House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hon. Members
Object.
To be considered on Tuesday 12 June.
Leeds City Council Bill
Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Message [21 May] as relates to the Leeds City Council Bill be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Hon. Members
Object.
To be considered on Tuesday 12 June.
Nottingham City Council Bill
Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Message [21 May] as relates to the Nottingham City Council Bill be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Hon. Members
Object.
To be considered on Tuesday 12 June.
Reading Borough Council Bill
Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Message [21 May] as relates to the Reading Borough Council Bill be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Hon. Members
Object.
To be considered on Tuesday 12 June.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]
Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Message [21 May] as relates to the City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Hon. Members
Object.
To be considered on Tuesday 12 June.
City of Westminster Bill [Lords]
Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Message [21 May] as relates to the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Hon. Members
Object.
To be considered on Tuesday 12 June.
Transport for London Bill [Lords]
Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Message [21 May] as relates to the Transport for London Bill [Lords] be now considered.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
1. What steps he has taken to reduce the burden of regulation on (a) small and medium-sized and (b) other businesses.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The Government take a comprehensive approach to cutting the burden of red tape. We have capped the cost of new regulation, identified hundreds of existing regulations to be scrapped, and introduced a moratorium on regulation for all micro-businesses.
Stephen Hammond
Small businesses in Wimbledon tell me that the two incentives to growth are access to lending and deregulation. Will my hon. Friend be a little more explicit about what the red tape challenge might bring those businesses in my constituency?
Mr Prisk
Progress on the red tape challenge is very important. We have now reviewed some 1,500 regulations, and Ministers have agreed to scrap or substantially overhaul 59% of them—some 887 regulations. That will make a real difference to businesses in Wimbledon and, indeed, elsewhere.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister take it from me, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on management, that we must stop feeding this anti-regulation red tape movement and concentrate on good management of small businesses? Forty-three per cent. of managers in the country are rated as poor. Let us do something about management, rather than going on about red tape.
Mr Prisk
We cannot ignore the fact that 11,000 elements on the statute book impose a burden on many businesses. We need to tackle that, and I am sorry that the last Government failed to do so. Indeed, they produced six new regulations on every working day. But is the hon. Gentleman correct in saying that we need to think about the calibre of management of small businesses? Yes. Bad regulation and red tape need to go, but we need to think about the wider issue as well, I shall certainly take that from the hon. Gentleman, as he asked.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
My hon. Friend has already outlined many of the measures that we as a coalition Government are taking to reduce the regulatory burden, but does he agree that a fire-at-will policy might be counter-productive and would not produce the increased productivity and growth that we need so much?
Mr Prisk
The element of the Beecroft report to which my hon. Friend refers is one of 23 separate measures. We want to ensure that we consider these matters on the basis of good evidence. That is why there is a call for evidence, and once we have had a look at it and weighed the pros against the cons, we will make a decision.
Mr Speaker
Before we continue these exchanges, let me say that ordinarily when the Secretary of State is absent, the fact of the absence is explained at the start of Question Time. I can hear Members inquiring about it. I know that the Secretary of State is absent because I have received a letter from him, but let me say for the record that it would be desirable to be told at the outset, and, in general terms, that it is of course highly undesirable for the Secretary of State to be absent on these occasions. It must not become a regular practice.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Does the Minister believe that a person who has made a donation of more than £500,000 to the Conservative party and made more than £100 million from equity deals is a fit and proper person to determine Government policy and workers’ rights?
Mr Prisk
Let me first respond to what you said, Mr Speaker. I apologise if I have not made it clear that the Secretary of State is promoting British business in Germany. I know that that is something that all parties have wanted to do. However, the Secretary of State will note, and we will note, your admonishment.
As for the question from the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), I think that we need to be very careful when it comes to the kind of allegation that he is trying to make about that particular individual. It is important to have good employers—good people who actually understand the market. That is an important contribution, regardless of whatever the hon. Gentleman’s prejudices may be.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is clear that this Government do not know what they are doing on growth: one day it is regulation, and the next day it is deregulation. This week, Baroness Wilcox pronounced in the other place that the groceries code adjudicator regulations were a “pro-growth measure” on the same day that the AWOL Secretary of State called the deregulatory Beecroft proposals “bonkers”. Does that not demonstrate that Downing street’s obsession with Beecroft is not intended to promote growth, but is simply another example of this Government’s incoherent and incompetent approach to the economy, putting old Tory ideology before any credible strategy to get people back to work?
Mr Prisk
I am sorry that we are getting platitudes like that, because this is an important issue. We want to ensure that there is a concerted approach on regulation—capping the costs of new ones, scrapping existing ones, and thereby helping small businesses. That is what we are doing. The Labour party failed to do that in 13 years in office. It is no good Labour Members wishing things; we are acting and they are not.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on business confidence of the economy entering recession.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
Business confidence has held up so far this year, and is well above its 2008-09 lows. The CBI business confidence index came in at plus 22 in April, one of its highest readings in the past five years.
Mr Hamilton
Does the Minister accept that consumer confidence is extremely important? If Beecroft’s fire-at-will measure is implemented, as proposed by some Members on the Government Benches, that confidence will sharply decline. I say that as someone who was unemployed for two and a half years; people cannot plan ahead or do anything, and it brings added jeopardy to families. This is therefore extremely important: if we want confidence, we must get rid of the Beecroft report.
Mr Willetts
It is very important to maintain confidence in the British economy, and people can take confidence from the fact that employment is up, and that inflation is down so their living standards are protected. They can take confidence from the fact that exports are up, and they can take confidence from the fact that public borrowing is down so interest rates are down. Those are the reasons why we are confident in the British economy.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I tell the Minister that the chief executive of Northamptonshire chamber of commerce has said that
“the news the economy was in recession paints an “unduly pessimistic picture”
as far as Northamptonshire is concerned? Mr Griffiths says the news is contrary to what he is hearing from his members, and his local quarterly economic survey shows a far “more positive picture”. He believes that that gives a
“more accurate indication of the underlying trends in the economy.”
Mr Willetts
There are great examples of business success across Britain, in both small and large companies. The coalition is committed to ensuring that we deliver growth and prosperity in the future.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Back in the real world, has the Minister seen this week’s report by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, showing that more than half of manufacturers have no confidence in the Government and think the Government are performing badly, and only 14% think the Government are doing well? In the same week, the CBI said manufacturing output will fall sharply in the next quarter because of contracting demand, producing a double-dip recession made in Downing street. Does the Minister believe the manufacturers, who wish to engage with Government to create a long-term industrial strategy, or does he side with his Cabinet colleagues, who believe business should merely stop whingeing and work harder?
Mr Willetts
I agree with what the director general of the CBI said the other day. I thought he put it very well:
“We have always said that the path back to sustainable economic growth will be a long and difficult one, with many bumps along the way. To re-balance our economy towards exports and investment will take time and patience.”
We are absolutely committed to rebalancing towards exports and investment, and in my conversations with engineering businesses and others across the country it is clear they understand that that is exactly what the Government are doing.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating businesses across North Wiltshire, who are reporting extremely good conditions? Honda has just announced a new line, the excellent automatic hand dryer I used a short time ago in a House of Commons lavatory was made by none other than Dyson of Malmesbury, and a number of enterprise awards have been given to firms in the constituency. The picture is actually not bad at all. Will the Minister congratulate those companies?
Mr Willetts
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a spirit of innovation in our country of which we can be proud. It is one of the reasons that our exports to the emerging economies of India, China and Brazil—which are the most competitive and important economies of the future—are shooting up, even while, sadly, we are held back by the economic problems of the eurozone, brought on by membership of the euro, a policy advocated by the Labour party.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
3. What steps he is taking further to develop the motor and components industry.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
Over the past 18 months, the United Kingdom automotive sector has secured more than £4 billion-worth of investment, including the decision by General Motors to build the next generation of Astras in Ellesmere Port. Through the Automotive Council, we are working hard to rebuild the UK’s supply chain and to encourage exports further.
Mr Spellar
I am astonished that the Secretary of State has not turned up today. Not only is it bad form, but I actually wanted to praise him—although that might have been bad for inter-coalition relations. He has shown a bipartisan continuity of policy in support of the motor industry, which is so important for encouraging long-term investment. As that policy is increasingly successful, as the Minister has indicated, will he now focus strongly on the supply chain, where too many components are still imported? Will he get his officials to work with the industry to get the main-tier suppliers to develop capacity in the UK, so that there is a major benefit to the British economy, British jobs and British workers?
Mr Prisk
It is rare that a Minister gets the opportunity to receive the praise intended for a Secretary of State, so I will just stand here for a moment or two.
I entirely agree with the principle mentioned; this House has an opportunity to put manufacturing beyond party politics. I want to do that, as does the Secretary of State. We are putting in £125 million specifically to target the supply chain, and I want to make sure that that is available shortly. We are working well with Birmingham city council and others, and I look forward to being able to develop things further.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I grew up in a village just outside Coventry, a city that had half a dozen car manufacturers in the 1970s, at a time when the industry was being decimated by strikes, led by trade unionists such as Red Robbo, over demarcation disputes and excessive wage claims. Does the Minister agree that much of the recent success of the industry is due to a more sensible and flexible approach by the work force?
Mr Prisk
Absolutely. I again pay tribute to many of the work force in the motor industry. They have demonstrated the willingness to show that British workers are highly productive and that we can compete, and they are also flexible. That is the good news story. There are history lessons, and I hope that the Labour party has now learnt them.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
May I put on record my thanks to the newly labelled socialist Secretary of State, and indeed to the Minister, for the work they did in securing the future of Ellesmere Port’s Vauxhall plant? Does the Minister agree that the teamwork that involved, which started with Lord Mandelson’s creation of the automotive alliance, and involved the Unite union, the management and so on, is the way to take this industry forward?
Mr Prisk
I absolutely agree with that, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, too, for his work on this issue. I do not want us to be too self-congratulatory, but it is important that we work together. I am proud to see British factories not only able to compete, but to win against stiff international competition.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
The success at Ellesmere Port this week, with unions and management combining and “out-Germanning” the Germans, proved that that is the route to success, rather than the more one-sided Beecroft proposals.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
4. What recent progress he has made on securing the future of the Post Office network.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb)
Significant progress has been made on securing the future of the post office network. In particular, Post Office Ltd has become an independent company, with its own strengthened board; signed a long-term agreement with Royal Mail, cementing their commercial relationship for the next 10 years; won new contracts from central and local government; and achieved greater network stability, with net closures of just two post offices in the year to March 2012, which is the lowest figure for 25 years.
Harriett Baldwin
Will the Minister congratulate villagers from Alfrick in my constituency, who have raised £60,000 in a community share offering and found 60 volunteers to reopen the community post office? However, does he agree that asking each of those 60 pillars of their community to go through a Criminal Records Bureau check is a little excessive?
Norman Lamb
I absolutely congratulate the villagers who have managed to achieve that. I have seen a similar story in Norfolk, and it is a fantastic community spirit that manages to achieve that. I tend to agree that asking every volunteer in the village to undergo a CRB check seems over the top.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I welcome what the Minister says, but does he not share my concern that there are still problems when main post offices are moved into other businesses? A constituent of mine went to the main post office in Arbroath, by far the largest town in my constituency, to renew his photographic driving licence, only to be told that it could no longer provide that service and that he would have to go to Dundee. Does the Minister not accept that such incidents undermine efforts to stabilise the post office network?
Norman Lamb
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the transformation being undertaken through pilots in both main and local post offices has been received incredibly positively by customers, with 90% satisfaction rates, and by the sub-postmasters and postmistresses who are delivering those services.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my concerns about the lack of vetting of staff who will be operating the new Post Office Local network and that that will result in a reduction in the level of assurance that customers can expect?
Norman Lamb
I do not think that that concern is fair. The response from customers has been incredibly positive. More than 200 Post Office Locals have been piloted so far and the response we are getting is very positive. If we can make post office services more accessible, particularly by extending opening hours, increases in the number of sales can be achieved. There has been an increase of 9% in sales and in the number of customers coming into the post offices, so that is a real success story.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
5. What recent progress he has made on the recruitment of business mentors.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
The value of mentoring guides all we do. After all, it is at the heart of the Government’s flagship apprenticeship programme. Business mentoring is just as important and “Get Mentoring” is a fantastic example of businesses working together. No fewer than 11,000 volunteers have already signed up and, buoyed by that, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his personal commitment and support for this exciting initiative.
Andrew Stephenson
As ever, the Minister is backing Britain and backing business, but as he often says, we can always do more. What does he expect the increase to be in the number of mentors during the final part of this year?
Mr Hayes
I do not know, Mr Speaker, whether you have yet had the chance to see my hon. Friend’s local newspaper, the Burnley Express. In that paper, he says:
“Mentoring is a great way for business leaders to invest in and give back to their communities.”
The truth is that we intend in the short term—by the end of this year—to grow that number from 11,000 to 26,000 mentors.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I am sorry to introduce a note of caution into this backslapping, but given that women make up only 12.5% of FTSE 100 boards, what steps is the Minister taking to get more women business mentors?
Mr Hayes
I agree with the hon. Lady. It is important that mentors are drawn from across the business community and that everyone, regardless of who they are and from where they start, gets their chance to prosper as a result of the scheme. As a result of her question, I will look again at what more we can do in that respect.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
6. What funds his Department makes available for training and employment for adults.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
Despite the pressures and challenges, this Government protected the adult and community learning budget. In the wake of adult learners week, Mr Speaker, I know that you will want me to congratulate all those who are involved in giving people a second chance. Overall, funding in adult and further education will be £3.8 billion in 2012-13. The expansion in provision will be focused on young adults, the low-skilled and pre-employment training for the unemployed. The reason for that is that this Government are committed to redistributing advantage. We are a Government driven by social purpose.
Alec Shelbrooke
What specific help can my hon. Friend’s Department make available to those not in employment, education and training, such as a constituent of mine who has a job lined up as an electrician but cannot afford the £600 training course he needs to undergo in order to gain the latest addition to the qualifications? He has been out of the trade for only 18 months.
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend is right that we need to allow people to access education at the point that is right for them. That is why continuing education is so important and why the apprenticeship programme is both for young people entering the labour market for the first time and for those who want to upskill and reskill. I strongly support, as he does, the expansion of that programme in both quantity and quality.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
The ability of mature students to access further education courses in order to access higher education courses is vital both for social mobility and for upgrading the nation’s skills. As things stand, anybody taking that route incurs debts at the FE course level and, potentially, at the higher education course level—in effect a double whammy. What is the Minister going to do about it?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman will know that loans in further education are restricted to older learners and those learning at higher levels precisely because of my determination that the people I have described are protected from additional cost. The information that we have garnered from our early research suggests that the overwhelming majority of people would not be deterred from engaging in the way that he describes.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Minister rightly praised adult learners week, but the truth is that Ministers plan to scrap grants to nearly 400,000 adult learners, including apprentices, forcing them to take out personal loans of up to £4,000 a year. His own Department’s research shows that only one in 10 learners said they would definitely do courses on that basis. Do we not face a complete shambles, with blocked social mobility and a lost generation of adult learners? The Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State, told the Association of Colleges:
“We don’t know how it’s going to work.”
Can the Minister give a guarantee now? Will we have more adult learners on loans or not?
Mr Hayes
I guarantee this: the scheme we have built to deliver the most apprenticeships in our history, of the highest quality, will not be altered. I also guarantee that adult and community learning, which was constantly threatened when Labour was in government, will be secure and safe under this Government, with £210 million a year for adult and community learners: second-chance education delivered by this Government.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
7. What recent assessment he has made of the Government’s relationship with the business community.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
The Department has an honest, constructive and positive relationship with business based on the shared belief that enterprise and Government working together can get us out of recession—not more taxation, regulation and borrowing. Ministers also have one-to-one strategic relationships with key international companies.
Susan Elan Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Will he tell us why he does not agree with the chair of GKN, Mr Mike Turner, who is calling for a more active “industrial strategy”? Why does he not listen to him? Surely Mr Turner knows something about business.
Mr Willetts
I have great respect for Mike Turner of GKN. We do believe in the importance of an active industrial strategy, and we have seen the fruits of our approach in the announcement only the other day of the new investment by General Motors. We have also seen it in the announcement of investment by GlaxoSmithKline. We are up for working with business to deliver the industrial strategy and that is what we are doing.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
May I inform my right hon. Friend that relations with business in rural north Yorkshire are excellent but could always be improved? In particular, what can we do to promote the local enterprise partnership in rural north Yorkshire, east Yorkshire and York?
Mr Willetts
I am sure that there is always more we can do to promote LEPs, but they are already playing a crucial role in the allocation of the regional growth fund. I very much look forward to visiting Norfolk later today when I will have the opportunity of announcing further investment in that important county.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
In the time that Ministers in this Government had dozens of meetings with Google, one of the few British IT companies to achieve global status, Autonomy, has been taken over and today tragically destroyed. May I suggest to Ministers that instead of spending so much time cosying up to American giants that just want to protect their monopolies, they should talk to people such as Mike Lynch, the founder of Autonomy, to understand why it is so difficult for British innovative companies to get the long-term finance on their own account that they need to become global leaders?
Mr Willetts
Let us make it absolutely clear. My fellow Ministers and I talk on an even and equitable basis with Autonomy and Mike Lynch, of course, and with HP and Google. Indeed, we have set up a council to plan our strategy for e-infrastructure and high-performance computing in which their advice is greatly valued. Yes, it is very important that we invest in high-technology companies, but I cannot believe that a former Secretary of State is actually saying that we should have direct controls to stop a company such as Autonomy being taken over.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the employment circumstances of apprentices on completion of their placement.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
My Department has recently led an extensive survey of 5,000 apprentices. The results, published on 15 May, show that 85% of the apprentices who completed their apprenticeships in the past 12 months are employed; 4% are self-employed and 3% are in further education or training.
Duncan Hames
That is very welcome news. The success of apprenticeships will be judged not just by the growth in their number but by the difference they make to apprentices’ future employment. Reports on the future jobs fund found that 14 months after starting their placement, nearly half the participants were back on benefits. Will the Minister ensure that he continues to conduct evaluations of the new apprenticeships?
Mr Hayes
Absolutely. The survey that I have just mentioned—the biggest survey, producing the best ever results in terms of satisfaction—showed that 92% of apprentices were satisfied with their apprenticeship, and that 88% of the businesses that took on apprentices felt they had gained a business benefit. That information is critical to guiding our policy, described last week by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which I went before dutifully, as a flagship. My apprenticeship policy: our victory.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Hackney community college does excellent innovative work on apprenticeships, but along with other further education colleges it faces a 7% cut this year. Earlier, the Minister waxed lyrical about increasing social mobility, and in my constituency and others in east London, further education is a crucial way for adults who missed out to get back on track, often even before they get to the apprenticeship stage. What message does the Minister have for my constituents, as the college has to cut back further?
Mr Hayes
The message is plain: further education has never been given the priority in the past that it has been given by this Government. It is about the flexibilities and freedoms to respond to need in the hon. Lady’s constituency and elsewhere. Further education, once the Cinderella sector, when I became the Minister found its Prince Charming.
Mr Speaker
I sometimes think that the Minister of State would like dedicated oral questions for himself alone, but I am not aware that the House has any plans to provide such, so I hope he can contain his disappointment at that news.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
9. What support his Department is giving to small and medium-sized businesses to enable them to grow.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Greg Clark)
To drive growth, we are reducing the cost of lending to small businesses by keeping interest rates low and through specific measures such as the national loan guarantee scheme. We are also stripping away red tape, including a three-year moratorium on domestic regulation for micro-businesses.
Henry Smith
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress the Government have made in reducing the burden of EU regulation on small and medium-sized enterprises?
Greg Clark
Yes. My hon. Friend will be aware that in Brussels the Prime Minister secured an agreement from the EU Commission that any future regulation should be assumed not to apply to small businesses unless a case were proved that it needed to do so. The Prime Minister has secured a significant step forward.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
13. The most recent Bank of England survey says that smaller firms continue to report that they are unable to obtain credit and that it has become harder to secure long-term funding. That issue is raised by Members on both sides of the House every month at BIS questions. The Government may have introduced some measures to provide finance to small businesses, but they are clearly not doing enough. Is it not time to develop some new policies?
Greg Clark
All Members of the House recognise the need to encourage banks to lend to small businesses. There is some good news; the volume of lending to small businesses in 2011—the latest year for which figures are available—was £75 billion, a rise of 13%, but there is more to be done. With my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, we are doing everything we can to encourage banks to lend to small businesses.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Advanced Insulation, a firm in my constituency, which has just won the Queen’s award for enterprise? Does he agree that such firms are emblematic? We need to demonstrate that we are good at innovating and exporting, and that that is the direction of travel for economic growth.
Greg Clark
I will indeed join my hon. Friend in congratulating that company. In fact, a record number of the recent Queen’s awards, announced last month on Her Majesty’s birthday, were for small businesses, which shows that this country’s small businesses have a huge amount to contribute to the future success of the nation.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Yesterday I met 35 small businesses that borrowed money to fuel growth but now feel that they were mis-sold interest rate swap products by their banks. There is a real urgency to investigate that issue before more otherwise healthy companies are brought down. Will the Minister join us in calling for banks, while they are investigating whether these products were mis-sold, not to foreclose on companies that are falling behind because of these products?
Greg Clark
If the allegations are correct, the companies will need assistance to cope. An investigation on that is about to conclude. I will take the matter forward with the hon. Gentleman and am happy to discuss it outside this place with his Front Benchers.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
10. If he will assess the commercial prospects of the caravan manufacturing industry in and around Hull.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
The Government recognise the important contribution of caravan manufacturing to Hull and the importance of the caravan industry in other areas. I am aware of the concerns across the country about the effects of the proposed VAT changes. Although that is clearly a matter for the Treasury, as the hon. Lady understands, she will know that I, as Minister for cities, have a personal commitment to and interest in the future success of Hull. If she or other Members would find it helpful, I should be happy to visit Hull over the next few weeks to meet manufacturers.
Diana Johnson
If the coalition really is supportive of Hull and caravan manufacturing, can the Minister explain why the Treasury thinks that putting VAT at 20% on static caravans, which we know will result in a 30% drop in the market, less money going to the Treasury and 7,000 job losses across the country, will help manufacturing in my city?
Greg Clark
As I think the hon. Lady knows—I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and other Members across the House who have raised concerns about the impact of the proposal—the consultation has been extended. She and others have had meetings with Treasury Ministers and clearly made a forceful case, because the extension has been made. I know that Ministers are seriously considering this matter. I will be happy to meet her and manufacturers. I know the importance of the caravan industry; when I was growing up I spent my holidays in a static caravan on the north-east coast. I am keen to do what I can.
Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)
11. When he last met representatives of the Russell group; and what matters were discussed.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
I met vice-chancellors from the Russell group on 8 March at an event at Nottingham university. We discussed university access, research and international issues.
Mr Kennedy
I thank the Minister for that reply. On access, particularly for international students, he must be aware of how loudly alarm bells are now ringing in the Russell group and the tertiary education sector right across the UK because of the plummeting number of applications from international students as a result of the Home Office’s net migration targets. As this is worth nearly £8 billion a year to UK plc, can he not put pressure on his Home Office colleagues to see sense?
Mr Willetts
The latest evidence from UCAS shows that applications to British universities from outside the EU are going up, but it is absolutely right that we should back our very successful higher education sector. It is not a business, but it does have a lot of exports and the 400,000 students who come here from abroad to study can be regarded as an export success. That is why there is no limit on the number of genuine students who can come to the UK to study. There is no cap on their numbers.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
I want to reinforce the point that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) just put to the Minister. The new visa regime is causing huge instability and sending a very discouraging signal internationally. Given how important the HE sector and the Russell group are to trade, and given that it is such an important exporter, will the Minister speak to the Immigration Minister and urge him to change these rules?
Mr Willetts
Of course we are in close contact with the Home Office on the implementation of these rules, but the key point is that there is no cap on the number of overseas students who can come to Britain. I take every opportunity on trade missions abroad, as do the Prime Minister and other members of the Government, to communicate very clearly in crucial counties such as India that there is no limit on the number of legitimate students with the appropriate qualifications who would be very welcome to come here and study at British universities.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
12. What steps he is taking to promote exports to the far east; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb)
Through UK Trade & Investment, we are promoting exports to Asia and to the far east by campaigning for better market access and by improving market conditions for UK businesses. For example, we are lobbying for the start of formal free trade agreement negotiations between the European Union and Japan, and for the successful conclusion of an ambitious EU-Singapore free trade agreement this year. We also provide targeted support services for UK businesses.
Nicholas Soames
Will the Minister join me in welcoming the exceptional work of the Prime Minister, the Trade and Investment Minister, the Foreign Secretary and all those other Ministers who are doing a great deal to promote British trade to the far east? Does the Minister agree that it will do our cause no good if senior business men in the far east, wanting to come here and take part in business exchanges, find it difficult to get a visa to do so? May I urge him to take every step to resolve that question?
Norman Lamb
I absolutely share my right hon. Friend’s comments about the incredibly valuable work undertaken by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. During the Prime Minister’s recent visit, deals worth £546 million were secured from south-east Asia, but I understand the concern that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) raises about visas, and I will certainly look into them.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Has the Minister read last week’s pamphlet, by one of the most brilliant and prescient Members among us, which states:
“It is noteworthy that other developed countries have re-oriented their export profiles more effectively than Britain has done, raising doubts about whether we are keeping pace with our EU partners in promoting British commercial interests in the emerging economies”?
That sentence was written by the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who is sitting behind the Minister. Could they swap jobs, so that we have a trade Minister who knows what to do?
Norman Lamb
I will rise above it, absolutely.
Exports to the far east are growing very significantly. UK exports to China have grown by 15% over the past year, for example, and we are working hard to secure a free trade agreement with Japan, which would deliver significant benefits to the UK.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
15. What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of the higher education sector to economic growth.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
17. What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of the higher education sector on economic growth.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
20. What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of the higher education sector to economic growth.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
Higher education contributes to growth. We have just had universities week, celebrating our universities’ contribution to the Olympics, to the economy and to national life, and estimates by Universities UK indicate that higher education contributes more than £31 billion to our GDP. University education is of course, however, also worth while in itself—in ways that cannot be measured by economists.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister acknowledges the importance of higher education as a major export earner. Does he therefore agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who wrote an excellent piece in the Financial Times last week, arguing that we should catch up with our competitors and stop classifying students as migrants, as part of a strategy to win a bigger market share for our world-class university system?
Mr Willetts
I absolutely support the objective in that statement of winning a greater market share for our higher education sector, and we can be very proud of the international demand from students wanting to study at our higher education institutions. There is no cap on the number who come here, and we will do everything possible to correct any misunderstandings around the world that may be inhibiting people from applying.
Mr Thomas
At a time when many mainstream universities are extremely worried about where sufficient funding for research, which is vital to Britain’s long-term economic growth, will come from, why does the Minister think that a multi-million pound VAT cut for commercial universities is a good use of public funds?
Mr Willetts
One reason why we have protected the science and research budget and, for the first time, included the research funding going to universities via the Higher Education Funding Council for England is so that our universities can be confident that they have secure and protected research funding for the life of this Parliament.
Mr Jones
Durham university is not only world-class but, along with the other four universities in the north-east, a key driver of the regional economy. What assessment has the Minister made of the visa changes and the capacity of Durham, and those other four universities, to attract overseas students, especially when we read in the press that students from India and other countries are choosing Canada and the United States, rather than the UK?
Mr Willetts
Let us be clear about what the Government have done. We have tackled abuse in bogus colleges and the issue of overseas students who, sadly, did not have the necessary academic qualifications to benefit from coming into higher education in this country. That abuse had to be tackled. We now have a clear message that legitimate students are welcome, with no cap on numbers, to come from anywhere in the world to study at British universities. I work very closely with our universities, including the university of Durham, on trade missions to get that very positive message out across the world.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
16. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on the potential effect on process manufacturing of the Government’s policy on energy pricing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb)
The Secretary of State regularly meets the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to discuss energy and climate change policies, including their impact on manufacturing. We are committed to ensuring that manufacturing remains competitive, and in the autumn statement we announced a package worth £250 million to reduce the impact of policies affecting the cost of electricity for electricity-intensive industries most at risk of carbon leakage.
David Mowat
In January, the Department of Energy and Climate Change published figures showing that 18% of electricity costs for business go towards supporting the renewables industry. Last week, in the Financial Times, the chief executive officer of Solvay said that high energy prices are a bigger issue for his business in the UK than the eurozone crisis. What assurance can the Minister give us that as we decarbonise, we do it as cheaply as possible to ensure that we minimise value destruction and the number of jobs lost?
Norman Lamb
I give the hon. Gentleman that absolute reassurance. In terms of global carbon emissions, it makes no sense for a business to relocate to another country, so we will do everything we can to ensure that businesses remain competitive.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
My Department has a key role in supporting the rebalancing of the economy and businesses to deliver growth while increasing skills and learning. May I repeat, Mr Speaker, that the Secretary of State has a long-standing commitment to be in Berlin and Düsseldorf and therefore regrets not being able to be with us today?
George Freeman
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK’s life sciences in areas such as biomedicine, clean energy and agriculture offer a huge potential opportunity for us to drive a sustainable recovery here in the UK by supporting sustainable development in the developing world, and that our science base, not least in Norwich research park in my county of Norfolk, has a key part to play in that revolution?
Mr Willetts
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I will be visiting Norwich research park later today and will be able to announce £250 million of research funding going into life sciences across the country. Alongside the commitment to human health that we have already made, this will be a commitment to research in animal health, plant breeding and the agricultural industries of the future.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
This Government inherited an economy that was growing, with unemployment falling and a recovery settling in. The revised GDP estimate for the first quarter of this year, far from being revised up, as some expected, has just been revised down. With the country in a double-dip recession created by this Government, 50 businesses going under every single day, and over 2.6 million people out of work, this shambolic Government have been squabbling over a report produced by a millionaire Tory donor that suggests that all would be well were it not for people’s rights at work. Why on earth are they going along with this nonsense instead of, for example, implementing the active industrial strategy that we need?
Mr Willetts
Let us be clear: this coalition Government also inherited an economy that had been hit by a major financial crisis because of Labour’s failure to regulate financial services, and unsustainable levels of Government borrowing which the head of the International Monetary Fund said earlier this week caused her to shiver when she thought what would have happened if they had not been tackled. We are committed, rightly, to reducing the burden of red tape and regulation on the economy, and alongside that we are constructively investing in and supporting the industries of the future.
Mr Umunna
This is a no-growth Government with their head in the sand. They blame businesses, they blame the people who work in them, and now they blame the eurozone, when countries such as Germany and France are not in recession and we are. They said that they would increase lending to small businesses, but there has been a net contraction in lending to small businesses in every single month of this Government. They said that they would support different industries, from defence to renewables, but they have failed to do so. They boasted that their regional growth fund would create more than half a million jobs, but the National Audit Office tells us that it has created less than a tenth of that. We have always known that Tory-led Governments are heartless. Do today’s figures not demonstrate that they are hopeless too?
Mr Willetts
That pre-prepared speech had nothing to do with the reality of the industrial strategy being pursued by this coalition, which is delivering big increases in exports to the big markets of the future. Exports to China are up 18%, exports to India are up 29% and exports to Brazil are up 11%. Employment is up, inflation is down and public borrowing is down. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) is usually such a measured and emollient fellow. He must calm himself.
Mr Willetts
We are committed to working with all our partners across the British economy, including business, to ensure that there is investment in the high-tech businesses of the future. The recent announcements of investments in General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover and GlaxoSmithKline show that the strategy is bearing fruit.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
T6. Last week, UK Trade & Investment put on an extremely useful event for businesses in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). Subsequently, my constituent, Simon Chater, has expressed concern about the cost to small and medium-sized enterprises of using the overseas market introduction service. Will the Minister confirm that UKTI is doing all it can to support SMEs that are seeking to export, including working with other Departments to identify new markets?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb)
I was delighted to hear about the event in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who has made arrangements with 70 MPs to hold similar events around the country. We have to do a lot to encourage SMEs to export. The level of exports from our SMEs is below the European average, so we need to tackle that. Many UKTI services, including its initial consultations, are free. It has a particular focus on helping SMEs to increase their exports.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
T2. The Government have recently designated Tyneside a centre for offshore renewable energy. In welcoming that designation, I ask the Minister to set out the economic development advantages of such a designation. What assistance can the initiative expect from UKTI, which operates under BIS? Will Ministers urge senior officials to visit Tyneside, and to promote this Government initiative at home and abroad?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important industry and an important location. The local enterprise partnership is doing very well in that area and we are encouraging offshore energy through the work of UK Green Investments. If there were additional points in his comprehensive question, I know that the relevant Ministers will be happy to deal with them.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
T7. The Government’s introduction of the national careers service is welcome. The Business Secretary has made it clear that there must be face-to-face careers advice for targeted groups of adults. Will the Department try to win the argument across Government, including in the Department for Education, that face-to-face careers guidance is vital for everybody, and that mentoring for all young people in an important complementary project?
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
It was Odysseus who entrusted Mentor with the guidance of his son, as now the nation’s sons and daughters are entrusted to me. To that end, we have set up the first all-age careers service in England’s history. It is right that schools should have a statutory duty to secure independent and impartial advice and guidance. The right hon. Gentleman is correct that face-to-face guidance is an important element of that. I commit to having further discussion to see what more we can do to ensure that such guidance happens.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
T3. It is six years this year since the collapse of Farepak. The victims have still not received any of their money back, even though the administrators’ costs to wind up the company far outstripped the minimal compensation that they will eventually receive. Does the Minister understand just how frustrated Farepak customers and agents are, and does he have any positive progress to report?
Norman Lamb
This whole saga has been a nightmare for those affected by it, and I have enormous sympathy with them for the plight that they have suffered, which has dragged on for so long. The hon. Lady and I have had one attempt to meet, and I am happy to meet her and work with her to assist those who have been affected.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
When it comes to growth in small businesses, I commend the Minister for Universities and Science for the energy and intelligence with which he has enacted high-tech policies for high-growth industries. However, we must be careful not to pick individual winners within those sectors. Does he agree that backing Britain’s successful high-tech sectors is the key to releasing economic growth and securing the jobs and competitive international advantage that we should enjoy?
Mr Willetts
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we act on the advice that we get about the big, general-purpose technologies of the future and do not randomly hand out grants to particular businesses, as happened all too often in the past.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
T4. I am an avid viewer of “The Apprentice”, and I enjoy trying to work out who is next in Lord Sugar’s firing line. As television it is brilliant, but it is far removed from the real world of people trying to find work, stay in work and prosper in it. Can a Minister explain to me how making it easier to sack people will create the jobs that my constituents in Lewisham so desperately need?
Norman Lamb
The clear message that should go out is that the best way to get the best out of employees is to recruit well and invest in staff, and in that way to maximise productivity. I remain far from convinced that taking protection away from 25 million employees in the UK would do much for confidence in this country.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that Harlow has the highest business growth in the United Kingdom and a new enterprise zone that will open next year and create 5,000 new jobs? Will the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is responsible for cities, visit Harlow, even though it is a town, and see what more we can do for jobs and growth?
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
It would be a pleasure to go back to Harlow with my hon. Friend. We are about to conclude the first round of city deals, but I will make an announcement shortly to invite other places across the country, especially those that have prospects of high growth, as I know Harlow does, to put their innovative ideas forward.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
T5. Will the Minister for Universities and Science reassure the House that the introduction of any student premium to offset the impact of tuition fee increases, as proposed earlier this week by the Deputy Prime Minister, will not be at the expense of the funding that is provided for the widening participation premium and currently allocated to universities by the Higher Education Funding Council for England?
Mr Willetts
I have just written to the Office for Fair Access and HEFCE to ask them to assess the effectiveness of the very large amount of money that is now used for that purpose through the widening participation premium and universities’ access funding. We fully recognise that the different strands of money have different purposes, and that some of it is there to meet universities’ particular needs through WPP funding.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
As someone who benefited from a similar scheme in the 1990s, may I ask the Minister to update the House on the progress of the new enterprise allowance scheme? Will he ensure that it is yet another flagship programme, like the new apprenticeship schemes?
Mr Prisk
I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the scheme is a great way of ensuring that we provide microfinance and experienced business advice. That is what the allowance is specifically designed to do. We have examined past models that have worked, and this one will help thousands of unemployed people become self-employed people.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
T8. Can the Government clear up the confusion on their own Benches? What part of the Beecroft report do the Government accept, and what part do they reject?
Norman Lamb
The Government are implementing many elements of the Beecroft report. In fact, Adrian Beecroft has already had discussions with officials in my Department and his report includes a lot of measures that the Department was already considering implementing. A call for evidence is out on no-fault dismissal, and it is right to examine the international evidence. We will report after that evidence has been collated.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
May I urge Ministers to ignore the canned melodrama of the shadow Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary on the Beecroft report? Will the Minister confirm that the current call for evidence from very small businesses in Britain will be objective?
Norman Lamb
I can absolutely confirm that. It is always right to base policy on evidence—[Laughter.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister is seeking to respond in a very professional way. Whether Members agree with him or not, they ought to hear him.
Norman Lamb
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.
It is interesting to note that the evidence gathered from Germany suggests that there was very little change to the level of employment in small businesses after the reforms.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The Million+ group of universities has concluded that the new fees regime to be imposed on mature students will deter many thousands of them from going to university. That will damage their life chances, and it could damage the universities, but it will also restrict the talent available in our economy. Will the Government think again about fees for mature students?
Mr Willetts
Many mature students are part-time students, to whom this Government have for the first time extended loans to cover the cost of fees. That is one of the many features of our higher education reforms of which we are very proud.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I am sure the House will join me in celebrating the fact that SMS Electronics in Beeston in Broxtowe has been a lucky recipient of a Queen’s award for enterprise. Many small businesses tell me and others that they need less regulation and oppressive red tape if they are to grow. Will a Minister please confirm something that I was told today: that under the previous Government, there were six new regulations every working day?
Mr Prisk
There were six regulations every working day under the previous Government. I am proud to say that instead of having 1,500 Labour regulations every year, this Government have reversed the pattern. There were just 89 last year. That is real progress, and good for businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Do the Government accept the evidence from R3 that businesses in administration find it expensive or impossible to trade because of the ransom tactics of suppliers, particularly on-suppliers. Will they address the shortcomings in the Insolvency Act 1986, which fails to provide firms with the protections they would have under chapter 11 in the United States?
Norman Lamb
I will look into the issue the hon. Gentleman raises and will be happy to discuss it with him.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I am sure all hon. Members welcome the publication of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which sets out some great initiatives, including the green investment bank and the fight against red tape. Will the Minister work with local government to ensure that it applies regulations judiciously as opposed to ferociously?
Mr Prisk
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The primary authority scheme, which was started by Labour, will be extended under this Government to ensure that the enforcement of regulation, which is often just as burdensome as the red tape itself, will be appropriate in that locality.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Sixty redundancies have been announced today at the open-cast mine at Kirkconnel. It is in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but it will affect my constituency in east Ayrshire. What are the Government doing to support the coal industry?
Mr Willetts
Earlier this week we produced our energy strategy, which involves ensuring not just a fair deal for consumers, but sustaining investment in energy in Britain.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not want the Minister to lose his handkerchief. It is about to fall out, but I am sure he can rescue it.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May we have an answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) from a Conservative Minister? Why is it easier to hire people if it is easier to fire them?
Norman Lamb
It is important that we have a business environment in this country that attracts inward investment. However, interestingly, surveys show that employment protection is not one of the barriers that those seeking to invest in the UK see.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
From today’s answers about regulation, it appears that, in the Government’s eyes, progress has already been made. Why, then, has growth slowed so far that we are now back in recession? Does that not show that all this deregulation is not working and that we need measures to increase demand?
Mr Willetts
Growth has slowed because of the problems in the eurozone driven partly by levels of regulation much greater than those in Britain.
Business of the House
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of House please give us next week’s business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
Next week’s business would not take very long, but the business for the week commencing 11 June will be:
Monday 11 June—Second Reading of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill.
Tuesday 12 June—Second Reading of the Defamation Bill, followed by motion on a European document relating to the proceeds of crime.
Wednesday 13 June—Opposition Day [1st allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 14 June—There will be a debate on mental health. The subject for this debate was previously suggested by the Backbench Business Committee.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 14 June will be:
Thursday 14 June—Debate on piracy off the coast of Somalia.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Twenty four years ago today, Parliament passed legislation introducing section 28 into law. It was a nasty, discriminatory law that caused a lot of bullying and misery. After a fierce three-year battle, in the teeth of Tory opposition, we repealed it in government. Last week, I asked the right hon. Gentleman about the Government’s position on equal marriage. In reply, he spoke eloquently about the importance of equality, but by an unfortunate oversight—I am sure it was an oversight—he omitted to answer my question. This morning, the Government’s position has become clear. Lacking the courage of the Prime Minister’s convictions and threatened with a growing revolt in the Cabinet, they have decided to grant those opposed to equal marriage a free vote, meaning that the Government’s flagship policy on equal rights will become law only with Labour support. Will he arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement to say when legislation will be introduced, because there was no sign of it in the Queen’s Speech?
The Prime Minister was no doubt delighted to receive from Steve Hilton his leaving gift, a copy of the Beecroft report, which is the worst attack on workplace protection in a generation. His gratitude was clearly short lived, because only a few days later No. 10 was briefing The Daily Telegraph:
“No one really has any idea what went on with this report, it was very much Steve Hilton’s project. The whole thing is a bit dodgy and we wish it had never happened”.
Liberal Democrat and Conservative Ministers have spent the last few days fighting over it, and the shambles has continued with the report’s author attacking the Business Secretary by calling him a “socialist”. Only a hedge fund boss and Tory donor could call someone who voted for a tax cut for the richest 1% a socialist. Where was the Business Secretary today, by the way? He was in Berlin. Will the Leader of the House prevent Secretaries of State from being out of the country when there are questions to answer in the House? It is perfectly reasonable for them to arrange their trips at other times of the week.
Yesterday, the Government published the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. The Leader of the House announced a moment ago that the Bill will be the first thing we consider on our return. The Bill contains a small section on employment law. Will he reassure the House that the Government will not bring forward amendments to the Bill to implement more of the Beecroft report?
The senior Liberal Democrat BackBencher, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), introduced a petition this week opposing the Government’s decision to impose a caravan tax. I thought I must have missed him in the Division Lobby when the Opposition tried to prevent the Government from introducing this unfair tax, but according to Hansard he voted for it. The Liberal Democrats voted for the pasty tax and pretended to oppose it in their constituencies, and now they campaign against the caravan tax, which they voted for. Is there any bit of this bungled Budget that they are prepared to support in their constituencies?
These Liberal Democrat tactics are clearly infectious, because four Conservative Back Benchers have started doing the same thing: they have introduced petitions opposing the caravan tax that they voted for. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a statement to remind his Back Benchers that if they want to campaign in their constituencies against Government policy, they should at least vote against it when the matter is before this House? People are beginning to notice.
Ministers have recently been complaining that the country has not been working hard enough. We have to wonder what planet they are on. Families up and down the country are struggling to make ends meet, worried about job security, worried about how they will afford rising fuel and food bills, and angry that the Government are doing nothing to help. Can the Leader of the House confirm that when Ministers complain that the country needs to work harder, they are in fact thinking about the Prime Minister? We learn this week that his aides say that he spends
“a crazy, scary amount of time playing Fruit Ninja”.
We have a Chancellor who is trying to do two jobs—both badly—while the Prime Minister fills his time slicing fruit on his iPad.
On a day when the Office for National Statistics has announced that the double-dip recession is worse than we thought, Liberal Democrats and Conservative Ministers are slugging it out in public. The Conservative party is fighting among itself on equal marriage and House of Lords reform. Government Back Benchers are denouncing in their constituencies the measures that they voted for in Parliament. Does the Leader of the House not think that instead of losing his temper and ranting at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister should just get a grip?
