems in northern towns. Greater flexibility is required. Regeneration is a long-term, comprehensive process, which is aimed at tackling social, economic, physical and environmental issues in places where the market has simply failed. There is a risk that the remaining resources will go to growth areas, rather than to help more deprived areas, and that that will exacerbate the problem. I understand that value for money is important, but I ask the Government to identify, or top-slice, funding to assist growth in less affluent areas, such as Haslingden and Hyndburn. That would at least give more deprived areas a competitive chance, as well as supporting economic growth.

I understand that the second tranche of the £50 million for low-demand areas must be match funded. That is a significant problem. I must advise the Minister that that is nigh on impossible in Hyndburn, so his policy will disadvantage Hyndburn in comparison with larger local authorities with greater access to resources. As a small district authority, Hyndburn receives only 15% of the council tax that is collected. Lancashire, the shire authority, has no interest in empty homes. Hyndburn has already matched funded the transitional grant from HMR, to the tune of £2.3 million. It no longer receives capital funding, with the end of the Government’s support for a housing capital fund.

As I have previously pointed out in the House, the new homes bonus is insignificant in Hyndburn. The amounts have been residual and small, and new house building only exacerbates the problem of over-supply, because it disadvantages areas of low demand. In short, Hyndburn has run out of available resources with which to generate match funding. The local authority’s budget is due to diminish from some £17 million to about £11 million in 2014. Unfortunately, the funding will not be anywhere near enough to address the 300,000-plus long-term empty homes across the country.

On 29 November in the House, I expressed my shock that local authorities cannot bid for the empty homes fund, and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), advised me that that was not the case, as reported at column 915 of that day’s Hansard. I have now had the opportunity to review the guidance for the £100 million fund, and it is clear to me that only registered providers and community and voluntary groups can apply—not local authorities such as Hyndburn, which are not registered social providers. I welcome the support for community and voluntary groups, but otherwise limiting the funding just to registered providers is a missed opportunity in an area with a significant problem. Allocating funds to local authorities would have provided more flexibility and innovation.

In addition, the guidance for the £100 million does not allow bids for vacant dwellings in council ownership. That is another missed opportunity. Hyndburn council owns long-term vacant houses not because it is a landlord, but because it is a former housing market renewal pathfinder. Allowing the former pathfinder local authorities to use the funding in partnership with others, including registered providers, would allow greater flexibly in addressing some of those depressing images that Channel 4 recently highlighted in the former HMR areas, and there would be viable alternatives to demolition, which is what I believe the Government want to encourage. I therefore hope that when the Government draft their guidance for the £50 million for empty homes in low-demand areas, they will bear my comments in mind: more freedom and flexibility, led by local authorities, will achieve more innovation and better value for money. Unless I am mistaken, that is the Government’s objective.

I am led to believe that bids for empty homes funding will be made from at least one registered provider in Hyndburn and from the local authority if the second tranche of funding permits. Our priority area is known as Woodnook and has nearly 350 vacant homes, with ownership in both the private and public sectors. I am pleased to inform the Minister that we are working with a private sector partner to bring in £7 million of investment to convert and refurbish 89 long-term vacant homes—many of which have been vacant for two years—without public sector funding. However, I hope that the Department for Communities and Local Government will look favourably on applications from our partners to extend the innovative work that we are doing to more vacant homes in this neighbourhood, as well as elsewhere in the borough.

I have on several occasions in the past raised the issues and problems caused by some landlords in Hyndburn; I find it necessary to do so again in relation to empty properties. Unfortunately, private landlords contribute directly to the problem of empty homes and of low housing demand through poor standards of management and maintenance. When I requested the information, I was told that slightly more than 80% of the empty properties are in the hands of private landlords. Although I acknowledge that legislation exists to introduce selective licensing in areas of low demand, the measures required to introduce a licensing scheme are onerous and potentially costly to the public purse, as Hyndburn found, regrettably, to its cost, having had to fork out £100,000 in a lost case in the High Court during—I must add—the previous Administration.

The Government’s new housing strategy quite rightly acknowledges the private rented sector’s essential role in the housing market. However, I would welcome a commitment from the Government to hold an independent review, to try to improve standards in the private rented sector and to relax the bureaucracy that currently exists when seeking to establish a selective licensing designation. I understand that the council is considering a new licensing designation, but the potential for a legal challenge and subsequent cost may be a deterrent. If the rules and guidance were simplified and made more transparent, thus making such a designation easier, more local authorities would be encouraged to consider using the power.