Sir George Young
I wait patiently for questions about next week’s business, but they are pretty hard to find. Let me go through the issues that the hon. Lady touched on.
The Government are consulting on equal marriage, which the Labour party did not consult on, or indeed do anything about, when it was in government for 13 years. The consultation is under way; it has not finished. Along with other issues that involve matters of conscience, it seems to me perfectly proper that this matter should be subject to a free vote on this side of the House, and that is what we plan to do.
We had a statement on Beecroft on Monday. We have also had BIS questions, a large chunk of which were all about Beecroft, and I am not sure that the Leader of the House can usefully add to what has already been said.
The hon. Lady asked about the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which has been published. The Bill, which will be debated when we come back, sets out the Government’s proposals on the subject. Of course the Government will listen to the House if it proposes amendments to the Bill. For her to ask me to rule out any Government amendments is to say that we should be denied the opportunity of listening to the views of the House, including those of Opposition Members, so of course we will be in listening mode on that issue.
On VAT on static caravans, the Chancellor announced a number of measures in the Budget to address anomalies and loopholes. We extended the consultation period on the measures to 18 May, and we are now considering the consultation responses, including the petitions that hon. Members have presented to the House. The Government will respond on the issue of static caravans later in the summer.
On not supporting in the Division Lobbies that which Members may have supported in early-day motions, I would just remind the hon. Lady of the incident with the post office closures in the last Parliament. We tabled a motion that very closely resembled early-day motions that had been signed by Government Members, and then, miraculously, they were not in the Lobby when the Division was called. I therefore think she needs to be cautious about that.
As for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s temper, I am amazed that the hon. Lady has the audacity to raise that, in the light of the somewhat irrational behaviour at times of the previous Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker
Order. The House is getting a little over- excited. First, it is seemly if it does not do so. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Procedure Committee, is an extremely senior Member of the House—one might say he was a cerebral and celebrated figure—who should be heard with courtesy.
Mr Knight
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am obliged; I did not realise.
May we have a debate on reducing unnecessary animal suffering? Has the Leader of the House seen the recent remarks made by Professor Bill Reilly, the ex-president of the British Veterinary Association? He said that it was “unacceptable” to slit the throats of cattle, lambs and chickens without first stunning them. Given that this unacceptable practice is rife and is even used in cases when the customer does not require it, when are the Government going to take action?
Sir George Young
I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) last week. I explained that the Government’s view was that it was much better that an animal be stunned before slaughter, but that there were certain sensitive religious issues involved. There is some evidence that the incidence of non-stunning exceeds that required for religious reasons. I do not recall the exact words that I used a week ago, but I think I am right in saying that I told my hon. Friend that the Government had the matter under review. I will ask the Home Secretary to write to my right hon. Friend to bring him up to date with our proposals.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware that, while we are not seeking to reduce the hours that the House works, many of us wish to rearrange them. Has he any information on when the Procedure Committee will report on this issue? When it does so, will he ensure that there is a full debate on the matter, with amendable motions, on the Floor of the House?
Sir George Young
That question would have been better answered by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). The Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into our sitting hours, to which the shadow Leader of the House and I have given evidence, and I understand that it is making good progress. I hope that it will produce its report before the summer recess and that the House will find time to debate it. I also hope that the report will be structured in such a way as to enable the House to vote on a series of options, so that Members’ preferences can be indentified before we move on to the next stage.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Good news, Mr Speaker! Since I asked my question last week, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has now put the minutes of many of its board meetings on its website. They reveal a lack of attendance by most of its members. Indeed, at the meetings on 30 January and 8 March, no board members attended, other than the chairman. They participated by telephone instead, and one assumes that that enabled them to qualify for their £400 daily allowance. Given that the meeting of 8 March
“had been convened in order to consider the outcome of the consultation on MPs’ pension contributions and to approve IPSA’s corporate plan for 2012/13”,
does the Leader of the House agree that, at the very least, we as Members should have a debate on what the IPSA board is up to?
Sir George Young
IPSA is an independent body set up by the House to adjudicate on our pay and pensions. There might be an opportunity to address the issue of membership when the terms of office of some existing members run out and the question of reappointment, or the appointment of new members, arises. My hon. Friend’s intervention shows the effectiveness of Back-Bench Members in getting results at business questions. I remind him that he had an opportunity, I think earlier this week, to cross-question members of IPSA about their performance. No doubt he took that opportunity when it presented itself.
Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
The Leader of the House might have seen an article in The Daily Telegraph today that contained a leak of written evidence that had been given in confidence to the Public Accounts Committee. All the members of my Committee will be extremely distressed at this, as the evidence was very sensitive and the leak could cause damage to those who provided it and to the companies involved. In the circumstances, will the Leader of the House confirm that he and the officials of the House and the Government will co-operate fully with the leak inquiry that I have instituted on behalf of the Committee?
Sir George Young
As a former Chairman of a Select Committee, I know just how damaging leaks can be to those Committees’ cohesiveness and effectiveness. The right hon. Lady will know the process that can be instituted to conduct a leak inquiry. It is initially a matter for her Committee, but if I remember rightly, the matter can then be taken to the Liaison Committee. Of course the Government would co-operate if any leak inquiry then took place.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I am sure I am not alone in having my postbag filled with correspondence from constituents concerned about planning decisions. In Staffordshire Moorlands, in particular, there is great concern about some changes to roads in Leek that involve the removal of a roundabout. This planning decision was taken in December 2010 under Labour’s failed planning laws, so will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Localism Act 2012 and the national planning policy framework and on how, as a localist document, it will help to ensure local people feel that their voice is being heard in future planning decisions?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for a good example of the improvements that I believe will be derived from our new localism agenda. I think we debated this back in March. For the first time, local people can produce neighbourhood plans, which will become a formal part of the planning system. Although I cannot promise another debate, there will be an opportunity later today, if my hon. Friend so wishes, to participate in the Whitsun recess debate to raise this matter. Our reforms strengthen local planning and we want local people to decide what they need and how their needs should be matched.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
There is growing bewilderment in Europe and concern among the Danish presidency that the UK is dragging its feet on proposals for Rio+20 that the Government had previously advocated. Will the Leader of the House obtain a clear commitment—perhaps from No. 10 or the Cabinet Office—that no instruction to that effect has been given to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, so that the Prime Minister, who has been appointed by Ban Ki-moon to do the follow-on from Rio, might look extra good afterwards by ensuring that expectations of the outcomes from Rio are dampened?
Sir George Young
I doubt whether there is any substance in the hon. Gentleman’s allegations about a somewhat sinister conspiracy to dampen expectations in the hope that the outcome might then look better. I will seek the necessary assurances and convey them to him.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I know the Leader of the House is a keen cyclist—possibly the most celebrated cyclist in the House. May we have a statement on what support the Government can give to Yorkshire’s bid to bring the grand départ of the Tour de France to our great county?
Sir George Young
Modesty forbids me from endorsing the claim that I am the most famous cyclist in the House. I enjoy seeing many of my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members at the bicycle shed after the last Division of an evening. I applaud my hon. Friend, who I believe is in touch with the all-party cycling group, which, under the guidance of its chairman, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), has decided to endorse the Yorkshire bid. As a Government Minister, I have to be a little cautious in case a rival bid should come forward from another county—possibly Hampshire. Although the Government are neutral, I commend my hon. Friend’s initiative.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
The membership of the Backbench Business Committee has now been elected and waits to be endorsed by the House when we return on Monday 11 June. We hope to have our doors open for business as usual on the following day, Tuesday 12 June, at 1 pm. Will the Leader of the House suggest a way by which I could make such a public service announcement in a business question?
Sir George Young
I think that, in a sense, that question contained its own answer. I am delighted that all the parties co-operated—and I include you, Mr Speaker —in ensuring that the Backbench Business Committee was established pretty quickly at the beginning of the new Session. I am delighted that it is up and running. Any Members with bids should indeed turn up at 1 o’clock on Tuesday 12 June in order to put their submissions to the hon. Lady’s Committee.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I was pleased to see that unemployment in Vale of Glamorgan fell during the last quarter. I know that the Leader of the House will be more than familiar with Bruce Dickinson, the lead singer of the rock group Iron Maiden, who has committed to creating 1,000 jobs in my constituency in the St Athan enterprise zone over the next 18 months. May we have a debate on enterprise zones and their success or otherwise in creating new employment opportunities so that best practice can be shared across the whole United Kingdom?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and delighted to hear of the initiative to which he has referred. On our first Monday back, there might be an opportunity to develop this further in the context of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. One thing we wanted to do with enterprise zones was to encourage investment and employment growth in those parts of the country that had suffered from the recession. I am pleased to hear that that initiative is now having success, with companies locating in enterprise zones, taking advantage of the tax breaks and other incentives available there.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Given that my hospital trust has still not been allocated its budget despite the fact that the Government have carried out three financial appraisals of the hospital, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, may we have a debate on the incompetence of Health Ministers?
Sir George Young
There will be an opportunity on Tuesday 12 June, shortly after the House returns, to put questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. In the meantime, I will make some inquiries to see why the hospital trust in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency has not apparently had its allocation for the current year.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The Chancellor wisely established the Office of Tax Simplification in order to try to deal with the extraordinary, infamously long and complex tax code handed to us by the previous Government. My right hon. Friend may know that, this week, the 2020 Tax Commission launched an excellent report, brought forward by the Institute of Directors and the TaxPayers Alliance. May we have a debate on this report, on tax simplification and, overwhelmingly, on the performance of the Office of Tax Simplification?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the imperative of simplifying the tax system. He will know some of the initiatives that we have already taken. The Finance Bill is before the House, so there may be an opportunity to table amendments to introduce some of the initiatives recommended in the publication he mentioned. There may be an opportunity for a further debate when the Finance Bill returns to the Floor of the House. I applaud the work of the Office of Tax Simplification, and I hope that in future Budgets, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be able to make further progress in making the tax code easier to understand.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware of early-day motion 55, which strongly opposes the concept of regional pay for public sector workers:
[That this House notes the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s decision to give Government departments freedom to localise public sector pay; believes this will undermine pay review bodies by shifting wholesale to local bargaining in the public sector; further believes pay review bodies nationally are a better way of delivering flexibility while keeping a lid on costs; considers the Government’s plans will set hospital against hospital and school against school; opposes unfair discrimination against nurses, teachers and civil servants according to where they live when they are doing the same job; recognises that many successful large national companies use national pay bargaining for their staff pay; further recognises that with record unemployment and more than five jobseekers per job vacancy across the UK there is little evidence the public sector is crowding out the private sector; further believes this policy will offer nothing to private sector workers in low pay regions; fears this policy will instead remove substantial sums from the regions and devolved nations with the least, and reduce spending power and harm local economies as a consequence; and calls on the Government to suspend this policy until a full and independent assessment takes place on the economic impact of the policy and to engage meaningfully with all stakeholders affected by this policy across the UK prior to implementation.]
He will also be aware that a significant number of those sitting on the coalition Benches have signed up to it. May we soon have a debate—in Government time, but on a free vote—so that we can work out whether the Cable tendency in the coalition is going to oppose regional pay, which would be of enormous advantage to the nation?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have asked a commission to look at the whole issue of regional pay, so I think it would be premature to have a debate before that work is completed, which I believe is expected in the autumn. Thereafter it might be worth while to have a debate on the issue. So far as tensions within the Government are concerned, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that he was a member of a Government where the tensions within a one-party Administration were far greater than any tensions in the present two-party Administration.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
May we have a debate on freedom of speech, following on from the news that the Law Society in its conference arm last week banned the session on marriage that was to be addressed by the distinguished judge Sir Paul Coleridge and the Marriage Foundation? Does my right hon. Friend, like me, deprecate this suppression of debate on an area of great public policy importance?
Sir George Young
I am not sure that it is the responsibility of a Minister to comment on that, although I understand my hon. Friend’s views. I will share his concern with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—just to see whether there is a role for Government to play in this.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware that British Airways won the contract to buy British Midland Airways. Many of us have concerns about that, but little did we know that in Northern Ireland, the east midlands and Scotland, hundreds and hundreds of people are being made redundant because TUPE does not apply. Will the Leader of the House allow us a debate so that Members affected can put their views to the appropriate Department—whether it be the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or the Department for Transport? If that cannot happen, will he arrange a meeting between appropriate Members, British Airways and the appropriate Department?
Sir George Young
I will certainly use whatever influence I have to promote a meeting along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Of course I understand his concern that TUPE does not apply in the particular circumstances that he outlined. I will share his concern with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to see whether there is a role for her to play in bringing this to a satisfactory conclusion.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
May we have a debate on the positive impact that the Government are having on Merseyside, given the delivery of the Cruise terminal in Liverpool, the Government’s role in securing the future of Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port, and the historic signing in China this week of an agreement on significant investment in the Wirral enterprise zone?
Sir George Young
I am surprised that the shadow Leader of the House did not mention some of the good news for Merseyside, given her interest in the area. This is an example of our attempts to redirect growth away from, for example, the City of London, and to ensure that parts of the country that have had a rough time get the benefit of growth. I am delighted to learn of the success that my hon. Friend has described.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Leader of the House will know, tonight there is to be a jubilee party for all who work in the House. Does it concern him that members of staff here are increasingly worried about their inability to deliver a first-class service to Members of Parliament who represent the people in their constituencies because of cuts, including job cuts, and the fact that this place is being run as though it were a business rather than a service in a democracy? Indeed, the very security of the Palace of Westminster is of concern to the people who work here. It is about time we woke up and did something about this. May we have a debate on it?
Sir George Young
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those who work for the House. I am aware of their concerns, and I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that my fellow members of the Commission are aware of them as well. Earlier this week I had a meeting with a staff representative, who shared some of those concerns with me.
We want to keep our staff on side. Genuine discussions are taking place between the management board and representatives of those who work in the House, so that they can be aware of what we are planning and have an opportunity to influence decisions before they are made. Ultimately this will be a matter for the Commission, but we share the hon. Gentleman’s interest in maintaining a good relationship with those who work here.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
Boxley’s Butchers, based in Wombourne, has won many prizes over the years for its fantastic produce, including, most recently, the diamond jubilee pork pie. May we have a debate on how we can encourage the supply and sale of more local produce from all our constituencies, including Boxley’s pork pies, here in the House of Commons?
Sir George Young
Boxley the Butcher could be straight from Happy Families.
I congratulate Boxley’s on what is obviously a high-quality product, and congratulate my hon. Friend on promoting it. The House is a good showcase for food and drink. My hon. Friend may know that last October all nine Members representing Norfolk constituencies held a celebration of Norfolk food and drink in the Palace of Westminster. He and fellow Members representing his county may wish to follow Norfolk’s initiative.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I shall be working hard in Dudley next week, but given that we are back in recession, and given the other huge challenges facing the country, is it not completely wrong that the House is not sitting then? That may suit our chillaxing—whatever that means—Prime Minister, and it may suit the part-timers and moonlighters on the Government Benches who prefer to line their pockets as barristers and business men instead of doing the full-time job that their constituents sent them here to do, but I think that it reflects really badly on the standing of the House that we shall not be here for another week. And while we are on the subject, is it not about time—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying “Is it not about time that we sat next week?” I have got the gist, and I think that the Leader of the House has as well.
Sir George Young
The House decided without a Division that it would not sit next week or the week after. I am not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman was when we made that decision; perhaps he was not here. Let me make a serious point, however. When the House is not sitting, Members of Parliament are working. Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman compares the first three years of this Parliament with the first three years of the last Parliament, he will see that this Parliament will be sitting for longer.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
High-cost debt has been a huge problem for many families for years, and now payday lending is growing fast as well. May we have a debate on the new feasibility study by the Department for Work and Pensions on helping credit unions to upscale and modernise so that they can offer a real, reasonably priced alternative?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is right: credit unions and community finance organisations have a key role to play in helping those on low incomes to balance their books, particularly when they do not have access to bank accounts. I believe that a week ago a written ministerial statement announced a feasibility study setting out the way forward for credit unions. We are listening to representations made on the basis of that, and will announce our decisions shortly thereafter.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
May we have a statement on gun law? It is some time since the Home Affairs Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), issued a report on firearms control. There were some terrible events in my constituency on new year’s day, and I think it is time that we had an opportunity to question the Home Secretary on the Government’s intentions and on how we can best protect public safety.
Sir George Young
The Government would normally respond to a Select Committee report within a given number of weeks—I think that it is eight weeks—and I hope that we responded in time to that report. However, I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s concern about gun law with the Home Secretary, and will ask her to write to him setting out our proposals in that important area.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
One of my hon. Friends has already raised the issue of animal welfare. May we have a debate on animal cruelty, and, in particular, on the sentences given to those who wilfully seek to kill domestic pets? A case was brought to me by Mrs Angela McDowell of St Anne’s, whose pet had been deliberately poisoned with anti-freeze in milk. The person who was found guilty received a lenient sentence.
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s strong views. I do not know whether he will be able to raise the issue of animal cruelty at greater length during the debate on the Adjournment later today, when my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will be in a position to respond. If he cannot do that, I will raise the issue again with the Home Secretary. There is an outstanding commitment in respect of circus animals, which the Government will want to honour in due course, and that legislation may provide an opportunity for the House to deal with other issues involving animal cruelty.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On a day on which we have discovered that the double-dip recession is worse than it was expected to be, may I ask whether we can have a debate on the two great challenges with which the Prime Minister has been wrestling over the last 12 months, so that we can learn which of them he found more daunting—Angry Birds or Fruit Ninjas?
Mr Speaker
I see that the Leader of the House is struggling to identify a governmental responsibility, and I must say that I share his struggle. I think that we will move on.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
May we have a debate on the Government’s support for Serbia’s plans to accede to the European Union, given its lamentable record on human rights? That record is exemplified by article 359 of its penal code, which has been used to incarcerate my constituent Mr Nick Djivanovic since 28 March 2011. A country that continues to use a measure crafted by Marshal Tito to incarcerate political prisoners has no place in the European Union which it aspires to join.
Sir George Young
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As he will know, any country applying to join the European Union must meet certain standards on human rights and other related matters, and there can be no question of an accession when those basic standards have not been met. I cannot promise an early debate, but I will pass on to the Foreign Secretary my hon. Friend’s deep concern about the issues that he has raised.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May we have a debate on how many Liberal Democrat Ministers it takes to represent this country abroad? Things are surely getting a little bit shoddy when a whole string of Ministers do not turn up for their questions in the House. The Police Minister, the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary, the Culture Secretary and the Business Secretary have all not turned up for questions. It is just not good enough. This is the priority: they should be answering questions here, because otherwise we cannot do our job.
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman was a Minister in, I believe, the Foreign Office, and he will know that in order to represent this country’s best interests, Ministers occasionally have to go abroad. The Business Secretary is fighting for British industry in Germany and helping to win jobs for this country. It is perfectly appropriate for Ministers to represent this country abroad occasionally, even if it means being absent from the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman went abroad occasionally when he was a Foreign Office Minister.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Last night I learned that the plaque marking my father’s grave has been stolen, along with a huge number of other plaques in Beckenham cemetery. I am sure that all Members share my utter contempt for people who would steal, and trade in, such memorials. The Government have taken some action in relation to the scrap metal industry, but may we have a debate on what other measures might be needed, and in particular the proposal raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s question on whether this should be an aggravating factor in sentencing?
Sir George Young
I am very sorry to hear of what happened to my hon. Friend’s father’s tombstone; I understand how distressing that must be. He will know what the Prime Minister said at yesterday’s PMQs. We have already taken some steps in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, but we recognise that other measures may well be needed. The Government are actively considering what further steps we might take, such as increasing the penalties and having a better regulatory regime for scrap metal, in order to avoid distressing incidents such as that which my hon. Friend described.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Please may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Wales on why this week, out of the blue, she published a Green Paper on redrawing the Welsh Assembly boundaries, even though the Prime Minister assured the Welsh First Minister that there would be no change in the electoral arrangements without the agreement of the Welsh Assembly?
Sir George Young
A Green Paper is a Green Paper; it is a consultation. If the hon. Lady has views on this matter, I am sure she would be able to respond to the Secretary of State for Wales, but I will draw her concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and ask her to write to her.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Following the question from the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the Leader of the House now knows that matters that were before the PAC in private have been leaked to a national newspaper. They were taken in private on the advice of both the Speaker’s Counsel and the Clerk of Committees, and they were not able to be verified. Will the Leader of the House confirm that an inquiry could be conducted by either the Clerk of the Committee or the Chairman, and will he also confirm the penalties available for those found guilty of a breach of parliamentary privilege?
Sir George Young
On the latter point, I can, because I was Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which has taken action against Members who have leaked Select Committee documents. Members have been suspended from the House for doing so. The other issues are more a matter for the House than for the Leader of the House. I am sure that the Chair of the PAC has noted what my hon. Friend has said about the process of instituting a leak inquiry.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Members across the House are growing increasingly concerned about the evidence of interest rate swap mis-selling by banks. Members are hearing about firms in their constituencies that are being put out of business because of such hedge fund products. May we have an urgent debate on this issue, and ensure that banks do not foreclose on businesses while investigating whether mis-selling took place only then to have to go back and make compensatory payments after that business has collapsed?
Sir George Young
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. Earlier this week we had a debate on the Financial Services Bill before it went to the other place, and in the Queen’s Speech there is a commitment to legislate on banking reform, so there may be an opportunity in the near future to address these issues.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Great Yarmouth has inherited historically high unemployment rates, so it is pleasing to see that since March unemployment in Great Yarmouth has fallen by 3%. Schemes such as enterprise zones, the youth contract, apprenticeships and work experience are clearly having a positive impact in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate to discuss how we might take such schemes even further, so as to have higher falls in unemployment in the future?
Sir George Young
I am pleased to hear of the drop in unemployment in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The youth contract kicked in last month; hopefully, it will provide half a million new opportunities for 18 to 24-year-olds to find work through subsidies to employers. On the Monday when we return, there may be an opportunity to develop this theme further in the context of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. Like my hon. Friend, I am heartened by the recent fall in unemployment, the increase in employment and the progress that is being made in regenerating his part of the country.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Is the Leader of the House as excited as I am about the prospects of Leicester’s singing sensation, Engelbert Humperdinck, at this week’s Eurovision song contest? Will he find time for a debate—or, perhaps, some other parliamentary procedure—so that Members who are fans of “the Hump” can express their support not only for his singing, but also for his extensive charity work?
Sir George Young
I applaud his extensive charity work. There is an opportunity to raise this topic later today: in the upcoming debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment almost any issue may be discussed with my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who is in his place. So if the hon. Gentleman stays on in the Chamber for just a little longer, he can develop that theme at greater length—and perhaps even put it to song.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I believe that this House has not had a dedicated European affairs Question Time since 1985. As what emanates from Europe affects our national life and economy so greatly, will consideration be given to reintroducing that?
Sir George Young
If we were to do that, it would displace the Question Time of another Department. At present, Question Time is focused on departmental responsibilities, but responsibilities for Europe stretch across various Departments. In the last Parliament, there were cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall, at which Ministers from a range of Departments answered questions on cross-cutting issues. I have to say that I think that was a failure, which is why it was discontinued. Against that rather unpromising background, I am not sure I can give much encouragement to my hon. Friend.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is being all but annihilated, and the Government now intend to repeal significant sections of the Equality Act 2010. How will this be done? Will it be the subject of a debate on the Floor of the House, and will we have the chance to vote on it?
Sir George Young
I think I am right in saying that the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill contains clauses on the EHRC, so there will be an opportunity for the hon. Lady to say a few words about this matter when we debate that Bill on the first Monday when we return.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Please may we have a debate on the progress being made in tackling the deficit, and has the Leader of the House found time to review the International Monetary Fund scorecard given to the UK in the late 1970s?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend raises a good point. In my first Parliament, the IMF visited this country and the report it produced then sharply contrasts with the report it has just produced. Speaking from memory, the then Chancellor, Denis Healey, had to put to his Cabinet colleagues a freeze on all public sector capital investment that was not already committed, a freeze on all uprating of benefits and substantial reductions in capital expenditure. One simply has to contrast what the IMF said then, two years into the term of a Labour Government, with the benediction it gave to the policies we have been adopting when it came here this week.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have a debate on one of this country’s treasures from the era of the industrial revolution: our network of canals and waterways? Unfortunately, litter and debris can be a considerable problem in our canals, but I am pleased to be able to say that in Stalybridge we have agreed a regular monthly clean-up, paid for by the local supermarket. By putting in place similar arrangements, we can open up these assets to an even wider group of our fellow countrymen.
Sir George Young
This is the big society in action. I commend what is happening in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and I hope other groups will also do what they can to improve the environment in our canals and rivers. I cannot promise an early debate on this topic, but there will be an opportunity to raise it later today in the debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The overwhelming majority of the British public will have been delighted with the Prime Minister’s response to the question about votes for prisoners from the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) during yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions. Can the Leader of the House confirm that, as far as the Government are concerned, this matter is closed and that the Government will accept the verdict of this House in its vote in the previous Session and will not introduce any further legislation or proposals to give prisoners the right to vote?
Sir George Young
As my hon. Friend said, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a robust response yesterday to the question he was asked on prisoner voting. We welcome the fact that the Court has accepted our arguments that each state should have a wide discretion on implementation. We will be considering the judgment carefully and its implication for the issue of prisoner voting in the UK.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
As a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, I was concerned to learn this morning that the Government have plans to waste thousands of pounds on destroying buzzards’ nests in an attempt to protect game birds. Will the Leader of the House investigate the possibility of a debate on how the Government are protecting and preserving the UK’s native wildlife species?
Sir George Young
Like the hon. Lady, I saw those reports in the press today, and I understand her concern about the implications for the buzzard. I will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and ask her to write to the hon. Lady.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
The 177,000 additional apprenticeships delivered by this Government—an increase of 63%—have been a real benefit to young people in Pendle, where unemployment fell again last month. May we therefore have a debate on the importance of apprenticeships and giving all our young people the best possible start in life?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I believe that he asked a question on roughly the same lines in Department for Business, Innovation and Skills questions, but it is a question worth putting twice. I say to him, and to all hon. Members, that we should do all we can to promote apprenticeships in our own constituencies and remind employers of the extensive help available to firms that want to take on apprentices. He mentioned the rise of 177,000 or 63%, which is a huge achievement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues at BIS.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the good proposal that Aung San Suu Kyi addresses us all in Westminster Hall? But could we make that a day to reflect on all the other political prisoners, perhaps by putting up their portraits and showing a video of them. I am thinking of Leyla Zana, a Turkish parliamentarian—one of us; a Member of Parliament—who has been condemned to 10 years in prison because she speaks up for Kurdish issues. I am thinking of Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese Nobel peace prize laureate, who is in the gulag. I am thinking of Dau Van Duong, a Catholic pro-democracy activist who is with his friends in the Vietnamese communist gulag. Interestingly, neither the Prime Minister, nor the Foreign Secretary has had the guts to speak out for these people in recent trips to China and Vietnam. Can we get their portraits up and show a video, so that the whole world knows that, whatever the Government do on human rights, we as MPs believe in these people, support them and want to give them maximum publicity during this great lady’s visit?
Sir George Young
I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said, as did you, Mr Speaker, because many of these issues are more issues for the House—in fact, for both Houses—than for the Government. All I can say to him is that his suggestions have clearly been heard by the Speaker, and it lies more with the Speaker than with the Government to take them forward.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Unemployment in Tamworth fell by 3.3% last month and, pleasingly, youth unemployment is at a 12-month low. So may I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) in calling for a debate on job creation, so that we can explore what further measures the Government can take to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises, such as Forensic Pathways in my constituency, to recruit still further?
Sir George Young
I am delighted to hear that unemployment has fallen in my hon. Friend’s constituency. As I said in response to an earlier question, there may be an opportunity to discuss the issue further when we debate the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which contains a number of measures to promote employment. He will know that we have a national loan guarantee scheme to get cheaper loans, that we have the most competitive business tax system in the developed world by cutting corporation tax and that we are cutting red tape. He will have heard in the exchange with BIS Ministers the other steps we are taking to promote employment in all parts of the country.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I understand that private assurances have been given to coalition Members by Treasury Ministers that the caravan tax issue will return to the Floor of the House. Can the Leader of the House confirm that that is correct? A number of coalition MPs who voted for the caravan tax presented petitions against it on Tuesday this week, and I would like them to be given the opportunity to vote against it on the Floor of the House.
Sir George Young
A large number of hon. Members presented petitions on behalf of their constituents, which is a perfectly proper thing to do. It is a matter for the House authorities what amendments are selected when the Finance Bill comes back to the Floor of the House and, indeed, what amendments are proposed in Committee. On the hon. Lady’s direct question, I have no knowledge of any private undertakings that may have been given on this subject.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Following the theme of caravans, a company in my constituency lost a day’s production because a mobile home and two caravans turned up and camped on its premises. The people involved told my constituents that they needed £500 in cash or more vehicles would be coming to join them. The police were sympathetic to my constituents’ case, but said that this was a civil matter. May we have a debate about the sanctions against intentional trespass?
Sir George Young
I am not a lawyer, but what my hon. Friend has described sounded to me a little bit like criminal behaviour—trespassing on someone’s land and then demanding money to go away. I would like to share this issue with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see whether there is a combination of civil or criminal penalties available to cover the circumstances that my hon. Friend has described. I understand how disruptive it must have been to have that presence in an industrial estate.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
A number of my constituents have had visitor’s visas refused—they are from India and Pakistan—with alarming regularity. They are missing important family occasions such as funerals and weddings, and they cannot appeal because that takes too long. They have been running up costs of up to £1,000, despite cast-iron guarantees that they will return. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have an urgent debate on whether the policy is being applied in the same way throughout or perhaps even an explanation from the Minister for Immigration?
Sir George Young
This is a matter for the Home Office, but I am sure we have all had constituents who have had their applications turned down and then found that the process of appeal is somewhat lengthy. In some cases, the best thing to do is simply to reapply, having taken on board the reason why the refusal was given and sought to overcome it the second time around. I will share the hon. Lady’s concern with the Minister for Immigration and ask him to write to her.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
We in this House enjoyed the Humble Address presented to Her Majesty the Queen, but we should recognise that when we are away from Parliament we will be celebrating her diamond jubilee and that that is something we hold in common with a quarter of the world’s population, through the Commonwealth. May we have a debate in Government time when we return about the United Kingdom’s special relationship with the Commonwealth?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend makes a very positive suggestion. It may be that in the first instance it is appropriate to approach the Backbench Business Committee to see whether it can organise a debate on the Commonwealth, as I would be misleading her if I said that in the very near future the Government will be able to find time for such a debate.
Feed-in Tariffs Scheme
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
Today is an important day for the UK solar sector. On 9 February, I published a consultation setting out proposals to ensure the future of the feed-in tariffs scheme for solar PV. These wide-ranging reforms will make it a bigger scheme, providing better value to consumers and more certainty to both industry and government. Today, I am announcing the Government’s final decisions on those proposals and explaining how we are working in partnership with the industry to make the feed-in tariffs scheme just one part of an even bigger plan to ensure a strong framework for the ambitious roll-out of low-cost, high-impact solar installations across the UK.
In recent weeks, we have received a lot of helpful input from a wide range of stakeholders, including businesses and consumers, who have entered into really constructive engagement with the Government in a spirit of genuine partnership and a determination on all sides to get the proposals right. I believe that the resulting improvements and reforms to the FITs scheme will now put it on a predictable and sustainable long-term footing for householders, communities, business and the UK solar industry, so that industry and consumers alike can face the future with real confidence.
We have listened carefully to what industry has shared with us. Our reforms and assumptions have been informed by further independent expert analysis of both the technology and installation costs, which remain on an encouraging cost path; and we have been monitoring closely the very latest trends in deployment. As a result of that careful listening, we have decided that the continuing cost reductions in PV technology and installation justify further changes in tariffs, but that, to help the sector through the period of transition, the changes should be made on 1 August, rather than 1 July as we had originally proposed.
On 1 August, we will raise the export tariff for new solar PV installations from 3.2p to 4.5p better to reflect the real value of solar electricity exported to the grid. Generation tariffs will continue to be uprated in line with the retail prices index, following strong support from consumers and industry. To bring PV into line with the tariffs applied to other feed-in tariff technologies, the lifetime for which tariffs are paid to new installations from 1 August will be reduced from 25 years to 20. However, that change has been taken into account when setting generation tariffs, so that the overall rate of return is not affected.
We set out in our document a range of options for reducing tariffs further. but, having listened carefully to the sector, I am announcing today that the generation tariffs for nearly all installations will be at or above the highest of the options we consulted on in February. The exception is the smallest domestic installations rate, for which we had proposed a range of tariffs from 13.6p to 16.5p, and for which we have decided on a tariff of 16p. The new tariff reflects the particularly strong performance of the industry in bringing down costs in that crucial part of the sector.
The tariff for multiple installations will now be set at 90% of the individual tariffs, up from 80%. Those tariffs are designed to give a return on investment of more than 6% for most typical, well sited installations, and up to 8% for larger bands. The mechanism for setting future tariffs that I am publishing today is slightly different from the one we proposed in February. In particular, it should smooth out deployment more evenly and provide greater budgetary control and predictability for investors.
TLC is what I have always set out to provide: transparency, longevity and certainty. I believe that that is exactly what our new framework will deliver. As we go forward, predictable and transparent tariff changes might be made every three months, at the beginning of November, February, May and August. The amount of the tariff cut, if any, will be announced at least two months in advance and—crucially—it will depend not on a political judgment, as it did in the old system introduced by the previous Government, but on uptake in the previous three months; so if uptake in May to July is very low, we will announce before the end of August that there will be no tariff cut in November. The default reduction, if deployment is within the published thresholds, will be 3.5%. If uptake is higher than that, the cut will be increased.
All the changes are designed to set a clear, predictable framework within which the solar industry can flourish, but we need to go beyond that to unblock any barriers to the development of solar PV in the UK and to continue the drive towards widespread cost-effective deployment. That is why the Department of Energy and Climate Change is developing, in partnership with the industry, an enterprise strategy for solar, reflecting the serious and significant future that solar PV now has in the UK energy economy, and helping to realise the coalition’s vision of a far more radically decentralised energy sector than we inherited. As part of that, I expect solar to feature prominently in the renewable energy road map when we update it later in the year.
More is needed, however. The huge strides made so far in bringing solar manufacturing costs down need now to be repeated in the installation end of the business. That is why I have now set up a PV cost reduction taskforce, involving leaders from the solar industry, and will be working proactively with it on the challenge of bringing down the installation costs of UK solar PV. We will also continue our regular dialogue with the PV manufacturers’ group, which played a key role in helping us to understand the cost drivers and trends in this dynamic industry, and with our FITs PV round table group, which I will meet again early next week. Those groups will play a vital role in helping us to monitor developments in the solar industry and to support future decision making, ensuring that UK solar can reach its cost-effective potential. In addition, we will continue to invest in science and innovation. The work of Research Councils UK supports early stage solar PV development, with a commitment to spend about £40 million on researching solar technologies between now and 2014.
Finally, I welcome a particularly encouraging sign of new leadership and confidence in the UK solar industry: the proposals to establish a national solar centre. That exciting and far-reaching plan to set up a national solar centre in Cornwall is being developed by Cornwall council and the Building Research Establishment. That is great news for the south-west and further evidence of the solar industry’s coming of age.
The solar sector has come through a difficult period of adjustment but now, thanks to our major reforms and the coalition’s continuing support, it can face the future with genuine confidence.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Unfortunately his office sent the statement and the 39-page consultation response document just over half an hour ago, so I have not been able to study it in detail. I was, however, able to get details of what was in the statement from someone at Friends at the Earth, who had been briefed by his Department before I received a copy. Perhaps the Minister can share with us why that was possible.
The chaotic manner in which the statement came about tells its own story about the Government’s approach to feed-in tariffs. No one disputes the need to bring down the FIT level in an orderly fashion, but the Government’s chaotic mismanagement of that process threatens a growing industry and undermines investment across the entire low-carbon sector. This debacle, a mess created by this Minister, began more than eight months ago and has so far cost the Department more than £80,000 in legal fees.
Once again, the Government are sneaking out changes to feed-in tariffs on the day before a recess. They did it in February and they have done it again today. The Minister threw a lot of smoke and mirrors about why he is moving the July deadline, but the truth is that he is changing the deadline not because he wants to but because he has to. Will he confirm that the Government have missed the deadline by which they were legally required to provide notice to Parliament for the next round of cuts to have come into force by 1 July? Is not his incompetence the real reason he has been forced to come to the House today?
On the detail of his statement, will the Minister tell us whether, despite the changes announced today, the number of installations will still drop by a third this year? I welcome the announcement that tariffs will continue to be linked to the retail prices index, but what estimate has he made of the effect on take-up of the reduction from 25 to 20-year payments? If take-up remains low, what measures will he introduce to boost demand to meet his ambition of 22 GW by 2020?
The Minister says he wishes to set up a PV cost reduction taskforce. What mechanisms will he put in place to ensure that a cut in the cost of installation does not lead to an increase in rogue solar installers? If demand does exceed the deployment level set by his Department, what will be the additional cut to the tariff above the 3.5% he has announced today? He says that he listens to the industry, but if he really listened he would not have dragged it through the courts, trying to impose devastating cuts that went too far and too fast. He lost that battle. This entire process has been a long list of blunders by the Minister and his Department. Will he now agree to independent oversight of the feed-in tariff to prevent future mishandling of the scheme?
In February, the Minister said that his cuts would
“deliver for far more people”—[Official Report, 9 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 473.]—
and more than under Labour, but the number of installations has collapsed since his last cuts came into force in April. He said that his Government would deliver 22 GW of solar power by 2020, but at the current rate of installation that target will be missed by more than 100 years. He also said that he would put the industry on a sustainable footing, but a devastated 6,000 people have lost their job as a direct result of his actions last summer.
The Government’s rushed changes to feed-in tariffs go too far and too fast, hitting squeezed families who are trying to protect themselves from soaring energy bills and paralysing an entire industry. Instead of supporting businesses, he put thousands of jobs at risk and left the sector living on its nerves. Today was a chance to end the uncertainty and lay out a clear path to 2020, but the Minister has failed to set out his plan to deliver his 22 GW by 2020. He said that he wants to deliver TLC—I have noted the phrase transparency, longevity and certainty on a number of occasions—but all we got today was more of the same: more chaos, more confusion and more cuts.
Gregory Barker
I am very sorry that the Labour party is stuck in this rut of doom-mongering, carping and sapping the confidence of the industry. Everyone I have spoken to, right across the board, wants to re-inject a sense of confidence and energy into this vital sector, but rather than rally around the sector Labour Members are determined to sap confidence even more and send chaotic messages to people who are trying to make a living—all for short-term, petty political gain. Rather than look at the long term, they are just playing politics.
As for sneaking out an announcement on the last day before recess, it may be that this is a half-day, slacker’s shift for Opposition Members, but for coalition Members it is a full working day. Obviously, the hon. Lady sees today as part of the holidays, but I assure her that we are at work.
Let me be absolutely clear: we have not moved the date by one or two days, or one or two weeks. If that was what we wanted to do, we could have done it, but we wanted to send a very clear message to the industry that we are listening. We have moved the date from 1 July to 1 August in a very planned, deliberate and thoughtful way, and I think the industry will be glad of that change. The bottom line is that had we wanted to meet the 1 July deadline, we would have had to lay the measures sooner, but we did not want to meet the deadline of 1 July. The deadline is now to have the measures in place to allow the cuts to take place on 1 August. I thought that even the Opposition would have been capable of working that out.
The hon. Lady asked about ambitions for installation. Continuing to build deployment is key for a sustainable UK industry. I can tell her what our impact assessment will say and what the coalition’s clear ambition and expectation is. Under the totally unfit-for-purpose scheme produced by the current Leader of the Opposition as one of his last acts in government, about 250,000 solar panels would have been put on to roofs. I can say to the hon. Lady that, thanks to our reforms, there will be more than 1 million solar panels on British homes by the next general election. I am really proud of that. Delivery will be far more cost-effective than it would have been under Labour’s scheme, and unlike that scheme ours will be delivered on a long-term basis, free from political interference, and it will be much more transparent, sustainable and predictable.
On the 2020 ambition, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that solar is a transformational technology. Developments around the world now lead us to be confident that we can deliver on a very high ambition, and mine is 22 GW by the end of the decade—but that depends absolutely on our driving down costs. How and where we do that and the point at which we do it will be critical. That is why I am determined to work more closely with the industry.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know that one of consumers’ biggest concerns is the size of their household energy bills. Can he say what impact his scheme will have on the average household bill, compared with the previous scheme?
Gregory Barker
Absolutely. Had we proceeded with Labour’s scheme, at least £61 would have been added to hard-pressed consumers’ bills. Under our proposals, because we are taking advantage of the rapidly falling costs and passing those on to consumers up and down the country, we anticipate that just £9 will be added to consumers’ bills.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Feed-in tariffs are a means of ensuring that investors’ risk relating to future prices is resolved. The Minister has talked about listening to the industry and about long-term certainty. Will he speak to his fellow Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who is responsible for energy policy, to make it clear that the proposals on feed-in tariffs published earlier this week in the draft Energy Bill do not address any of the other four risks that investors in the industry face when looking at long-term renewables? In particular, investors are not satisfied that they do anything to address construction risks. If they do not, there will be no new build and the lights will go out.
Gregory Barker
The lights would have gone out if Labour had still been in office, that is absolutely clear. I am not here to answer questions on electricity market reform and I would be ruled out of order if I did, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that he is absolutely wrong. Our proposals on EMR and the introduction of a feed-in tariff to replace the renewables obligation will bring greater certainty and investment, and will ensure that the lights do not go off under this coalition Government.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and the move away from the rigid system whose legacy was tremendous uncertainty in the industry. I welcome also the excellent news for Cornwall about the national solar centre. On the need for certainty in the industry, his statement presupposes that a cut in the tariff might be considered every quarter. Of course, we do not know what will happen commercially, but can he reassure the House that there might be occasions, albeit perhaps very rarely, when that tariff might need to go up as well?
Gregory Barker
Large-scale deployment of solar will be achieved only if costs come down, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the way in which the new mechanism works means that if deployment suffers because the tariff clearly is not generous enough, that will be reflected in the figures that inform the cut. If deployment undershoots, there will be no cut in the following quarter—or, indeed, the quarter after that if it is still undershooting. My expectation is that industry costs will continue to fall in the short to medium term, although perhaps not at the staggering rate that we saw last year and in the first quarter of this year. We certainly look forward to some very exciting times in which the industry not only becomes cost-competitive with all the other major renewables, but actually reaches grid parity within this decade.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Carillion Energy, which is headquartered in my constituency, is undoubtedly keen to benefit from the Minister’s TLC, but I wonder whether he truly comprehends the devastating impact that the recent chaos and U-turns have had in Newcastle, with people afraid for their jobs, small companies going bust and large companies unable to plan. Many have sought to focus on the green deal to create new jobs. Can the Minister guarantee that the green deal will meet its targets and so incentivise the move to a low-carbon economy and the creation of the jobs that go with it?
Gregory Barker
I can indeed. I can also say that, within the past few days, I have met the chief executive of Carillion, who was very confident and positive about both the green deal and the way we propose to take forward the wider green agenda.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the statement. It shows that we are incentivising companies to cut costs and that we no longer have an unaffordable scheme that simply allows people to get rich from a financial investment. The typical rate of return of 6% shows that people can do the right thing and still get a small reward.
Gregory Barker
My hon. Friend is, once again, absolutely right. We have taken the scheme from one that was for the lucky few who were able to afford high-cost installations to one that helps to encourage reductions in the cost of solar installation, and offers a sensible reward for people to do the right thing through well sited installations. It has gone from being a scheme for the few to a scheme for the many.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
When we were in government, the hon. Gentleman was always boasting that he would go further and faster, but actually he fell at the first hurdle. He talks about the gloom and doom among the Opposition, but we are simply representing the people who have lost their jobs, the companies that have gone to the wall and those who have had to take legal cases against the Government. Will the Minister tell me his view on the future of the social housing sector, given the information from the National Housing Federation that he received in the consultation?
Gregory Barker
Yes. I think the right hon. Lady will find there a strong welcome from social housing for the proposals we have set out. We are increasing the level of aggregated tariff from 80% to 90%. As the costs come down, it becomes affordable for all consumers to support the roll-out of solar PV on social housing and other mixed-tenure low-income homes. The scheme can now be rolled out at real scale, unlike the cottage-industry, not-fit-for-purpose scheme that we inherited from Labour.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
For PV businesses in East Hampshire, what message does today’s announcement give in terms of investment predictability and the sustainability of the sector? What are its growth prospects compared with what was envisaged by the former Energy and Climate Change Secretary, who now leads the Opposition?
Gregory Barker
The growth prospects are very strong. There is now real visibility, not just for the next few months or until the next political review. Industry and investors alike can plan for the long term with real confidence, because there is no end date on the scheme. There is no sell-by date for the formula we have established; it is an enduring, long-term scheme—certainly much better than the appalling car crash of a scheme that we inherited from Labour. People can invest with certainty and the predictability of reasonable, sensible returns.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
Everyone, including the industry, accepts that the cost of PV is coming down. The PV scheme has been one of the most successful at getting home owners involved in renewables. Does the Minister not think it is sending the wrong signal to choose the smallest domestic installations as the only ones where he has not gone for the highest possible tariff under his new options?
Gregory Barker
The hon. Gentleman should understand that I am not using consumers’ money—that is what it is: subsidy that comes directly from consumers and consumer bills—to send signals or to play politics. The tariff needs to reflect the genuine underlying costs of installing solar. That was totally missing from the scheme we inherited; it is now at the core of the new tariff framework. As a result of the particularly strong falls in the costs of smaller systems, we are able to set a tariff that accurately reflects, as far as we can, the return of around 6% that we think is sensible and makes it attractive for people with the right roof to install solar.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that even after today’s changes, solar will be the most heavily subsidised form of low-carbon electricity generation? When will it reach the same cost status as other forms of low-carbon generation, and when could it reach grid parity?
Gregory Barker
It is not the most highly subsidised form, although it is one of them. It is certainly true that, per unit of electricity generated, the domestic rate of 16.5p is still substantially more than the rate given to onshore, or indeed offshore, wind, for example. The really exciting thing is the speed at which we anticipate the costs continuing to fall. Using a crystal ball, particularly in the Chamber of the House of Commons, is never a very good idea, but I think that industry experts are increasingly saying that we can reach grid parity by the end of the decade, and many others say that it could come a lot sooner. That is why I am determined that, unlike under the previous Government, when it was treated as a cottage industry for anoraks, solar will be a major part of our energy strategy.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The fact is that Britain is years if not decades behind Germany across the whole field of renewables in general, and solar in particular. That is down to the baleful influence of the six big energy companies, which have had a hold over successive Ministers, successive Governments and, above all, officials in the Department of Energy and Climate Change. When will the Minister tell his officials to look at Germany and imitate here what the Germans do?
Gregory Barker
It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman has managed to blame officials in my Department, the big six energy companies and practically everybody else he could think of, apart from the people who ran the country for 13 years and the last Labour Energy Secretary, who is now Leader of the Opposition. I will tell him why we were third from the bottom of the renewables league table and why we inherited a disastrous position on the solar scheme. It is entirely due to the incompetence, mismanagement and laziness of the last Government.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
Clearly, I welcome the Government’s decision to invest in Cornwall and to support development there. The pathway that has been set out for the feed-in tariff will give a measure of security to those who are looking to invest in the technology. I urge the Minister to be cautious when listening both to the Opposition, who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the feed-in tariff, and to those who point to the impact on bill payers, when the rising costs of fuel and other technologies will add to their bills too. It will not just be feed-in tariffs. Would the Minister or one of his colleagues be prepared to meet me and someone who has recently developed a large scheme in my constituency, to talk about the issues they face and their ideas for supporting the Government’s work in the future?
Gregory Barker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the shadow Energy Secretary voted in the House against feed-in tariff schemes. This opportunistic conversion to the merits of feed-in tariffs is pretty shameless.
I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. I am keen to meet stakeholders who contribute to new ideas that contribute to driving forward the deployment of an exciting technology.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
What would the Minister say to Revolution Power, an award-winning green power company in my constituency? It has had to lay off a third of its work force. The Minister refers to them as anoraks, but I would refer to them as hard-working people who are now on the dole because of the incompetence of the Government on this issue over the past year. The company foresees a short-term rush of orders for solar panels over a few weeks, but is worried about its long-term integrity and its ability to go forward because the goal posts are being moved all the time.
Gregory Barker
Let me be absolutely clear: I most certainly was not referring to workers in the industry as anoraks; I was saying that was the mindset of Ministers in the previous Government, who set up a woefully inadequate feed-in tariff scheme that we have had to pick up, repair and reform. If the hon. Gentleman looks at our proposals, he will see that, as a result of our reforms, they are transparent and that there will be far less political interference and far fewer political judgments. The scheme we have announced will provide a basis for getting the solar industry, including Revolution Power, back on a firm footing, allowing it to grow predictably and strongly in the future.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
By replacing the incredibly short-sighted system introduced by the Labour Government, does the Minister agree that TLC, which I warmly welcome in all Departments, will lead to much more innovation, much more development of technology and refinement of solar power manufacturing and installation processes, thereby lowering the price for everybody concerned?
Gregory Barker
Absolutely. We looked carefully at the lessons from Germany when putting the scheme together—it is a great shame the previous Government did not do that. We have tried to make the scheme as predictable as possible to inject that vital element of TLC. As a result, I anticipate that the cost of capital will come down in due course, which will free up more spending for innovation and research. The Government obviously have a part to play in that, but this is an incredibly innovation-rich sector and I expect that we in the UK will now thrive.
Whitsun Recess
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of a pardon for Alan Turing, the celebrated wartime code breaker and father of the modern computer. My reason is twofold. First, Bletchley Park, where Alan Turing did much of his famous work, is in my constituency. Secondly ––a more timely reason––23 June will be the centenary of his birth. The centenary should be a celebration of his achievements and what he did for this country. There is also the issue of whether he should be pardoned for the so-called crime of which he was convicted in 1952, which led directly to his death two years later at the age of 41.
Before turning to that, let me remind the House of the debt this country, and indeed the whole world, owes this man. He was a brilliant mathematician and his role at Bletchley Park in deciphering the messages encrypted by the German Enigma machine was vital. He led a team that designed a machine, known as a bombe, that decoded the Germans’ military messages. So vital was that information to the allied campaign that, without it, the war might have lasted much longer and, indeed, its outcome might have been very different. How many lives of allied servicemen, residents of cities in this country bombed by the luftwaffe and people transported to Nazi extermination camps were saved by his work? It is no exaggeration to say that we probably owe our very liberty to his work and his genius.
It is also fair to say that he is the father of modern computing. He produced the first academic papers on artificial intelligence, which paved the way for modern computers. Who knows where technology would be today without his pioneering work? I hope that Parliament will be able to mark his centenary next month in some way. I am applying to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate close to that date so that we can pay proper tribute to his work.
There is a more controversial matter that I would like to raise today and ask the Government to have a serious think about. In 1952, Alan Turing, by then working in Manchester, met and fell in love with a young man and had a sexual relationship with him. That affair came to the attention of the police. Homosexual acts were illegal at the time and he was charged and convicted of gross indecency. Upon conviction, he was given the choice between imprisonment and probation conditional upon his agreement to undergo hormonal treatment designed to reduce libido—effectively chemical castration. He chose the latter option. His security clearance was withdrawn, meaning that he could no longer work for GCHQ. It is now well documented that the consequences of that treatment led directly to him taking his own life by biting into a cyanide-laced apple in 1954. In my view, the state effectively killed him. What a disgraceful way to treat a hero of this country.
In our thankfully more enlightened times, his so-called crime is now perfectly legal. Welcome steps have been taken to apologise for how he was treated. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), rightly issued an official apology on behalf of the Government. I referred to that action in my maiden speech and I am happy to repeat my praise for it, but more could be done. There is a campaign and an e-petition to grant Alan Turing a formal pardon, and to date nearly 34,000 people have signed it. Both local newspapers in my constituency, the Milton Keynes Citizen and MK News, are backing the campaign.
So far, the Government have been reluctant to accede to this request. I raised the issue with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during business questions and he replied:
“I understand that an application for a royal prerogative of mercy was made on the basis that the offence should not have existed but, sadly, one cannot give a royal prerogative on those grounds. I will have another look at this, but I am not sure that there is a case for intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice. That could happen only if fresh evidence came to light to show that the conviction should not have taken place. The argument that the offence should not have existed in the first place is not normally a ground for prerogative.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2012; Vol. 541, c. 1018.]
I understand that argument but ask the Government to look again. If a pardon in the traditional sense is not legally feasible, is there some other way in which this could be done? After all, it is an area of law on which the Government have recently taken welcome action. Under the recently passed Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a person who has been convicted, or received a caution for, an offence under sections 12 or 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or corresponding earlier Acts can apply to have their conviction or caution disregarded. Those were the same “offences” for which Alan Turing was convicted. If a full pardon is not possible, could not the disregard be applied posthumously for Alan Turing?
My call today is simply for the Government to take a fresh look at the matter and explore all possibilities. We owe so much to this great man. The coming centenary of his birth affords us a great opportunity to put right the wrong that was done to him, and I urge the Government to look carefully at the matter.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for asking me to speak in this debate. Obviously, it is of huge significance to my constituents that I can raise some points that are of concern but that do not seem to fall within the scope of particular issues when the House is discussing them.
The first issue I want to discuss is the situation at BAE Systems, which deeply concerns me. BAE Systems is a major employer not only in Samlesbury, Warton, Brough and other areas, but throughout Lancashire and the north-west because of its supply chain. The aerospace industry is huge and there would be a colossal impact if it were slowly to move away from the north-west. I have deep concerns that BAE Systems has a large investment in Texas, and the British Government do not seem as committed as I would like them to be to the projects that BAE Systems is currently engaged in.
I welcome the recent announcement of 175 jobs. It did not escape my attention that those jobs arrived in this country with our current employment laws, not those proposed in the Beecroft report. The Government are keen to trumpet jobs in the car industry and other industries such as aerospace, so the absence of the hiring and firing proposed by Beecroft does not seem to have had an adverse impact on those 175 jobs. However, the reality is that the jobs are set against a background of thousands of job losses. I understand that BAE Systems is trying to mitigate that and reduce the number of job losses to several hundreds. How successful it will be remains to be seen, particularly given the doubts about the joint strike fighter and the orders with Lockheed Martin in America. It could well be that thousands of jobs are lost and those 175 jobs for the Hawk, although welcome, simply will not reverse the cataclysmic decline in employment and skills in the county.
I want to raise some questions about the Hawk deal. Will there be a successor to the Hawk? It only has a certain lifespan, so where is the investment in, and the forward thinking on, the next trainer plane? What are we doing about Britain’s interests? Replacing the Hawk requires a long lead-in time, and, if we do not start considering our aerospace future, we might run out of products that we can sell to the world, with exports such as the Hawk to Saudi Arabia becoming a distant memory in 10 or 15 years’ time. That really worries me.
A lot of BAE Systems’ hopes in the north-west seem to be pinned on unmanned aerial vehicles—UAVs—and, in particular, on the Taranis, so I should like the Deputy Leader of the House to state the Government’s commitment to ensure not only that they are manufactured in Britain and bought and endorsed by the British Government, but that we have an active industrial policy to push UAVs. They are clearly the future and a chance for BAE Systems to maintain production in the north-west, but, if the Taranis and UAV programmes should decline, fall or move elsewhere, they would begin the collapse of military aerospace in the region. I have deep concerns about the issue, so I should welcome his comments on that.
All that is set against the chaos of Lancashire’s enterprise zone. Last July, the Business Secretary declined to offer the region an enterprise zone; then Sky News ran a breaking story that 3,000 jobs were to be lost in Warton and Samlesbury, and within 24 hours the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a U-turn on the enterprise zone decision, stating that it would go ahead—based on 24-hour rolling news.
It was a chaotic situation that should not have been allowed to arise, particularly when it involved such a large employer that adds so much to the GDP of the area and of the country in terms of defence, and adds to skills and to the supply chain for other manufacturers and areas in the region. I have really deep concerns about that, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can put them to bed.
On the implications of that situation, I note that youth unemployment in my constituency has risen to 232% of its 2010 figure, and I have real concerns, because, if we lose aerospace, what impact will that have? The availability of work in the area appears to be declining, and I wonder where the future lies for my constituents, while we are in a double-dip recession and while economic policies are not working nationwide and, in particular, in the north. There is a north-south divide, and we are seeing the impact of that, but it is not just the young people in my constituency who are suffering, but the long-term unemployed, who are becoming the even longer-term unemployed.
The third issue that I draw to the attention of the Deputy Leader of the House is the number of people who are applying for the few vacancies that exist. Increasingly, people are forced to go for part-time work, rather than full-time, and they are struggling to make ends meet. Those concerns of mine and of my constituents reflect the economic downturn that of the past couple of years under, I am afraid, his Government, and they are impacting severely on my constituents, who are deeply worried. It should come as no surprise to him that, in my local authority area and in neighbouring areas, people at polling stations only two weeks ago rejected the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties and voted Labour. He must be deeply concerned about that, because he cannot say that the voters are wrong; he must listen to them and to their concerns. Having raised the issue of youth and long-term unemployment, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House takes it as seriously as I do and does not just say, “It will all be all right in a couple of years’ time.” These are chronic issues, the backbone of which is the industrial base in the region.
Another concern is the country’s nuclear programme, which does not particularly affect my sub-region, the east of the county, but does affect the west and the supply chain. There are huge doubts about the programme, and, given that the west is home to some large nuclear industry employers, that could have a grave impact on one of this country’s great manufacturing areas. The Deputy Leader of the House must be concerned about those issues, and I hope he will address them.
The bottom line is the increasing number of people turning up at food banks in Lancashire, particularly in the east of the county. In the corridor from Chorley to Hyndburn, people are turning up, desperate, unable to feed themselves and reliant on handouts from supermarkets and other generous donors, and that is a real concern.
Today, growth figures were revised down, from a contraction of 0.2% to 0.3%, and, if the Deputy Leader of the House looks at that geographically, he will find the south-east flatlining while the north-west and my area are taking a disproportionate hit, with the north-west contracting not by 0.3% but possibly by double or treble that, thereby giving rise to the figures I cited earlier on youth unemployment.
The chaos and confusion around BAE Systems is worrying, and it concerns many of the electorate in our area. When they see headlines involving the Navy buying ships from Korea, they find it deeply disconcerting. We have naval production in Barrow, in the north-west and throughout the country, and when people see such things they question what precisely the Government are doing in their economic strategy.
More locally, when we look at procurement, we think of Lancashire constabulary. Why are they not buying British cars? They recently bought cars from Korea, but how can that possibly be right? How is that rebalancing the economy? How on earth can Britain be a manufacturing country when just down the road in Lancashire there are Vauxhalls on offer to the police authority, which has gone and bought Korean cars? For all the talk of rebalancing the economy, it is either hypocritical or just lazy when we are not actively engaging with public services—these are public services—that procure foreign vehicles. It is not just vehicles, but ships and other things too.
The car industry in the north-west and the north in general is another major manufacturing employer, and we have heard the Government fanfare on cars, but, when Ministers say that we now have a balance of trade surplus, I think, “You probably have.” Because if the public services are procuring cars from overseas, not domestically, that is one way to achieve a trade surplus—not by increasing exports, but by diminishing domestic demand. That is what has happened with Lancashire constabulary and with other public services, and in all that there is a whiff of hypocrisy, with the Government taking their eye off the ball.
There is a national crisis in adult social care, but I shall reflect on the situation in Lancashire, which really needs some attention. Older people in Lancashire have been badly let down by the county council and by Lancashire’s Conservatives. I have raised the issue before, but, for example, our local Conservatives have raised the daily charge for day centre care from £5 to £30, and they are going to double it to £60. Some people might believe that this is the market and people should pay the cost, but let me explain the consequences. If 20 people are required to keep a day care open, but only 10 people can afford such extortionate charges so it closes, everybody loses. Then the danger is that there will be no market because it will have collapsed. Day care providers tell me that these increased charges mean that they are thinking about closing their businesses. The day centres will be shut and people will be unable to access such services—even those who can afford them. All the community links and personal links that our ageing population have built up will be lost.
For people who go to these centres, particularly those who are vulnerable and may have dementia, it is very confusing to be asked or forced to go to a different place to meet other people and to have to pay these charges. They are vulnerable people who should not be pushed around like this. Greater consideration should be given to the unintended knock-on consequences of the ridiculous charges that have been brought about by the austerity policy of the coalition parties, whose members do not fully appreciate the consequences. No wonder the voters look at these fees and think, “This is not the austerity that we want. It is undermining civil society and undermining my family. There must be other ways we can deal with this.” The electorate are unhappy, hence the election results.
The problem does not end there. There has been a wholesale attack on elderly people in Lancashire, who have been really let down by the Conservatives. The removal of funding for community transport means that people sometimes cannot get to day care centres. Extra charges are being added. People are not just paying £30 but another £3 or £4 for community transport and, on top of that, £6 or £7 for food. In total, elderly people are having to pay about £41 a day just to turn up.
It is not just the provision of day care centres that people are upset about and where there is a crisis in Lancashire. In addition, the local authority is failing to consider the private provision of day care. Day after day, I speak to people in my surgery who are deeply concerned about the inadequacy of the home help service that they receive and the lack of safeguards. We have seen the crisis that surrounds respite care and permanent residential care, and the scandals that have occurred in those settings. However, something that never gets talked about is the fact that home helps who go to the properties of vulnerable elderly people, who often have dementia and are unable to act as consumers, provide what they and their relatives feel to be an inadequate, and in some cases appalling, service. That scandal needs to be looked at. I am sure that the majority of people feel that the current system is unsatisfactory and that there are no safeguards. People are starting late, clocking off early and providing a poor service because they know that their customer is 95 years old, has dementia, is infirm, and cannot move. That is generally the situation, and it is not right.
The situation is not helped by the removal of some care packages by Lancashire county council. For instance, it removed the allowances for shopping and laundry that were given to the infirm and those with dementia who cannot do their own shopping and washing. We now have elderly people trapped in their own homes who are able to receive some help, but not allowed to receive help with shopping and laundry. It seems that an 89-year-old with dementia will be advised that they must use the internet or phone up to get Asda to do a home delivery, or ask their neighbour or relatives to come round and do their laundry for them.
This is all adding to the deep concern about adult social care for our elderly and vulnerable people in Lancashire. If the people of Lancashire feel they are being let down by the Conservatives, I am sure that they will go to the polls with that in mind, and at the next election we will see the same as what happened in the previous election. The Deputy Leader of the House needs to be deeply concerned about the fact that this situation affects many people who may change their vote because of it. I am very worried about staffing and reduced access in adult social care, and I would be grateful if he commented on that.
There are deep concerns across the country about Sure Start—not about its being cut but its being undermined by stealth. In Lancashire, we have experienced reduced hours, reduced staff, and a cut in outreach services. In some instances, there is anecdotal evidence of a bucket being passed around so that people can put in donations to keep Sure Start going. It is not satisfactory for Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there is no reduction in the number of buildings where Sure Start services are being delivered when in fact those services are being reduced and undermined and parents are being put off going there because they are asked for handouts when they do so.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that while money might be being saved for the moment through this approach, it is storing up problems for the future, so that in the long term the cost will be much greater than it would in paying for a proper service now?
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the service is undermined from within, it will eventually collapse, and that is what is happening with Sure Start, certainly in Lancashire, and, I believe, in his area of north Wales.
Ministers must stand at the Dispatch Box and be honest about this, because it is affecting the people we represent, including some of the most vulnerable. They should tell the truth about the Sure Start services that are being provided, not just give the headline figures on the number of centres that are being kept open, although I believe that that number is diminishing as well.
In 2009, the Prime Minister himself came to Lancashire and said, “This is the beginning of the Conservative fight-back in the north”, but now all these services are being undermined. To my knowledge, the Prime Minister has not been back to Lancashire, and I presume that following the local elections he has probably written us off. The damage that has been done since 2009 is irreparable. People are extremely unhappy about how some of their services are being treated and feel that there should be a better way that is not just about a message of austerity.
Another aspect of the situation in Lancashire is the local enterprise partnership, which I am deeply concerned about, and the programme for rural broadband. Not only are Lancashire residents being let down by the county council in terms of adult social care, Sure Start and other initiatives, but the Conservatives in Lancashire are obsessed with rural broadband, on which they are spending £32 million. When I asked for the figures on the number of beneficiaries per borough in Lancashire, they refused to provide them, but I acquired them for my constituency, where it appears that only some 4,000 people out of 80,000 will benefit from the upgrade to the rural broadband service. That £32 million will mean faster internet shopping for millionaires; it will not generate business in rural communities. Many people in rural communities in Lancashire, such as the Ribble valley, already run businesses. That is why they live in the Ribble valley, and they do not operate from home.
The rural broadband policy in Lancashire will not provide additional businesses or create jobs. It will certainly not mean that businesses will be opened down country lanes that take two hours to drive down and are a long way from the urban centres. This is just about faster internet shopping for wealthy people. [Interruption.] I will say it whether people like it or not. In most cases, the urban areas in Lancashire are already connected to fast broadband. There is simply no need for this investment, which could go towards improving urban infrastructure such as rail and road links rather than towards providing rural broadband for some farm 25 miles—
Iain Stewart
I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman’s points with interest. Given his comments, one would think that there was no investment in rail infrastructure in the north of England, but the Government have just given the go-ahead to the northern hub, which will revolutionise public transport in that part of the country.
Graham Jones
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but, as he knows, the northern hub covers Manchester and Liverpool, whereas I am talking about east Lancashire. He will be aware that his colleague, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), is pleading for an upgrade of the east Lancashire line between Rawtenstall and Bury. Members on his own side of the House are pleading for infrastructure projects.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
For the record, the northern hub has not been given the go-ahead. The Chancellor gave the impression in the Budget that we would get the electrification of the Hope Valley line from Sheffield to Manchester, but that turns out not to be the case.
Graham Jones
That point was relevant to the intervention from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). Not only do Labour Members disagree with his comments, so are organisations such as the Skipton-East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership, which wants to extend the line from Colne into Yorkshire. Infrastructure investment is needed because communities and constituencies such as Pendle are isolated. Such projects require substantial amounts of money.
Iain Stewart
I remind the hon. Gentleman that next month, or in July, we will have the next round of investment in the rail system, with the next five-year period of high-level output specification projects. The projects to which he has referred may well get the go-ahead.
Graham Jones
I will be watching to see whether the east Lancashire line, which I support, along with the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen, receives funding. I am sure that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South will join me and the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen in the chorus calling for investment in the east Lancashire line. I am deeply grateful for his support if he is saying that that should go ahead alongside the rural broadband investment. However, if it turns out that we are investing in rural broadband at the expense of infrastructure projects, I will come back to him and suggest politely that he was wrong in his intervention.
I am deeply concerned about the health reforms and their impact on my constituency. We seem to have had a metropolitan or London-centred conversation about choice that does not reflect the situation in east Lancashire. East Lancashire has a monopoly provider in the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust. It is futile to argue that general practitioners have choice when there is only one hospital trust, with its two major hospitals in Burnley and Blackburn, that people in the area want to use. There is no choice.
I met the chair of the clinical commissioning group for east Lancashire to discuss several issues, which I will draw to the House’s attention. Some £70 million of funding from the primary care trust is being transferred to Lancashire county council for the health and wellbeing board. As I have said, Lancashire is being let down by Lancashire county council. I have deep concerns about where that money will be spent. One of my initial concerns is that Lancashire county council, which is based in Preston, is far removed from the constituents whom the 14 or 15 MPs in Lancashire represent. I have deep concerns that the public will not fully understand, be engaged with or be able to respond to the funding that is being spent by the health and wellbeing board at county hall. There will be little accountability.
We have no choice in NHS services, and yet GPs are shaping the services. The health and wellbeing board will be spending an awful lot of money, but it is not clear how it will be held accountable for where that money is spent. My concern, again, is that the deprived corridor from Chorley to Hyndburn and on to Pendle will be left behind. We will see what we traditionally see from Lancashire county council: white middle-class and upper-class areas will get the money and deprived, working-class areas will have money removed from them. That is true of rural broadband. A similar thing is happening nationally.
Lancashire’s residents are being let down by Lancashire county council. How does the Deputy Leader of the House feel about how local people feel and about how they are responding through the ballot box? How does he feel about the concerns that I and others have expressed about the disproportionate spending, with services being directed to white, middle-class people in wealthier areas, which makes working-class people feel that they have been left behind? That concern is also expressed nationally. Age, rather than deprivation, is to be used as one of the indices for the allocation of health funding.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I want to reinforce the point that my hon. Friend is making about age. My constituency has the lowest age structure of any in the country, and yet it has some of the highest health needs. Under the system that he is describing, we would suffer.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before the hon. Gentleman gets back on his feet, I point out that he has been talking for almost 30 minutes. I am sure that he must be coming to the end. What he has said has been very fruitful for the House, but he needs to come to an end due to the lack of time and the need to get other people in.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not advice.
Graham Jones
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for those firm words.
The talk about shifting health funding concerns me because the GP surgeries in my constituency are all at the bottom of the performance league tables produced by the PCT, whereas those in the affluent areas score far better. All the deprived areas in Lancashire come at the bottom of those tables. I am therefore deeply concerned about the transfer of health funding.
I want to mention briefly my concern about Great Harwood health centre, because it has been transferred to PropCo. It was built under the LIFT initiative. On several occasions we have thought that it will happen and then that it will not happen. We are now at a stage where we think it will happen and £10 million has been set aside by the PCT. However, all that money is to subsumed into a Whitehall quango called PropCo, which will decide how it will be spent. I would appreciate a commitment from the Deputy Leader of the House on whether PropCo will carry through the decisions that have been agreed with local people and the PCT.
Finally, I will talk about individual voter registration. I did not get the opportunity to speak in the debate yesterday. I concur with the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) that there are issues with postal voting that need to be looked at. It seems that it is being used to drive up turnout. I do not believe that anything wholly illegal has happened, but I do believe that it has been used to drive up turnout and win elections. Will the Deputy Leader of the House acknowledge that the Conservative party in Hyndburn is currently under investigation for proxy voting fraud? That is unacceptable. The legislation that his Government are bringing forward should look at that element, and not just at individual voter registration. With that encouragement, I will close my comments.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is a great honour to speak in this Adjournment debate before the recess. Hon. Members should welcome the fact that I do not intend to speak for well over half an hour, so that everybody can participate in the debate and then go out to enjoy the sunshine and, more importantly, return to our constituencies to carry on the work that we do on a daily basis for our constituents.
I will talk about an issue in my constituency that I believe has an impact on other Members: the threat to the green belt in Broxtowe. I will address two direct threats to the green belt in Broxtowe. The first is an uncontroversial issue in that all political parties in Broxtowe are in agreement about it. We are united in our opposition to an application by UK Coal for an open-cast mine on a piece of land between Cossall and Trowell called Shortwood. It is a 325-acre site, and this is the third time that UK Coal has made an application to Nottinghamshire county council in respect of it. We have already held one public meeting, and there will be another one on Friday.
There is no merit whatever in the application that UK Coal has made. It would undoubtedly lead to an excess of dust and noise and the loss of an amenity that is much loved by many of my constituents. Perhaps the greatest irony of the application is that 1.5 million tonnes of coal and clay would be removed from the site and put into lorries. There would be eight heavy goods vehicle movements every hour along an already overly congested road, up to the equally congested Nuthall roundabout and on to the M1. The coal and clay would then be driven all the way back down the M1 to the Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal-fired power station. It is the stuff of madness that in this day and age we are still extracting coal in that way and burning it in power stations. We should now have alternatives up and running.
The second most important threat to the green belt in Broxtowe, which I believe also affects other areas, is housing development. Many hon. Members should be greatly concerned about it. What I will say is, in effect, an open letter to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. In a nutshell, we have a serious problem in Broxtowe and other boroughs in Nottinghamshire and, I suspect, across the land. Councils have adopted and accepted the targets that were laid down under the last Administration’s old—they should be old—regional spatial strategies. That means that they have no alternative but to build on our green belt.
Only last week Broxtowe borough council voted on and accepted, with only the Conservatives dissenting, a top-down housing target of 6,150 houses being built in a 16-year period or so, as set down under the last Administration’s structures. We have very little green-belt land left in Broxtowe, because we have built on it over the years. We are now the most densely populated borough in the whole of Nottinghamshire, and arguably in the whole east midlands. Hon. Members do not need me to remind them that the whole purpose of green-belt land is to prevent urban sprawl and protect communities so that they stay just that—identifiable communities that people love and enjoy, for all the reasons that one can imagine.
The other great benefit of green-belt land, as well as its preventing the coalescence of communities, preventing sprawl and retaining identities, is that it provides green, open spaces that people can love and enjoy in many ways. They walk their dogs there, take their children there and so on. We do not have much of it in Broxtowe, which has become overdeveloped. Now we have the housing target, and we have only brownfield land or green-belt land to build on, so we face the real threat of yet more of our green belt being lost.
The situation flies in the face of the national planning policy framework that the Government announced at the end of March, and of the statements of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and various other Ministers including the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister. They have made it crystal clear that green-belt land should not be developed on save in exceptional or very special circumstances, and then only after robust public consultation. There is a complete disconnect between what the Government are rightly saying—they could not say it in clearer or firmer tones—and what some councils are actually doing in the real world.
There is an argument about the amount of brownfield land that is available in Broxtowe, but up to 2,000 homes are to be built on our green-belt land. I believe that the majority of people in Broxtowe are against that. However, our Labour and Liberal Democrat council has steamed ahead in the face of local people’s views and without proper consultation. Instead of adopting Labour’s admirable policy of brownfield sites first and green-belt land afterwards, Broxtowe council is doing the reverse. The very first site that has been put forward for development—it is almost a done deal—is a place called Field farm in Stapleford. That piece of land separates Stapleford from Trowell, so it is doing its job and providing a buffer to prevent urban sprawl. It is also a place that people love very much. They go there to enjoy the wildlife and so on.
An application has gone in for 450 homes on that land, and the deep irony is that the two local councillors—Labour and Liberal Democrat—not only failed to vote against the plans that have made the land ripe for development, but spoke in favour of them last week. That flew in the face of the people whom they are meant to represent. Many people have found it ironic that it has been the Tories, and a Conservative MP, who have spoken out in defence of that green-belt land.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is speaking very well. I am an east midlands MP, as is she. She will recognise that a report published earlier this week suggested that the east midlands faces a potential housing crisis, and that in the next 20 years or so we will probably need 22,000 extra houses. I recognise her argument entirely, but those houses will have to go somewhere.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and understand his point. Unfortunately, when we run out of land on which we can build houses, we have to look elsewhere. This is not about nimbyism; it is about the fact that my constituency only has enough brownfield land for about 3,000 houses. The target has been accepted, and the only other place to build is on the green belt. He mentions homelessness, and it is a valid point, but the number of people on the waiting list in Broxtowe is 2,254. As he will understand, that list often indicates the level of interest in finding houses that the council may have available. The number of homeless people recorded in my constituency is probably fewer than 10, if that.
I do not want to trouble the House any longer, but people in my constituency are concerned that their voices will yet again not be heard. Only this week, I was publicly admonished by the planning officer in an e-mail that was unfortunately copied to Labour councillors and my predecessor. The e-mail told me that my advice to my constituents was in some way inaccurate, but it was not at all. I have come to this place to achieve a number of things, but perhaps most importantly I am here to represent my constituents, whether they voted for me or not. I intend to continue to do that. In so doing, I speak out in favour of protecting the green belt in my constituency, whether from open-cast mining or from a housing target that my borough council did not have to accept.
I hope the Deputy Leader of the House will forgive me if I am not here at the end of the debate. I will be quiet very soon, so that others can speak. I hope that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will make the Government’s policy quite clear yet again. I hope he will say that local authorities are under a duty to determine their own housing targets and make their own plans, and to protect their green belt from development at almost all costs.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
It was a great temptation to go off down the M4 about an hour ago, but I wanted the opportunity to speak today since we are going to be away for two weeks. Many changes will take place in the middle east in that period, so I could not go without voicing my concern. If I take more than 10 minutes, perhaps you will signal vigorously in my direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also hope the Hammersmith flyover will soon be back to normal—it is ridiculous that it has taken so many months to repair. Those who use that artery to the M4 have to allow an extra hour in our journey just to get over it.
I have spoken about Bahrain a number of times. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is currently preparing a report on the Arab spring. For some countries, spring came earlier, but things have been more difficult in others. In countries where the spring is in its early stages, such as Bahrain, there are concerns about the lack of progress. Many of the recommendations made by the commission set up by the King are yet to be implemented. Human Rights Watch said in a new report released earlier this month that Bahrain’s human rights situation remains critical in the wake of the brutal crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in 2011, with clashes between police and protesters continuing. There are also reports of deaths from beatings and the excessive use of teargas.
The King established that so-called independent inquiry—I have high regard for some on the inquiry, such as Sir Nigel Rodley—but unfortunately, very few of its recommendations have been implemented, such as holding senior officials accountable for crimes. Recommendations on torture have also not been implemented, and there has been a failure to free protesters who were jailed for exercising their right to free expression and peaceful assembly. Bahraini police continue to beat and torture detainees, including minors, despite the report’s recommendations and public commitments by the heads of Bahrain to end torture and police impunity.
Nabeel Rajab, a Bahraini human rights activist and head of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, a non-governmental organisation, who led protests against authorities in the gulf kingdom by calling for democratic change, was arrested on his return from a trip abroad on charges of
“participating in illegal assembly and calling others to join”
and “insulting a statutory body” via Twitter. He has been granted bail but is still being held in anticipation of other charges being made against him.
The court of cassation, the highest judicial body in that gulf Arab state, shifted the case of 21 men who were convicted in a military court to a civilian court and freed one lesser known prisoner. Seven of the 21 are abroad or in hiding, but the court ruled that the other men would remain in jail, including Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, who is being fed intravenously in a military hospital after nearly three months on hunger strike. We assume that that is still the case, because we have heard nothing further about him recently.
More than a year after the men were arrested, the Bahraini authorities have produced no evidence that the jailed leaders were doing anything but exercising their basic human rights. The Bahrain Government have made it clear that they still view the case as serious. One of the al-Khalifa family—the chief Government spokesman —alleged that the 21 men
“called for the overthrow of the monarchy using violent means”.
He said:
“In due course new evidence will be presented in a civilian court to prove that point.”
A similar retrial process is under way in a civilian court for 20 medical professionals—doctors, nurses and dentists—who were convicted of anti-state activities by a military-led tribunal.
After signalling that Saudi women might be allowed to compete in the Olympics for the first time at the London games, Saudi officials appear to have retreated. The only possibility remaining is that a few Saudi women might gain entry as “unofficial participants”. Saudi women must walk behind men at home, but they cannot walk behind the Saudi flag in London.
A few months ago, Human Rights Watch reported discrimination against female athletes in that Islamic kingdom. Even physical education classes and sports club memberships for women are prohibited. The report referred to a religious scholar who said that
“the health of a virgin girl will be affected by too much movement and jumping in sports such as soccer and basketball.”
How ridiculous is that? The report concluded:
“It is impossible to square Saudi discrimination against women with the noble values of the Olympic Charter”,
which forbids intolerance.
Under the kafala system of sponsorship, by which foreigners can work in the country only if they have a sponsor who organises contracts, salaries, visas and repatriation, sponsors use their control to exploit workers by taking away their passports or residence permits, or by failing to pay wages on time.
I welcome the free and—it appears—fair and peaceful elections in Egypt, but there are still problems in the country. I was there with the Foreign Affairs Committee a few months ago. Human rights violations continue to take place, in some cases to a worse extent than under Mubarak. Military trials continue; reports of the use of torture are frequent; freedom of expression is curtailed; and peaceful demonstrations have often been met with violence and repression. Additionally, civil society and NGOs continue to be repressed and restricted. The trial of foreign NGO workers who were arrested for allegedly breaching Egypt’s law on association, which took place during the Committee’s visit, is due to continue on 5 June. The law on association has criticised repeatedly by UN treaty bodies and human rights experts and is likely to be replaced with a new law by the new Parliament.
Women’s rights are under threat in Egypt, and there are only eight women in Egypt’s 500-seat Parliament. We met many parliamentarians and raised that point with them. They have removed their quota system, which ensured proper representation for women in the Parliament. Activists in Egypt have serious concerns that the personal status code, which currently provides some equality for women in divorce and custody law, could be repealed, resulting in women’s rights being curtailed.
Women human rights defenders and activists are being targeted with virginity testing, with those responsible being acquitted, and attacks and beatings. I have raised that in the Chamber several times.
In Afghanistan, women should not be abandoned by the pull-out of western troops or traded in favour of reconciliation with the Taliban and other insurgent groups. Afghanistan remains a key foreign policy priority of the UK Government, and as a major international partner and donor they can exert significant diplomatic influence on the Afghan Government and the transitional process. Only a couple of months ago, Afghanistan’s ulema council—the country’s leading group of religious clerics—published a statement in which it referred to women as secondary to men and implied that violence against women was appropriate in some cases. Worryingly, President Karzai expressed support for the statement, in a move seen as widely conciliatory to the Taliban and other groups that would curtail the rights of women.
Women’s security continues to be extremely fragile in areas of Afghanistan under Taliban control. Women who contribute politically or in the public and civic sectors face considerable pressure and intimidation.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I am delighted that the right hon. Lady has brought this incredibly important topic to the Floor of the House. This morning, I met ActionAid, which has campaigned heavily in this area, and it told me that for an Afghan woman to approach a police officer was considered an immoral act. Does she agree that we must do more to ensure the security of Afghan women and that without it there will be no lasting peace in that country?
Ann Clwyd
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. I have raised the matter several times in Afghanistan and here, including with President Karzai directly, but he always brushes it aside. The last time was a few weeks ago, when we had a private meeting with him in the House. I am afraid, however, that he would not move on, or even discuss, this matter. When I suggested that women in Afghanistan had no faith in his determination to protect them, he said, “But women vote for me.” I said, “Well, they might have done last time, but they won’t next time.” Clearly, he does not take it seriously, which is a matter of great concern.
I am pleased that Aung San Suu Kyi is to visit Parliament. Burma was admitted to the Inter-Parliamentary Union at the conference I attended in Uganda a few weeks ago. There are concerns, however. There are green shoots, but matters could be reversed, so we should wait and see. For example, we should be cautious before removing sanctions. Political prisoners are still in jail there. The IPU committee on the human rights of parliamentarians, of which I am an active member, does not know the fate of the Burmese parliamentarians elected 10 years ago who were never able to take their seats. It is said that all political prisoners have been released, but there is an argument about how many remain in jail. In truth, many died in jail or after being released, and a number remain unaccounted for. They are still on the committee’s list of parliamentarians about whom we are concerned, and we want to know what happened to them. They are not simply names on a piece of paper. We have campaigned on their behalf for many years, and we want to know their fate.
Aung San Suu Kyi will obviously get a good welcome here. However, if the Burmese President genuinely wants meaningful political reform, a joint domestic and international review board, with UN involvement, could create a credible process to investigate cases of disagreement over whether someone has been imprisoned for political reasons. That could kick-start broader legal reform to overturn laws still stifling basic human rights in Burma. One of the most pernicious is section 401 of the criminal procedure code—effectively a form of parole that could see many released prisoners rearrested for any perceived or minor offence.
I would like to continue my canter around the world, because there are so many countries where the human rights of parliamentarians remain a major issue. Of the roughly 153 countries that attend the IPU annual conferences, about 50 are of great concern. Obviously, Syria is one of them. Over the next two weeks, while we are on our Whitsun recess—looking around me, I see it has already begun—I hope that Assad will see sense. His days are numbered in Syria. He should see the writing on the wall and go now to prevent further blood loss in a country where so much blood is being lost and where there is no future for him or his crowd. He should give Syria the chance to join the Arab spring countries.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I want to talk about the Government’s proposal, announced in the Budget, to extend VAT to static holiday caravans. There was a short debate on this matter during the Committee of the Finance Bill. However, that debate included proposals to put VAT on many other things, so there was no time properly to debate static caravans. I was pleased, however, when the Government announced during the debate that the consultation period would be extended to allow the industry to make representations. I am glad that the Government are in listening mode, and I want to use this opportunity to make representations to them.
My constituency interest arises from the large number of caravan parks scattered throughout Argyll and Bute. I represent a beautiful constituency stretching from Loch Lomond in the east to Loch Linnhe in the north and the Mull of Kintyre in the south. It also contains the Cowal and Rosneath peninsulas, the Isle of Bute and many other beautiful islands—there is far too much beautiful scenery to mention, including the miles of coastline on the west coast and the Firth of Clyde. The scenery is beautiful, but the economy is fragile. “You can’t eat the scenery”, as the old saying goes, but we can sell the views to the visitors, and that is where static caravans play an important role.
A large proportion of people who visit Argyll and Bute own static caravans on the many holiday parks, and these caravans provide many jobs in rural areas. There are the people who work on the parks and a whole host of small businesses that make their livelihoods from selling food and other goods to the static caravan owners. As a result, these holiday parks underpin many small businesses, and we should be encouraging such small businesses in these difficult times, not imposing a further tax on them. Many local shops tell me that a large proportion of their sales are to static caravan owners and that they could not survive without this business. Neither is this just a business for the short summer season; many owners regularly come to their caravans at weekends throughout the year.
The Treasury’s own impact assessment suggested that imposing VAT on static caravans would cut demand by 30%. That is a huge fall in demand for any business to cope with, never mind those already struggling because of the recession. It should be noted, however, that the industry regards the 30% figure as an underestimate and believes that the actual drop in sales could be much bigger. Fewer caravan sales means fewer owners, which obviously means fewer people visiting rural constituencies such as mine and spending their money in the rural economy. People living in remote areas with fragile economies who will lose their jobs if this VAT measure goes ahead will find it difficult to get another job where they live. The Treasury estimates that the measure will bring in an extra £35 million in 2013-14, but I urge the Government to consider the wider picture. The proposal might bring in £35 million, but a lot more will be lost to the economy if the extra tax goes ahead.
The proposal appears to have arisen because the Government wanted to correct a supposed anomaly—that caravans towed on the road by cars are subject to VAT but static caravans are not. By proceeding in this way, however, the Government will simply create other anomalies that will be just as difficult to resolve. For example, let us compare buying a static caravan to buying a holiday cottage. Static caravans sell from about £24,000. VAT on a £24,000 static caravan would be £4,800. Let us compare that with somebody who buys a holiday cottage for £240,000. The tax paid—in this case stamp duty—will be 1%; that is, £2,400. Therefore, the cost of the holiday cottage is ten times as much as the cost of the caravan, but the tax is only half. That is hardly fair. We should also remember that the person buying the holiday cottage could be depriving a local family of a chance to buy a home. That is not fair taxation, nor does it make any sense as far as supporting fragile economies is concerned.