I welcome the consultation on an empty homes premium on council tax, payable on homes that have been left empty for more than two years. I fully support the initiative, but I ask that in two-tier authorities—this problem keeps coming back—district councils retain the premium, as that is where the burden to council tax payers currently exists.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, thus building on the progress made in my Adjournment debate, to which he contributed, and keeping empty homes well and truly on the agenda. I also thank the Minister for attending.

I particularly appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman has progressed the arguments. He has considered cases in his constituency and identified that the question, which also applies to my constituency, is about overdevelopment on green fields and about bringing rural properties back into use. I welcome the cross-party approach on the issue and praise the Minister for the way in which the Government have reacted.

[Graham Jones]

There is some consensus that the problem needs tackling. There are variances, particularly between the north and the south—between under-supply of housing in the south and over-supply in the north. There are also complexities regarding low demand. The hon. Gentleman, who has a constituency not far from mine that has some of the problems, is quite right in saying that there is some sort of a cross-party consensus, but there is a difference between certain areas in tackling empty homes.

I end my contribution by expressing a sense of disappointment and frustration that the Government’s housing policy is driven from the south and that they seem unwilling or unable to see the disjuncture between their strategy and the realities of places such as Hyndburn—my constituency—and Haslingden.

13:43

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on bringing the matter back to the House. As he says, it is crucial, and I personally and the Department take it seriously. It is set out in some considerable detail in the housing strategy document that we published a fortnight ago. There is quite a lot of common cause between the hon. Gentleman’s intentions, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and mine.

The first point to acknowledge is that there is not one housing market in England—there are not even 10. In fact, if I look at my own borough of Stockport, I would say that there are 10 different markets, even in Stockport.

[Graham Jones]

indicated assent.

[Andrew Stunell]

The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. In every square mile, some bits are seen to be more desirable than others and accommodation is more popular. That is not a function of the private market alone; it is also true of social housing, where estates are seen to be desirable, undesirable or less desirable. Therefore, we cannot have a one-policy-fits-all solution, and I think that we have common cause on that. I want to assure him that, as a fellow north-western MP, I am well aware of the market’s complexity and the differences even between places that are adjacent to one another.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s starting contention that the way out of the current problems faced by Hyndburn and other similar communities is to get the economy going again and ensure that we have growth and investment in industry and jobs. I am sure that he is aware of the Chancellor’s autumn statement and the huge emphasis that the Government place on securing those outcomes. He will also be aware of the Government’s central task, which is to bring our finances and our economy back into balance, so that growth can be based on secure foundations.

I think that we also agree that, when people need homes, the fact that we have empty homes is a scandal. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that his district has 36,000 homes and only 34,000 households to fill them. That makes his area distinctive, although not unique—certainly not in the north-west.

At the latest count, there were 720,000 empty properties across England, which was down by 17,000 from the past year. Around 279,000 of those are long-term empties, which are properties that have been empty for longer than six months. The number of long-term empties has fallen by a larger number—some 21,000—since 2010. That is the biggest year-on-year decrease since 2004. I am pleased to report those figures to the House.

According to the figures supplied by Hyndburn, it currently has 2,547 empty properties, which is a rise of 101 since 2010. It has 1,160 long-term empty homes, which is a reduction on the previous year—31 homes were brought back into use, for which the borough gets a new homes bonus.

The hon. Gentleman pointed out that empty homes can rapidly fall into disrepair. They can attract antisocial behaviour and certainly do not enhance the general environment of the neighbourhood. We need to make better use of them. That is why our housing strategy sets out a strategy for empty homes.

I have already mentioned the new homes bonus, which has now been running for two years. In the first year, the decrease in the number of long-term empty homes was just over 15,000. That produced a reward for local authorities of almost £19 million.

[Graham Jones]

The Minister makes a good point, and I am not going to decry it. The issue in Hyndburn is that we cannot build and we do not have households. It is understandable how the new homes bonus was £67,000 last year and £53,000 this year—we are now into the second year of the £67,000. It is difficult, and I hope that the Minister will address the problem of how we match fund when there is no money; we have found the last £2.3 million that we had at the bottom of the barrel.

[Andrew Stunell]

I hope to develop that point in the remainder of my remarks. The new homes bonus year goes from October to September. In the first 12 months, £19 million was paid out in new homes bonus to local authorities for bringing empty homes back into use. I accept that the figure was modest for Hyndburn borough. It had a net decrease of six empty homes and was paid £12,537 as a result. In the second year, which ended this September, Hyndburn had a net decrease of 31 empty homes and will receive an additional £25,460. In total, because the scheme runs for six years, this year it will receive £37, 997. That is the existing mechanism in place.