The Government realise that if they impose VAT on static holiday caravans, they will have to draw a line somewhere. They have proposed that static caravans that are manufactured to BS 3632 will not be liable to VAT. Only caravans built to a lesser standard would be subject to VAT. However, that would simply create another anomaly. British standards change all the time, so they are an unsuitable measure for determining eligibility for taxation. It is also important to consider how such a rule could be enforced. Will VAT inspectors be trained in how to determine whether a British standard has been met for a particular caravan? If so, will they have to inspect all static caravans that are sold, to determine whether they meet the standard—which, we should remember, constantly changes? Another new anomaly that would be created is that houseboats would still be zero-rated, whereas static caravans would not. Both are tied to a fixed point, yet they would be treated differently for tax purposes. Far from ironing out an anomaly, we would just be creating a series of other anomalies.
The proposal appears to have arisen because somebody found a loophole in the present legislation. They worked out that large hybrid touring caravans would not be subject to VAT. Hybrid touring caravans are large caravans that are too big to be towed by cars, although they can be towed behind lorries. Under the present rules, they are zero-rated because of their large size. However, rather than trying to block the loophole by taking static caravans into taxation, why not block it by making caravans that are designed to be towed by a large lorry on public roads subject to VAT? Surely it would be fairly straightforward to create a definition in legislation to provide that caravans that could be towed on the road would be subject to VAT. Static caravans cannot be considered to be road-going, as they do not have a chassis with brakes or a handbrake, nor do they have brake lights and indicators to comply with road traffic legislation. It should surely be straightforward to ensure that if, under road traffic legislation, the caravan can be towed on the road, it should be subject to VAT. To summarise: if it moves, tax it; if it doesn’t, don’t. Static caravans do not move—yes, the clue is in the word “static”. My suggestion for the Government would be fairly straightforward. The tax treatment of static caravans should be compared with the treatment of other static accommodation, such as houses and houseboats, not caravans that can be towed on our roads.
Although announced in the Budget, the measure is not part of the Finance Bill. I hope that, following the consultation, the Government have listened and will decide not to go ahead. I even hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to make that announcement in his summing up today. [Laughter.] However, I suspect from his reaction that I am perhaps being a bit optimistic. The consultation closed only on Friday, so we ought to be prepared to give the Government a bit more time to respond. I hope that they will decide not to proceed. However, I would like my hon. Friend to tell the House today what procedures will be followed to introduce the measure, should the Government decide to do so.
Argyll and Bute’s main asset is our beautiful scenery. This VAT proposal will make it far harder to sell that scenery to visitors. Many other Government policies are supportive of small businesses. I urge the Government to think again. On this policy, I hope that they will think of small businesses. I appeal to them not to go ahead with this proposal. The cost in lost jobs, in fragile rural economies throughout the country, will be far greater than any VAT income from the proposed new tax.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I hope that hon. Members will be gentle, because my voice is not as strong as it usually is. I also hope that I can be heard today. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), who made an excellent speech about VAT on static caravans. Those of us on the Opposition Benches support much of what he said. I hope that his Government were listening to that speech, which really was rather excellent.
I want to take this opportunity to speak about an issue of increasing concern—breast cancer. I want to focus on three areas: diagnosis, treatment and mortality in my constituency; worrying comparisons with other countries, which raise issues about the effectiveness of cancer services in the UK; and a specific concern about radiotherapy, on which we perform rather badly, compared with other countries.
Let me first set the scene with some facts about breast cancer. As many colleagues will know, it is the most common cancer in the UK, with some 48,000 new cases diagnosed every year. Around 12,000 women and 90 men will die from breast cancer this year. The good news—relatively speaking—is that a generation ago, only half the people with breast cancer survived for five years after diagnosis. Today, eight out of 10 people are still alive after five years or more. That improvement is due to the unprecedented investment made in the NHS, with a shift in emphasis—the right shift—towards prevention and early detection, and the establishment of cancer networks, bringing together specialists to improve the quality of care.
Advances in research, new treatments, earlier diagnosis, breast screening and greater public awareness have all played a part, but it is essential that we keep up the momentum if we are to avoid slipping back. I have spoken in the House before about the inequality in health outcomes that is characteristic of my constituency and other areas with high poverty, poor housing, a poor environment and low educational achievement. Things are improving and health outcomes are getting better, but the gap remains. Although I have a huge hope that the legacy of the Olympic and the Paralympic games will bring an even greater health improvement to my area, as well as economic regeneration, we have to do more, rather than just sitting back and waiting to see whether that happens.
Claire Perry
Let me give the hon. Lady a chance to rest her voice. I am grateful to her for bringing this incredibly important subject to the Floor of the House. Would she like to join me in the Race for Life at the beginning of June? We can put on our pink T-shirts, and although I am afraid that I will be walking, she can walk with me and we can raise some money for a worthy cause.
Lyn Brown
That is possibly an offer that I cannot refuse. I think that sounds like an excellent thing to do together.
Newham has a lower incidence of cancer than many other areas, but sadly our mortality rate is higher. The London-wide cancer mortality rate is about 112 deaths per 100,000 cases. In Newham it is 123 deaths per 100,000 cases, which is a significantly higher rate than we ought to find. That is clearly unacceptable. The five-year survival rate for women in Newham who have had breast cancer is 75%, which is significantly lower than the UK average of 83.4%. The reason is illustrated, in part, by the take-up rate of breast-screening services. In 2009-10, the take-up rate across England was 73%. Across London it was 62%, but in Newham it was 50%.
Early detection enables treatment in early stages, when the cancer is easier to treat and when women’s chances of survival are higher. In my area, the combination of late presentation and late diagnosis leads to treatment that is, of necessity, more complex and less successful. That is causing the unnecessary deaths of too many women. Those deaths are, frankly, preventable. I will be seeking to ensure that a consequence of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is not a visible deterioration in health screening services in my constituency. In fact, I will be hoping to see the 50% uptake of screening in Newham increase in the years to come.
I want to turn to international comparisons. I have before me some statistics, which were helpfully provided by the House of Commons Library. These data are drawn from a cancer epidemiology research project on the survival of cancer patients in 24 European countries. The figures need to be treated with some care, given that the most recent are for survival rates for those diagnosed between 1995 and 1999, but they provide a useful snapshot of the five-year survival rate. For England, the survival rate for all cancers at five years was 47.3%, ranking us 17th out of the 24 countries. The survival rate at five years for breast cancer was somewhat better, at 79.7%, but this still ranks us just 13th out of the 24 countries. That international comparison raises some disturbing questions about the effectiveness of our screening, diagnosis and treatment services, and I intend to return to that matter in the future.
One issue that I want to explore further today is the use in treatment of radiotherapy and, specifically, of new and advanced forms of radiotherapy such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy—IMRT. Radiotherapy treatment is more effective in treating all forms of cancer, including breast cancer, especially when the cancer is diagnosed early. It can be targeted on the cancer much more effectively, thus limiting the damage caused to non-cancerous tissue. It is far less invasive than other treatments, it leads to better outcomes and it is a much better experience for the patient.
The use of radiotherapy is more advanced in Scotland and Wales. London is marginally better provided for than the rest of England, but that does not alter the fact that the UK as a whole is woefully behind the best-performing countries in the rest of Europe and the US in using advanced radiotherapy as an effective tool against cancer. Access rates to existing radiotherapy services are already lower than the 50% of cancer patients who it is generally agreed should receive the treatment. We do not even know how many breast cancer patients are able to access the more advanced IMRT.
What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the Health and Social Care Act on the commissioning of radiotherapy, and on the supply of suitably trained radiotherapists? From my perspective, it is entirely unclear where responsibility for the commissioning of radiotherapy will sit in the future arrangements of the NHS. The clinical commissioning groups are far too small effectively to manage it, and the position of the NHS Commissioning Board is obscure.
For radiotherapy, there is no is no equivalent of the big campaigns that we see in our newspapers. It has no equivalent of a big pharmaceutical company to promote it and lobby for new treatments, because there is no profit to be made from it. Radiotherapy is an effective treatment that is widely used in other countries, but it is patchily under-utilised here, to the detriment of cancer patients, and that is likely to be contributing to our relatively poor survival rates. In the absence of an external lobby promoting radiotherapy, I humbly suggest to the House that that responsibility lies here with us.
The issues that I have outlined today go to the heart of the quality of cancer care in this country. They need to be explored in more detail and subjected to more scrutiny so that the service offered across the country can be improved to the level of the very best, and not just the very best in this country, but the very best by international standards.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who spoke eloquently on an important topic. I look forward to our “walk for life” together.
As I am sure everyone knows by now, I represent a military constituency. with 10,500 soldiers and at least the same number of family members, but because I have a tiny job helping the Secretary of State for Defence, I can never speak on military matters, so there is no point in hon. Members lobbying me about cap badges. I meet many members of the armed forces in my surgeries, however, and I want to speak today about a story that I heard during one such meeting.
Jan and Barry Burns came to see me in my surgery in Ludgershall, in the south of my constituency. Barry is a serving Army officer. I felt incredibly moved and educated by what I heard, and I was glad that I had boxes of tissues handy. They came to tell me about their son Charlie, who died unexpectedly last year at the age of 10. I have a boy who will be 10 this summer, and it was very moving to be presented with that tragedy.
Charlie Burns was a completely fit, well and happy 10-year-old who had an epileptic seizure, completely out of the blue, on Friday 7 October. The paramedics arrived well within the target time, but they made a diagnosis that many people think was incorrect. They diagnosed a febrile convulsion, even though there was no associated temperature. Over the weekend, Charlie was fine, but subsequently his parents took him to their GP, as he was a little unwell. The GP correctly suggested that Charlie had suffered an epileptic seizure and that he should see a neurologist.
On Tuesday 11 October, Charlie went to school in Larkhill as usual and was absolutely fine. He was able to see his sister, Isabella, that evening—she goes to boarding school, so it was lucky that they saw each other that day. He went to bed at 8.45 that evening, and when his parents went to check on him later, they found that he had died in his sleep. They were of course horrified. Their little boy had, until the previous week, been incredibly healthy. The coroner diagnosed the cause of death as sudden unexplained death from epilepsy—SUDEP—involving a massive cerebral haemorrhage.
The reason that Mr and Mrs Burns came to see me was that they had never heard of SUDEP before that awful tragedy struck their family. In fact, SUDEP kills more people in the UK than AIDS and cot death—conditions we have all heard of—combined. We have been educated recently to understand certain other conditions, including strokes—there has been a very good national education campaign to help us to understand the signs of strokes and what happens when someone suffers a stroke.
It is fitting that this week is national epilepsy week, running from 26 May. Charlie’s parents really made me aware of this condition—sudden unexplained death from epilepsy. It is a silent killer. As a result of conversations with the parents, I believe that it is almost unknown, which means that parents are not looking out for the signs, and in many cases nor are paramedics and medical professionals. In my comments today, I intend no criticism of the local paramedic or hospital services; a separate inquiry is ongoing. It was the depths of the personal tragedy and the suddenness of the bereavement suffered by the Burns family that particularly resonated with me.
I ask three things of colleagues today. The first is for them to help me raise the profile of a fantastic national charity, Epilepsy Bereaved, which works with parents and anyone who has suffered a bereavement through epilepsy. We should remember that more than 1,000 people a year are so affected. I was pleased to learn that my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) had met the charity and done some publicity work last year, for which the family and the charity are extremely grateful. Secondly, there is no national standard register of epilepsy deaths, and one of the charity’s proposals is that the chief coroner should maintain such a record and have a standard diagnosis, so that we can understand the scale of the problem. I would heartily support such a measure.
Finally, we call for a review of the guidance issued to medical professionals, particularly first responders, to help them to look out for signs of that type of seizure in otherwise healthy children. Charlie’s parents told me that children can come back very quickly from such episodes. Charlie came back after his attack and was conscious when the paramedics got there, although he was droopy, drowsy and not himself. If he had been taken to hospital at that point and a brain scan had been done, he just might have been saved.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I want to express my support for everything my hon. Friend has said about SUDEP. A few months ago, some parents in my constituency came to see me, having sadly lost their teenage daughter to SUDEP. When their daughter was diagnosed with epilepsy, the parents were not really made aware of SUDEP—the “sudden death” aspect. If they had been told about it at the time, they might have acted differently. They highlighted the need for more publicity so that more people—parents and children—are made aware of it. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this very important issue.
Claire Perry
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right; it is estimated that more than 40% of these deaths could be avoided with better recognition, better diagnosis and speedier action. Epilepsy is a condition that affects many thousands of people and it is a manageable condition, but Charlie’s parents were subsequently told that he was among the most susceptible to a nocturnal epileptic episode out of the blue, and that such children were at greater risk of dying unexpectedly from this killer.
There is nothing I can say today to bring Charlie Burns back, or give his parents any comfort. I simply want to make as many people as possible aware of this condition, so that we can all help to make sure that similar tragedies do not happen in the future. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, but I hesitate to do so after the contribution of the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who I thought made an excellent speech and spoke with considerable compassion about the death of her constituent. I am sure that the Minister will want to respond in the most appropriate manner possible.
I seek to raise four issues on the Whitsun Adjournment. The first relates to the future of the custody suite at Harrow police station, which serves my constituency. I heard in April that the Metropolitan police were planning to close the custody suite in October. There are rumours this week that the decision has been put on hold and that a final decision on closing or saving it will be taken in the autumn. There certainly appears to be a considerable body of opinion within the higher levels of the Met in favour of closing the custody suite. That would leave Harrow with no custody suite, and one of only two London boroughs—both in the suburbs of London, as I understand the other is Richmond—without one. To date, there has been no proper explanation from the Metropolitan police of why they think Harrow’s custody suite, which has 13 cells, should close.
I raised this issue on the Floor of the House during Home Office questions, and—understandably—the Home Secretary replied that it was an operational matter for the Metropolitan police. At first glance, she is absolutely right, Nevertheless, I encourage Ministers to use their influence to ask the Metropolitan police to reconsider.
As I have said, Harrow’s custody suite consists of 13 cells. There are 5,000 “visits”, as they are called in the jargon, to those cells each year. Potentially, therefore, 5,000 prisoners would have to be held in other custody suites. I understand that the Metropolitan police want those who are arrested in Harrow to be housed at Kilburn and Wembley police stations. On one level, I am not concerned about where a prisoner from my constituency is housed. What concerns me and many of my constituents is that if prisoners have to be transported to those other custody suites for the purposes of an investigation into whether they have committed the crimes of which they are accused and preparation of paperwork for court appearances, substantial police officer time will be wasted. That would inevitably have an impact on the quality and number of investigations that can take place at Harrow. Travelling to Kilburn during the rush hour can take more than an hour, and travelling to Wembley on cup final day can take a long time as well. According to one estimate, based on that figure of 5,000 visits a year, between 10,000 and 20,000 police officer hours could be wasted in transporting prisoners to the two new custody suites.
I understand that shortly after a custody suite closes, the CID team in the Met go to the replacement custody suite. Given that more than 100 CID officers are currently based at Harrow police station, my constituents are understandably concerned that those officers may find themselves permanently based at Wembley police station in Brent. That, too, would reduce the level and quality of policing in my constituency.
In an attempt to establish the reason for the Metropolitan police’s decision, I tabled a freedom of information request asking them for details of all their custody suites, including the number of cells and the staffing levels. There are some 44 custody suites in London; 14 contain fewer cells than Harrow police station, and at many substantially more staff and police officers are based than are based at Harrow. The decision by the Metropolitan police to close the Harrow custody suite therefore does not appear to have been made on cost grounds. I am told that the Met may have had in mind the quality of the cells at Harrow and that some capital investment is certainly needed, but I am also told that there is no difference in quality between Harrow and Kilburn.
I was not consulted on, or even formally told of, the decision in advance. I have written to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who has told me that an assistant commissioner will be writing to me to explain why Harrow police station has been singled out. I have not yet received that letter. I welcome the fact that the Met may well reconsider the decision, but I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will use his influence to encourage Home Office Ministers to have a quiet word in the ear of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and urge him to reverse it.
The second issue is the proposed airport in the Thames estuary. On behalf of the airports serving my constituency, notably Heathrow, I have concerns about that proposal. There are several noisy cheerleaders for the Thames estuary airport, even though it does not make sense in air traffic control terms, it would require hugely costly investment in roads, housing and other infrastructure, and years of architects’, planners’ and traffic and environment consultants’ time, and it certainly would not solve London’s immediate need for extra airport capacity. Many rival airports, notably Schiphol in the Netherlands, have experienced a significant increase in business in recent months. Given that the Thames estuary airport has not begun to go through any of its planning, environmental, financial or air traffic control assessment processes, owners of such rival airports must be licking their lips at the prospect of the months or even years they will have to attract international business away from London’s airports while the debate about a Thames estuary airport continues.
National Air Traffic Services has quietly pointed out the considerable additional problems a Thames estuary airport will cause in London’s already congested airspace. It would sit directly under the central route into London’s airspace, so aeroplanes carrying thousands of passengers a year would be taking off and landing at the new airport through one of the world’s busiest airspaces. In short, a Thames estuary airport is about as sensible as building a new crèche in the middle of a motorway. It would also shift the eastern boundary of London’s air traffic holding patterns, in turn opening up the need for negotiations with other nations about changes to UK airspace, which, at best, would mean another delay to any new airport’s start date. Worse still, there is the risk of creating an investment hiatus at London’s existing airports, as the business community waits to see whether the idea of a Thames estuary airport can really be made to work.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am listening very carefully as I was brought up in London. I have always been astonished that we are the only capital city in the world where the Head of State and the Prime Minister can be woken up at 5 o’clock on Christmas morning by planes flying over. Everywhere else, airports are situated some distance away, so planes do not need to fly over city centres. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is right to dismiss the idea of shifting everything a little eastwards, with planes flying into the wind from the east, rather than over the capital city. Also, if there was an accident involving a plane flying over central London, that could be incredibly dangerous.
Mr Thomas
Nobody wants to lose any passenger through an air traffic incident, and, of course, we would want to minimise disruption to anybody, whether a Prime Minister or not, but we have to look at these issues in the round, and I gently say to my right hon. Friend that, notwithstanding the noise level that the Prime Minister currently has to deal with, he should consider the range of issues mounting up against the idea of a Thames estuary airport.
I am worried about the Thames estuary airport proposal stalling investment at Heathrow. Many of my constituents work at Heathrow, or in the businesses that thrive in the economy associated with it. Leaving aside the considerable financial, air traffic control and other such reasons for not going ahead with the Thames estuary airport, I cannot see how an airport there could be in the interest of west London, as Heathrow would, in effect, be downgraded from the major international hub airport it is now and would lose the jobs and investment that a major airport brings in its wake. That is what would happen if a Thames estuary airport were built.
My last point about the problems with the Thames estuary airport relates to the environmental challenges it would generate, which do not appear to have been taken on board yet. I gently suggest to Ministers that the proposal for an airport in the Thames estuary is a distraction from, not a solution to, the issue of airport capacity. It has the potential to damage the economy that serves my constituency in the area around Heathrow, and I urge Ministers to bring it to a close.
The third issue that I briefly wish to discuss is Sri Lanka, and the report that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has just released on human rights across the world, which touches on Sri Lanka. I very much welcome the report, and I commend the FCO for continuing the tradition of publishing a report on human rights in the countries in which we all, as a House of Commons, have a considerable interest. The report noted the considerable number of disappearances and abductions that are continuing in the north and east of Sri Lanka, in particular, with a sharp rise at the end of the year.
A number of my constituents have brought to my attention the unexplained death of a young Tamil man, Easwarathasan Ketheeswaran, who was deported back to Sri Lanka from the UK. I have tabled questions to the FCO and the Home Office on the matter. I asked the FCO whether it has had discussions with the regime in Sri Lanka to press questions about the quality of the police investigation into this young man’s death. I asked the Home Office whether this unexplained death of someone deported back to Sri Lanka from our country will affect its policy on the deportations of Tamil men, in particular, back to Sri Lanka.
The FCO report gave detail about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, and recalled that the Sri Lankan Government’s own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission report had noted a serious lack of investigations by the Sri Lankan police into disappearances and human rights abuses, particularly in the north and east of the country. The commission went on to note the failure of the Sri Lankan police on some occasions to register complaints when people had come to see them to point out disappearances, abductions and human rights abuses. Indeed, as the FCO’s work pointed out, that commission report also highlighted the continuing substantial military presence in the north and east of Sri Lanka, which it said was making the northern province, in particular, unsafe for women. The FCO report went on to note the number of war widows in the northern and eastern provinces—approximately 90,000.
Many hon. Members will be familiar with the huge number of deaths in Sri Lanka at the end of the conflict in 2009, which prompted United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to appoint a panel of experts to report on both the scale of the killings and the level of human rights abuses in the run-up to the last months of the conflict, when more than 40,000 people were killed. According to the UN report, many of those people lost their lives as a result of the Sri Lankan military’s use of cluster bombs and as a result of the intense bombing of areas, even those designated as “no-fire zones”. The UN report also noted that huge numbers of Tamils in particular in the north and east suffered at the end of the conflict from a lack of access to food and medicine, as the Sri Lankan military allowed food and medicine through to the then still LTTE-controlled areas in very few cases.
The UN panel concluded that there was evidence of possible war crimes and crimes against humanity and repeated the call for an international independent investigation into those war crimes allegations. Encouragingly, the UN Human Rights Council recently concluded that there needs to be a proper international investigation and that people should be held to account.
In addition, the International Crisis Group, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and other Members have highlighted the growing insecurity of women in the north and east because of lack of access to housing or jobs and the generally unsafe environment in which they live. What can the Government do to help? They should certainly continue to keep up the pressure for an independent international inquiry. Many of my constituents were disappointed by the decision to invite the President of Sri Lanka to take part in the jubilee celebrations without assurances being sought that he will be accommodating to the UN and will help an independent international inquiry to take place.
Another direct thing that the Government could do, through the Department for International Development—I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will take this point back to the Department—is fund one or two international non-governmental organisations with a proper track record in such matters to provide support and assistance to the women and many children in the north and east of Sri Lanka who are vulnerable. I know from my time as a Minister in DFID that it does not have staff based in Sri Lanka and could not therefore set up its own aid programme, but it does fund many international organisations—from the Oxfams and Save the Childrens to the Islamic Reliefs and so on—that work in countries across the world where the Department does not have a full operation of its own. They could be trusted to provide proper development assistance to incredibly vulnerable people.
My final point is very different and concerns London Welsh rugby football club’s application to join rugby’s premiership. As Members will recognise, I have some Welsh roots and a number of my constituents, like me, enjoy cheering on London Welsh. For the first time in the history of the rugby championship in the UK, London Welsh has got through to the play-off final and it submitted its bid to the Rugby Football Union to be considered for a place in the premiership should it win. Yesterday, before the first leg of that play-off final was due to take place, the RFU published the results of its investigation into London Welsh’s bid and rejected it out of hand. Proper reasons have not yet been given for the decision, but if media reports are to be believed it appears that the application was rejected because London Welsh does not have its own ground that meets premiership standards. As London Welsh spokespeople have pointed out to the media, a series of premiership teams are already in that category, notably Saracens.
Mr MacShane
I wish my hon. Friend all the best, but frankly the men in blazers and those bright pink and orange corduroy trousers who control the RFU will not give any consideration to the passion of London Welsh, its players and its supporters. We experienced that in Rotherham when we got into the premier league and were then booted out. We had a wonderful ground and people could get right down to the touchline to watch the rugby. It is much better than sitting up in a big stadium, but those gentlemen of a particular class are the worst administrators of any of our major games. I wish my hon. Friend well, but he ain’t going to get going until they change their corduroy trousers.
Mr Thomas
I am a huge supporter of my right hon. Friend on most things, as he knows, but I hope that on this occasion he will allow me to take a slightly more temperate view of the Rugby Football Union. In general, I think it does a good job and I hope that it will reconsider London Welsh’s application.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
As the Member of Parliament for Rugby and someone with great enthusiasm for the game of rugby, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that true rugby fans across the country will have enormous sympathy with the case he is making? The teams that do well deserve the right to be promoted.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman and, I think, the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) for this great cause.
London Welsh players responded in the best way possible to the news last night when they won the away leg at the Cornish Pirates’ ground 37 points to 21. We take a 16-point lead into the home game at the Oxford Kassam stadium next Wednesday evening. I hope that members of the RFU board will come to that stadium to see just how well that ground could house premiership rugby next year.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I note that the fourth issue he has addressed, rugby, has attracted a lot more interest in the Chamber than the previous three. I endorse the comments that we have just heard about the quality of administration in the RFU. If he or his club would like to come to the rugby league to see an example of fine administration they should do that.
Let me make a serious point about London Welsh, which I think would be replacing Newcastle in the premiership. I have nothing at all against London Welsh, but it would be a pity if the whole of the rugby union premiership became dominated by teams from the south and did not include fine teams such as Rotherham and Newcastle, which have dropped out of that league.
Mr Thomas
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need for rugby union to have a very diverse base across the country. I certainly hope that when Newcastle takes its place in the championship, as I hope it will, it continues to benefit from the RFU’s support and largesse so that it can have a genuine chance of winning a place back in the premiership. Nevertheless, we have to allow proper promotion and relegation to take place. I do not think London Welsh has been properly treated thus far. I raise this issue in the House today because I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House might encourage the Minister for Sport and the Olympics to use his influence to encourage the RFU to publish the full details of its assessment and how it reached the decision to reject London Welsh’s application for the premiership, so that London Welsh has all the facts in front of it as it prepares its case for appeal.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who has raised some very important issues about a team with a wonderful heritage in the game of rugby. I am pleased to contribute to this debate and although I do not intend to go on at great length, it is an enormous pleasure to be able to speak in this place without having to race the clock or strike out paragraphs from a speech because of a time limit being reduced.
I want to speak about graduated driver licensing, with would involve a change in the licensing regime for new drivers to restrict them to driving only in low-risk environments. I am very keen to raise this issue from the viewpoint of a father of four children, three of whom are now drivers. Like most parents, I had real concerns about my children’s safety in the critical period just after they passed their driving test. I have seen the effect that a road traffic accident can have: when one of my teenage son’s great friends lost his life, it had an effect on the whole friendship group. I also speak as an observer at a local court where a young man was sentenced for causing by careless driving the death of his friend who was in the passenger seat.
The first case showed me the effect of the loss of a young life on the friends of the person. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) spoke movingly about the effects of the loss of a young life. The second case showed me how the behaviour of a young driver, late at night and when there was certainly an element of showing off, also caused the loss of a life.
What is the extent of the problem? According to the Department for Transport, one in five newly qualified drivers, most of them under the age of 25, has a crash within six months of obtaining their licence. According to the AA, a young driver is 10 times more likely to be involved in a serious collision than a more experienced driver.
With that in mind, I draw the attention of the House to graduated driver licensing. Why is it necessary? A lot of research has been carried out by Dr Sarah Jones and Professor Stephen Palmer of Cardiff university, and they have put together a detailed report on the potential of graduated licensing to save lives. They draw attention to the driving conditions where risks are highest and note that they are exacerbated for new and young drivers: driving late at night, driving with passengers of a similar age and driving after drinking alcohol or taking drugs.
To save lives, those conditions need to be minimised, which is exactly what graduated driver licensing does. It reduces exposure to those conditions and builds on-road driving experience by providing an intermediate phase—where there is a degree of supervision and control—between being a learner and holding a full licence. The duration of the intermediate phase is a matter for consideration, so I shall not suggest a firm figure; some supporters have proposed between two and two and a half years.
In the intermediate phase, a driver has complete permission to drive, but not at certain times of night and not with passengers. A further factor that might be introduced could be a restriction on the cubic capacity or horsepower of the engine of the car that new drivers are allowed to drive.
I have already touched on alcohol consumption, which would be zero, and on drug-driving. Drug taking is more prevalent among young people; as a generalisation it is probably safe to say that a greater proportion of drug taking occurs in the evening, so the provisions of the graduated driver licence would mean that the prospect of young people driving after taking drugs would reduce. A consultation paper by the AA in 2008, “Learning to Drive,” said:
“The drug driving problem is not adequately quantified at present, and it is likely that its greatest impact is among the young. If the drug driving problem is as great as some reports suggest, it could be a major reason for accident levels among young drivers. A recent AA Populus poll of 17,500 members showed that 50% felt that drug driving was as big a problem as drink driving.”
I am, therefore, pleased that the Government are aware of the issue, and I welcome the legislation announced in the Queen’s Speech to create a specific offence of drug-driving.
Let us consider the difference between the present position and what would occur if graduated driver licensing were introduced. Currently, there is no restriction on a 17-year-old passing his or her test on one day and on the next driving a gang of mates in a powerful car with a 5 litre engine, capable of travelling at 150 mph. There is a problem that needs to be addressed. Research by Jones and Palmer into all accidents in Britain between 2000 and 2007 found that young people driving in certain conditions were more prone to accidents.
The key points are as follows: young drivers were involved in around 10% of all crashes; crashes involving older drivers decreased by 25% over the period, whereas those involving young drivers dropped by only 5%; a quarter of young driver crashes occurred between 9 pm and 6 am; a quarter of young driver crashes occurred when the young driver was carrying at least one other passenger aged between 15 and 24; half of young driver crash casualties, and 70% of the fatalities, occurred between 9 pm and 6 am and with at least one 15 to 24-year-old in the car; 50% of young driver fatalities occurred either between 10 pm and 5 am or with at least one 15 to 19-year-old in the car; and, perhaps most strikingly, they found that fatal crashes involving older drivers decreased by 15%, while those involving young drivers increased by 15%. The figures show that there is a real problem when it comes to young drivers.
The Government have a position on this. I raised the matter in the House during questions to the then Transport Secretary on 27 January 2011. I asked him for the Government’s view on graduated driver licensing. I understand that the Government are not in favour. He gave me two reasons for that. First, he said that other countries that have graduated driver licensing
“suffer worse safety records than the UK”.—[Official Report, 27 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 437.]
That might be so, but I still think that the number of fatalities among our young people means that the matter should be considered properly. Secondly, he said, in defence of the existing situation, that introducing the system would reduce the mobility of young people and have a negative effect on their participation in the labour market and in higher education. What proportion of young drivers are participating in the labour market or higher education during the hours when graduated driver licensing would impose a restriction, bearing in mind that we are taking about late at night? I cannot see how that argument stands up in relation to a young person driving with his friends at 2 o’clock in the morning.
In 2008 the Government conducted a review of the learner driver process, “Learning to Drive”, and considered graduated driver licensing. They concluded that the reform of driver training and testing is a more appropriate and effective method of dealing with the problem. The Department for Transport said that graduated driver licensing
“would bring extensive social and economic costs”
With regard to costs, we know that there is economic value in saving a life. In 2003 the Health and Safety Executive formulated a cost-benefit analysis that put the cost of a life lost in a fatality at £1.3 million. Cardiff university has carried out some research on the value of preventing deaths in relation to two models of graduated driver licensing—either between 9 pm and 6 am or between 10 pm and 5 am. Under the stricter model, it calculated savings at £247 million a year, and under the less strict model it calculated them at £162 million. Therefore, in addition to reducing the distress we have already heard about today, there would be significant economic benefits from introducing graduated driver licensing.
Elsewhere in the world, graduated driver licensing was first used in New Zealand in 1987 and has since been implemented across the United States, Canada, Australia and parts of Europe. The programmes used in each of those countries vary, and I am not at this stage making a case for which system we should adopt, but the principle of restricting new drivers remains the same in all cases. The research from Cardiff university shows that the impacts will vary, but the best result that has been seen is in Ontario, where crash fatalities among young people decreased by 76% over two years.
The number of young driver crashes is clearly disproportionately high. The issue touches almost everybody: parents, relatives and friends of the young people involved. Action can be taken. I question whether the Government’s current position of looking for more training and testing will be sufficient. I firmly believe that an approach that decreases the risks to which young drivers expose themselves will help reduce the number of young driver incidents. I urge the Government to look again at the positive effects that a new system of licensing could have in achieving what we all wish to see: the young people of our country being safer on our roads and fewer people having to go through the kind of experience that my son and his friends went through.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), whose suggestion I entirely endorse. He revealed, though, two of the biggest problems that all hon. Members and, indeed, Government Front Benchers, face: the “not invented here” syndrome; and the Whitehall expert who knows best and will always find a reason why something cannot be done and should not be changed.
I always admired Gladstone, who brought in a tax for just six months. We should experiment, try the graduated driver’s licence scheme for a year or two and see whether it produces good results. I have seen it work over a number of years in France. After someone passes their driving test in that country, they have to drive around for a year with a large letter “A” on the back of their car, for “apprentice”. That is what it means in French.
The hon. Gentleman’s point about people not going out late at night when they have taken drugs or had a drink is extremely important. Fatalities in France are much higher for lots of other reasons, such as bad road management, speed limits and drink driving, but they are coming down fast. We have a good record, but each life lost—particularly that of a young person—is a terrible tragedy for the families concerned, so I wish him all the very best with his campaign.
I wish to talk briefly about the steel industry and my region of south Yorkshire, and it is an enormous pleasure to do so in the company, on the Opposition Front Bench, of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), because she has one of Britain’s most important steel engineering plants in her constituency and is a doughty champion of it. That plant is linked to a major one in Rotherham, and on this issue we have been able to combine action over a number of years.
The issue has to be set in the broader context of today’s extraordinarily sad news from the Office for National Statistics, which reports that our economy is again contracting. We are shrinking. We have that extraordinary malady of the ever-shrinking British economy under this Government. In the first quarter of this year it was down 0.3%, which is an increase in negative growth on the first estimate of 0.2%, but within that overall figure we have some rather more worrying statistics, which impact on the broader south Yorkshire manufacturing economy, including not only steel, but engineering, construction and all the things that go into “making” Britain, rather than the financial services or the huge amounts of money that the City makes. Indeed, one of the huge problems with the current Government is that the Cabinet knows the south of France better than it knows the north of England.
According to the ONS, construction output declined by 4.8% in the first three months of this year, after a 0.2% decline in the fourth quarter last year. That is absolutely catastrophic, and one of the biggest components of any aspect of construction, from roads, to houses, office blocks, new schools and hospital wings, is steel, so, when the construction industry declines by 5% under our nation’s current economic stewards, that signals very bad news for steel.
There has been no growth at all in manufacturing. There are of course some pockets of growth, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) pointed out earlier today, the car industry is doing better, so I accept fully that the situation is uneven, but we are a United Kingdom Parliament, not a south of England Parliament or a Parliament just for the City, and our policies have to help all of the country, not just parts of it.
Debt is the enemy of any good stewardship of the nation, although I have to say that I have probably been in debt all my life: it is called a mortgage. But, providing I have been able to manage that debt and to pay the interest rates, I have not been crippled by it. When William Pitt became Prime Minister in 1784, the average national income of Great Britain was £23 million and the national debt of Great Britain was £240 million. In other words, the national debt was 10 times the national income. That did not faze Pitt, but it seems to faze his old Etonian successor, our current Prime Minister, who thinks that an infinitesimally smaller level of debt is something that has to bring the entire UK economy to a juddering halt. I am not suggesting that we return to Pittite days of massive debt to national income ratios, but we have to strike a balance, and we will certainly not tackle any of our debt if we do not swiftly move to growth.
I accept that some Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, are interested in steel and have come to the advanced manufacturing plant in Rotherham, on the border with Sheffield, to see the excellent work done there by Rolls-Royce, Boeing and other companies. I invite a Minister to come to a steel plant, either in my constituency or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, where they will be told about the extraordinarily international nature of the steel industry and about the fact that what goes into making steel entirely determines its profitability and the future sustainability of any part of the industry.
The big problem that we face is the obsession with front-loading on to the steel industry the general problem of climate change. I am talking about steel, but I am not excluding other industries. I am sure that hon. Members with connections to the glass or ceramics industry, or to other high-energy-using industries, would make the same point on their behalf. There has been a culture, not necessarily under this Government, of saying, “Heavy industry bad; anything else good.” Well, I am sorry, but we are not going to move away into an economy of which steel does not remain an essential component. Steel is vital, sometimes in very small elements, whether it be in our cars, our mobile telephones or the planes we travel in—modern steel, high-tech steel, flexible steel. Steel is also a huge recycling industry. It is not generally understood that steel production is based on gobbling up and reusing old, unused steel that would otherwise have to go into landfill or clutter up the landscape.
In this year’s Budget, our southern-oriented Chancellor outlined policies that will have a detrimental effect on the UK steel industry. He confirmed that the Government will calculate the 2014-15 prices support rates, equivalent to £9.55 per tonne of carbon dioxide, in line with the carbon price floor, using the methodology set out in the 2011 Budget. This has increased from the indicative rate set last year of £7.28 per tonne. That is a response to the dramatic fall in carbon prices seen last summer. EU allowances reached record lows at the beginning of this year, so the support rate or tax applied in the UK needs to go up to achieve the floor. That means that next year the rate will be nearly double that in 2014, which was meant to stand at £4.94 per tonne but is now set much higher.
I am sorry that this is quite complicated, technical stuff to bring to the House. I am not trying to make a partisan point; indeed, I pay tribute to Ministers, who have always been willing to receive delegations of MPs from steel industry areas. Part of the problem is that such a level of technical detail is impossible to get across in parliamentary questions. One has to dig into fairly technical steel technology and steel industry publications to find this material, because it never features on the front page of any newspaper or business section.
In response to the increase in the carbon price floor, BIS has allocated £250 million in compensation to cover the 2013-15 period. Given that our steel industry has a value of about £3 billion a year, £250 million will not be sufficient to counteract the negative effect of the carbon price floor. That might cause lasting damage to the British steel industry.
I plead with the Government—the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department of Energy and Climate Change—to rethink their policies. They can, by all means, insist that we reduce CO2 emissions. However, they should not use methodologies and prices that are changing so rapidly that they will do damage when rigidly applied. Believe me, when civil servants want to apply something rigidly, they do. On the whole, Ministers, however well-intentioned they are, are not across every detail of such decisions. Without it being an intended consequence, if we allow the present structure of carbon reduction through price support mechanisms to continue, we may face serious damage to our steel industry.
Secondly, there is the pledge to consult on simplifying the carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme, or CRCEES as it is known in the trade, to attempt to reduce the administrative burden on business. The Government have said that they are ready to look at replacing those revenues with an alternative environmental tax. However, they have not specified how an environmental tax will be paid and which industries it will affect. We also had the statement on feed-in tariffs earlier today.
Last night, I had the most extraordinary exchange with Mr Nigel Farage on LBC. His new term for the Prime Minister is a “warmist”. I had never heard of warmism before, but in the lexicon of the UK Independence party, it is apparently used to denounce people who like renewable energy and wind turbines, and who think that we are facing global warming. Mr Farage obviously knows better that global warming is an EU conspiracy to undermine Britain. He thinks that the louder he calls the Prime Minister a warmist, the more people will flock to vote for UKIP. I do not know whether that is the case.
At the moment, only non-energy-intensive firms and organisations are bound by the carbon reduction commitment. We have to look at other ways in which we can support energy intensive industries, and the steel industry in particular. It is the most extraordinary sight to see steel being melted in Rotherham. Scrap is poured into a giant metal pot and a red-hot electrode goes in at about 2,000° or 3,000°. There is a huge explosion, upon which I have seen distinguished colleagues shake. It demonstrates the raw power of industry. In a sense, it is a process that has not changed since the days of Vulcan—heat is applied to iron ore or scrap metal and out flows molten steel—except that the process is magnified in temperature and size many times over. It is fantastically dramatic; sometimes tragically so, as accidents still happen. That is the raw nature of what has to be the core of our economy, because however high-tech, Googley and Facebooky we want to make the British economy, and however much we want to base it on the City and the financial services industry, it will still need houses, cars, hospitals and metal manufacturing.
The third problem is the extraordinary discrepancy between the fuel costs in this country and those of our major competitors. The most dramatic difference is with the United States, where shale gas is significantly reducing the cost of energy. I have graphs here, but I do not really want to give more figures. The price of fuel in the US is about 50% lower than that in the United Kingdom. That is why I support a dash for gas, based on shale gas. That could significantly reduce the UK’s dependence on imported energy sources. I am not against wind farms—how can one be?—but they will never provide the electricity that is needed to melt steel. Everybody wants to be able to press a switch and on comes the light, on comes the heating, on comes the hot shower, on comes the air conditioning or on comes whatever else, but that ain’t gonna happen from renewable sources.
Finally, I want to consider the problem of electricity prices. I have a chart illustrating the estimated prices in 2015. I cannot hold it up, because we cannot do PowerPoint stuff in the Chamber, but the best estimates show that the cost per megawatt-hour delivered in Germany will be about €50, and in the United Kingdom €70. In the United States it will be €35, in the Nordic countries €45 and in France a bit less than in Germany, maybe €48. Those are estimates, but we—by “we” I mean our steel industry—pay higher tax on electricity than the United States or our main European steel-making competitors.
I understand the desire to reduce our carbon output and the Treasury’s perfectly reasonable desire to get what tax it can from whatever source it can. I know that my speech could be described as special pleading, but the comparators with most other countries show that the British steel industry remains fundamentally disadvantaged by the higher cost of electricity, which is needed for melting steel. It cannot be done with a Bunsen burner or by putting the gas cooker on, it needs 2,000° C to 3,000° C-worth of electricity delivered fast and hard.
David Mowat
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that every Member should spend some time looking at a blast furnace. The one that I saw was in Port Talbot. It is quite an emotional experience.
The right hon. Gentleman is making a case about high energy prices, and it is a fact that they destroy jobs and value in industries of the type that he is representing today. However, I am not quite so clear about what his solution is, given everybody’s apparent desire to have more windmills.
Mr MacShane
It is to invest in a mixture of energy sources, and I would focus on nuclear. We simply need a wider national debate about what is important, including maintaining a steel and manufacturing sector as part of the broader economy. It is reducing in size and will never generate millions of jobs again, but we need a debate about whether it is worth while, particularly in the part of England that is getting less and less attention from this very southern-focused Government. The hon. Gentleman made the point that if Newcastle were knocked out of the rugby union premier league, rugby union would become an entirely southern-based sport. I want more balance in our economy and our sport, much though I am delighted that Chelsea beat the Germans on Saturday.
I will finish by quoting Karl-Ulrich Köhler, the managing director of Tata Steel here in the UK. He praised the Budget, saying:
“The Chancellor is rightly aiming to reward work”,
but he said that it
“did little to ease the additional unilateral energy costs that UK industry must bear. The benefits to industry pale into insignificance against the costs imposed on them from existing energy and climate change regulations, which are rising alarmingly in the UK.”
That is “Made in Britain” regulation. It has nothing to do with the EU. I am going to sit down now, but I could make the case that the European model of manufacturing, steel and energy prices is much more intelligent and co-ordinated than ours. If we had the same model, it would hugely benefit manufacturing, particularly the steel industry. I urge Ministers to pay particular attention to the matter.
I would get on my knees to say that even if we have much better and fairer electricity prices, we can make all the products we want, but while we have a recession-focused Chancellor who seems to draw some weird pleasure from the British economy shrinking, there will be no money to buy those products and the firms of Rotherham will face a very bleak future. That goes not just for our huge steel industry but for every firm that needs a decent level of demand in the economy, which is currently being denied the UK.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I ended my speech in the Christmas recess debate by saying:
“I am amazed that the leaders of the Christian faith around the world, whether the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, through the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Pope, have remained silent. It is time that the Christian leaders spoke up for the people of the holy land.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 1292.]
Five months of silence has followed. Collectively—with certain significant exceptions—the Christian Church has abandoned not only the holy land but the indigenous Palestinian people. The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury might like to check precisely what the parable of the Good Samaritan is about.
Hunger strikes by hundreds of Palestinians in Israeli prisons have gone barely noticed by the British media. One thing is certain: the holocaust of 70 years ago was not the fault of the Palestinians. It seems, however, that Europe’s collective guilt for what happened is represented by the collective repression and punishment of the Palestinians.
The preamble to the UN charter states that the UN was created, among other things,
“to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights…to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained…to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”
and
“to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours”.
It specifically states that
“armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest”
and refers to
“the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples”.
Article 1, chapter 1 of the charter refers to the need to
“develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take…appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace”,
and to the need to encourage
“respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”.
Mr MacShane
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech, and I do not dissent from some of the points he makes. The puzzle is that in 1948 Israel was allowed to be created by the UN, so why was the Palestinian state not created then, with East Jerusalem as its capital and including the west bank and Gaza? Why did Palestine not come into being at that time?
Sir Bob Russell
I can answer that only by saying that in the year of my birth, the state of Israel did not exist, but today, maps of the middle east show that it occupies virtually the entirety of what used to be Palestine.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the state of Israel should exist?
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Vis-à-vis Israel and Palestine, does the hon. Gentleman believe in a two-state solution in the middle east?
Sir Bob Russell
Sadly, the attitude of the state of Israel is such that the probability of a two-state solution being achieved is moving rapidly towards zero.
The UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, adopted on 13 September 2007, states
“indigenous people should be free from discrimination of any kind”.
It also makes reference to
“the urgent need to respect…their rights to their lands, territories and resources”.
Sadly, there is one country with which this country, every EU country and the United States have strong links but which practises policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid against its indigenous people. I refer to the state of Israel.
On 11 September, the Israeli Cabinet decided to pursue the plan to resolve the long-standing issues faced by the country’s 200,000 Arab Bedouin population living in the southern Negev desert. The plan, known as the Prawer plan, will result in at least 30,000 people losing their homes. The Bedouin are Israel’s indigenous people, as accepted by the UN special rapporteur on indigenous peoples, but the Israeli Government refuse to accept it. Israel wants to move tens of thousands of Bedouin from their homes and villages into Government townships that are already overcrowded and have a large range of social and economic problems.
Last year, I had the privilege of visiting Palestine and Israel, the west bank and East Jerusalem. I witnessed at first hand those policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories—a separate matter from that of the Arab Bedouin. We have heard today about the Arab spring, but I am referring to the Arab winter. Palestinian children are being arrested, ill treated and, it is arguable, tortured. Some are being detained in Israel in violation of article 76 of the fourth Geneva convention.
I have raised concerns about the Israel-Palestine issue on numerous occasions in the House, most recently yesterday at International Development questions, when I again asked about ethnic cleansing and apartheid. On 11 January, I put my point directly to the Prime Minister. In response, he said that the United Kingdom was
“a country that should stand up for clear human rights and clear rights and wrongs in international relations. This Government have been very clear that we do not agree with the Israeli Government’s practice on settlements…and this Government will continue to act and vote on illegal settlements.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 178.]
I also raised these issues on 15 December at business questions. On 16 May, in a written question, I asked the Foreign Secretary
“what representations he has made to the EU not to renew Israel’s special trading status in view of its continued occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in contravention of UN Resolutions”.
In response, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), wrote:
“We support closer ties between Israel and the international community… The EU has been very clear that no progress can be made on upgrading the wider EU-Israel relationship until there is substantial progress towards a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is a position the UK supports.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 200W.]
On 15 September, I asked about the illegal settlements, and on 28 February, in an oral question to the Foreign Secretary, I raised for the first time the serious possibility of an Israeli armed attack on Iran. I asked the Foreign Secretary for a clear guarantee that the UK would not support Israel, militarily or diplomatically, should such an attack take place. He replied:
“We are not calling for or advocating a military attack on Iran, and at this moment we advise others not to do so. But we also believe that it is important to keep Iran under pressure and that no options are taken off the table.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2012; Vol. 541, c. 149.]
I have asked numerous other questions on human rights and the occupation.
Another interesting subject is how Israel ignores international law on the freedom of shipping in international waters. I tabled a written question about that last month, to which the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, replied:
“The most recent incident of which we are aware”—
which suggests that there is more than one—
“is that relating to the HS Beethoven, which was boarded by the Israel Defence Force on 22 April 2012.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1350W.]
So there we have it: international law and United Nations resolutions can, it seems, all be ignored by Israel without any retribution or action by this country, the European Union or the United Nations.
I am grateful to Ted from Liverpool, who has sent me some background information. He ends his message—the subject of which is “War War not Jaw Jaw is Israel’s way”—with the words:
“End the Occupation, then there will be Peace.”
He says:
“Many of us worry that Israel will drag us into a war with Iran… We now learn”—
the Foreign Secretary’s answer tended to confirm this—
“that Government Ministers are considering how we might be involved in the event of an Israeli strike and an Iranian response. America has already stated its own position in a Bill, HR 4133… Texan Representative Ron Paul, the only one to speak out against it, has said ‘...the objective is to provide Israel with the resources to attack Iran, if it chooses to do so, while tying the US and Israel so closely together that whatever Benjamin Netanyahu does, the US “will always be there”, as our president has so aptly put it.’…the vote was 411 to 2 in favour”
of the Bill.
Incidentally, just as a throwaway line, I am advised that the Olympic games organisers have listed Israel as a country in Europe.
Ted writes that recently in the other House,
“Baroness Brinton spoke of an Israeli army order to demolish 1,500 olive trees in Deir Istiya… the Foreign Office, whilst condemning Israel’s abuse of human rights in its Human Rights & Democracy Report for 2011, merely remonstrates with Israel over its abuses and at the same time rewards it with favoured nation treatment and trading agreements.”
Eric of Ipswich tells me:
“we are well used to Israel ejecting Palestinians from their own homes, for demolition… It is also normal for Israel to destroy Palestinian farms and land, to prevent the local population feeding itself”.
In fact, I have witnessed that myself on the west bank, where a priority for some of the illegal Israeli settlements is to stop up watercourses, depriving the indigenous population of water to grow crops, because the water is needed by the settlers for their swimming pools. Eric continues:
“in Yatta, Rateb al-Jabour…Israeli soldiers accompanied by policemen and members of the Israeli civil administration raided the area with heavy machinery and destroyed six tents housing over 30 people.”
The object of the Israeli demolition was
“to empty it of…local residents to expand the nearby”
illegal settlement of Sosiya. Israeli forces recently
“demolished an animal barn… south of Hebron,”
and
“Israeli bulldozers demolished…a 600-square-meter chicken hut, built 30 years ago, in…a village southwest of Ramallah”.
In the other House, the Foreign Office Minister Lord Howell was challenged over the destruction of Palestinian olive groves, to which, I am led to believe, he responded by saying, “Well, there are two sides to an illegal invasion/occupation,” which is an extraordinary statement. We have to ask the question put to me by Eric of Ipswich:
“How many more people have to die and suffer, before Israel is made to obey international law?”
He concludes:
“The one and only problem is the illegal occupation. Please use your position to put an end to the misery, require Israel to live in peace with its neighbours instead of attacking them all, and allow Palestinian farmers of olives and other crops and livestock, to earn their living and feed their people.”
In conclusion, I should like to draw the House’s attention to early-day motion 57, tabled by me, on the Co-operative Group’s Israeli boycott. I hope that all will support it. Sadly, Tesco does not do so: it continues to sell produce grown on land stolen from Palestinians by Israeli settlers. However, the Co-operative Group is banning all Israeli goods from the occupied Palestinian west bank. The motion
“calls on all other supermarket chains and suppliers to follow the excellent lead of the Co-operative Group; recalls that it was such boycott policies which helped end apartheid in South Africa; and calls on the Government to make representations to the EU to urge that all member states issue similar boycott measures and to end the special trading status which the EU has with Israel.”
Mr MacShane
Does the hon. Gentleman know the German term “Kauft nicht bei Juden”? If he does not, he can look it up when he reads Hansard tomorrow. I was in South Africa, where the minority white Government behaved abominably. I could not meet a black friend in an hotel. I worked with the black trade unions there. I share many of the hon. Gentleman’s criticisms of Israel, but the last time I was there, I could meet Arab Israeli parliamentarians and Arab supreme court judges, and I saw Arab women and their families swimming alongside Jews in the sea off Tel Aviv. The apartheid comparison is there for one reason only: an apartheid state cannot exist; it has no right to exist. Those who call Israel—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes, and he knows full well that interventions must be brief. A lot of Members are still waiting to speak, and I will need to consider imposing a time limit if speeches do not get a little shorter.
Sir Bob Russell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am unable to comment on what the right hon. Gentleman has said, as I have no personal knowledge of the points that he made.
I shall conclude by reading part of early-day motion 9, which
“calls on the UK Government not to support Israel in its continuing acts of breaches of international law and UN resolutions in respect of illegal action in international waters and in the illegal occupation of the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem.”
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I should like to expand on my previous comment. We need to arrive at the wind-up speeches by 5.30 pm at the latest. If each Member who has indicated that they wish to speak takes approximately 10 minutes, they will all have the opportunity to participate. If that does not happen over the course of the next couple of speeches, I shall have to resort to imposing a time limit, but I am sure that I can trust all Members to watch the clock and make their points succinctly.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, may I say that I entirely agree with everything that the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) has said? My subject is completely different, however.
An historic event occurred on Tuesday this week. A freight train carrying full-scale lorry trailers from the continent through the channel tunnel arrived at a freight trans-shipment terminal at Barking, on the north of the Thames and to the east of London, for the first time. This was a simple demonstration of what should be the future for the millions of tonnes of freight that are carried every year on our roads. They can and should be carried by rail. The train that arrived at Barking could carry those lorry trailers no further, however, as the loading gauge on Britain’s rail network is too small to accommodate such traffic. We shall not see that massive modal shift from road to rail until trailers on trains can be carried the length and breadth of our country. I should point out that carbon dioxide emissions from heavy road freight are 12 times higher per tonne-mile than those from rail.
There is a scheme to build a dedicated or freight-priority line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, linking all our major conurbations with each other and with the continent of Europe and beyond. I have been involved with the scheme for a decade or more, but I must point out that I have no pecuniary interest in it whatever. I work closely with the other members of the team, who include two railway engineers and Ken Russell of Russell Transport, the second-largest haulier in Scotland, which operates the Barking terminal.
The plan is to build a 400-mile line on unused track bed and under-utilised lines, with only 14 miles of new track route for the entire length. There will be a series of terminals—to the north-west of London, in the east midlands and west midlands, in south Yorkshire, south Lancashire and in Scotland. It will have an extension to the north-east and later to the south-west and south Wales. It is designed to work with road hauliers so that they can tractor their trailers to their nearest terminal and dispatch them by rail for transport to a terminal near their final destination. In its early stages, it will, as now, use the channel tunnel rail link—High Speed 1—but a separate line through Kent is incorporated in the final design. It will be built to a gauge to accommodate double-stacked full-size containers.
A large-gauge rail freight network is already well ahead on the continent of Europe with tunnels through the Alps and a 28-mile tunnel through the Brenner pass. There is also the Betuweroute, already built and running between Rotterdam and the Ruhr. If we do not build our new line, Britain will simply be left as a peripheral, antiquated and inadequate provider of rail freight, with consequent damage to our economy—a withering branch on the international railway tree.
Under our scheme, Scotch whisky could be delivered by rail to Berlin, Rome and points east reliably, efficiently and in an environmentally beneficial way. It would save thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions every year and overcome the problem of road congestion and drivers’ hours constraints that currently affect road haulage.
Our team and I have met successive Transport Ministers, and we are hopeful that it will not be long before the Government give us the green light. We are assured that, with a nod from the Government, bank finance would be forthcoming very quickly. The scheme will be cheap to build and self-financing when up and running. We anticipate that it would take 5 million lorry journeys off our roads every year, and take most of the freight traffic from the west coast and east coast main lines, freeing up that capacity for more passenger trains.
Based on HS1 costings, we calculate that the whole route will be constructed for less than £6 billion—a fraction of HS2, if I may say so. Indeed, one of the rail constructors suggested to us that it could do it for less than £4 billion. We have wide support. The supermarkets are keen; Eurotunnel is enthusiastic; the rail constructors are interested; and AXA, the insurance giant, has said that it is interested in investing in the terminals—it currently owns the freehold of the Barking terminal.
Under the last Government, I led a team of all the supporters to meet the then Secretary of State for Transport, Geoff Hoon. It seemed that the only concern was that our line along the old great central route might take up the route required for HS2. The fact is that there is a stretch of only a few miles for which HS2 and our freight route would need run side by side, and it would cause no problems.
This rail scheme is desperately needed, and I believe that its time has come. It just needs a positive nod from the Government. I emphasise that I have no pecuniary interest—just a passionate belief that this scheme is vital for our country.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee, of which I confess I am a member, on providing this opportunity for debate. I have observed that some colleagues have used it extremely well, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who spoke so movingly. I congratulate her, too, on bringing the military wives choir to Portcullis House yesterday.
I wish to raise a number of points on the Whitsun Adjournment. First, I have three early-day motions, which I urge colleagues to sign before we rise for the recess. The first congratulates West Ham United on being promoted to the premiership, despite some poor management and over-inflated ticket prices. The second congratulates Chelsea on beating Bayern Munich. The third, with which I suspect Conservative Members might be pleased, condemns the behaviour of some of the people attending the Police Federation conference. I thought that their behaviour was disgraceful, particularly the way they tried to bully and intimidate the Home Secretary. I thought that, for them, it was a public relations disaster.
I shall turn now to online newspaper comments. I am increasingly concerned with the whole system whereby people can publish material in electronic newspaper articles without supplying their names and addresses. This is totally unacceptable. There are swear words and expletives, but there seems to be no legislation to deal with the problem. None of us really has the money to fight cases through the courts, even if that were possible. I know that whenever an article is written about me in one local newspaper—which I do not send to it—the abuse is endless. It is water off a duck’s back for me, but for some people who are rather close to me it can be a little bit offensive. I welcome the Defamation Bill, but I think that there should be much stricter controls. It is absolutely gutless not to force those who wish to say abusive things online to leave their names and addresses.
Public anger has recently been directed at the high pay received by private sector bosses, most notably those in the big banks, but what regulation is there to deal with some public sector executives? In 2009, 31 council bosses earned more than the Prime Minister, which is crazy, and chief executives of public bodies can take home more than £250,000 a year. I am not satisfied that there is proper scrutiny of public organisations, including some in Essex such as the probation service and NHS trusts.
I find it less than acceptable that a Member of Parliament should have to resort to the Freedom of Information Act to confirm, after a number of months, that those who were consulted on the closure of Leigh police station lived miles away, so effectively there was no consultation. It has taken me two years just to confirm that the present chief constable of Essex was chosen from a shortlist of one. That is outrageous. Apparently the other candidates had withdrawn on the day. When I asked who had made the decision not to re-advertise the position, I was told that the decision had been made in the first instance by Essex police authority. That says it all. In 30 years, Essex police authority has never engaged with me, as a Member of Parliament. As I have said, there needs to be much greater scrutiny. Anyone can get rid of Members of Parliament after—now—five years, but some public bodies seem to be a law unto themselves.
I must admit that one of my children had an unfortunate experience recently with a private clamping company. We are dealing with it through the small claims court, and I am determined that we will win. To charge someone £480 and then intimidate and bully them is totally unacceptable. I understand that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 will outlaw wheel-clamping on private land, and I welcome that, but I think that private clamping companies should be much more tightly regulated.
Mr Amess
I think that I must accept your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us have been here since 1 pm, and I know that you are very keen to give everyone a chance to speak. I apologise for not giving way on this occasion.
I am dismayed that victims of the Vioxx disaster are still struggling to obtain compensation. Vioxx was the biggest drugs disaster in human history, killing more than 100,000 people worldwide and leaving many more suffering horrific side effects. With that in mind, I find it unbelievable that victims are still fighting legal battles. So far, the United States of America is the only country in which a Vioxx settlement has been won. Attempts at settlements have been made in Canada and Australia, but we do not seem to be progressing too well in this country.
I am also concerned about the impact of drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. All of us with children know that the biggest challenge we face is bringing them up, but I am very worried about something that has been brought to my attention by a constituent, Mrs Stephanie Lister: the fact that children with behavioural disorders are being described as having ADHD. Very young children are often issued with powerful treatments such as Ritalin, and Mrs Lister wondered whether the damage that they might cause had ever been considered. Children often complain of chest pains, vomiting and even total memory loss as a result of taking medications for behavioural conditions. Such prescriptions provide big business. In 2010 the NHS spent £48 million on ADHD drugs. The number of prescriptions has increased steadily over the past decade, and is currently at about the 750,000 mark. That is quite extraordinary.
I am very concerned about the political situation in the Maldives. The resignation of President Nasheed in February caused great turmoil. Last week the Speaker of the Maldives Parliament came to see me. Its Parliament is in deadlock, while the Speaker was barred from entering the state opening ceremony. He wisely chose not to intervene with force. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to do as much possible to help with the situation in the Maldives.
We in Essex are very upmarket, so we talk about children, not kids, but two weeks ago the “kids count” awards took place on the House of Commons Terrace, and it was a privilege to be there. I presented one of my constituents, Stephanie Migliorini, with the “kids count” award for the most inspirational young person. It was a wonderful evening. Various celebs were present, including Tony Hadley, the still-great singer, and Darren Campbell, the still-great runner. Seventeen-year-old Stephanie has two older brothers with tremendous challenges, and she has looked after them magnificently.
I am proud to have been given a new book written by one of my constituents. Simon Sear has written the inspirational “Kencho: the Art of Happiness”—which, of course, we all chase. He is the husband of Juliet Sear from the popular local bakery, Fancy Nancy. The book outlines a personal transformation programme, drawing on psychological tools and Simon’s personal experience, and its focus on happiness reinforces the social messages of the current Government. I recommend it to all colleagues as a good bedtime read.
I was delighted that one of my hon. Friends mentioned the comments made by the managing director of the International Monetary Fund only this week. Some Opposition Members must be suffering from amnesia: for 13 years we had a Labour Government. For 13 years that Government had an opportunity to transform our nation’s prospects, but, started off by Tony Blair and then finished by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), our country was left in a dreadful state. No wonder the managing director of the IMF said she shivers to think what would have happened without the fiscal consolidation implemented by our new Government. I hope they stand firm on our current policy.
Last Thursday, Southend was blessed with the arrival of a new cultural centre on the end of what is the longest pier in the world. It is the first new building to be constructed on the pier since 2000—that is because, unfortunately, we have had three fires over the last 50 years. The building weighs 170 tonnes and it was carried by boat down the river Thames. I think it will be an icon for the eastern region, and I urge all Members to visit it.
Everyone is looking forward to the Olympics celebrations that will take place throughout the country. The arrival of the Olympics torch in the south-west has been absolutely marvellous, and I congratulate those who have made it possible for 95% of the population to be involved. Of course the highlight will be when the torch comes to Southend on 6 July. Mark Foster has been announced as one of the torch bearers, and the torch will be met by a choir of 2,000 people. It will be a wonderful occasion, and I am advised that there will also be some flash-mob dancing.
Next week, we will have the jubilee celebrations. In fact, we have the jubilee party in Westminster Hall this evening, and I know that many hon. Members will be on the Terrace on Sunday 3 June. Southend has had 67 applications for street parties, so we are certainly going to celebrate 60 glorious years of the sovereign reigning over us. I also just wish the House and all our officials a happy Whitsun recess.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I will endeavour to speak succinctly on one issue. I rise as a Back Bencher, and I am aware that many of us make suggestions to the Government about policies that usually have the characteristic of costing money. I am delighted to say that the proposal I am going to outline will save the Government about £30 billion per annum. The case I wish to make is for the abolition of tax relief on pensions. If we were to get rid of that relief, it also would enable us, if we so wished, to increase the basic pension by between 50% and 60%, and to reverse the tax raid that resulted from the previous Government’s changes to private pension arrangements. Private pension arrangements in this country are a disaster.
The question might arise as to who would lose from this proposal. They would not be the people who are saving for their retirement, because the industry with which they have saved has failed completely to enable them to do that. I will develop that point a little further later. As far as I am able to make out, the only significant losers from this proposal would be estate agents in Kensington and Chelsea, which is where the supernormal profits from the industry that is supposed to look after our retirements are going.
In broad terms, there are two models for pensions. One is the one we have, whereby tax relief is given, people are encouraged to save in their own right and they then have their pots, which they can use at the end. The other model is that used in most of the rest of Europe, whereby the state has a much higher position in helping and the consequence is higher basic pension provision by the state. In general, I would prefer our model, if it worked—it would be a model that I am more comfortable with. It is a market-based model that encourages people to do the right thing and then have more money in retirement. Unfortunately, it has not worked and is not working, and there is a real policy issue to address for Governments of whatever type.
Let me give some evidence of the failure: approximately 50% of people have a poor view of the retirement industry; one third of people in the private sector do not save at all for their pensions; and another third who do save have an average pension pot in the order of £35,000, which will buy them a pension of about £1,500 per annum. The further evidence of failure in this area is that the Government, rather than reforming the current system, are introducing compulsion, because people will not save under the existing structures.
All this has happened because we have a market failure. As I say, I would prefer a market-based solution. We have a market that is too complex, in which there is no transparency and, most seriously, a massive asymmetry of information between the suppliers of these financial products and the people buying them. Punters need to demonstrate a massive degree of intellectual self-confidence in challenging the people who are selling pensions, the fund managers and so on. That is not going to be fixed by better financial regulation, although the situation could have been fixed with better advice—that is really what should have happened. The difficulty is that the advice industry of individual financial advisers was entirely hijacked by the pension fund provision industry in terms of commission, trailing commission and all that goes with that. As a result, independent advice has not been available and that has compounded the issue.
I want to say a couple of things about charges. The Financial Services Authority estimates that 31% of private pension pots go in charges. That does not include the so-called churn charges, which are the cost of buying and selling shares at differing rates and the equity within that, as the average pension fund churns every seven months. If we take churn charges into account, it is nearer to 50%.
Over the past decade, at a time in which pension funds have been increasing in size, one would expect economies of scale to have taken down the average pension percentage charge. In that decade, charges have risen because of the market failure. Significantly, a lot of academic research says that the difference between the pension fund industry in this country and that of the US is about 100 basis points a year—1% a year in extra charges that are almost certainly going on supernormal profits. That is the money that the Government are providing through pension tax relief.
I am keen not to take too long, so I would like to leave my hon. Friend on the Front Bench with a figure for the savings, with a description of how I got to that number. In broad terms, the fund industry in this country is worth £2.5 trillion a year. So, the funds under management are £2.5 trillion and if we accept—it is pretty clear that it is true—that 1% of that represents the supernormal overcharging caused by the market failure that I have described, which does not exist in other countries, there is a supernormal profit of £25 billion to £30 billion a year. Conveniently, that is pretty close to the amount of money that we give the industry in tax relief. I do not think that the industry expects it to continue, as it is as astonished about it as many of the rest of us are.
It is not good enough for the Government to make proposals for compulsion through auto-enrolment when they are superimposing them on the rotten industry, which continues to fail, rather than reforming it. The reform could take place through caps on charges, which the Government introduced for the stakeholder industry and will not do for this. The National Employment Savings Trust, the Government’s own provision of auto-enrolment fund management, could then be given a higher profile. Some of the restrictions on NEST should not remain, either.
I leave the Deputy Leader of the House with the thought that my proposal offers £30 billion to £35 billion and I do not even want any commission.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), who has been very active in the Chamber this week. I am sure that he is active every week, but he has been on his feet and successfully been called every day that I have been in the House, and I have been in on each of the past four days. I congratulate him on his activity.
I am conscious of your admonition to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall try to rattle through a number of issues. It is a pleasure to see the Deputy Leader of the House in his place and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) in hers and I look forward to their responses in due course.
As an east London MP, it would be wholly wrong of me not to start my comments by referring to the Olympics. Sometimes my classic cockney accent confuses people, but my constituency is in docklands and we are looking forward to the Olympics very much. My wife, Dr Sheila Fitzpatrick, and I attended a test event two weekends ago and the excitement at Stratford—at a test event—was palpable. As we have all seen on the television this week, the arrival of the Olympic torch has shown that excitement is building. Clearly, there will be much to enjoy this summer and we wish for successful outcomes for the British athletes and Olympic team. We hope that transport arrangements in London work as effectively as they ought to and I am sure that under Peter Hendy, the chief executive of Transport for London, that will be the case.
On the subject of TFL, we are desperate for another river crossing—at least one. I know that the Government and the Mayor of London are committed to two, and we want to see them as quickly as possible. The area east of Tower bridge is now lived in by almost half of London’s population and we have only four crossings. West of Tower bridge, there are 20-plus crossings. We need extra crossings on the Thames, or else east London will gridlock and the driver for this great capital city for the next generation or two will be stalled.
As a former Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household, I look forward to the diamond jubilee and to the celebrations of that, which will be a portent of those that will follow during the Olympics.
I want to mention the ten-minute rule Bill proposed recently by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on the labelling of food, particularly halal food, in relation to animal welfare. That debate was sidetracked and ended up being presented as an attack on the Muslim and Jewish communities. My support for that Bill was based on animal welfare grounds. It has subsequently been publicised that the percentage of halal meat in the UK coming from animals that were stunned is around 90%. The debate about meat labelling in relation to animal welfare therefore ought not to be about whether meat is halal or kosher but about whether the animal was stunned or unstunned, because the vast majority of people want to buy food that is labelled accurately and honestly, and animal welfare is a huge issue for many people. This is not an attack on Islam or on the Jewish community; it is about promoting the best animal welfare standards. I give credit to Mehdi Hasan for his very insightful article in the New Statesman, which clarified these issues and demonstrated that we should be promoting this not as an issue of prejudice but as an issue of animal welfare.
Let me address an issue of increasing significance in east London—leaseholders’ rights. Whether leaseholders are former council or social landlord tenants who have exercised the right to buy or whether they are private tenants who have bought a leasehold property through a mortgage, there can be a hike in service charges and insurance charges, and there is a gap in protection in relation to management companies, particularly disreputable ones. I am talking about a lot of professional people in east London—lawyers, doctors and architects—who have bought very expensive properties and are then paying tens of thousands of pounds in parking charges, service charges and insurance charges. There is a gap in the protection available to people from those who have the freehold of land. Once someone signs a leasehold agreement, they are basically at the mercy of the freeholder into the future. This issue needs to be addressed.
In today’s papers, there was a story about the lady who was, sadly, bitten by a dog and is suffering from rabies. I had a meeting this morning with the World Society for the Protection of Animals, which is seeking support from the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for International Development. The WSPA has an initiative called “Red Collar” under which it is immunising dogs in third-world countries against rabies. Our citizen, who was bitten when she was in a foreign country, might well have benefited from that programme, and I encourage DFID and DEFRA to support the WSPA’s “Red Collar” campaign.
The main issue I want to raise is that of housing benefit. I supported Ken Livingstone in the mayoral campaign, but I have to give credit to the Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson for certain comments that he has made in recent months and years. In October 2010, he told BBC London:
“The last thing we want to have in our city is a situation such as Paris where the less well-off are pushed out to the suburbs”.
He went on:
“I’ll emphatically resist any attempt to recreate a London where the rich and poor cannot live together…We will not see and we will not accept any kind of Kosovo-style social cleansing of London.”
He concluded by saying:
“On my watch, you are not going to see thousands of families evicted from the place where they have been living and have put down roots.”
This Tuesday morning, I had a meeting with Jobcentre Plus officers from east London, as a result of which I have come here today to raise this issue. For two years I have been going to the Table Office to bid in the draw to ask a question in Prime Minister’s questions, but I have been spectacularly unsuccessful. I have bid again for our first week back in June and if I get a chance to ask the Prime Minister a question, it will be about the housing benefit cap, which will result in the forced eviction of hundreds of families from my constituency. Jobcentre Plus told me that there are 900 households in the constituency of Poplar and Limehouse whose benefits exceed the cap that the coalition is bringing in by an average of £200 but that some exceed it by £800. Those people are getting letters this week and next week in which they are basically being told that on 1 April next year they are going to be evicted from their home. Nobody supports scroungers or benefit cheats. There are many hundreds of decent people in those families who have not been able to secure employment, through no fault of their own, and they are trying to do their best. The members of those families who will be punished are the children. That is not fair.
Many Government Members are concerned about the issue and London coalition MPs have raised it with the Government. I encourage them to continue to do so. If the plans go through, hundreds of families in my constituency and thousands more across inner London will be forcibly evicted. I cannot imagine what that will do for the future of the children.
My last point is about Bangladesh, although I do not want to encroach on the Adjournment debate to be introduced at 6 o’clock by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe). He will be raising the abduction and disappearance of Mr Illias Ali, a senior member of the Bangladesh Nationalist party.
Between 20% and 25% of my constituents are Bangladeshi. The Labour party and the Government party in Bangladesh—the Awami League—have strong connections, and I am a big supporter of the Awami League Government. However, there are noises from Bangladesh about civil society there. The USA Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, expressed concerns when she visited Dhaka recently, and the Foreign Secretary has been raising the issues, and I have written to him, the Bangladesh high commissioner and the Prime Minister of Bangladesh about them.
As everyone knows, Bangladesh is one of the five poorest countries in the world. Its population is twice the size of Britain’s in a land mass two thirds the size of England. A quarter of the country is under water for a third of the year. There are massive problems.
Bangladesh is a young democracy. We are an old democracy, but we still make mistakes. In Bangladesh, some mistakes are made. When the Bangladesh Nationalist party won the previous general election, Awami League Members boycotted Parliament for a year, and I criticised them for that. When the Awami League won the election, BNP Members boycotted Parliament for a year and I criticised them too. We need to support Bangladesh and the Awami League Government and to give every assistance to make sure that the people who disappeared are found, and that there is justice and transparency in civic society. Through the Department for International Development, we also need to give support for the economy, which is growing at 6%—unlike the British economy, which shrank by 0.3% in the last quarter—so that Bangladesh continues to make progress.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these questions, and I look forward to the responses in due course.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). There have been some interesting, fascinating and moving contributions, although I have to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess). He said that the highlight will be the Olympic torch going to Southend; in fact, the highlight will be on 26 June when the torch arrives in Cleethorpes.
The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) spoke about the high cost of energy to our high energy using industries. Many of them are along the Humber bank in my constituency, and many of my constituents work at the Tata steelworks in the neighbouring constituency of Scunthorpe. Energy costs are of considerable concern.
The main focus of my contribution will be on the town of Immingham, but first I want to talk about static caravans—an issue ably raised earlier by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid). I remind Ministers that the imposition of VAT on those caravans will be extremely damaging for local economies such as Cleethorpes. For many people, their caravan is a second home, but for others it is their first home. The caravans are occupied for up to 10 months a year, which extends the season, providing jobs for those who are dependent on seasonal work. The caravan sites are not just in Cleethorpes; there are many small sites in rural areas, such as Barton-upon-Humber and other locations in my constituency.
Many Members will have heard of the Venerable Bede, but they may be unaware of Imma, who was someone Bede wrote about. Imma was a thane in the service of the King of Northumbria. As the House will probably realise, he gave his name to the town of Immingham. Immingham, in partnership with the port of Grimsby, is by tonnage the largest port in the UK. It will celebrate its centenary this year on 22 July, 100 years after the official opening by His Majesty King George V. Prior to the establishment of the modern port, Immingham had many maritime connections. Many of the pilgrim fathers set sail from the town, an event commemorated there by a magnificent memorial.
Since then, Immingham has grown from a village to a town of which the residents are rightly proud. Unfortunately, like many smaller towns, it has suffered as a result of increasing centralisation by both public and private sector organisations, and it is the public services that have caused most concern. Northern Lincolnshire, as a whole, has a low-wage economy and towns such as Immingham find it difficult to sustain many of the services that larger towns take for granted. Leisure centres, sports facilities and the like cannot be provided profitably by the private sector and local authorities find it increasingly difficult to fund such projects.
It is essential that Immingham and similar towns are not forgotten, so help and support for alternative provision must be explored. Very small amounts of public funding can attract other funding streams, as was the case with the recently opened skate park. The consultation, funding and local community leadership that came together to achieve the skate park are a model of how such projects can be achieved. All involved deserve praise and the thanks of the local community.
The arrival—soon, we hope—of a new Tesco store and the associated regeneration of the shopping centre will provide a major boost to an area that has an extremely bright future if the new developments associated with the offshore renewable energy sector can be successfully established in northern Lincolnshire. On that matter, I once again stress the urgent need for statutory agencies to work at the pace required by the commercial demands of potential investors. Much has been done and I appreciate the Government’s changes to the planning system, but time is of the essence if the UK is to attract the investment that multinational companies could easily direct to our continental neighbours.
The Able UK development, which is just a couple of miles from Immingham, promises thousands of jobs. The Government recognised that in establishing the largest enterprise zone in the country but, as I have said, speed is of the essence. Page 45 of the Budget’s Red Book states that final decisions on the Able marine energy park are needed within a year. It states:
“the Government will reduce unnecessary cost and delay to developers by: setting up a Major Infrastructure and Environment Unit; streamlining guidance; setting clearer standards for evidence; and changing the culture of statutory bodies.”
That is something that I hope will proceed apace.
Only a couple of weeks ago, the Government announced additional funding for the preparatory work for the much-needed upgrade of the A160, which provides access to the Able development and Immingham docks, a clear indication, I hope, that construction work will begin by 2015 at the latest.
Another plea is that much of Immingham, Habrough and Stallingborough, which are major industrial areas, lack adequate broadband capacity, so urgent attention is required to correct that, and I commend the work of One Voice Immingham in pushing forward with its campaign to highlight that. While on matters digital, it would be remiss of me not to comment on the success of the Channel 7 local community TV station, the only successful station remaining of the original stations established about 10 years ago, which has been based in Immingham for much of that time.
In conclusion, Immingham docks are an excellent and key driver of the local economy and, under the management of John Fitzgerald, Simon Brett and their management team, have continued to expand and play an important role in the community. Like many of our ports, Immingham was begun by the railways, in this case the Great Central Railway. During world war one it was a submarine base, and for a time during world war two Lord Mountbatten used it as a shore base and the docks played host to HMS Kelly. His lordship stayed at one of the town’s most notable establishments, the County hotel.
In more recent years, the docks have developed to the extent that one quarter of the tonnage of freight moved in the UK by rail starts or finishes in Immingham, and last month it was my pleasure to be present when a former Member of this House, Michael Portillo, travelled to Immingham to name a locomotive, “The Port of Immingham”. I also commend his TV programme, to be shown next January, documenting a journey from Portsmouth to Immingham.
Immingham, like all communities, has its share of social problems, but if some or all of the potential developments come to pass it has a bright future. We look forward to celebrating its centenary over the weekend of 20 to 23 July. If any Cabinet Minister would like to attend, I am still looking for volunteers.
I have mentioned just a few of the organisations and individuals who play their part in the community of Immingham, and I place on the record my thanks to them. Immingham has seen many ups and downs over the years, but it has a bright future, and I shall welcome any Member who pays the town a visit on its centenary.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, partly because it comes after a productive Session for the Government in terms of passing legislation, and partly because we are on the threshold of an interesting year of future legislation.
I am also pleased that we have the opportunity to talk sensibly about economic growth, because that is one of the key issues that underpin all our activities in this House, especially at this time. One or two Opposition Members have today criticised the Government’s economic policy, but in truth we have to address the deficit problem, and that goes hand in hand with paving the way for economic growth. The two have the same role and responsibility in providing economic recovery, so I reiterate how important it is that we stick to our strategy of cutting the deficit and paving the way for rebalancing the economy, something I shall talk about in the first half of my speech.
It is very important that we ensure that manufacturing and engineering are promoted. In my constituency, almost one in five employees are in manufacturing or engineering, so it is a significant part of my constituency’s economic activity, and that is one reason why I held a festival for manufacturing and engineering back in April.
The festival had several aims, one of which was to highlight the success of existing firms and businesses, of which we have many, in my constituency. Recently, Advanced Insulation won the Queen’s award for enterprise, and we should celebrate that. It is emblematic of the firms in my constituency, and a strong illustration of the kind of firm we need more of, not just in Stroud, but throughout the country. Celebrating what we have is, therefore, part of the process of shining a spotlight on manufacturing and saying, “This is the sector where we are doing well, and we are going to do even better.”
The second objective of my festival was to engage young people in manufacturing and engineering, and to say to them, “This is an opportunity—a place full of opportunities—for employment, your career and your progress.” During that week, we managed to engage almost 300 students directly in firms that support my initiative to do exactly that. I noticed that the more engaged they became, the more interested they seemed to be in manufacturing and engineering.
We in this country have to stop talking about the less attractive aspects of manufacturing and engineering and start pointing out that it is a modern, clean, interesting working environment where technology is at the core of successful firms that are making progress in adding value, exporting and simply generating new ideas, and that that is really good place to be. We must get that message across not only to the general populace but to young people in schools and colleges so that their engagement with manufacturing and engineering is more intense and therefore more reflective of their own needs and requirements. It is important that we put down a marker for a continued thrust towards engagement between schools, colleges and businesses.
The third objective of my festival was to make sure that we understand the opportunities for investment in business and in new ideas. We need to think about firms’ strategic planning in terms of how they develop their capital, ideas and technologies. We were able to draw on the experiences of many firms in my constituency that are already doing that, including successful small and medium-sized enterprises such as Renishaw, Delphi and Nampak.
We need to create a culture that will turn the debate from one in which we say “We must rebalance the economy”—because we are already doing that—into one in which we say, “We’ve got to focus on what is important in terms of the real economy.” As Sir John Rose has noted, economic growth is all about growing something, digging something up or making something, and our focus must be on the latter.
There were several aspects that I covered in my festival, such as the role of banking and the need to be more flexible in our attitudes towards it, not only in terms of banks being less high street-oriented and target-driven but through firms thinking about different ways of seeking finance, attracting equity and planning their financial strategies.
Supply chains have been mentioned a few times in this debate and in Business, Innovation and Skills questions, and that is not surprising, because they are very important. They are becoming increasingly complex and dependent on a work force who are flexible, adaptable, well trained and embrace all the manufacturing and engineering skills that are needed in an advanced economy. Airbus, which is not far from my constituency, sucks in a huge amount of its materials and component from all over the south-west, including my constituency. The success of Airbus therefore has an immediate impact on the people of my constituency. We must ensure that our supply chains are properly supported, that the infrastructure is in place for them to work properly, and that there are opportunities for local firms to get connected to them. BIS is doing some useful work in that context, and I applaud that. All those of us who are interested in the real economy need to be more vigorous in our exposition of what a supply chain is and how supply chains really matter to our constituencies.
On engineering, we need to bring together what is being done across many Departments. We need to say that engineering matters to the future of the British economy. Perhaps we need a chief engineering adviser, like we have a chief scientific adviser, to put the spotlight on engineering, because it is a big subject. Making things is a big subject, but the engineering aspect is especially important. We must bring together all the component parts of the world of engineering. I would like the Government to move in that direction.
The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) rightly spoke about energy, its cost and the hunger for it in industries such as steel and manufacturing. We have to think carefully about energy supply and the way in which we create energy. I am pleased that the Government are introducing an energy Bill to look at the market and the mechanisms, and at how we can attract the right infrastructure.
We need to think more carefully about energy and electricity storage. We have too many peaks and troughs, and our energy system is too dependent on a grid that loses energy. We can argue about how much energy is lost through the grid, but energy is lost. We can also argue about the technologies that we use to create energy, but we need to start talking about the storage of energy as well. There are some interesting ideas. Liquid air, which has being advanced recently by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, is the kind of energy storage system that could be really useful. It is similar to existing technologies, so it would not be a great leap. We need to provide a market framework for such technologies. I hope that that will be proposed in the energy Bill.
I want to ram home my three points. First, manufacturing and engineering are imperative for economic growth and I am excited about them. Secondly, it is critical that we have the right market framework to provide that boost and to put a spotlight on engineering. Thirdly, there must be links between schools, colleges and business.
I will change subjects briefly, because there is something else on my mind that deserves to be raised in this debate: school governance. I have set up the all-party parliamentary group on education governance and leadership. We need to consider the accountability of schools as academies become more numerous. There is a live debate about the links between the Department for Education and our schools. School governors have a role to play in that.
There are some 230,000 school governors, but there are also vacancies on governing bodies and there is an issue with recruitment. It is critical that we put this subject on the agenda. The Government must consider how we can ensure that governors have the right skills and the right questions to ask of their head teachers and principals—of course, governors are also pivotal in further education. We must come up with a mechanism that ensures that there is strategic leadership and accountability at a local level in our schools through our governing bodies. Members can expect to hear much more from me on that subject over the next few months.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on his comments and particularly endorse his remark that the way in which the Government are handling the economy is absolutely right. We have to reduce the huge deficit that we inherited from the Labour party to increase growth and stabilise the economy. The International Monetary Fund endorsed that only this week, and it is essential that we keep to that path.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) has left the Chamber, but he was right that the Government need to consider very carefully their policy of levying VAT on static caravans. The number of caravans bought will probably fall by about a third, affecting not only those manufacturing the caravans in the north of England but the caravan sites down in my constituency. If the Chancellor is looking for growth, he needs to be very careful about that policy.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has also left the Chamber; no, I see that he is next to the Chair. I agree entirely with him about the slaughter of animals. We need to target the practice of animals not being stunned before being killed. We need clear labelling stating, “This animal was not stunned.” That would in time reduce the amount of meat needing to be labelled in that way. I have always said that animals do not choose how they are brought into this world, reared and slaughtered, and it is up to us to ensure that their welfare is respected all the way through their lives. The House needs to revisit the matter, because we have probably got it wrong at the moment.
I was not going to speak about the middle east and Israel today, but comments made in the House earlier were so one-sided that I feel I need to put the record straight. I believe that the state of Israel should exist. Its Iranian neighbours may be producing, or about to produce, nuclear weapons, and Iran’s President has previously said that he would like to wipe Israel off the face of the map. I suggest that we would take that seriously if we lived in Israel, because nuclear weapons can do precisely that. We need to be careful about taking one side of the argument in the middle east.
I would go further on the subject of democracy in the middle east. I very much welcome what is going on in Egypt and Libya, and eventually we need to see some democracy brought to Syria. However, I suggest that in the past 40 or 50 years, the only beacon of democracy in the middle east has been Israel. That needs to be made abundantly clear.
My main reason for speaking this afternoon is that my constituency is rural, with a lot of farming and food production. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud talked about manufacturing industry, which needs to be supported hugely and is of great benefit to this country, and the same is true of food production and processing, which have been a success story in the past few years.
For perhaps 20 years, it was considered that farming was not really necessary, that we could import the food that we needed and that future food security was not an issue to consider. As food prices increase throughout the world and we reach the birth of the seven billionth person and more, we need to be absolutely certain about where our food will come from. We need to ensure that we have high-quality food produced to high welfare and food safety standards. This country’s farming and food processing industries are doing an extremely good job, and the UK can produce much more of its food. We are currently reduced to probably not much more than 60% self-sufficiency, and we can do much better on many products.
Interestingly, agriculture’s contribution to the economy as measured by gross value added increased by some 77% to £8.8 billion between 2006 and 2011. The value of UK food and drink exports rose in 2011—for a seventh successive year—by 11% to more than £12 billion, making the sector Britain’s fourth largest. The farming and food sectors employ some 3.5 million people, and the total number employed directly in farming increased by 10,000 between 2010 and 2011.
Farming also delivers for the British countryside and the environment. Seven million hectares of farmland in England and Wales are being managed under agri-environment schemes. The schemes are good for the environment and the countryside, but they are also good for tourism. What do tourists come to see when they travel through the Deputy Leader of the House’s constituency to get to Devon and Cornwall, which are much prettier? The west country has great countryside and is a great environment, which draws in tourism, which is of huge value. Were that countryside not managed as it is, we would not have as many tourists in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, and the many parts of the country where farming and the countryside are important.