The housing strategy added a £100 million fund to bring empty homes back into use as affordable housing. Housing associations and local authorities can apply via the Homes and Communities Agency. The bidding guidance for that was launched by the HCA on 21 November and the deadline for applications is 23 January 2012. The HCA bidding guidance sets out that the ultimate landlord of the property must be a registered provider of social housing. That point was made by the hon. Gentleman, both in his intervention in the debate the other day and again today. It is true that bids must come from a current registered provider or an organisation that intends to apply to become one.

I have some good news for the hon. Gentleman. Local authorities that are not currently registered providers—usually because they were housing authorities but have transferred their stock—can still access the funding. There are two routes by which they can do so, the first of which is by partnering a housing association that is a registered provider, as I set out in a letter that I sent yesterday to the hon. Gentleman, which I hope he has received. The second route is to become a registered provider itself.

Hyndburn borough council is not currently a registered provider. What does it need to do to become one and therefore become eligible to make a bid against the £100 million directly, rather than working through a partner? Under section 114A of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, all that it has to do is to notify the Tenant Services Authority by letter that it intends to become a provider of social housing, owing to a change in circumstances. In this case, the change in circumstances would involve gaining access to the empty homes funding allocated via the HCA. It does not need to fill in the application form on the TSA website or go through the full application process. It will simply be added to the register as a registered provider of social housing within a few days of notification of its intention to do so.

I strongly suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he may want to get on the phone straight after the debate to recommend to Hyndburn borough council that it does exactly that. It can then choose either route for accessing the money: either to bid in association with a registered provider, such as the housing association that is managing its housing stock, or to make a separate application to become a registered provider itself. I hope that that gives him the confidence that he needs that this scheme is open and accessible to his local authority.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of other points, including that the housing stock in Hyndburn is not of the right mix or quality. The empty homes strategy will not address that to a serious degree; other elements of the housing strategy will be helpful. We have in place a social and affordable home construction programme: 170,000 social and affordable homes are to be built by 2015. The affordable home model is providing new homes in every housing authority area in England, including Hyndburn. Again, those homes are being delivered through registered providers, and the hon. Gentleman might want to check with the HCA the nature of the bids that have been made and accepted by the HCA for his area.

We are, of course, continuing to fund a substantial decent homes programme to bring social housing stock up to standard. The hon. Gentleman did not specifically set out the case in Hyndburn, but the number of non-decent homes has been halved since the Government came to office 18 months ago. We have a substantial decent homes investment programme and have made substantial progress already. I apologise, Ms Osborne, I wish to correct that figure. We have reduced the number of non-decent homes by 26% and are on course to halve it by the end of this Parliament. That involves more than £2 billion in investment, which shows not only earnest of intent but good news for Hyndburn.

The hon. Gentleman appealed to my better nature with regard to how the funding for the additional £50 million is to be set out. The fund was announced on 21 November and is designed to tackle some of the worst concentrations of empty homes in areas of low demand. I put it to him that that money is essentially targeted at areas such as Hyndburn. That is, of course, on top of the money that he referred to, to ensure that the worst excesses of the market renewal project are patched up in the areas of greatest need. The bid submitted by Hyndburn and other local authorities in east Lancashire was accepted in full by the Department.

The funding details for the additional £50 million have not yet been finalised. Further details will be announced shortly. There are key differences between the £100 million fund for social and affordable housing and the new £50 million fund. In particular, it will not be appropriate under the additional programme for all the homes to be brought back into use as affordable housing. The schemes are all backed by cash rewards through the new homes bonus. We have also made it clear that the £50 million fund will take into account the need to look at environmental and broader works in association with bringing homes back into use, not simply the refurbishment of the homes themselves.

The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to the plans that we are currently consulting on regarding the introduction of an empty homes premium, to be a strong encouragement to landlords and home owners to bring homes back on to the market or into productive use. That consultation is going on and I take the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to this debate as a response to that consultation in favour of the introduction of the empty homes premium. I would be even happier if he wrote formally to the Department to put that clearly on the record.

[Graham Jones]

I would be delighted to do that, but in the last few seconds, will the Minister address the fact that we have no match funding?

[Andrew Stunell]

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not wish to pre-empt anything that may be in the criteria for the £50 million. I will undertake to convey his view and the circumstances in Hyndburn to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who is working on that.

14:00

Sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(11)).