The Government have introduced more apprenticeship schemes, and the farming and food sectors could be important in producing the extra jobs that we need. We need growth. Employment throughout the economy has increased, but there is much more to do, including on youth unemployment.
On the future of food production, cattle and beef production in this country has declined by 30% in the past 20 years. In the US, cattle numbers are at their lowest for 60 years—the herd in America stands at 29.9 million head. Even the cattle herd in Argentina has contracted by nearly 20%. As the world’s increasing population eats more food, we will need more food to be produced.
In China in 1960, people ate on average 5 kg of meat per year; this year, they will eat 50 kg. There are 1.2 billion people in China, so by my arithmetic, if they eat 1 kg more of meat, we need 1.2 million tonnes more tonnes of it. An increase in production throughout the world is therefore important. Global warming means that it is essential that northern Europe and Britain produce our fair share of food. I am delighted that the Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who has responsibility for agriculture, is returning from China as we speak. He has done much to increase the trade to China of pigmeat and the fifth quarter—the meat we do not like to eat ourselves, but that the Chinese find amazingly tasty.
There are green shoots in the economy in agriculture, food production and manufacturing. We must be more positive about what is happening in the economy. We have problems, but if we carry on talking ourselves into ever greater gloom, we will not pick this economy up. The Government have put in place the right policies. For example, we have ensured that lower-paid workers get more money in their pockets by reducing their rate of tax. We can also make it more cost effective for companies to provide employment. We need to consider the regulation of, and employment law regarding, small and micro-businesses, so that they can take on people. It is nonsense for there to be so many laws and rules in place that a small company or business finds it impossible to take on an extra worker. That needs to be dealt with.
My final point is one that many Members have made this afternoon. I am unashamedly royalist, and in the 60th year of Her Majesty the Queen’s reign, I must say that she has been an example to us all. She has provided this country with a dedication to service that we have not seen in the past and which we are unlikely to see again. She is probably the greatest expert on the Commonwealth. We, as politicians, like to think we drive this world forward, but the number of Prime Ministers the Queen has seen come and go is an example to us all. I add my congratulations to her on her 60th year on the throne.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my third-floor Parliament street colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). It was a real education to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who amply and ably demonstrated that it is possible to fit quite a lot into a short space of time. I am not at all surprised that wherever he goes he is greeted with flash-mob dancing. I hope that, as he moves around his constituency over the jubilee weekend, he meets many more flash-mob dancers. In the spirit of my hon. Friend, I want to raise some subjects of concern to my constituents and to pay tribute to some local organisations in Tamworth and the people who run them.
In the past few days, Members might have received a glossy letter from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme extolling its virtues and claiming that it has
“helped millions and paid billions to consumers with nowhere else to turn”.
That might come as a surprise to my constituent, Mr Bill Shackleford from Hopwas, who applied to the FSCS last November for restitution, having lost £32,000 in a failed investment vehicle called Greenfield International. Mr Shackleford is retired and not well off. About 240 other people in the west midlands also invested money in Greenfield and lost it, and I believe they have also applied to the FSCS. I wrote to the FSCS on Mr Shackleford’s behalf, but after seven months, we have still heard nothing. It is still processing his compensation claim and has now outsourced it to Capita. I will be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House can advise me and my constituents on how the FSCS may be encouraged to move a little faster and help more people to receive restitution.
Another matter that, as Mr Speaker might say, has already been well ventilated in the House, but which I think needs further airing, is the exceptional hardship scheme for High Speed 2. It was set up in 2010 to help people who were in particular hardship and whose homes were blighted by the prospect of HS2 to move home. Recognition is growing that the scheme is not fit for purpose.
Six of my constituents have applied to the EHS and been turned down for arbitrary and bizarre reasons. One constituent has been told that she was turned down because she does not have a pressing health need, despite the fact that she has a doctor’s certificate to say that she has a pressing health need to live in a bungalow and not in a farmhouse. She has been told that she has not reduced the value of her property sufficiently, even though she has reduced it by 20%. She has also been told that there is no proof that she is blighted by HS2, even though Green and Co., the local estate agent, has been told by potential buyers that the reason they are not buying her home is the prospect of HS2.
I must say that the Secretary of State for Transport has been helpful to me in this matter. I should also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who have taken an interest in these matters. However, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will use all his artistry and all his eloquence to prevail upon the Secretary of State and the Chancellor—we know that all power resides in the Treasury—to ensure that the enhanced hardship scheme, which is to replace the current scheme, recognises that people who have a reasonable desire and need to move ought to be able to move and to be helped if they cannot sell their homes. I hope that they will consider a property bond scheme, which is a fair, transparent and equitable way of ensuring that people can sell their homes and get the property market moving.
I also want to pay tribute to an organisation in my constituency that helps soldiers. The Injured Soldiers Holiday Appeal does exactly what it says on the tin: it helps soldiers who have been injured and their families to go for a holiday—away from the hospitals, the clinics and all the hullaballoo—to help them to readjust to their new circumstances. My constituent Paul Mason, whose son is a serving soldier, set up the charity. He has already done a great deal to help 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment and Help for Heroes, and he has now set up this new charity, which is commendable. I trust that other Members will encourage their constituents with an interest in such matters to set up similar helpful charities.
I also pay tribute to a growing organisation in my constituency, Community Café. It was set up two years ago by Lee Bates, one of our local councillors, with Steve Hodgetts, Lisa and Andy Powers, Bernard and Carol Gee and others to span the generations and people’s backgrounds by providing a community café, in a place called Wilnecote, where people can come and have a drink, a chat and some food. The kids can come as well—there is something there called a Wii, whatever one of those may be. The concept has grown throughout Tamworth. We now have a community café in Belgrave fire station—our new, state-of-the-art fire station—and in Amington, and we have just set up another café in the Torc vocational centre in Glascote. That is the sort of volunteering that all hon. Members like to see in their constituencies. I pay tribute to those who have given up their time and money to make Community Café in Tamworth such a success.
I will end simply by saying that June is going to be a bumper month in Tamworth. We have the jubilee weekend: I shall spend time in Stonnall, Little Aston and Fazeley, where I shall attend a big jubilee lunch, along with other places around Tamworth. I am also looking forward to seeing the jubilee beacon being lit atop our SnowDome. If that was not enough, at the end of the month, on 30 June, the Olympic torch, which other hon. Members have mentioned, moves through Tamworth—the high point of its progress around the country before it arrives in London for the Olympics. I shall be there to cheer on the townsfolk of Tamworth, who will be cheering on the torch.
We have a wonderful sense of history in Tamworth. We have some wonderful facilities—the SnowDome, the castle, and the French and German markets. If any hon. Members, including you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are passing through Staffordshire in June, drop into Tamworth and bring your wallet with you. We will be pleased to see you.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I may bring Mr Bob Stewart’s wallet with me.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), who represents 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment. In the next few months, we are going to witness some spirited debates on what might be cut from the Army. They will be particularly important to those Members who might lose regiments in their own constituencies, so as a warm-up I should like to explain my view of the regiments and the regimental system, and tell the House what they mean to me.
We all know that the Army is designed to fight for us, if directed to do so by the Government. The way in which it is organised, and its esprit de corps, are crucial determinants of how it works when it deploys. The Army is obviously a martial profession, and none of us present will have any doubts about what might be the ultimate requirement for our soldiers. Napoleon correctly identified the morale of his soldiers as the crucial ingredient of their success. He called morale “the sacred flame”, saying that it mattered more than anything else. In that respect, he also insisted that
“morale is to the physical as three is to one.”
In short, high morale can compensate for many other deficiencies, including numbers.
I saw that when I had the privilege of commanding my regiment, 1st Battalion The Cheshire Regiment, in Bosnia during 1992 and 1993. Often in conversation with the commanders of the various factions and armies, I would be asked the same question: “How many men do you have under your command?” Obviously, I would not answer; instead, I would say something like, “Lots and lots,” but then I would ask them how many soldiers they thought I had. The answer was invariably between 3,000 and 4,000. In fact, I had 800. The point is that the soldiers of my regiment gave the impression that they were far more numerous than in fact they were. It was their esprit de corps, their morale and their regimental pride that gave that impression.
Organisation and numbers are of course important to military success. The strategic defence and security review has determined that the Army is to be reduced in size, down to as few as 82,000 serving soldiers. Many definitions of an army suggest that 100,000 should be its minimum size, so what is the future for our Army? Some people have suggested that it might more correctly be dubbed a defence force. I shudder at that thought. One thing is clear: we are going to have to cut down some units from what the Army calls its teeth arms. Regiments, or parts of them, in the infantry and cavalry are going to be disbanded. All teeth arm units are formed into regiments, and we are likely to lose some historic and highly valued names.
Quite rightly, the British Army’s regimental system is respected, and sometimes copied, worldwide, but what exactly is that much-rated regimental system? The term “regiment” started in Britain in the mid-17th century when retinues that followed a certain leader were organised into some form of standing military force. Such regiments were normally named after the colonel who commanded them. For example, my own regiment, which is now called 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment—the old Cheshires—was first formed in 1689 on the racecourse at Chester. It was then called the Duke of Norfolk’s Regiment. Later it became the 22nd Regiment, after its precedence in the order of battle, and later still it became properly linked to the county of Cheshire. A similar process happened to most of our great infantry regiments.
Under this regimental system, each regiment became responsible for recruitment, training and administration. It developed its own style, which in turn derived strength and purpose from the regiment’s history and traditions. Even today, the colonel of each regiment still has the right to select his officers. In the past, and sometimes today, it was usual for a soldier—and many officers, too—to spend their entire careers within their own regiment. They frequently served with men they had known since birth. For example, at the time of the Ballykelly bomb in 1982, I was commanding officer of A Company 1st Battalion the 22nd Cheshire Regiment when six of my soldiers were killed, and over five days in mid-December 1982 I attended their funerals. All six were buried within the borders of the county of Cheshire. Amazingly, at these funerals, several mothers put their arms around me, saying that they fully realised my sorrow, too. It is because the regimental system is so emotive that it often seems like a family.
In fact, infantry battalions take great pride in using the words “the regimental family”. That is literally true, as when I was commander many soldiers in my regiment were in the fourth, fifth or even sixth generation serving in their family regiment. That sense of family is vital in battle. When they are very frightened, soldiers are often sustained by what they see as a greater fear—that of letting down their friends and their family. It gives them what I regard as another offshoot of the regimental system—the so-called “black humour” so often found among our soldiers.
As the incident commander at the time of the Ballykelly bomb in 1982, I was devastated to find four of my own lance corporals together in a crumpled heap under tons of concrete. One had been killed immediately the bomb exploded, another died shortly thereafter, a third lingered in agony for several hours, and the fourth was trapped by his legs on top of his dead friends. After four hours, the decision was made that he would have to have both legs amputated where he lay trapped by concrete—the threat of gangrene was growing and it might have killed him regardless. I told the badly wounded Lance Corporal William Bell, whose brother was also serving and whose family went back generations in my regiment, that we would have to cut his legs off. His incredible reply sums up what the regimental system is all about: “No legs Sir! One hell of a way to get out of the Pearson trophy tomorrow, isn’t it?” The Pearson trophy was the regiment’s weekly cross-country run. All ranks do it and it is universally loathed—especially by someone like me! But that ruddy awful run was part of the regiment’s style and ethos.
The strategic defence and security review has directed that the Army is to lose perhaps four or even more battalions from Army regiments. In the next weeks and months, we in this House will be debating and arguing exactly which ones will be affected. Some have suggested that no regimental cap badge will be lost. They argue that so-called large regiments—formed in the past by pushing small regiments together into a new grouping—will remain. That happened to my own regiment last time, when the 1st Cheshires were amalgamated to become 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment. The 2nd Mercians came from 1st Battalion the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment, while the 3rd Mercians were formed from the 1st Battalion the Staffordshire Regiment—from the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. All those battalions within those regimental groupings keep their own regimental histories and their own pride, despite coming under the umbrella title of the Mercian Regiment. It might seem easy to cut, say, the 3rd Mercians or indeed the 3rd Royal Anglians—
Bob Stewart
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. After all, the big regiment survives, does it not, whether it be the Royal Anglians or the Mercians? Two old regiments, however, would disappear by so doing. If the 3rd Mercians go, in the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, it will mean that the Staffords are finally dead; and if we say goodbye to the 3rd Royal Anglians, in the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), it will mean saying goodbye to the last relics of that historic and gallant regiment, the Essex Regiment.
Sir Bob Russell
I regret to say that the 3rd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment, the successor to the Essex Regiment, disappeared a few years ago. The 3rd Battalion that we have today is a Territorial Army battalion. We are very grateful that it is there, but it is not the Essex Regiment as it was.
Bob Stewart
I thank my hon. Friend for that correction, and I hope that he will forgive me for my slight inaccuracy. The principle remains the same,
I know that what I am talking about may seem parochial and somewhat petty to some people, and I accept that it can look like that to those who do not understand the regimental system; but to so many who have served, or whose family members have served, such cuts will mean another very sad day for British military history. The regimental system is a tremendous bulwark for frightened men in battle, and supports others like Lance Corporal William Bell of A Company, 1st Battalion The Cheshire Regiment, who was sustained and could even laugh at his predicament when he might have been in total despair. Truly the regimental system is a band of brothers, and I for one hope very much that it will not be damaged further by what is about to happen as a result of the SDSR. It is highly unlikely that, once gone, any regiment will live again.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to join in this pre-recess debate at the end of a long day. You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, and my constituents expect, that when I speak in the House it will be above all on behalf of Gloucester, and that I will speak about local issues in a national context. Today’s carrying of the Olympic torch across our city rivals the claims made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) as the most important part of its journey across our country. On this occasion, however, I want to raise a wider issue, and to make a case which I hope will be, at the margin, in the interests of my constituents and many others across the world.
In 1976, Commonwealth day was established on the second Monday of March. It is famously celebrated with a great service in Westminster Abbey, with the flags of the 54 Commonwealth nations flying in Parliament square, and with a Commonwealth address by Her Majesty the Queen. Here in Parliament, however, the occasion has not once been celebrated in the 38 years since its establishment. I believe that—as the Parliament of the host country for the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Royal Commonwealth Society and more than 100 other Commonwealth-branded organisations, and as a nation whose Government celebrates the Commonwealth through the name of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office— we are missing a trick by not commemorating the Commonwealth on the second Monday of each March.
However, I also believe that today we have an opportunity to correct that omission by saying that the Government agree with the Backbench Business Committee that a debate should be held on the second Monday in March in 2013, and annually thereafter, on issues that relate to the Commonwealth. If that were agreed, the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association could submit the precedent to the Parliaments of all the Commonwealth nations for consideration at their September meeting. This could become a new tradition, and, above all, a new chance to focus on the values, challenges and opportunities that are shared among those 54 nations. I will therefore be delighted if the Deputy Leader of the House gives us his thoughts on the possibility of this happening, and on whether the Government will support the commemoration of Commonwealth day in this House with an annual debate on Commonwealth issues.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
We have had an excellent debate. First, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who gave a very eloquent and compassionate account of the sudden and unexpected death from epilepsy of a 10-year-old child in her constituency. Her account of that tragic event moved us all.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) is known for her expertise on international issues. She spoke about the women’s rights records of many countries in the middle east. In what was an excellent speech, she also outlined her continuing concern about the torture, imprisonment and suppression in Bahrain of those demanding democratic rights, and she talked about similar situations in other middle-east countries.
There is a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for the work he does on business and industry. He talked about airport development in the south-east, and the proposal for an airport in the Thames estuary. His constituency borders Heathrow, so this issue is of great importance to him and his constituents. He gave an excellent speech, in which he made it clear that the ongoing debate about a Thames estuary airport is a distraction from the real issues concerning aviation and its potential contribution to economic growth in the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has long campaigned on issues relating to freight and the railway system. He talked about the plan for a freight route from the south to the north of England. In his usual enthusiastic style, he pointed to the logic in securing, in the medium or long term, a modal shift in our freight capacity away from the road network and on to the railways.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) talked superbly about the potential impact on London of the Government’s housing benefit policy. He referred to the Mayor of London’s view that there is a real possibility that the poorest in London and housing benefit claimants will be pushed out to the suburbs, in effect achieving a separation—a ghettoisation —of the poor and the better-off in our great capital city.
My hon. Friend also talked about animal welfare. I have worked with him on animal welfare issues. In the previous Government, he served as a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister with responsibility for animal welfare, and I can testify that he was an excellent Minister. I worked with him on dog control in particular, which is an ongoing campaign. Today, however, he talked about the labelling of meat to make it clear whether the animal was stunned. Leaving aside the religious issues, he made an excellent case for the labelling of meat and for clarity in respect of animal welfare standards.
My hon. Friend also talked about the Olympics, as did a number of other Members. It is a great event, and there is mounting excitement. He mentioned the torch’s journey around the UK. The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) rightly boasted about the Olympic torch being carried through his constituency. I will just put on the record the fact that the torch will be going through my constituency, when it will be carried in the great city of Sheffield by Lord Coe, who is a Sheffielder, and we are incredibly proud of that. The hon. Gentleman, with his usual charm, also put on the record West Ham United’s promotion and Chelsea’s victory last Saturday night. I wish to put on the record the promotion of the great club Sheffield Wednesday to the championship this season; it is well on its way back to the premiership. I am sure that I will be standing here at the end of next season celebrating the promotion of Sheffield Wednesday to the premiership.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) gave us a history lesson, informing us that Immingham’s name comes from a thane from the kingdom of Northumbria called Imma. I would like to inform the House that Grimsby, the neighbour of Immingham, was named after the legendary fisherman who features so strongly in the famous mediaeval poem “Havelok the Dane”. So it is now abundantly clear to the whole House that north Lincolnshire has been the centre of the universe in terms of mediaeval folklore and history, and that is something of which the hon. Gentleman is very proud.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) was incredibly moving in his tribute to Alan Turing. He got this afternoon’s debate off to a superb start, and I echo his sentiments about Alan Turing. Not long ago, I watched an excellent Channel 4 documentary about the life, the achievements and the tragedy of Alan Turing. It remains a stain on British justice that that man still stands convicted of crimes which, of course, now no longer exist, and we need to find a way of clearing his name and marking what he achieved for British history and for British industry and technology.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) was eloquent in his opposition to the caravan tax, and of course I congratulate him on putting himself so firmly on the record on the matter. I am sure that his constituents will carefully watch how he conducts himself on this issue in the House over the coming weeks and months. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), in a wide-ranging speech, talked about the importance of the aerospace and nuclear industries to British manufacturing and, in particular, to the north of England. He related that contribution to the importance of the supply chains in both those industries. He made particular mention of British Aerospace in the north-west, with its strong relationship with military manufacturing, and of the great significance of the nuclear industry to the north-west, with Sellafield in Cumbria. I can only echo his sentiments, given that both those industries are also crucial to the economic future of south Yorkshire. People will not realise that steel manufacturing is heavily involved here and is crucial to the aerospace industry. Most of the aircraft that fly over UK airspace probably have a tiny bit of my constituency’s manufacturing capability within them, because components for landing gear and for the Rolls-Royce engine are made in my constituency. So I can only echo my hon. Friend’s comments. Sheffield has a great ambition to be part of the supply chain for the nuclear industry, but its ambitions to develop that capacity were severely damaged—I make no apology for mentioning this once again—by the decision to cancel the £80 million loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, which would have helped to secure the development of that very important supply chain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn also put on record the fact that there has been a 232% increase in unemployment in his constituency since 2010 and went on to describe the impact on his constituents of the continuing austerity programme set in place by the coalition Government: the unemployment; the increase in the number of food banks; the pressures on and cuts to Sure Start, despite the fact that the Prime Minister says repeatedly that he understands the importance of investment in the very earliest years of children’s lives; and the increasing charges and pressures on adult social care services. The price we are paying for austerity is unacceptable. What is it achieving? Nothing but a double-dip depression made in Downing street.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) nailed that issue when he pointed out that today the ONS has once again downgraded the growth figures for the first quarter to minus 0.3%. He talked about the potential impact of the double-dip recession on the steel industry in his constituency, in mine and in all constituencies across the UK where steel manufacturing is dominant. Steel is obviously at the heart of most manufacturing processes—in construction, in aerospace, you name it, steel is at the heart of our manufacturing industry. My right hon. Friend talked about the lack of demand and about the pressures of costs, particularly energy costs. We could feel the passion with which he spoke about the manufacturing process and steel, and as the product of many generations of steelworkers I must say that people probably need to have it in their blood to understand the passion and excitement that can be generated by a big basket of scrap metal being fired up and converted into molten steel. As my right hon. Friend said, it is one of the most impressive sights that anyone is ever likely to see in manufacturing.
I want to comment, too, on the northern hub. It was mentioned earlier and it relates to our position as an economy and the Government’s handling of economic and investment matters. Earlier, it was claimed that the northern hub had been given the go-ahead. As I put on the record earlier, it has not. Let me quote what the Chancellor said in his Budget statement:
“I confirm today that Network Rail will extend the northern hub”—
not complete it, not give it the complete go-ahead, but extend it—
“adding to the electrification of the trans-Pennine rail route by upgrading the Hope Valley line between Manchester and Sheffield”.—[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 797.]
Network Rail has made it absolutely clear that that does not mean that the Hope Valley route is to be electrified and it is not the green light for the northern hub. We await that in the high level output specification statement, which we hope will be made later in the summer.
Once again, the Chancellor gave the impression through his Budget speech that he was doing one thing when he was doing another. He was slipping through, creating the impression that he was doing more than he was. We had other examples in that Budget of measures that he would rather we did not know about: the granny tax, the caravan tax and the pasty tax. It was a desperate Budget built on desperate measures by a Government who do not know how to deal with the fact that they have a double-dip recession on their hands that they have created and that they do not know how to climb out of. The Government only know plan A, they do not recognise the importance of plan B and the electorate is becoming increasingly disenchanted with their economic record, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn pointed out.
I pay tribute to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). She spoke movingly about breast cancer and its impact on women’s lives. She pointed out that the previous Government’s investment has improved survival rates for women with breast cancer, with eight out of 10 women still alive after five years, but that we still have a long way to go. It is important to have earlier detection and diagnosis and the increased and consistent use of advanced radiotherapy techniques across the country if we are to have the kind of NHS that the country really needs. The point that my hon. Friend was making was that there is no sense among Opposition Members that the health reforms delivered in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which passed through the House only a few weeks ago, will help us to deliver the approach to health that we need, with prevention of disease, early diagnosis and effective early treatment when people fall ill. Nothing in the Act will help to advance those very important agendas. The best way of reducing demand for expensive health care is to prevent ill health in the first place, but that legislation will not deliver that approach to health in the UK.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Yet again, we have seen the value of these free Adjournment debates. I was very disappointed that we did not have one before the Easter recess and I am particularly pleased to have secured this one. I greatly welcome the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) to the Backbench Business Committee and even though he has not quite joined yet, he allowed the Committee to take the credit for this debate. Actually we put it on, because the Committee has not yet started its work this Session and I am glad that we have given Members this opportunity to raise important issues about their constituencies or more widely.
I want to correct what seems to be a widespread misapprehension among colleagues on both sides of the House about the Olympic torch. They seem to think that the highlight of its journey will be its visit to their constituency whereas the highlight has already passed, this Tuesday, when it went to my constituency. It entered and went around Somerton—I was there—and then left my constituency. That was a highlight. But then the Olympic torch relay organisers realised that my constituency was too good to leave and the torch came back into Frome later on the same day, so we had another marvellous occasion. I know that all Members will welcome the event when it happens in their constituency.
Let me quickly go through hon. Members’ various contributions. I know that I cannot do justice to all the speeches and answer all the questions that have been raised, but I will make sure that hon. Members have a proper reply from the relevant Department to any questions that I cannot answer.
We started with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), and I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) that he made a moving and valuable contribution to the debate. We should recognise the huge contribution that Alan Turing made to our country’s future and our security during the war. The centenary of his birth is an appropriate time at which to do that. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, a posthumous pardon was considered in 2009, and as a result the then Prime Minister made an unequivocal apology for the treatment that Mr Turing had received, which the then Prime Minister accepted was horrifying and utterly unfair. I think we all believe that those successful prosecutions and convictions for what should not have been a crime would have been cruel and deeply inappropriate for anyone, but particularly for someone who had served the country so well.
The hon. Gentleman knows that there are difficulties with providing a posthumous pardon and Lord Sharkey has raised this issue in the context of legislation in another place. We know that those particular offences are now to be disregarded for those who were convicted and are still alive, but there is currently no mechanism for doing that for others. However, discussions continue and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join Home Office Ministers in looking at whether there is a way of achieving that objective.
The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) raised a number of issues. I thought he might have expressed a little more pleasure about the fact that a brand-new £1.6 billion contract had just gone to BAE Systems. I would have thought that that was worth celebrating, but it seems not. He also raised other matters that are properly for the local authorities in his area. One of the things the Government are keen on is to make sure that responsibility lies where it should—with locally elected members for the decisions they take. I have no idea whether Lancashire county council is fulfilling its responsibilities, but if not those elected to the authority are answerable to their electors. That is the right way of doing things.
I was a little surprised by what the hon. Gentleman said about early years investment. The Government have actually invested a lot more money in early years. We have built on the previous provision and I am pleased about that.
The one thing I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with is his comment about rural broadband. He chose the wrong Minister when he said that rural broadband did not matter, and that it was just faster internet shopping for millionaires. I am sorry, but it is not. If we do not invest properly to allow every member of every community in the country to have access to broadband, we shall have failed. The hon. Gentleman is deeply mistaken on this subject.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) talked about development on the green belt in her constituency. She knows the Government’s position; it is clearly set out in the national planning policy framework. It might be useful for her to have a conversation with the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). He is the Minister for decentralisation, so he can explain exactly what Government policy is and perhaps communicate that to local authorities in her area. I will happily arrange that meeting if I possibly can.
The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) raised a number of human rights issues—in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Burma and Syria. She was joined by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who talked about Sri Lanka, and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who spoke about Bangladesh. We must never forget the importance of human rights or the influence that Britain can and should bring to bear in countries around the world. That is very much an emphasis both for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development in everything we do in those countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) talked about the beauty of his constituency and pointed out that it attracts a lot of tourists. At one point, it sounded as though he was listing all the songs that have extolled the beauty of places in his constituency. He made the very valuable point that many Government policies are supportive of small businesses, and he is absolutely right about that. I would also refer to tourism.
My hon. Friend raised what he saw as the difficulties in correcting the anomalies in relation to static caravans. He knows that the Government have extended the consultation period, and that in due course they will come forward with a view based on the consultation. There is nothing wrong with correcting anomalies, but as we all know, sometimes when we correct them we introduce new ones. We have to take all the evidence and then come to a decision.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) talked about breast cancer, and I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge that she did so movingly. It is pleasing that survival rates are now better, and if we can reduce the level of mortality from all cancers, and certainly from breast cancer, it will be a significant step in the right direction. One of the keys to that is early diagnosis. The hon. Lady talked about the extent to which early diagnosis in the borough of Newham lags behind that in some other parts of the country, and that worries me. One of the benefits of the new legislation is that it brings local authorities who know their area well into the issue of public health and they may be more responsive to the needs of local inhabitants than the health authorities, which were rather more remote. I hope that will improve provision in her area. I also accept what she said about the new, less-invasive therapies that are available. That is something the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence must take on board; that is why we have that independent advice for medics on the most appropriate types of treatment.
We heard a very moving contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who talked about her constituents, Mr and Mrs Burns. I am sure that all Members of the House will want to extend their sympathy to them and to Isabella for the tragic loss of Charlie. Let us be clear that deaths from epilepsy are not common. With unexpected deaths, one of the problems is that it is often very hard to understand what signs and symptoms people should be looking for. Public awareness is critical, so I was pleased by what she said about the charity that is working to extend public awareness of sudden death from epilepsy and the fact that nocturnal seizures are one of the signs that people should look for. I think that she did a marvellous job in raising the issue today and hope that people will hear what she has to say. I know that the Department of Health will do everything it can to back that up with information.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) talked about the custody suite in Harrow police station, and I understand his point about the loss of custody suites. One of the knock-on effects is that we lose the police officers, who are arresting officers, who must then transport people somewhere else and so cannot police the streets. He talked about the proposal for an airport in the Thames estuary. We await the consultation on the aviation industry and the consequences of that. I know that many people are not persuaded of the virtues of such an airport.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about something very close to my heart: London Welsh. I played against London Welsh a few times when I was with Saracens and always enjoyed my visits to Old Deer park. I understand why they would be miffed at the idea that, if they beat the Cornish Pirates—it is not necessarily the case that they will—they cannot then progress. The rules are a matter for the Rugby Football Union, but it is important that, literally, there is a level playing field between those in the premiership and those who aspire to be. I will draw his comments to the attention of the Minister for Sport.
Appropriately, we then moved on to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who talked about graduated driver licensing. I am pleased that he recognises that the introduction of the drug-driving legislation will be an advance. He knows that he is yet to persuade the Department for Transport of his case, but I know that he will be persistent. What we need is an evidence-based approach to whether graduated driver licensing would succeed in reducing injuries and accidents, particularly for young drivers, which is something the whole House wishes to see.
The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) talked about steel, and I recognise and understand much of what he said. I just wish that he had not then lapsed into caricaturing the positions of members of the Government on that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is made in Yorkshire and knows perfectly well what heavy industry is about. The right hon. Gentleman might have mentioned the fact that the blast furnace at Redcar steelworks, which was closed under the previous Administration, has been reignited under this Government. That might have made his contribution a little more balanced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) talked about Israel and Palestine, a cause he has been so committed to for so long. He knows that the Government’s position is to support a two-state solution in which both Israel and Palestine can live in security and peace. That is what we need to achieve, and it is not assisted by illegal settlements or some of the activities he mentioned.
The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) seemed to advocate a very exciting scheme, and I hope that the business case stacks up, because a modal shift from road to rail for freight is extremely important. I do not know why he singled out Scotch whisky as its main cargo, as there are probably other uses, but it was a useful contribution.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), with the breadth of his contribution, gave his usual bravura display on such occasions, from the art of happiness to the cultural centre of Essex, which I am advised is certainly not an oxymoron under any circumstances. He ranged over online publications and the pay of chief executives in the public sector, and he knows that the Government are very much bearing down on the salaries that are within our control, but the same should apply in particular to local authorities, where there is concern.
The hon. Gentleman talked also about his local police authority’s lack of engagement with him, which as a former chairman of a police authority I found very surprising. He also referred to clamping, on which he knows we have introduced new legislation that will take effect this autumn.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Vioxx, a matter that is still before the courts, and he talked about his constituent Mrs Stephanie Lister and the drugs, such as Ritalin, that are used on young children. He will know that the Deputy Prime Minister has launched a significant initiative to improve mental health facilities for young people and to find better therapies for them.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Maldives, and his constituent Stephanie Migliorini and the award that she won. As always, he covered a great deal of ground.
The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) talked about changes to private sector pensions and came up with a scheme that would save the Government, he told us, millions and millions of pounds. Anything that saves the Government millions and millions of pounds is something that we want to consider very carefully, and although I do not feel qualified to give an opinion, I shall ensure that somebody who knows the subject much better than I do gives him a reasoned response.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) talked about the Olympics, which must be a matter of huge excitement in his constituency, and the need for further Thames crossings. As someone who has always lived in east London when in London, I recognise what he said.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the sensitive issue of animal slaughter, and we need to look further at it. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing that to see how it can sensitively reconcile animal welfare with religious practices.
The hon. Gentleman talked about leaseholder rights. He also talked about rabies—and thank goodness it has not been a problem in this country for so long. If there are ways of reducing its incidence abroad so that we maintain the safety of not just our citizens but others, that would be worth while.
The hon. Gentleman also discussed housing benefits, and I understand his point. It is a concern that has been expressed on both sides of the House, and we must get it right, so that we do not give huge amounts of money—well beyond what a household on normal earnings can possibly achieve—to people. Nevertheless we understand that when we are talking about families, we are talking about people.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) talked about Immingham, and we learned a little about its early history, but he talked about its development plans, too. I had not really appreciated that Immingham and Grimsby are, as a complex, the largest port in the UK, and that is a declaration of ignorance on my part, but I did know that the area has enormous economic and strategic importance, so the way in which we maintain its infrastructure—whether its development plans, road connections, broadband or all the things that he mentioned—is enormously important.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) talked about manufacturing and engineering and pointed out that they are not just oily-rag trades nowadays. It is so important to our future economic success that we attract the brightest and best to engineering and manufacturing, because of not just the initial product, but the supply chains that he mentioned, which affect my constituency as well in terms of aerospace, in particular, and avionics. He welcomed the energy Bill and the things that we are doing to try to attract young people to the world of industry and bring them into it through the apprenticeships scheme and similar measures.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman talked about school governance, and I look forward to hearing more from him on this subject. We put an enormous amount of work the way of governors, who have an enormous responsibility on their shoulders. All the help that we can give them represents money well spent in enabling them to do their job in the best way possible as that is so crucial to our schools and colleges across the country.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) tried to upset me by suggesting that people travel through my constituency only to get to his. Of course, the better class of people do not—they stop in Somerset, as he well knows. I know where he comes from, and so I know where his heart really lies, but I understand that he has to say these things because he is now in foreign parts in Devon. He talked about the importance of agriculture and about agri-tourism. We used to dig for victory and then forgot how to, but we now have to remember again because food security is so desperately important.
I was fascinated by the community cafés mentioned by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) and by his injured soldiers holiday appeal. He raised two rather more negative matters regarding his constituents’ inability to get satisfaction in claims on failed investments and on blight by HS2. I will contact the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Transport and hope that we can resolve those outstanding issues for him.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) talked about the regimental system and its importance to esprit de corps. I have always been very attached to the idea of cap badge loyalty. I have some experience of this, not in the armed forces but in the police, where I always felt that it was important to be able to identify with the body in which one served. In Somerset, we regret the fact that the Somerset Light Infantry is no longer a regular Army regiment. I think the fact that we have no Army footprint in my county has been detrimental to recruitment. The hon. Gentleman drew on his own experience and his distinguished record, and I know that he will be heard by Defence Ministers, who have not yet reached their conclusions about the final structure and deployment of the Army but are working on that at the moment.
Last but not least, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) talked about the importance of the Commonwealth. I entirely agree. It is wonderful that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are currently mounting guard on Horse Guards parade; it is the first time that a non-military unit from another Commonwealth country has done so. It is not in my gift to arrange a debate on Commonwealth day each year; that is in the hands of the Backbench Business Committee. However, if he applies to the Committee and it thinks it a good idea, the Leader of the House and I will do everything we can to assist.
We have had an excellent debate in which Members have managed to cover a huge range of subjects. I will make sure that those whom I have not answered properly get replies from the Departments involved. I hope that Members are able to use this short Whitsun recess effectively in their constituencies, but also to celebrate, as several of them said, the jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen. I have seen people’s enthusiasm for the Olympic torch, and the amount of red, white and blue bunting around our constituencies at the moment is terrific. It makes for a jollier place, and I welcome it. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all the staff of the House a pleasant short break, after which very brief period we will resume business as usual.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I wish all Members and staff a superb diamond jubilee. It is an historic, once-in-a-lifetime occasion to celebrate the glorious 60 years of Her Majesty’s reign.
Ilias Ali
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
I am delighted that Mr Speaker has given me the opportunity to raise this important subject, and that the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) are here to discuss it.
I applied for this debate following a meeting in Bradford with members of the Bangladeshi community. While they wanted to discuss the current political crisis in Bangladesh, which I will come to shortly, their immediate concern was for the safety of llias Ali, a former member of the Bangladeshi Parliament and a key activist in the main Opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist party. His family and friends are also concerned about his disappearance.
Mr Ali disappeared with his driver, Ansar Ali, less than a month ago on 17 April. Unconfirmed eye-witness reports suggest that they were pulled from a car at gunpoint and forced into a black minibus. The disappearance of Mr Ilias Ali is not the first such incident in recent months in Bangladesh, but it has been the catalyst for widespread protests throughout the country, including a number of general strikes. During the disturbances and protests, there have been further reports of deaths and disappearances at the hands of the police and security services.
Since winning independence from Pakistan in 1971, politics in Bangladesh has been marked by brief periods of democratic government, but all too often they have been ended by military intervention, followed by a period of military rule. Although economic and political corruption have been rife, Bangladesh’s economic growth rates have been among the highest in Asia, and significant progress has been made in education and health policy under former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia of the BNP and the current Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League.
The political rivalry between the leaders of the two main political parties has dominated Bangladeshi politics since the 1970s. However, in 2007, following yet another state of emergency and the formation of a military-backed caretaker Government, both leaders found themselves under arrest on charges of corruption, along with more than 100 other politicians. Both leaders were subsequently freed by the High Court and allowed to lead their respective parties into the general election in December 2008. The Awami League and its coalition, under Sheikh Hasina, won a landslide victory in an election that international observers reported to be largely free and fair.
Following that election, and the attempts to eradicate corruption and clean up politics, there was optimism that a period of political stability would see the emergence of a truly democratic and pluralist Bangladesh. However, the recent political turmoil has put paid to that optimism, and there is concern that it could lead to another suspension of democracy in Bangladesh. The anti-corruption organisation, Transparency International, recently warned that a “growing partisan political influence” was
“eroding the capacity of the state to promote rule of law, justice, equality and basic human rights of the people”.
Although the disappearance of Ilias Ali has largely been the cause of the recent disturbances, it is unfortunately not an isolated incident. On 4 February, two student activists, Al Mukaddas and Mohammed Waliullah, went missing. They have not been heard from since. On 2 April, two BNP activists, Iftekhar Ahmed Dinar and Junaid Ahmed, were taken from their homes by plain-clothes police officers. Their whereabouts remain unknown. Two days later, on 4 April, a prominent trade union activist from the garment industry, Aminul Islam, went missing. He was found dead a day later.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I have one question for clarification. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Bangladeshi Government are deeply involved in the kidnappings?
Mr Sutcliffe
I am not suggesting that. That is precisely the difficulty that exists in Bangladesh at the moment: there is no clarity about who is responsible, on one side or the other. I just want to highlight the fact that these people are missing, whatever the circumstances. It is the duty of the Government of Bangladesh to investigate those issues. I hope that the Minister—I am delighted that he is here—will exert some pressure, or at least tell us what we can do, because we have a large Bangladeshi population in the UK. I do not want to place blame on any particular body.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, for securing the debate and for the measured tone in which he is conducting it. This issue is one of concern to many of us who have a large number of Bangladeshi constituents, but also to parliamentarians who had the honour of meeting Ilias Ali when he came here in August 2011. It is absolutely right that it should be raised in this Chamber given the historical ties between the UK Parliament and Bangladesh.
Mr Sutcliffe
I thank my hon. Friend, who is quite right. I know that other colleagues met Mr Ali when he was here. He is right also to mention the links that there have been between this country and Bangladesh for many years. We have supported it when it has been through problems such as drought and floods. I hope that, in difficult circumstances, that relationship will offer our Government an opportunity at least to press the Bangladeshi Government on the current issues. The huge Bangladeshi population in the UK and its contribution to our society warrant our taking those issues seriously and doing whatever we can to highlight them.
Some of the Bradford-based business people and entrepreneurs from the Bangladeshi community have said to me that they want to go back to Bangladesh and invest there, but feel that their ability to do that is being threatened. Surely that must be a concern.
I acknowledge that many colleagues have raised concerns about the situation in Bangladesh, and the specific case of Ilias Ali, with the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Bedford have both done so.
I do not want to get into giving out blame, but some people are blaming the paramilitary Rapid Action Battalion for the disappearances and killings. The RAB was formed to tackle corruption and organised crime, but it is increasingly being linked with political abductions and, worse still, political assassinations. I hope that we can get to the bottom of that, because it is causing concern. I do not want to point the finger of blame, but the RAB has been mentioned a number of times when people have raised the issue with me.
Tonight’s debate is about trying to find out what routes our Government can take. I know that it is difficult for them, but I ask the Minister to highlight what action they have taken so far to raise the matter with the Bangladeshi Government, what diplomatic pressure can be brought to bear and what further action our Government can take.
I particularly urge that political and diplomatic pressure be brought to bear to achieve the following. First, we need to establish the immediate whereabouts of Ilias Ali and Ansar Ali, in the hope that their safe return to their families can bring some stability to the current crisis. We need to establish the whereabouts of the other activists who have disappeared, as identified by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. We need to try to find a way to get a truly independent inquiry into the recent deaths of protesters and an immediate end to the forced disappearance of political activists, and we need to help the Bangladeshi Government and others re-establish the rule of law and freedom of expression and respect the independence of the judiciary.
It is estimated that there are 500,000 Bangladeshis living in the UK, and I know that the Minister will appreciate how concerned that community is about the situation that is developing in the country. I hope that he can assure them that the UK will bring to bear whatever pressure it can to ensure a peaceful and democratic solution to the crisis.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I join the thanks to the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) for securing the debate, and I thank him for his kindness in giving up time so that others may speak.
I met Ilias Ali for the first time six years ago, and I last met him in Sylhet 14 days before his disappearance on 18 April. The hon. Gentleman talked about the larger political issues, but I would like to talk on more of a personal level. I am greatly saddened by Ilias Ali’s disappearance and greatly frustrated by the Government of Bangladesh’s inability to identify what has happened to that Member of Parliament. Like many other Members, I call on our Government to do as much as they can.
I wrote to the Prime Minister on 17 April and was grateful to receive his reply. He stated:
“There are a number of possible explanations for the disappearance of Mr Ali. Bangladesh law enforcement and security agencies have strenuously denied in court that they hold Mr Ali. This is why we have called for a full investigation.”
Like the hon. Member for Bradford South, I would like to hear from the Minister what progress has been made.
When I met Ilias Ali, we talked about two things, the first of which was his concern for the safety of others involved in politics—it was the day on which one of the youth leaders in Sylhet for the Bangladesh Nationalist party had disappeared, and Mr Ali was holding a press conference. The second thing he talked about was his idea for the future and the recognition that a new generation of Bangladeshis wanted a Government who understood the true meaning of democracy and who were prepared to support the growth of enterprise and freedom in their country, to enable it to break out of the cycle of poverty that marks much of its past.
In that spirit, I ask the Government to demand of Bangladesh the same standards of democracy as we expect here, and not to assume that democracy can be held to a lower standard in other countries because that might have happened in the past. Ilias Ali was not only a Member of Parliament, but an incredibly important member of his party and a major hope for many Sylhetis, both those whom he had represented and those in the wider community.
On the policy side, I urge the Minister please not to treat this situation as business as usual in our dealings with Bangladesh. Please will he keep this matter on his board of importance and look at what our Government can do? I can only pray for the safe return of my friend; I hope the Minister can press for more urgent action.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). He, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) and I are active members of the all-party group on Bangladesh. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) for securing this important debate. It is a great reassurance to see the Minister in his place, and I am glad to see him, because he has gained a solid reputation since his appointment and helped me on several occasions. The fact that he will reply for the Government in the debate gives us great reassurance on the importance of the matter for them.
The matter has been raised with me by a number of organisations and constituents. Most recently, I had a meeting in the Devons road mosque in Bromley-by-Bow, organised by Abdus Sardar, a former mayor of Tower Hamlets. More than 50 constituents of various Bangladeshi political persuasions wanted to raise the matter of Ilias Ali’s disappearance and the general political climate in Bangladesh. I yesterday had a meeting with Justice for All, at which some 20 people from various constituencies—leaders of their Bangladeshi communities—raised this matter.
I shall declare my interest: I am a supporter of Bangladesh, as are all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. However, questions are being asked. When Secretary of State Clinton was in Bangladesh recently, she raised the matter directly with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in Dhaka. There is international concern about what is seen as a deteriorating situation in Bangladesh.
The Labour party has a closer association with the Awami League—we are sister organisations—but has great respect for the Bangladesh Nationalist party. I criticised both the Bangladesh Nationalist party and the Awami League when they boycotted Parliament after losing elections, but Bangladesh is a young democracy. We have a mature democracy, and we make mistakes. Bangladesh has had democracy only since 1971, and it makes mistakes. It is the British Government’s role to help, support, and give succour to, Bangladeshi democracy. There is support on international development and for infrastructure, and support from the Foreign Office is critical.
In the recess debate only a few moments ago, we heard a number of colleagues say that Britain’s role in helping Commonwealth countries to develop is significant. We need to ensure that we are there for them. Tonight’s debate is significant. It demonstrates that we are interested in Bangladesh. Some 20% to 25% of my constituents’ families originate from Bangladesh. We want the British Government to continue to play a positive and active role. I am keen to hear from the Minister, because there is no disagreement on either side of the House. We want a safe, secure, democratic Bangladesh that has an enviable growth rate of between 6% and 8% a year. Its strategic place in the region makes it important to the international community.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely important point. Subsequent to the disappearance of Ilias Ali, there have been several hartals—national strikes—and business leaders in Bangladesh have called for the two parties to come together to stop them. Does he recognise the close correlation between promoting democracy and human rights in Bangladesh, and maintaining its growth rate? Without the first, it will not achieve the second.
Jim Fitzpatrick
The hon. Gentleman makes a critical point. I hope that both the main political parties in Bangladesh—there are many other parties, of course—understand that they cannot have economic growth and international respect without the democratic foundations we all want entrenched there. I am sure that that is what they want. My meetings with the Bangladeshi high commissioner—colleagues have had similar meetings—demonstrated Bangladesh’s commitment to the objective of a free, fair, open and transparent democratic Bangladesh moving forward economically. As we all know, it is one of the five poorest countries in the world, has twice the population of Britain, is two-thirds the size of England and a chunk of it is under water a third of the year. The challenges it faces are massive compared to our problems—and we know how difficult our problems are. I am grateful to the Minister for being here, we are keen to hear what he says and I am grateful for this opportunity to speak.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) not only for securing this important debate, but for how he introduced it. I commend to any friend of Bangladesh the comments made by him, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) for how they characterised their support for Bangladesh—not partisan, but based on a knowledge and affection for the country and a respect for their constituents of Bangladeshi origin and how the latter feel about their own country. The way they put their concerns is a model for those outside of how Members on both sides of the House can deal with a difficult issue, recognising its huge sensitivities. I hope that I do not fail to live up to the way in which they set out the case.
The hon. Member for Bradford South described the incident and the responses to it, and rightly set out the difficult background. It is not an isolated incident, and it is drawn not from a background of enormous political stability, but from difficult circumstances in which personalities often overshadow the issues that need to be dealt with. Hon. Members were honest in not pointing the finger of blame in a situation where the circumstances are still unknown. They recognised, however, that even though the circumstances are unknown, people need to know, because a healthy democracy and society need to move away from a culture of disappearances and similar incidents. The hon. Gentleman set out the matter very clearly.
I shall first deal with the incident concerning Mr Ilias Ali and then say something about our relationship with Bangladesh generally and what we hope to do for a country that is special to the United Kingdom. I share the House’s concern about the disappearance of Mr Ali, an organising secretary for the Bangladesh Nationalist party and former MP for Sylhet, who has been missing since 17 April. We understand that his abandoned car was discovered by police in the early hours of 18 April, close to his home in Dhaka. Mr Ali’s driver is also missing.
Colleagues were interested to know what we have done. The British high commission in Dhaka has been in regular contact with members of the Bangladeshi Government and the Bangladesh Nationalist party in the weeks since Mr Ali’s disappearance. In meetings with the Prime Minister’s office and senior officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we have made representations to the Government of Bangladesh urging them to do all they can to locate Mr Ali and to investigate the circumstances of his disappearance. Hon. Members may be aware that during a press conference on Wednesday 9 May, our high commissioner to Bangladesh and ambassadors of eight other European countries called on the Bangladeshi authorities to conduct thorough investigations into disappearances, including that of Mr Ali. We do not know who is responsible. That is why we have pressed for the most rigorous inquiry.
At my request, FCO officials have provided me with a list of more than 20 meetings and phone calls made in the last month in connection with this incident. In addition, I will be visiting Bangladesh in the near future.
Richard Fuller
Before the Minister says what he may be doing and asking for when he goes to Bangladesh—which I am pleased he is doing—can he tell the House whether the Government have offered the Bangladeshi Government support from our police in investigating the disappearance of Mr Ilias Ali? If that has not happened, will he offer that support, and if it has, can he say what the Bangladesh Government’s response has been so far?
Alistair Burt
So far that request has not been made. This is a sovereign matter for the authorities of Bangladesh. Should a request be made, we will give it every consideration, but this is an important matter for the Bangladeshi authorities to deal with themselves. I will be going to Bangladesh in the quite near future. I fully intend to reinforce the concerns of the House and would be surprised if the authorities in Bangladesh had not been able to read this debate and colleagues’ comments by the time I visit.
Richard Fuller
I appreciate the Minister giving way a second time. I would like to press him a little further. I understand the difficulties with sovereign responsibilities when other countries wish to investigate such matters, but the British Government have offered support in other situations. Under the circumstances, will he at least consider making that offer to the Prime Minister in Bangladesh when he is there?
Alistair Burt
I would be grateful if, in accordance with the trust that colleagues accorded me at the start of the debate, my hon. Friend left me to make a judgment when I am there dealing with the authorities. It is clear to me—not only from the comments of colleagues in this debate, but from the letters I have received from a number of Members of Parliament and the comments made by members of the Bangladeshi community in the United Kingdom—that there can be no doubt among the authorities there about the great concern aroused not only by this case in itself, but by its context, given other cases. That allows me, I think, to have a frank discussion with the authorities, as well as with representatives of all the political parties in Bangladesh, about the issues; but for now, perhaps I might be given the opportunity to make a judgment about more practical support when I am there.
Colleagues will know that, as has been mentioned, opposition parties responded to the disappearance of Mr Ali with a programme of public demonstrations and hartals, which are enforced general strikes. In associated violence, sadly, a number of people have died. Since then, some 33 members of the Bangladesh Nationalist party have been arrested for an alleged arson attack. There are accusations that the arrests were politically motivated. Colleagues who have studied the situation in Bangladesh over many years will recognise that a lot of personal and historical baggage drives that country’s political discourse. We will not speculate about the identities of the victims and perpetrators in this series of unfolding events. What I will say—I am reinforced in this by the comments that all colleagues have made—is that we regard this form of politics as a problem. It is in Bangladesh’s interests that its politics be practised primarily in Parliament, not in the streets.
Hon. Members have rightly raised broader concerns about human rights in Bangladesh. We welcome the Bangladesh Government’s assurances that they are committed to protecting human rights, and I recognise that progress has been made across a range of social development indicators. However, I note that reports, including from Bangladeshi human rights organisations, continue to suggest high levels of disappearances, abductions, extra-judicial killings and torture. The Foreign Secretary himself raised our concerns when he met the Bangladesh Foreign Minister on 16 April. Such issues are a standing item in our discussions with the Bangladesh Government.
Improving human rights, democracy and the rule of law are also integral parts of the United Kingdom’s development assistance programme in Bangladesh, which includes projects to support access to justice, to improve political participation, and to promote accountable and transparent government. To give one example, over the past five years we have supported the establishment of 20,000 community police forums, enabling access to more equal and fairer police services for 5 million people. UK support over the next three years should increase access to community-led legal services from 35% to 50%.
During my forthcoming visit to Bangladesh, I expect to meet the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to see some excellent UK-funded projects and to meet young people with high aspirations. That is the positive side of our relationship with Bangladesh. I shall also take the opportunity of my visit to raise the difficult subjects that have formed the core of our debate today. I plan to use my visit better to understand Bangladesh and to discuss with the country’s political leaders what it would take to make sustained progress on human rights and ensure that the country is on a path to free, fair and participatory elections by early 2014.
We have a strong, broad and long-standing relationship with Bangladesh, which is important to both countries. We were the first European country to recognise Bangladesh, and, as colleagues have already mentioned, some 500,000 people of Bangladeshi heritage live in the United Kingdom. We are also the largest cumulative investor in Bangladesh. Given this close and multifaceted relationship, it is right that we should look at Bangladesh’s problems, a number of which have been highlighted in today’s debate, and conclude that it is all the more important that we engage.
Colleagues have mentioned the fact that Bangladesh is a young democracy and that its standards need to be high. I agree with both those statements. There is no doubt that democracy is struggling there because of the country’s historical baggage. It is therefore essential that we give our total support to those who are engaged in promoting democracy and working hard in the most difficult circumstances.
Jim Fitzpatrick
The Minister announced that he is to visit Bangladesh soon. He might know that my wife, Dr Sheila Fitzpatrick, and I worked with Voluntary Service Overseas in Bangladesh. If he has an hour to spend with VSO when he is there, I am sure that he would be welcomed and shown the connections that VSO has made between London and Dhaka.
Alistair Burt
I hope I am not giving too much away by saying that, in the past, my legs have been treated by the hon. Gentleman’s wife—and very well treated they were, too. If she is doing VSO work there, that is a very good deal for Bangladesh. I have no idea how flexible my programme will be, or where she might be, but we can discuss that later. I will certainly get a message to Sheila, given the tremendous work that she does.
Let me conclude by saying a little about democracy in Bangladesh. It is essential that we do all we can to get the balance right. We do not want to be compromised, or compromising, in relation to high standards, but nor do we want too much pressure to be placed on those who are struggling and seeking to do the very best they can in the circumstances. To achieve a strong, stable, prosperous and democratic Bangladesh, it will need independent and accountable institutions and a functioning Parliament at the centre of political debate. We strongly encourage all parties to engage in constructive politics, for the good of the citizens of Bangladesh. The British Government have consistently stated that it is for Bangladesh to decide how to manage its national elections, but it is essential that they are free, fair and peaceful.
This House, and Parliament, have a role to play. When I visit countries abroad, I am always struck by how much this House is looked up to in so many parts of the world and by how much visits by colleagues are valued. The opportunity for parliamentarians to speak to parliamentarians, and for candidates to speak to candidates, about what is expected and what can be done matters much more than statements from Ministers and the like. I am sure that we will have a role to play in encouraging that democracy.
The importance of the incident that has been highlighted today cannot be overestimated. The British Government are making rigorous efforts to ensure that the best possible investigation is carried out, and we will continue to do so. We will press the authorities to reveal as much as they possibly can about what they are doing. We recognise that all parties have a role to play in this, and no fingers of blame can yet be pointed. I look forward to reporting back to colleagues in due course, after I have made my own visit.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you the very best for this brief recess.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deputy Prime Minister
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
T12. The Deputy Prime Minister has been quoted in the media as saying, rightly in my opinion, that social mobility will take a long time to change, so why, on coming to power in May 2010, did he agree to the reduction or elimination of measures such as the education maintenance allowance and Sure Start long before their long-term effects could be judged?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I hope the hon. Lady knows, we have protected the money for Sure Start, but there is, I acknowledge, greater discretion for local authorities to decide how to use it. I am aware of 10 outright closures of Sure Start centres across the country, and of course it is important to know why local authorities have taken those decisions. I hope that she is also aware of the extra investment that we are now putting in, particularly for early years—for children even before they go to school. We know from the evidence that that makes the most dramatic difference for subsequent social mobility. As of April next year, 40% of all two-year-olds in this country, including all two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged families, will receive for the first time 15 hours of free pre-school support.
[Official Report, 22 May 2012, Vol. 545, c. 980.]
Letter of correction from Nick Clegg:
An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 22 May 2012 to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore).
The correct answer should have been:
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I hope the hon. Lady knows, we have protected the money for Sure Start, but there is, I acknowledge, greater discretion for local authorities to decide how to use it. I am aware of 10 outright closures of Sure Start centres across the country, and of course it is important to know why local authorities have taken those decisions. I hope that she is also aware of the extra investment that we are now putting in, particularly for early years—for children even before they go to school. We know from the evidence that that makes the most dramatic difference for subsequent social mobility. As of 2014, 40% of all two-year-olds in this country, including all two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged families, will receive for the first time 15 hours of free pre-school support.
Petition
VAT on Static Caravans
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Family Courts
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne.
Few though we are in number today—it is the last day of term and there is a debate under way in the main Chamber at the same time—we are here to consider the report that the Select Committee on Justice published in June 2011, and to hear an update from the Minister, who I am glad to see in his place. The Committee’s report, “Operation of the Family Courts”, followed the publication of the family justice review’s interim report that rejected the introduction of a shared parenting presumption; proposed a legislative statement reinforcing the importance of the child having a meaningful relationship with both parents; recommended a new statutory time limit of six months in care and supervision cases; and proposed a fundamental restructuring of the family court system through the creation of a family justice service.
The Justice Committee broadly welcomed the review’s approach, although we remained neutral on the creation of a family justice service, because at that stage the evidence of how it would be constructed was limited. The Norgrove review final report was published in November 2011, and the Government’s response to it was published in February 2012. All three—the Norgrove review, the Justice Committee and the Government—considered a number of main themes: the underpinning principles, including shared parenting if it is a relevant concept; the use and promotion of mediation; the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; the family court system; the use of expert witnesses; and media access to family court hearings. I will deal with them in that order.
This is a timely debate, because on 9 May, the Government announced their intention to introduce a children and families Bill in early 2013. There will be an opportunity for the Committee to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of draft clauses before the formal introduction of the Bill. If the state in the form of the judiciary— the court system—is going to intervene in family relationships, or if the state in the form of the protection authorities is going to do so, it must promote and protect children’s safety and well-being. The family justice system considers cases ranging from the separation of a couple where the unresolved issues may be financial, to public law cases that may involve physical, sexual or emotional child abuse. In the most serious cases, a child’s life may be at risk, as we know from some chilling cases in the past few years.
In March 2010, there were 46,709 children on the child protection register because they were thought to be at risk of abuse or neglect. Private law actions deal with the consequences of relationship breakdown. Public law actions are brought by local authorities for child protection purposes. Both types of case can involve highly contested views and a great deal of emotion that is difficult to channel in the courtroom and which often makes the judicial procedures seem remote from, or inappropriate to, the circumstances being dealt with. The Ministry’s judicial and court statistics tell us that in 2009 there were 163,000 court cases involving children, of which 137,000—I am rounding the figures—were private law cases and approximately 26,000 were public law cases. We received evidence about both kinds of case.
Throughout our inquiry, the Committee found it difficult to form a clear picture of trends and changes in the family justice system because of flaws in the compilation of data. We recommended the creation of a robust evidence base for the formation and scrutiny of policy. The Committee is concerned that major changes to the system are being undertaken when there have been such gaps in the evidence base. I know that Ministers and the permanent secretary—we congratulate him on his forthcoming appointment as head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development—have sought to improve the quality of financial and outcome data in the Ministry of Justice. This is a major issue in the Ministry of Justice and it is being addressed, but we felt that in this area, as in others, the evidence base was not there for some of the conclusions that were being drawn. We asked the Government to report back to us, which they did to some extent in their response to the Norgrove review. Indeed, they commissioned work from one of our special advisers, Professor Judith Masson. However, this issue needs to be watched carefully and we will do so.
On the underpinning principles, the Children Act 1989 introduced three principles: the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration; parents share not rights, but responsibilities; and in any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child. The evidence before the Committee showed that courts rarely deny contact between child and parent. The majority of applications resulting in no contact are applications that have been abandoned by the applicant parent. This is an emotive issue that has led to some intensive campaigning—some of which has been proper; some rather less commendable in its methods—on important issues.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the contents of the report. As a member of the Justice Committee, I am aware of his wise counsel to all of us in the preparation of the report. Does he share my concern that the concept of shared parenting is gaining traction in government, particularly as we have seen international comparators—Australia is one such country—where it had been tried and failed abjectly? Its adoption would surely undermine the paramountcy principle to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Sir Alan Beith
The right hon. Gentleman, who is an extremely valued member of the Justice Committee, anticipates what I am going to say. He is right to say that we looked at evidence from Australia and were very concerned by what it showed. To us it seemed obvious that a court would realise, without having to be told, that it is in the interest of the child, as far as possible, to maintain a relationship with both parents. Once some kind of shared parenting provision is embodied, we are moving away from the principle that the court starts with—that the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration. Paramountcy does not sit easily with additional presumptions or additional qualifications, and the Australian experience underlined that. Our report states:
“The Panel itself admits that such a statement is not intended to change the law but believes it could ‘guide’ parents who are splitting up. In our view it is obvious to the court that a child deserves a loving, caring relationship with both his or her mother and father. A statement which might be taken to qualify the principle that the best interests of the child must prevail could give the impression of a change in the law and could cause confusion.”
We referred to the evidence from Australia that
“the ‘shared parenting’ approach had not only confused parties about how the “best interests of the child” test should operate, but can encourage a more litigious approach by parents in private law cases. This is in direct opposition to the greater emphasis on mediation and out-of-court agreement…which both the Government and the Family Justice Panel are pursuing.”
The shared parenting presumption would be a dangerous road to go down. It would be a legal requirement for the courts to consider making orders for children to spend equal or substantial and significant time with each parent, unless that is not in the child’s best interests or reasonably practicable. Doing that would further extend the present profoundly unsatisfactory situation in which a court tries to decide whether a child should be with one or other parent on the Friday night, or whether the child is free to make their own choice to go to scouts or guides, or to a youth group in a different town from the one they are being told to go to. That would become much worse if the shared parenting principle were applied.
The alternative gaining some traction in government, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said—it varies depending on which bit of Government you inquire of: that is not a statement about parties; it is a statement about individuals—is a legislative statement enshrined in legislation, reinforcing the importance of the child having a meaningful relationship with both parents, alongside the need to protect the child from harm. However, that undermines the paramountcy of the interests of the child.
When we considered the Australian experience in more detail, we found that it was mirrored by some evidence from home, which showed that the England and Wales court system does not always ensure that judges have relevant evidence in front of them relating to safety fears and violence towards a child or partner, or even relating to proceedings in another court, such as non-molestation orders or criminal proceedings, and that judges may not give appropriate weight to such evidence. Research shows that high levels of domestic violence exist in private law cases that reach court, and it is in such cases that the legislative statement is likely to have an impact.
In Australia, the presumption caused confusion and was misunderstood as mandating or entitling parents to shared care—it did not do that, but it was misunderstood as doing so by quite a lot of people—and caused concern that the child’s interests were not considered to the extent that they should be and were not paramount. In some cases, the presumption seemed to lead to parents being less willing to negotiate and resolve arguments over child contact outside the court.
We concluded that the child’s well-being must be the paramount aim and objective of the family courts and the “best interests of the child” test should remain the sole test. The Norgrove review came to the same conclusions. Because different people interpret shared parenting differently, legislating for it gives the impression of parental rights to a particular amount of time with a child and takes away the focus from the child’s well-being—the child’s rights.
We disagreed with the proposal for the legislative statement in the Norgrove review’s interim report, but paragraph 61 of the Government response says that there
“should be a legislative statement of the importance of children having an ongoing relationship with both their parents…where that is safe, and in the child’s best interests.”
The Government state that they are
“mindful of the lessons which must be learnt from the Australian experience”
and their stated aim is that the
“presumption of shared parenting will…enhance the prospect of an agreement between parents”.
The Government stated that the legislative statement will not disturb the “best interests of the child” test. It is unclear to the Committee how this can be achieved. I remain concerned that the introduction of a statement will lead to confusion and would take greater prominence than the current best interests tests.
We share the Government’s concern about early intervention, which is another important issue, not only in relation to our specific work on family justice, but much more generally, because the circumstances in which children and young people become involved in offending behaviour can develop as a result of many public and private law cases, so there is massive public interest in trying to ensure that the right advice gets to the right people at the right time.
We mentioned the signposting of advice and contact opportunities and said:
“There is no point in referring parents to services which have no capacity to cope with additional demand. However, we know that resources are scarce and that it is unrealistic to make demands for widespread increased Government spending in the current climate.”
We noted the Government’s ideas about the big society bank, or Big Society Capital as it is now called, as
“a potential source of capital for charities”
and called on them
“to confirm that such bodies which provide early intervention for families which need assistance would…be eligible for such capital”.
That related to a previous Committee report on justice reinvestment, which made the case for more funding to be spent on early intervention, with eventual consequential reductions in expensive prison places. We cannot go on as a society pouring money into an ever-expanding prison system. We would be much more likely to reduce crime if we used some of those resources at the stages that we are talking about here, when family breakdown takes place. I think the Government agree with us in principle and I should like to hear that they are making progress.
Courts are unsuited to resolving the kinds of highly emotive disputes that can arise in family cases and there are circumstances in which the authority of the court to resolve the dispute is rarely recognised by both parties. Such cases are charged with emotion and mistrust. Mediation is a better route to follow in a large proportion of cases. There is clear evidence that mediation can be effective, with a high proportion of parties reaching agreement or narrowing the issues in dispute. There will always be a hard core of cases where mediation is not appropriate and provision must be maintained for these.
I welcome the Norgrove review recommendation that mediators should meet the current requirements set by the Legal Services Commission. However, in the mediation process it is vital that the Government should ensure that the voice of the child is heard. The child is not a commodity to be negotiated over, as in a property case, but the person to whom the proceedings are most important. We look to the Government to ensure that mediators understand that and exercise that responsibility.
There is a history to our consideration of CAFCASS. The severe but necessary criticisms of CAFCASS by our predecessor Committee, as long ago as 2003, led to the resignation or removal of the entire board. In our recent report, we called on the family justice review to address directly the future structure of CAFCASS. I welcome the recommendation that CAFCASS be made part of the proposed new family justice service. We said that that would be a first step, but only a first step; in itself, it will not be enough:
“It needs to be the first step in a series of reforms designed to transform Cafcass into a less process-driven, more child-focused, and integral part of the family justice system.”
We recognise that CAFCASS operates within a cash-limited system, but it has to be able to deliver a timely, consistent service to all children—regardless of changes in the volume of cases, over which it does not have control. We welcomed CAFCASS’s recent progress in reducing the number of unallocated cases. We shared the Public Accounts Committee’s concerns about CAFCASS’s ability to sustain its progress when there was no sign of a future fall in the number of care applications. We were concerned to ensure that CAFCASS became refocused on the best interests of the child. There needs to be a safe minimum level of service during this period of difficulty when there is an increased number of cases.
We were concerned about the amount of time that CAFCASS officers spend with children, which we felt was too low—unacceptably low—in the longer term. CAFCASS officers agree with us; they want to spend more time with children, and this should be facilitated. That is consistent with what the Government are trying to do about giving police officers and other professional public servants time to do the job.
The Government intend to transfer the sponsorship of CAFCASS from the Department for Education to the Ministry of Justice. That has been out of our terms of reference for a while; when our predecessor Committee reported on it, it was a Lord Chancellor’s Department function, then it went off to the Department for Children, Schools and Families. The Government now propose to return it, which is logical, because CAFCASS’s work is close to the courts and it ought to be an integral part of the family justice system, with a strong voice within that system to champion children in the courts. However, I am afraid that the history of CAFCASS is one of inadequacy. It must continue to improve and be seen to improve by participants.
I turn now to delays in case management in the family court system. Delay, to a child, has massive consequences. Two parties to a commercial dispute may be inconvenienced by delay, but a child whose case waits for months or years is losing crucial years of contact, bonding and personal development—all the things that we take for granted, but which are completely disrupted by delay.
Delay is endemic and rising. The average case took 53 weeks in 2010, although the Children Act target is 12 weeks. The Norgrove review suggests that the average case took 60 weeks. Witnesses suggested to the Committee various causes of delay, including fixed and limited resources—not just financial resources, but sitting days available to use courts for family court business, for example, as Mr Justice Ryder mentioned—the slow speed of CAFCASS reports, which the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children told us about, along with insufficient numbers of experts of sufficient quality. I shall return to the issue of experts.
Other causes of delay were variations in the quality of case management by the judiciary, to which Sir Nicholas Wall referred, and a lack of trust between social workers, the judiciary, CAFCASS and the parties, leading to repeated adjournments to seek further evidence, to which the Public Accounts Committee referred in its report. Barnardo’s, commenting on public law cases, told us that the impact of delay on children’s ability to form relationships was harmful and long-term:
“Two months of delay in making decisions in the best interest of a child equates to one per cent of childhood that cannot be restored”.
The potential outcome of cases can be prejudiced. The opportunity to have an outcome that is in the best interests of the child is often lost by delay. By the end of the process, options that might have been available are no longer available, and are thought by the courts to be no longer available, perhaps because of the time that has elapsed since the child has had contact with one of the partners. That is a profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Norgrove review recommended the introduction of a statutory six-month time limit for the completion of care cases, which I understand the Government support. I welcome the intention, but will it happen? Is it enforceable? I would like to hear the Government’s thinking.
A related topic is judicial continuity—the same judge. Having the same judge manage and hear a case not only allows for effective case management and efficient use of judicial time, but is an important signal to parties, above all to the children, that their case is being treated with the respect that they deserve; they can establish more clearly who the authority figure in the situation is. We welcome the president of the family division’s recognition of the issue and his willingness to reconsider how things are often dealt with at the moment.
On litigants in person, the Ministry of Justice told us that the number of unrepresented litigants in the family courts was “significant” but it did not know how many—to go back to the issue of data, which I mentioned earlier. During the course of our inquiry, the Government consulted on and legislated on legal aid for family law cases, ending it except for those involving domestic violence—in certain limited categories—or if mediation was to be facilitated. The Ministry estimated that at least 210,000 cases would no longer be eligible for legal aid, such as cases in which the presence of legal aid on one side created an inequality between the parties, and they may include cases that do not involve children.
The Government believe that the removal of legal aid will force more litigants into alternative dispute resolution, which some people will no doubt use—I certainly hope so—but it is inevitable that the number of litigants in person will increase. It is self-evident that many parents are unlikely to give up applications for contact, residence or maintenance simply because they have no access to public funding.
Mr Llwyd
The point touched on by the right hon. Gentleman was reinforced by Sir Nicholas Wall, the president of the family division, who said that parents were not likely to pack up simply because they do not have legal aid. I did a full residence and contact case two years ago in which, at the last minute, the applicant sacked his solicitors and appeared in person. The hearing was down for three days but lasted seven. That, I am afraid, is a typical story and any reform of the family courts not predicated on that very fact will be utterly unworkable.
Finally, I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, to you, Mrs Osborne, and to both Front Benchers that I shall not be present at the conclusion of the debate, because I must leave shortly. I am pleased to have made a brief contribution.
Sir Alan Beith
The right hon. Gentleman has already told me about the event he has this evening, which I understand that he must attend, so I fully accept his apology. He brings considerable court experience to our proceedings, as is evident from his interventions. He is right that in some cases the litigant in person is difficult and does not fit easily with courts. The very fact that that was someone who had legal advice and then sacked the legal advisers illustrates the kind of problems with litigants in person often seen by the courts.
I fully recognise the difficulty, but we must ask to what extent the ordinary taxpayer, going about his or her life in an economical and sensible way, should fund the legal proceedings of those who choose to do battle in the courts over separation, divorce and financial settlement. The state must get involved if the interests of the children require it—that is part of what I am saying—but neither I nor, I think, the Committee as a whole believe that we can write a blank cheque for a system of legal representation that is not in practice the best way to resolve a large number of the cases. Legal aid is necessary in some difficult cases, but I look on the situation as a non-lawyer and I see a lot of money being spent to hire two people to argue for a long time over the affairs of a child who seems distant and removed from the proceedings.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that non-lawyers accessing the family courts can find the process confusing, frustrating and baffling, and we welcome the Government review of the available support system. The courts will need to become more attuned to dealing with parties representing themselves and to develop clearer procedures and guidance. A heavy responsibility rests on the court system—not only the family courts—to facilitate that.
I turn to the use of expert witnesses. A fairly commonly held view is that many cases have too many expert reports. We noted the Minister’s comments that greater use could be made of non-expert witnesses, such as foster carers—although they have a distinct role and can provide valuable information—but in some cases there is a genuine need for expertise.
The Norgrove review recommended that expert evidence should be used only when that information was not available and could not properly be made available from the parties already involved. The review also recommended making judges responsible for instructing expert witnesses, rather than legal advisers, in order to control the scope of questions and, further, that agreed quality standards for experts in the family courts should be developed, with criteria including adherence to set time scales, membership of appropriate professional bodies and completion of specified court-focused training, peer review and continuing professional development. I understand that the Government agree with those recommendations, and so do I; perhaps the Minister can confirm how the Government will proceed.
On the access of the media to family court hearings, the witnesses who appeared before our Committee were unanimous in opposing implementation of the scheme legislated for in part 2 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010. There are clearly dangers to justice and to the perception of justice when courts operate in secret. The aim of ensuring that secrecy does not cause injustice or the perception of injustice to children is important, but the Act was not well thought through and went through Parliament in some haste, so there was a failure to take account of the views of children. I speak as someone who wanted more openness in the family courts.
Research shows that a clear majority of children are opposed to any details of their case being reported. Children fear being identified and bullied, and consider the details of their families and the ordeals that they have undergone to be private. Children must not be inhibited from giving vital information to family justice professionals for fear of being reported by the media. I therefore support the decision not to proceed with that piece of legislation, but that does not preclude anonymous judgments and must not be allowed to conceal from wider scrutiny the principles on which decisions are taken in the family courts or to cover up systemic failures on the part of public authorities. I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment that the current legislation is flawed, but the Ministry of Justice must try again.
Those are some of the issues brought out in our report, which are important as we proceed with the reform of the family courts, consistent with the Secretary of State’s broad objectives to make the courts serve their customers properly. Our recommendations need to be dealt with in order to have a family court system that serves the most important customer best.
The most important customer of the family court system is the child, who is either the subject of public law proceedings and may be taken away from their family—perhaps for a good reason, perhaps for a less compelling reason—or is in a family that is breaking up. The child’s complex interests and development may be profoundly affected and set back by wrong decisions and by slow and delaying processes in which they are not heard. Those are difficult challenges, but we must get them right—not only because we owe that to children, but because the future health of our society depends on getting them right.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend’s speech, and to read his Committee’s report, but there are areas where we are still getting things badly wrong, and perhaps the direction of Government policy is making things worse rather than better. I declare an interest. I am involved in Justice for Families, which looks at public family law in the English and Welsh jurisdiction, although people from outside that jurisdiction also contact us. Parents are involved, not surprisingly, but we are also contacted by teenagers who are trapped in the care system and want to escape, but cannot find a way of doing so.
Recently, I worked with a number of care leavers to form an organisation called Care Leavers Voice. People tend to think of care leavers as those in their teens or 20s, but I am talking about professional people in their 40s and 50s. Having perhaps the best perspective of what it is like to be a child in care, and having gone on to have a professional career and the confidence to speak out, they feel that their voice is not being heard. The family justice review was dreadful because it consisted only of people who operated the system; no one on the panel represented the people who went through the system.
I hope that my right hon. Friend does not mind me being mildly critical. Although his Committee’s report is more balanced than the family justice review, it is not as balanced as the report of the Select Committee on Education, which took evidence from a much wider range of people on the operation of the child protection system. Whichever way we look at the matter, it is necessary to listen to both sides—not just those who earn money from operating the system, but those who go through the system and have personal experience. A great difficulty with a secret system is that there may be a bit of data about what is going on, but unless people are like me and have seen lots of individual cases, they do not know precisely what is going on.
I am also associated with the Grandparents’ Association, which is very good, and has said that grandparents find the system traumatic. I deal with grandparents who operate the system. If a grandparent wants to express their voice directly to the judge in a case, that is a challenge. They can apply to be a party, but if they want to use a lawyer to do so, they do not receive non-means-tested legal aid, and probably do not receive legal aid at all. It costs £5,000 to £10,000 just to try to be a party. My organisation and my contacts help people to be litigants in person so that the grandparent can go to court and talk to the judge. Grandparents will give evidence about what is going on to whoever is interested in listening to them, but if they are unable to speak directly to the forum where a decision is being made, they are excluded. Great-grandparents such as Phil Thompson are irate about how they and their families have been treated, but the system does not listen to them, because they are excluded from evidence sessions, and panels such as the family justice review take no account of them.
A group of adoptive parents who have encountered difficulties with the unresponsiveness of the system are working with Justice for Families. They have a slightly different problem, which has been reported recently in the Sunday Express by Ted Jerry, who is a very good journalist and specialises in this area. We must listen to the people who go through the system, as well as to those who earn money to operate it. As I said, the Select Committee report is more balanced than the family justice review, which might as well not have been started.
The integrity and scrutiny—and secrecy—of the system are a key part of the matter. One assessment is that about 1,000 children are adopted each year who should not be adopted. For example, a woman had 10 children taken away from her in one area, but had a child in another area, and when she was sent home a social worker’s assessment was that there was no risk whatever. She is doing quite well with that child, but why was the state spending £250,000 per child on having them adopted in one local authority area, when she went home with a child in another local authority area. Other than the local authority being responsible for the decision making, is the system sufficiently robust when something substantially different occurs? Is there any quality control on decision making? Clearly, there is not.
Although the Family Proceedings (Amendment)(No. 2) Rules 2009 were generally good, the part relating to journalists with a National Union of Journalists card in the court was futile because they were not allowed to report anything. Further, the reversal in 2010 of Clayton v. Clayton was completely garbled and a mistake. However, that does not mean there is no merit in greater public scrutiny, which is important in two areas. First, academic scrutiny is key. We have had only one report so far, by Professor Jane Ireland, who found that about two thirds of the psychologists’ reports that she encountered were rubbish: if the judge had relied on them, the decision would have been unreliable and should have been challenged through the appellant system. We have only one report because they must be authorised, but there is no reason why academic researchers should not have de facto, anonymous access to expert evidence in the family courts.
I was lucky to be drawn sixth in the private Member’s Bills ballot, and one proposal in my Bill will be to allow academic access to secret proceedings, so that in both the family courts and the Court of Protection, which is really a family court, expert evidence can be challenged. The Daubert procedure in the US is used to appeal expert opinion to experts, and that is a good process. Professor Ireland, with other professors, has recommended that for the UK. It would be one way of starting to get some quality into the decision making based on expert opinion, but we are some distance away from that.
A good example, published recently in the Daily Mail, is Lucy Allan. The same psychologist produced two reports on her. One, without seeing her, was for the local authority; in another, having seen her, she said completely contradictory things about the same person. In one she said, without seeing her, that the mother was a great danger to her child; in the other, she said that the mother was perfectly okay—that was because she was being paid to say that. Information from that psychologist was used to make a life-changing decision, and that is an absolute scandal.
Academic access to expert reports should not be subject to a complex and expensive approval process. It should happen almost de facto. Our care system does not do well, and other countries’ care systems do far better. Our system does not do well because of lack of accountability—not just public accountability, but academic accountability.
There is also merit in allowing retrospective review of the proceedings of family court cases. In one case, a mother was deemed to be a bad mother because she fed her baby on demand, instead of in a routine, so the baby was adopted. We should be able to talk about that. It is absurd that psychologists can reach conclusions about people and their merits as parents without even seeing them. I see a hell of a lot of such cases, and they are not acceptable. Such things need to be considered publicly, which fits with the evidence provided in the family court report. This is not about identifying people; it is about knowing what is going on and what is being done in our name. If we believe in parliamentary sovereignty we must know what is going on, even if we do not know precisely to whom it happened. That is important.
There is a rule in Parliament that a Member cannot criticise a named judge without having tabled a motion in their name. There is, however, no rule to say that one cannot praise a named judge, so I wish to praise Nicholas Mostyn and recommend that people read the published judgment of A County Council v. M and F [2011] EWHC 1804 (Fam). We do not know who M and F are or which is the county council, but under the circumstances, we do not need to know. By looking at that case, however, we see the challenges faced by the judges when dealing with expert evidence, particularly when that evidence is contradictory. The case I have mentioned shows an excellent judgment that all judges should read and consider because it goes into some really difficult issues.
I know of eight cases involving the issue of expert evidence and vitamin D, and I am working with the excellent solicitors Brendan Fleming in Birmingham to look at those. Again, the issue is scrutiny of expert evidence. In the Wray case in London, Jayden Wray sadly died from a mixture of shaken baby syndrome—SBS—and metaphyseal fractures as a consequence of vitamin D deficiency. In that case, it was proven that the triad of symptoms occurred not under the care of the parents but at a later stage, and that is critical. There have been many SBS cases, including that of Keran Henderson, which was a criminal case and is reasonably well known as it attracted quite a bit of publicity. It is an interesting area, but because these things have gone on in secret, we do not know about them. Recently, I have put pressure on the Government to review those cases that involve vitamin D deficiency. They have avoided the question, but we will see where it goes in the future.
I encounter quite a bit of private law because public law and private law can interrupt each other. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) spoke for the Liberal Democrats on this issue some time ago, and we are pleased to see her back in Parliament. She proposed that before anyone goes to court, the default position should be that if parents split up they do not have to go to court to establish a court order for residency. Delay is one of the difficulties—that is where the report is entirely right—and causes a problem. If we start with a default position that places a duty on both parents to keep in contact with the child—except in really exceptional circumstances, which do occur from time to time—we would be in a much better situation than we are at the moment where people first have to apply for a court order.
One difficulty of mediation is that if people can get a better deal by waiting for the adversarial approach, why would they bother with the mediation and take it seriously? There must be something for parents to agree on during mediation, and the recent work on encouraging mediation by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission was important. It is a mistake always to separate issues of finance and of the child in question. From the parents’ point of view, those things are not separate and indeed are associated. Often, the mother gets residency of the children and the father goes into a mood and says, “Well, I’m not going to pay if I don’t get contact”, and people get into a massive row. If we managed to bring those things together, that would be far better.
We are trying to do something therapeutic and, particularly in public family law—although it is the same in private family law—we have the therapeutic objective of trying to do what is best for the child or children under the circumstances. That is not best handled through an adversarial family court system where everything gets piled up and there are hundreds of sheets of paper. Anyone who has seen one of those cases will know the absurd amount of paperwork involved, which often merely repeats things from other documents. That does not help.
The report referred to the family group conferencing approach, which is far better. We need to strengthen case conferences so that the procedure is not abused by the practitioners. The Webster/Hardingham case from Norfolk is well known as a miscarriage of justice, but it started out as an abuse of process and procedure in the case conference at Norfolk county council. If that abuse had been picked up at that point, three children would probably not have been wrongfully adopted. It was a case where one of the family went off to Ireland—I think it was in about 2006. The case went to the Court of Appeal, which effectively accepted the likelihood that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
We must analyse where decisions are taken. Although rubber-stamped by the courts, often decisions are taken initially in the local authority during the case conference or adoption panel, or whatever. If we can improve the decision-making process at that stage, and provide a more therapeutic environment in which one can bring the grandparents without them having to pay £5,000 or £10,000 to get along in the first instance, we can start trying to work things out. That would be far better than the current system, which is dreadfully remote.
One care leaver who is in his 40s told me that when he was a child in care, he used to try and find out who was taking the dreadful decisions that affected him. He never could find that information, however, which is one of the difficulties in the system. The people to whom things are being done have no idea how the random decisions that affect them are being made. Early intervention is great, but we need to know what and how that is done, and ensure that it achieves positive things. A lot of this is an issue of detail, which is crucial.
Let me turn to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service because I have some difficulty in public law proceedings with working out the added value of the guardian ad litem. A Gillick-competent child should have a solicitor and the guardian should fall away, although in practice that does not always happen. I was pleased to see that Julia Brophy gave evidence to the Committee. If we look at her work, there is an argument for what happens in Ireland where an independent social worker report is commissioned, rather than having the entire panoply of the guardian operation. That raises a question about private family law proceedings, in which I think it would not be a bad idea to do much the same.
We have got to the stage where CAFCASS is so over-worked that we are not getting a lot of continuity. Government policy is going the wrong way in trying to reduce the use of independent social workers; perhaps we should be getting rid of CAFCASS and using independent social reports instead. Given the cost of CAFCASS, that would make the Treasury happy. One difficulty with trying to speed up a machine for miscarriages of justice—which is what the system is doing at the moment—is that although it makes it run faster, it does not get any better, and there is great difficulty with that. We should be able to get better decisions taken at case conference level, and not have to worry so much about everything being done on paper.
Judicial continuity is an interesting question. Someone told me recently about one person involved in a vitamin D miscarriage of justice who was warned by her barrister that if she appealed to the Court of First Instance, that would upset the judge in her case and he might not look favourably on her in the future. There are questions about whether judicial continuity undermines the appellant process. If someone’s barrister says that they should not appeal a case because the judge will be upset, and they then have to go back in front of the same person, that raises an issue. In fact an application was put to the European Court of Human Rights, about whether that prejudges a situation. Again, a difficulty is that we are trying to do therapeutic work, where continuity is crucial, in a legalistic environment in which an attempt is being made to work out whether what is being done is within what has historically been called the margin of appreciation—or, these days, the procedural protections of the European Court of Human Rights. The idea of the margin of appreciation seems to be coming back to a certain extent. As to what the courts should be trying to work out, my ideal solution would be akin to the Swedish one, which is driven by a case-conference-type mechanism—very much a therapeutic environment—which is subject to judicial review, rather than bunging a case in front of the magistrates, who generally just rubber-stamp what the local authority says.
The point about rubber-stamping is important. There are statistics on the outcomes of cases, and they almost always go the local authority’s way. We can take it two ways: we can say, “Well, actually, social workers and care professionals are so much better than the Crown Prosecution Service in their judgments that it is not surprising that things almost always go the way of the local authority.” When the CPS thinks that there is evidence in criminal proceedings to support a verdict beyond reasonable doubt, perhaps half the verdicts in contested cases will be guilty, and half not guilty. In care proceedings there are different outcomes; a care order is sometimes given, or no order may be given, but the local authority’s thesis is rejected in only about 0.27% of cases, on, I think, the 2007 figures. That is a bit of an exaggeration, because other things can happen. The local authority can withdraw the application, as happens in many cases. If the local authority thinks things are going badly, it might withdraw.
We need, also, to consider section 38 of the Children Act 1989. It does not require evidence so much as reasonable grounds to believe that a child may be at risk; given that once an interim care order is given, a final care order is very likely, is that threshold acceptable? Should it not be changed to require an evidence test at some earlier stage? As to delay and its effect on children, the point is what happens if we have a system which, for all that it matters, is much cheaper and much the same in outcomes as rubber-stamping what the local authority wants, which is what happens most of the time. That has an effect on the child. If, say, a newborn baby is taken from the mother and put into foster care, that has a real impact. The work of Professor Michael Rutter is crucial in that area. He looked on the period between six and 18 months as the golden period for a baby. A large proportion of babies taken into care are taken into care well before then. If they get reactive attachment disorder, as many of them do, it is not caused by bad parenting initially but by what the state does—simply on the basis of the timing.
There is a long way to go. I congratulate the Committee on obtaining some representations from people affected by the system, but for this debate I would emphasise that in future, the Government and Select Committees—and I congratulate the Select Committee on Education—should, please, listen to the people to whom things are done, and not just those who earn money doing things to people.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am delighted to respond on behalf of the Opposition to this debate about the Justice Committee’s report on the operation of the family courts and the Government’s response to it—not least because I am doing so under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne. I congratulate the Committee on the production of such a thorough and detailed response to what is clearly one of the most important areas of our legal system.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who was here for a short time, is a valuable member of the Committee. Having spent several months working with him in Committee on what became the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, I know that he is assiduous and shows great integrity. Also, unusually on that Committee, his rhetoric matched his voting record, which was not often the case for Government Back Benchers.
I also thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), for his speech, which, although made in his usual gentle way, was still forensic. It raised a number of issues, to which I am sure the Minister will respond. His points about delay, shared parenting and the evidence base were all well made and are all substantial concerns.
All I would say about the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on secrecy in the courts is that we were expecting some news about that today, with the introduction of the Justice and Security Bill in the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the balance between the protection of the interests of open justice and those of participants is a fine one in all cases, including those in the family courts. It is a pity that the Government are struggling once again to bring forward legislation, even when it has been announced in the media the week before.
I want to comment on another issue that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—restrictions on advice and the increase in the number of litigants in person. I should say that I am grateful for briefings for the debate from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and Resolution, which also raised those issues. First, however, I want to make some general comments.
The importance of the review cannot be stated more clearly than by citing one of the facts in it—that 36 children were killed in 2009-10 by their parents; and that, between 1995 and 1999, in
“80% of all homicides where the victim was an infant under the age of one, the killer was a parent, and in ‘virtually all’ the remaining 20% the killer was a family member, friend or someone who had care of the infant”.
I am sure that everyone present today will be able to name at least one high-profile example of a child tragically killed by those who were supposed to be looking after them. Furthermore, even when a child is not physically harmed by their parents, a violent relationship between parents has been found to have a significant long-term negative effect on the child’s emotional well-being.
The courts therefore have a crucial role, not just in trying to ensure that a child has access to their parents on terms that are acceptable to both and also beneficial to the child, but, all too often, in ensuring that children in dangerous situations are given adequate care and protection. It could not be more important to get this matter right. The previous Government took great steps towards ensuring that the family courts were more accessible and came to more informed decisions, and that alternatives to the adversarial nature of court hearings were found.
We should also acknowledge that in some areas the Government are continuing in that vein, thanks largely to the Justice Committee’s report and the family justice review carried out by David Norgrove. Both identified weaknesses in the operation of the family courts, and the Government’s willingness to consider at least some of the recommendations made in them, and the move towards increased mediation and a more child-centric system, are to be commended.
Unfortunately, however, as with so much to do with the Government, seemingly well meant policies have potentially severe consequences, and, as ever, there is a catch. In their response to the Justice Committee’s report, the Government promised that legal aid would remain for cases where there was evidence of domestic violence. Yet they had to be dragged kicking and screaming through, I think, two lost votes and one tied vote in the House of Lords, during the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, to acknowledge properly a definition of domestic violence that would give the protection of legal aid to those who so badly need it, and to extend the evidential criteria. Eventually, there was substantial movement on that, but there were still glaring omissions. Therefore there are clear cases where victims of domestic violence will not continue to benefit from legal aid, including in private family law cases.
The Government are right to believe that mediation is preferable, and keeping family law cases out of the courts through an agreement between parents is always to be encouraged. Yet for those people who cannot achieve that, and who need legal assistance, the 2012 Act again reduces their chance of receiving proper legal representation. To complicate matters further, the increase in the number of litigants in person, the Government’s replacement of face-to-face services with telephone advice and the dramatic decrease in counter hours—by two thirds, in many cases—mean that the amount of support available has decreased.
I have seen—in part of the Resolution brief for today’s debate, I think—a letter from Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, dated 9 January. It advised that the measures such as the curtailment of the counter service and so on had been implemented without
“any significant issues being raised by our court users”.
However, as Resolution points out, it has been informed by many court users that phone calls and e-mails are “regularly” not answered. We have the Kafkaesque situation in which no longer having a service available means that complaints and queries are not being registered and dealt with. For an individual already faced with the daunting prospect of representing themselves in legal proceedings, that removal of a source of advice could be the difference between a decision that benefits a child and one based on the inability of one side adequately to represent themselves.
I disagree a little with the comment by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that sometimes legal aid can create an imbalance. That may be so in a minority of cases, but on the whole, the impecunious party—the party more in need of representation and not able to afford it, who is often the mother—needs access to legal aid so that both sides can be properly heard.
I practised for only a short time as a family lawyer, but I cannot think of any other area of law in which I practised where the intervention of advocates often resolved cases. Quite often the parties going to court would go not only as other litigants in person do, with an imperfect understanding of procedure and the law, but with a real animus against the other side and almost a willingness to continue the family argument through the court process. In the vast majority of cases, the intervention of lawyers—sometimes at an early stage and sometimes at the door of the court—is a way of drawing up consent orders, of resolving matters that otherwise and in the future would have to go before the judge.
One of the crucial points raised by both reports and various others over the years is the importance of limiting delays. A recent survey of Resolution’s members found that when one party is representing themselves, cases usually take longer. Indeed, 48% of respondents said that it can be more than twice as long as when both parties have legal representation—a point borne out anecdotally by the comments of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd.
The removal of access to counter services cannot possibly improve that situation and will almost certainly lead to even longer delays. Further delays will be caused by the fact that counter services will no longer be available to check applications—a major issue, given that incorrectly completed applications are often rejected by the courts. Aside from those delayed decisions, which were described as “unacceptable” by the Government in their response to the family justice review, it is easy to see how that could also lead to a delay in identifying a child’s safeguarding issues.
My colleagues and I have been approached by representatives from a number of organisations with concerns that mirror the Opposition’s fears on these issues—that one cannot hope to improve services while simultaneously taking an axe to budgets across the board. The Government can talk all they want about a commitment to limiting delays and improving the service provided by family courts, but those improvements will not be found if the crucial background services, such as counter services, are removed.
I will not repeat the many excellent points made by the Chair of the Select Committee; I am sure that the Minister heard them and will respond to them. I hope that he will listen to the comments of the Select Committee and those that I and others with an interest in these matters have made, and will feed them back into the Government’s ongoing development of their justice policy.
The Opposition will not unnecessarily oppose anything that will genuinely improve the operation of our family courts, but the Government need to take notice of the many organisations that have expressed concerns that further delays will ensue as a consequence of the steps that they have taken and that those measures might be counter-productive. The Government should be working to ensure that the family courts work for everyone, not just those who can find a resolution to their problems before coming to court or those who have the means to pay privately for legal advice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
There have been relatively few speakers this afternoon, but the speeches have been of a very high quality. I congratulate the Justice Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) on securing the debate. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for their valuable contributions. The Government recognise that it is simply unacceptable that some children wait more than a year for a decision to be made about their future and that some parents can use the court process to inflame further conflict with their former partners. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) referred, rightly, to the terrifying consequences that can arise. That is why our programme of reform, underpinned by the findings of the Justice Committee’s report and the family justice review, is so important.
I shall deal first with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming). He made a significant contribution on a topic in which he has consistently shown significant interest. To take up his concern about the FJR’s legitimacy, I can tell him that it did have cross-party support, having been initiated by the previous Government and continued by the current Government. David Norgrove consulted very widely here and in other jurisdictions. The Grandparents’ Association, which was the example that my hon. Friend gave, submitted evidence and that was certainly considered. I simply cannot accept that the FJR was constrained in the evidence that it sought or considered.
John Hemming
My argument is that the panel itself did not have someone from Families Need Fathers, the Grandparents’ Association, Justice for Families or any other of the organisations that represent those people to whom things are done.
Mr Djanogly
My hon. Friend makes his point. He will appreciate that, on that basis, many hundreds of organisations could have been included in the body.
Two key pieces of legislation will support our proposals for system change. The children and families Bill, announced in the Queen’s speech, will help to deliver the Government’s commitment to supporting children and families by making it easier for parents to share caring responsibilities and by supporting some of the most vulnerable children, including those in care or whose parents have separated.
John Hemming
I thank the Minister for giving way again. Will the Government consider the proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) of having a default position in the children and families Bill so that there is no need to go to court to establish a default position?
Mr Djanogly
I will come on to that.
The Crime and Courts Bill, introduced on 10 May, contains provisions that will establish a single family court. That is a direct response to a recommendation made by the family justice review. The creation of a single family court will simplify the court process and make it more accessible for families using the system. It will be more transparent and will facilitate the allocation of family law cases in the most effective and efficient way.
In the area of public law, we have already made a commitment to implement many of the review’s recommendations. Where the state intervenes to take children into care, our overriding priority must be to reduce significantly the unacceptable level of delay. That is why we intend to introduce a six-month time limit for all bar exceptional cases. I can confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that that is a limit, not a goal. Where cases can be completed more quickly, they should be. The time limit will be a key part of the family justice provisions in the children and families Bill.
To answer my right hon. Friend, who mentioned time limit delays, the judge will have to give reasons for the delay in open court. In that way, a picture of performance and weaknesses in particular parts of the country will become apparent and will build up over time, which will mean that action can be taken to address a particular problem in a particular area. There are a number of steps to support that.
The Justice Committee and the family justice review, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, highlighted the need to cut the number of expert reports used in court proceedings.
Mr Djanogly
Will my hon. Friend let me make some headway, and then he can come back on what I say?
Such reports take up precious time. I agree that they should be used only where necessary to determine a case and the courts should ensure that such evidence is properly focused on the key questions that the court needs to be answered. We already plan to change the family procedure rules to bring that into effect. Expert evidence will of course continue to be important in some cases to ensure a fair and complete process. Where expert evidence is required, we are working to ensure that it is of high quality and delivered promptly.
To go into more detail, because of the concern shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, we are introducing early changes to the court rules through secondary legislation. The main elements are raising the threshold for the court to permit an expert to be instructed; requiring expert witness evidence to be necessary, rather than reasonably required; and in family proceedings concerning children, there will be a list of factors that the court must explicitly consider in deciding whether to permit an expert to be instructed. Those factors include the impact on the child of a delay and undergoing an assessment, the cost, and whether the information could or should be provided by one of the parties, such as the local authority. We will also require the court to exercise better control over the questions put to the expert and require solicitors to undertake preparatory work earlier in the process to reduce delays in the experts beginning work.
We recognise that minimum standards are necessary for expert witnesses in the family court. We are working with the Department of Health, health regulators and the Family Justice Council to establish minimum standards that judges should expect from all expert witnesses. We are exploring how and whether we can implement the family justice review recommendation that meeting minimum standards should be a requirement for public funding. We will also consult key stakeholders on proposed minimum standards, which we hope to have in place later this year.
John Hemming
I very much welcome the minimum standards for experts, which would be a good thing. I am not one of those who has gone around saying that there are too many experts. I have not expressed any view on how many experts there should be. I have said that independent social workers add value to cases. If we want to save money, get rid of CAFCASS.
Mr Djanogly
I will come on to CAFCASS in due course.
My hon. Friend said that a default residence contact position would avoid the need for court orders. The problem with that is that it is a one-size-fits-all approach; it would not focus on what the child needs. A very young child may have quite different needs from an older child, for example. If parents are in dispute about child arrangements, and the matter requires a court decision, it is right to focus on the child’s needs at that point. That is the current position and we intend to retain it.
John Hemming
The point is not that we should have an unchangeable default position, but that we should start from a position whereby it is the duty of both parents when they separate to maintain contact with the child. The difficulty is that the current position often creates a de facto situation; basically, residence moves with the child and the legal process takes some time to catch up, but in the meantime, in very traumatic circumstances, the relationship between the child and one of the parents has decayed. It is not that the solution is inflexible, but that we start from a minimum position that could be varied.
Mr Djanogly
I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I am not entirely sure that it is incompatible with what I said. I will take a further look at that.
We must improve the quality of the submissions made to courts by local authorities. In many areas, poor-quality or late submissions delay cases and lead to too great a reliance on time-consuming expert reports. We will strip out bureaucracy and duplication. On care planning, we will introduce legislation through the children and families Bill to make it explicit that the court should focus only on issues essential to its deliberations. We will also remove the bureaucratic processes connected with the renewal of interim care orders and interim supervision orders. Where a case is already before the courts, we will remove the need for an adoption panel to consider whether a child should be placed for adoption.
That work is supported by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which has allocated a further 4,000 sitting days to the county court exclusively for family work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out. That is an increase of 8,000 extra county court sitting days compared with 2009-10 and a major increase in family court capacity. That somewhat disproves what the hon. Member for Hammersmith said about Government cuts. We have not been cutting the service, but have been significantly increasing the resources added to it. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has ring-fenced the family allocation in the magistrates courts, ensuring that days intended for families are not lost on criminal hearings.
All right hon. and hon. Members will agree that simply allocating more court days will not solve the long-term issues identified by the family justice review. All the work will be underpinned by more robust data, an issue highlighted by the Justice Committee last year, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. I agree that it is key. Without figures, we can only reform by way of anecdote based on single issues. That is not an adequate position.
With judicial support, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is rolling out a new management information tool. For the first time, it will track the care case process from start to finish at court level. Although it applies only to those cases entering the system from 1 April, it will provide important data about where delays are currently occurring in the system and why they have arisen. Importantly, the tool will drive changes in behaviour by allowing local areas access to their own data, so that information can be used to identify performance barriers.
John Hemming
That would be an excellent tool. Will the tracking system track the release of the printed judgment to the parents, who often do not receive a judgment on which they can appeal?
Mr Djanogly
I will come back to my hon. Friend on that point.
We wish to see a stronger, clearer role for judges in setting a timetable for family cases and ensuring that those cases are managed and completed in a timely and efficient manner. The judiciary are therefore key partners in all of this work. I have had a number of conversations with Mr Justice Ryder, the judge in charge of modernisation, about our reform plans. I am pleased to report that we are working closely with the judiciary, with full regard to their judicial independence. For example, we have already established the Family Business Authority. It brings together the family judiciary and the administration in a decision-making forum. The group takes a strategic look at the family jurisdiction and is well placed to support the modernisation of family justice.
On private law disputes, there were very few points of difference between the Government and the family justice review panel, but there was one on the issue of shared parenting. The Justice Committee has taken a close interest in that, and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and I will give evidence next month to the Committee on the Government’s position. A ministerial working group has been looking at it and has met three times. We intend to consult shortly on options for legislation.
We need to send a clear message to parents that in the absence of any welfare concerns both should be involved in their child’s upbringing. Without pre-empting the consultation, I should like to make it clear that nothing we propose will undermine the existing principle that the welfare of the child is the court’s paramount consideration. Safety will remain an important factor. In answer to points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), our proposed amendment to the Children Act 1989 will send a clear signal to separated parents that courts will take into account the principle that both should continue to be actively involved in their children’s lives. In doing so, it will help to dispel the perception that there is an inbuilt legal bias towards one parent. There is a real feeling among many people that that is the case, which results in a mistrust of the family justice system.
The proposed amendment will encourage more separated parents to resolve their disputes out of court and agree care arrangements that fully involve both parents. An obstructive parent seeking to frustrate contact between the child and his or her other parent should not be able to use the court system to legitimise such activity without good reason.
Mr Djanogly
I will just finish this point. This change is not about equality in the time that a child spends with each parent after separation. Every family and every child’s circumstances are different and the courts will continue to make decisions on that basis.
Sir Alan Beith
There have been quite intensive discussions about this issue in government. In trying to use the law as a signal, there is a danger that the courts will be obliged to take into account a further element of complexity when making a judgment. The signal that it gives some parents in dispute may be that there is another point on which they can engage the court in order to keep the case going. It is more likely to do that than to give a signal to parents about what they themselves should do.
Mr Djanogly
The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. This was what came up in Australia. The Government have looked carefully at the lessons of the Australian experience of legislating in this area, which was highlighted by the family justice review. Direct comparisons with the experience in Australia are misleading; it is certainly not our intention to mirror the structure of the Australian legislation or to create new layers of complexity in our existing system.
Contributors all mentioned the importance of early intervention. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is an essential component in solving this issue. The Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice are working closely together on this so that a parent’s first port of call will be an online hub that will provide practical information and advice and will signpost appropriate services.
We have introduced measures to strengthen consideration of mediation and to explore how that can work alongside parenting programmes and other interventions to help parents focus on a child’s needs. I will say a bit more about mediation later. In addition, we are working to develop parenting agreements as a tool to help parents agree arrangements that are child focused and practical.
The DFE is providing an early intervention grant worth about £2 billion, which is flexible funding for local authorities to spend on their early intervention priorities from Sure Start through to crime prevention. The Justice Committee will know about the Youth Justice Board and the custody pathfinder projects, which give pilot areas custody funding up front for the under-18s. That will incentivise local authorities to intervene early before young people become serial offenders.
Many other cases could be settled away from court. Too many people go to court to resolve their private disputes and fail to grasp the fact that the court is required to focus on the child’s welfare needs. That may mean that neither parent is happy with the decisions that are made. For many such parents, the family courts are not the best way of settling disputes about a child’s future. Mediation can be quicker and cheaper, and can provide better outcomes, especially if compared with drawn-out court hearings. It is important that mediation is considered at the earliest opportunity before positions become entrenched. An amicable solution is better than a litigious one.
Referrals to mediation in publicly funded cases are up by nearly 12% since the introduction of the pre-application protocol last April. However, I remain concerned about the protocol’s effectiveness in privately funded cases, and there is a need to tackle inconsistencies in approach across the courts. That is why we will make statutory changes to make it a prerequisite that anyone who wishes to begin court action must first attend a mediation information and assessment meeting to find out about and consider mediation. We remain committed to make public funding available for mediation through legal aid for those who are eligible and expect to fund an additional £10 million for mediation services.
I should point out to the hon. Member for Hammersmith that the Government have no plans to stop making available legal aid for children where they are a party to family proceedings. Various hon. Members mentioned litigants in person. We accept that the reforms will mean an increase in litigants in person. However, unrepresented parties have always been a feature of the justice system—some because they cannot afford representation and others because they choose not to be represented. Paying for a lawyer, whether out of private pockets or public funds, is not always necessary. Judges make significant efforts to assist litigants in person, explaining procedures and what is expected of them. We estimate that about 40% of private law children’s cases involve one or more litigants in person. The proportion in divorce cases is much higher than that.
Mr Slaughter
Will the Minister accept that replacing advocates with litigants in person can typically increase the length of a case by up to 100%? If he does not accept that there is robust evidence of that, should the Government not collect such evidence and make their assessment of what the changes will mean for the length and cost of a case?
Mr Djanogly
From a review of the literature, we know that sometimes these cases can take longer, but not always. Sometimes they are actually quicker. The picture is complex. However, we expect fewer cases to come to court in future because there will be 10,000 extra family mediations, which will help offset any additional burdens on the courts from dealing with litigants in person. Overall, we do not expect a likely increase in litigants in person to lead to significant additional burdens on the court.
In recognising that there is an existing problem with litigants in person—no matter what happened in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill—we are seeking to improve the system by introducing single family courts, which will provide one route into the system that people can understand; by changing court processes so that they are easier and quicker to understand; by introducing a new child arrangement order; by creating processes to deal with breach of order more quickly and effectively; by simplifying and streamlining the divorce process; and by improving the information made available to the public. In addition, support for separated and separating parents will be provided through new web and telephone services led by the Department for Work and Pensions, which will provide trusted independent information suited to people’s needs. The web service will be commissioned in 2012 and the telephone service in 2013.
Other practical steps include welcoming the Civil Justice Council’s report on self-represented litigants that was published late last year. It contained a number of practical and pragmatic recommendations, many of which are applicable to the family as well as the civil courts. We are working with the CJC and the Family Justice Council on how to take these matters forward. Recommendations include guidance to court staff on how to deal with unrepresented parties and information about pro bono assistance. We have also made funding available to support this work, some of which is being used to support the expansion of the Personal Support Unit, a charity based in the Royal Courts of Justice, which provides volunteers to accompany people to court and to fund guidance produced by not-for profit organisations specifically tailored to unrepresented parties. We envisage the funds being used on online tools, guides to the court process, including on video content, and other initiatives, and we are working with relevant organisations such as the citizens advice bureau to that effect. These will all be in place before the legal aid reforms take effect. These changes are radical and cannot happen overnight, nor can they happen in a family justice system that lacks leadership and coherence.
We agree with the family justice review and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that transferring CAFCASS to the Ministry of Justice will bring court social work closer to the courts and make it easier to improve the whole system’s performance. We will transfer the sponsorship of CAFCASS from the Department for Education to the Ministry of Justice by the end of this spending review period. I should say that CAFCASS’s performance has improved significantly in recent times, but I agree with him that moving CAFCASS will not be enough; integration of services will be key.
Crucially, we are already putting in place the governance arrangements that will drive those changes. We have established the Family Justice Board, which brings together senior figures in the core organisations within the family justice system. The board will give family justice national leadership and visibility, and will be led by an independent chair and supported by a performance improvement sub-group and a young people’s board. We are also establishing new local family justice boards to drive momentum at a local level. The new national governance arrangements will provide a more joined-up family justice system and ensure consistency between national strategy and local delivery. Together, the new structures will have a clear remit to focus relentlessly on system performance.
[Mr Joe Benton in the Chair]
In taking forward work to improve the system’s efficiency and effectiveness, we must not overlook the need to make it more responsive. We are considering how we can simplify processes further and provide practical information to help unrepresented parties navigate their way through the system, as I described earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned CAFCASS and guardians, in the context of the child’s voice being heard. We agree with the FJR’s strong views on the centrality of children’s interests and endorse the panel’s proposals on listening to children’s voices and ensuring that their wishes and feelings are taken into account. We will put the child back at the centre of the system. We take seriously our obligations to promote and implement the UN convention on the rights of the child, and throughout our proposed reforms, we will introduce practical measures to ensure that children’s voices are heard. The Family Justice Board will have a key role to play in supporting children’s right to have their voices heard, which is why one of its sub-groups will be a young people’s board, building on the benefits gained from the CAFCASS young people’s board.
There has been considerable debate over the years about the opening up of family courts. Slightly different positions have been stated today by right hon. and hon. Members, who I accept all care passionately that we get it right. Understandably, there are many different views on the subject, and there is a balance to be struck between confidence and privacy on one hand and publicity on the other. The challenge is balancing the need for public scrutiny with the parties’ need for privacy. I accept that the current position is unsatisfactory.
The Government’s response to the Justice Committee’s report last year, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed restated today, accepted the recommendation that the provisions in part 2 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010, which allow for greater reporting by the media, should not be enacted. As the Committee recommended, one lesson learned from the outcome of the last attempt to achieve transparency in the family courts is that a solution to this important and contentious area of policy should not be rushed. Given the issues at stake, we will work to find ways to achieve greater transparency in the family courts.
The work that the Government are doing to implement change in response to the Justice Committee’s report and the recommendations of the family justice review represents a broad and ambitious programme of reform, as I hope I have explained to some extent today. The programme that I have outlined shows our commitment to providing a modern family justice system where delay is the exception rather than the norm; one in which people are supported to resolve disputes themselves as early as possible and away from the court if possible; one that is coherent and well led by the Family Justice Board, with buy-in from all partner agencies: in short, a family justice system that children and families can trust and rely on. I know that all right hon. and hon. Members share that objective, and I am grateful to them for their contributions to this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Law Commission Review (Unfair Contract Terms)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb)
In preparation for a proposed overhaul of consumer rights, I have asked the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission to review and update the recommendations they made in 2005 on unfair terms in contracts and in particular to reconsider their recommendations in relation to ancillary and contingent charges in the light of recent court judgments. The terms of reference are as follows:
to review and update the recommendations made by the two Law Commissions in their 2005 report on unfair terms in contracts (Law Com No. 292; Scot Law Com No. 199) in so far as they affect contracts made between businesses and consumers:
in particular to examine article 4(2) of the Council directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts on terms exempt from review in the light of recent case law; and
following full consultation with relevant stakeholders, to advise BIS on how best to implement article 4(2), bearing in mind the following:
a. the need to ensure that the UK meets its minimum harmonization obligations;
b. the desirability of a single consumer regime to incorporate both the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, without reducing the existing level of consumer protection; and
c. the need for clarity.
The Law Commissions aim to open consultation by the end of July 2012 and publish their full advice by the end of March 2013. I will inform Parliament on both these occasions and place copies of the Law Commissions’ consultation paper and final report in the House Library. Further details will also be available from the Law Commission website at http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/
EU Competitiveness Council
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb)
The EU Competitiveness Council will take place in Brussels on 30 and 31 May 2012. I shall represent the UK on internal market and industry issues on 30 May, and David Willetts, Minister of State for Universities and Science, will represent the UK on research issues on 31 May.
The internal market and industry substantive agenda items on 30 May will be: a partial general approach on a programme for the competitiveness of enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (COSME); an orientation debate on mutual recognition of professional qualifications; an orientation debate on public procurement; adoption of conclusions on the digital single market and governance of the single market; general approaches on alternative dispute and online dispute resolutions; and political agreement on the unified patent court.
Three AOB points will be discussed: state aid reform, which will be information from the Commission; information from the Lithuanian delegation on the recent like-minded group meeting in Vilnius; and the work programme of the upcoming Cypriot presidency.
The research substantive agenda items on 31 May will be: a partial general approach on the proposal for a regulation establishing Horizon 2020; progress reports on the proposed regulation laying down the rules for participation and dissemination in Horizon 2020, the Council decision establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon 2020 and the Council regulation on the research and training programme of the European Atomic Energy Community complementing Horizon 2020; progress reports on the proposed decision on the strategic innovation agenda for the European Institute of Innovation and Technology and amending regulation establishing the European Institute of Innovation and Technology; and adoption of Council conclusions on European innovation partnerships.
The research AOB items will comprise: the state of play from the strategic forum for international scientific and technological co-operation, including on an EU/MS-India strategic agenda on research and innovation; results of research-related presidency conferences and ministerial meetings; and work programme of the incoming Cypriot presidency.
The Government’s objectives for the Council are:
To contribute to discussions on public procurement and mutual recognition of professional qualifications;
Confirm agreement with Council conclusions on the digital single market and governance of the single market;
Agree to a partial general approach on COSME;
Agree to the general approaches for alternative and online dispute resolution;
To ensure that details of the patent proposal deliver the most effective arrangements for UK business and their representatives who will use the unified patent court. We want to see a Europe-wide patent system that brings real benefits for innovative businesses, consumers and the economy;
Agree to a partial general approach on the regulation establishing Horizon 2020;
Confirm agreement with Council conclusions on European innovation partnerships.
High Cost Credit
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb)
I have today published a progress update which BIS has received from the University of Bristol Personal Finance Research Centre into the impact of a variable cap on the total cost of high-cost credit.
The research team have completed a targeted review of previous evidence and mapped the key findings against the research objectives. Fieldwork on the business survey has also been completed. This comprised qualitative in-depth telephone interviews with representatives from five high-cost lender trade associations and 24 lenders.
The topics covered in the trade association interviews were: market size and trade association coverage; the concept of a cap on the total cost of credit; how a cap on the total cost of credit might be structured; the level of a cap on the total cost of credit; profitability; problems said to be associated with these markets
The topics covered in the lender interviews were: background information about the business; loan product details; customers; risk assessment and management; costs and profitability; capping the total cost of credit; default charges
The consumer survey of 1,500 customers of payday loans, home credit and pawnbroking covered the following topics: general views and attitudes towards the high-cost credit sector used; shopping around for the loan; repaying the loan; satisfaction and self-reported impacts; other high-cost borrowing; financial circumstances and other borrowing; socio-demographic characteristics. This survey is being supplemented by around 15 qualitative in-depth interviews with consumers who have used high-cost credit.
We expect to publish the final report of this research during the summer and use its findings to help us develop policy.
We are placing copies of the progress update in the Libraries of both Houses.
Taxation of Unauthorised Unit Trusts
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) are today publishing a second consultation setting out detailed proposals for changes to the taxation of unauthorised unit trusts and their investors.
This follows an initial consultation document published in June 2011 that set out options for change and asked for stakeholders’ views. HMRC have also subsequently met with interested parties. The initial consultation was issued following publication of the “Tackling Tax Avoidance” document at Budget 2011, which announced a number of tax policy areas that would be subject to consultation with the aim of preventing tax avoidance before it occurs to protect the Exchequer and increase certainty for taxpayers.
The second consultation includes a summary of responses to the first consultation. It asks for interested parties’ views on the new detailed proposals and their expected impact by 20 August. HMRC welcome further direct engagement with interested parties on the proposals, in particular during the period of the consultation. The consultation will be available on the HMRC website.
Fire and Rescue Service
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
On 9 February I reported to the House on the Heads of Agreement on the firefighters’ pension scheme to be introduced in 2015, which set out the Government’s final position on the main elements of scheme design. My officials have continued discussions with the firefighter unions and the Local Government Association over the remaining details of the firefighters’ pension scheme.
The Government pay tribute to the importance of the work undertaken by our fire and rescue service and the bravery, dedication and professionalism of the men and women who work within it. The Government are committed to providing public service pensions that are sustainable, fair and effective.
Building on the proposals brought forward by Lord Hutton, the proposed final agreement aims to strike a balanced deal between public service workers and the taxpayer. They will ensure that public service workers continue to have access to good pensions, while taxpayers benefit from greater control over their costs.
Public sector pensions will remain among the very best available—a guaranteed level and inflation proofed. Only one in 10 private sector workers have access to such schemes.
I can now report to the House that discussions on the design parameters for the firefighters’ pension scheme in England to be introduced in 2015 have been concluded. This sets out our final position on proposed scheme design, which we are asking unions to take to their Executives as the outcome of negotiations.
The headline elements of the proposed final agreement are set out below. The Government intend to maintain constructive dialogue with the firefighter unions and the Local Government Association as detailed work goes forward.
There will be full statutory protections provided in the new scheme for the accrued rights of existing scheme members:
all benefits accrued under final salary arrangements will be linked to the members’ final salary, in accordance with the rules of the members’ current schemes, when they leave the reformed scheme;
full recognition of a members’ expectation to double accrual for service accrued under the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 1992 (“the 1992 scheme”), so that a member’s full continuous pensionable service upon retirement will be used to calculate an averaged accrual rate to be applied to service accrued under the 1992 scheme;
members to be able to access their 1992 scheme benefits when they retire at that scheme’s “ordinary pension” age (i.e. from age 50 with 25 or more years pensionable service), subject to abatement rules for that scheme. Pensionable service for the purpose of calculating the ordinary pension age will include any continuous pensionable service accrued under both the 1992 scheme and the 2015 scheme;
members of the 1992 scheme will continue to have access to an actuarially assessed commutation factor for benefits accrued under that scheme.
There also will be transitional statutory protections for qualifying, existing members:
all active scheme members who, as of 1 April 2012, have 10 years or less to their current normal pension age will see no change in when they can retire, nor any decrease in the amount of pension they receive at their current normal pension age. This protection will be achieved by the member remaining in their current scheme until they retire, which could be beyond 31 March 2022.
there will be a further four years of tapered protection for scheme members. Members who are up to 14 years from their current normal pension age, as of 1 April 2012, will have limited protection so that on average for every month of age they are beyond 10 years of their normal pension age, they gain about 53 days of protection. The last day of protected service for any member will be 31 March 2022.
The core parameters of the new scheme are set out below:
a. a pension scheme design based on career average revalued earnings;
b. an accrual rate of 1/58.7th of pensionable earnings each year;
c. there will be no cap on how much pension can be accrued;
d. a revaluation rate of active members’ benefits in line with average weekly earnings;
e. pensions in payment and deferred benefits to increase in line with price index (currently CPI)
f. member contribution rates in the 2015 scheme from 1 April 2015 will average 13.2%, equal to the expected average of contribution rates in the 1992 and 2006 schemes on the 31 March 2015. However, as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 20 December 2011, the Government will review the impact of the proposed 2012-13 contribution changes, including the effect of membership opt-outs, before taking final decisions on how future increases will be delivered in 2013-14 and 2014-15, and in the new scheme. Interested parties will have a full opportunity to provide evidence and their views to the Government as part of the review;
g. without prejudice to the outcome of that review, tariffs for the 2015 scheme are likely to provide for lower rates for new recruits, with some tiered progressive increases for middle, high, and higher income earners;
h. flexible retirement from the scheme’s minimum pension age of 55, built around the scheme’s normal pension age of 60, with members able to take their pension from the scheme’s minimum pension age, as follows:
for all active members who are aged 57 or more at retirement, 2015 scheme benefits taken before normal pension age will be actuarially reduced with reference to the 2015 scheme’s normal pension age, rather than the deferred pension age;
all other members will have their 2015 scheme benefits actuarially reduced on a cost neutral basis from the scheme’s deferred pension age.
i. authority initiated early retirement for members of the 2015 scheme, from age 55, to be in accordance with the arrangements set out in part 3, rule 6 of the new firefighters’ pension scheme 2006;
j. the normal pension age will be subject to regular review. These reviews will consider the increasing state pension age and any changes to it, alongside evidence from interested parties, including unions and employers. It will consider if the normal pension age of 60 remains relevant, taking account of the economical, efficient and effective management of the fire service, the changing profile of the workforce and the occupational demands of, and fitness standards for, firefighting roles;
k. this regular review will be informed by research to be carried out, within the auspices of the Firefighters’ Pension Committee, which will monitor and collate scheme data and experience;
l. late retirement factors for members retiring from active service to be actuarially neutral from normal pension age;
m. a deferred pension age equal to the individuals’ state pension age;
n. an optional lump sum by commutation at a rate of £12 for every £1 per annum of pension foregone in accordance with HM Revenue and Customs limits and regulations;
o. abatement in existing schemes to continue;
p. ill-health retirement benefits to be based on the arrangements in the 2006 scheme;
q. all other ancillary benefits to be based on those contained in the 2006 scheme;
r. members rejoining after a period of deferment of less than fire years can link new service with previous service, as if they had always been an active member;
s. members transferring between public service schemes would be treated as having continuous active service;
t. an employer contribution cap with a symmetrical buffer.
The scheme actuary has confirmed that this scheme design does not exceed the cost ceiling set by the Government on 2 November. Copies of the proposed final agreement and scheme actuary verification have been deposited in the Library of the House.
Telecommunications Council
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
The Telecommunications Council will take place in Luxembourg on 8 June under the Danish presidency. The deputy UK permanent representative, Andy Lebrecht, will represent the UK at this Council.
The Council has two substantive items on the agenda that are both orientation debates (an exchange of views steered by the questions from the presidency). The first item covers the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending directive 2003/98/EC on re-use of public sector information (First Reading). Here we will say that the approach as set out in the Commission’s proposal is broadly in line with existing UK initiatives and best practice and the UK recognises the potential economic benefits that flow from the removal of barriers. We also believe that opening up data can lead to greater transparency and political and social engagement. We will also note, however, that it is important to ensure that excessive burdens and costs are not placed on the public sector.
The second item covers the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on guidelines for trans-European telecommunications networks and repealing decision no 1336/97/EC (First Reading). Here we will say that we are broadly supportive of this proposal. In particular, the UK agrees with the objective of supporting projects that contribute towards meeting the EU targets for broadband roll-out and take-up which are broadly consistent with our own approach and policy in this area. We are also supportive of a number of the digital service infrastructure projects covered by the proposals. I will also say that we are also exploring the potential for the proposed use of innovative financial instruments (IFIs) for these projects, but would support them only where these substitute, rather than supplement spending in the EU budget. Finally, we will also note that budgetary restraint is paramount, and the UK is seeking reductions.
Any Other Business
There are only three items under AOB. We currently do not foresee the need to intervene on any of these items. The first item is an update from the presidency on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation (EC) No 717/2007 on roaming on public mobile networks within the Community.
The next item on the agenda is a presentation by the Commission on a communication entitled “Trust and Confidence in electronic transactions in the internal market”, which will be published on 4 June.
Finally the Cypriot delegation will inform the Council of the priorities for their forthcoming presidency.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
In taking forward our work to develop a new operating model for defence in line with the changes recommended in Lord Levene’s defence reform report, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) was established on 1 April 2011, bringing together all aspects of infrastructure asset management and facilities management under one organisation. The two-year DIO transformation programme, initiated in April 2011, will determine over the next 12 months both the future operating model and the most appropriate corporate structure for DIO to deliver best value for money and achieve maximum operating cost savings.
Earlier this year DIO undertook a soft market testing exercise to explore prospective roles for the private sector, test some of the commercial principles being considered by DIO and understand likely levels of interests from industry in partnering with the DIO. The output from this process indicated that industry has a substantial interest in being involved in DIO’s transformation and confirmed that the involvement of a strategic business partner in DIO’s transformation should be pursued. To this end, DIO will now commence a procurement process to assess whether the involvement of a strategic business partner in its transformation offers the best value for money solution for defence.
The competition will shortly be announced through an advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Union. A successful conclusion of this procurement will enable DIO to make a significant contribution to the savings which the Department needs to make as set out in the 2010 strategic defence and security review.
Service Complaints Commissioner (Fourth Annual Report)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I am pleased to publish today the MOD’s formal response to the Service Complaints Commissioner’s (SCC) fourth annual report on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.
The formal response sets out the work undertaken by MOD and the services in 2011, and the further work planned to review the service complaints process, including as part of that work consideration of recommendations made by the SCC in her 2010 and 2011 reports which fall within the scope of the review.
MOD and the services are committed to ensuring members of the armed forces and their families have a complaints system which is fair, effective and efficient and is one in which they can have confidence. We have made good progress and will continue to learn from our experiences of the process and identify where and how we can make further improvements to the manner in which we handle complaints.
Children Who Perform
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
Today I am launching a consultation on proposals to update the legislation to protect children who take part in performances and related activities.
We want to increase the opportunities for children to take part in activities that they enjoy and can benefit from. The current legislation is nearly 50 years old. The rules are detailed and hard to relate to modern-day activities. This makes it difficult for parents and producers to understand what is required of them, and for local authorities to process approvals efficiently and consistently. We intend to get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and put in place an appropriate framework that helps keep children safe while allowing them greater opportunity to have fun, to learn, and to explore and develop their talents.
This is a joint consultation with the Welsh Government. A copy of the consultation document “Safeguarding children: proposed changes to child performance legislation” has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
School Funding
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
In tackling the challenges we face on school building I have been determined to use the capital funding at my disposal to best effect, seeking value for money and efficiency from every pound spent. Sebastian James’s review of capital recommended a complete overhaul of the system for allocating capital investment so that we can focus on the repair and refurbishment of schools in the greatest need alongside meeting the pressure for new, good school places.
Over the past two years we have allocated £2.7 billion to local authorities to support the provision of new school places and £2.8 billion for the maintenance of the school estate to meet the needs of maintained schools and academies. Over the spending review period, total capital investment will be over £17 billion.
In addition, last year I invited bids to a new programme from schools in need of urgent repair. Some 587 schools applied for the programme on the basis of their condition need. Today I can confirm that 261 schools will be rebuilt, or have their condition needs met through the priority school building programme (PSBP) and a copy of the list has been placed in the House Libraries. Officials have today written to all schools who applied for the programme to confirm whether their application has been successful. Work will begin immediately and the first schools will be open in 2014.
I recognise that many of the schools that applied to the PSBP and have been unsuccessful will also have significant condition needs. Some of those will have their needs addressed through the other funding we have made available for maintenance. Where that is not the case, I will use the information from the national programme of surveys we are currently conducting to ensure that, subject to funds available in the next spending review period, those schools which need renovation will have their needs addressed as quickly as possible. By next autumn we will have details about the condition of every school in the country. Information on the condition of all schools was last collated centrally in 2005.
I know that many schools will be disappointed not to be included in the programme. We have had to take difficult decisions in order to target spending on those schools that are in the worst condition. In order to ensure that the process was robust and fair, a qualified surveyor has visited every school for which an eligible application was received to verify the condition of the buildings. This was necessary to make sure the schools being taken forward are those with the greatest overall condition need.
The condition need of some schools is so severe that urgent action is necessary. I have decided to make a limited amount of capital grant available to address the needs of the highest priority schools in the programme. Some 42 schools—those in the very worst condition and all special schools included within the programme—will be taken forward straight away using capital grant. It is right that the condition needs of special schools—where some of our most vulnerable children are educated—are met as quickly as possible.
This limited capital funding has become available by taking a more disciplined approach to managing my Department’s capital budgets. Savings have been made by driving down the cost of new schools, shortening procurement times and challenging contractors to look for savings in all areas. These savings mean that more schools will benefit from the programme.
The PSBP will build on the progress we have already made in delivering a more efficient, faster, less bureaucratic approach to building schools. We are determined to reduce the wasteful processes of the past. That is why we have developed new baseline designs which will speed up the process and increase efficiencies and we are reducing the regulations and guidance governing school premises. This will encourage lower-cost build processes to be designed-in from the start.
I have previously expressed my strong support for the Government’s agenda on reforming the PFI model and we are working closely with the Treasury to ensure the PSBP is aligned with this model in providing cost effective and more transparent delivery of services. Schools will have greater flexibility with soft facilities management services, such as cleaning, catering, security and some grounds maintenance being managed and controlled by schools themselves.
In addition to targeting spending on those schools which are in the worst condition, my priority in spending capital has been increasing the number of new school places in order to correct previous failures to meet that need. Since announcing the PSBP last July, the Government has allocated £1.1 billion in additional funding to address the need for new school places.
Gangmasters Licensing Authority (Red Tape Challenge)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) has been considered under the employment theme of the Government’s red tape challenge. Last December, we announced that the red tape challenge ministerial star chamber had endorsed the need for the GLA to continue to enforce protection for vulnerable workers, while requiring it to look at reducing burdens on compliant operators. The GLA has been further considered within the red tape challenge and I am today announcing the outcome of that process.
The GLA has done a great deal of valuable work since it was formally constituted on 1 April 2005 with cross-party support. Seven years on, it is a good time to see where improvements can be made so that the authority can become more focused on the worst excesses in the areas it regulates and work more closely with other agencies that tackle crime. I therefore propose to bring forward measures, including where necessary legislation, subject to public consultation, which will:
Ensure GLA targets suspected serious and organised crime by working more closely with the Serious Organised Crime Authority and other specialist law enforcement agencies;
Ensure that evidence of worker exploitation by unlicensed gangmasters or licence holders will contribute effectively to continued successful investigation and prosecution of organised crime groups and assist in the earlier identification of the victims of human trafficking;
Reduce the burden on compliant labour providers and labour users and focus forensically on gross abuse of workers by unscrupulous gangmasters—whose crimes include tax evasion, trafficking, health and safety negligence and other serious crimes;
Streamline the process for issuing licences and remove the general requirement for an application inspection and associated fee, aim to reduce fees and charges and extend the licensing period from twelve months to two years or more for highly compliant businesses;
Remove from scope of the GLA, activities or sectors which are low risk, including:
apprenticeships;
forestry;
cleaning contractors;
land agents; and
voluntary workers.
Provide for those with exclusive rights to use the seashore for shellfish cultivation to be able use their workers to grade and gather shellfish stock without needing to be licensed as a gangmaster. This measure would leave fully in scope of the Act activities such as the gathering of cockles from public shellfish beds;
Introduce administrative fines and penalties for low-level and technical minor offences, including a measure similar to a repayment order to achieve rapid reimbursement to an exploited worker of wages or other payment which has been removed;
Adopt an approach in respect of a labour user who uses an unlicensed gangmaster proportionate to the circumstances of the offence, for example the financial advantage gained and whether or not there has been abuse of the workers; and
Amend the structure of the board of the GLA and introduce a smaller board to provide clear strategic leadership and direction to the GLA.
These changes will free up resources within the GLA to provide for greater effort to be focused on identifying and eliminating criminality in those sectors and activities covered by the authority, such as food processing, where exploitation of the most vulnerable workers is known to exist. In addition it will remove an estimated 150 current licence holders from the scope of the GLA, saving around £60,000 a year, and potentially reduce annual inspection charges from £300,000 a year to zero.
Afghanistan (Monthly Progress Report)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The UK is engaged in Afghanistan as part of a 50-nation coalition to prevent international terrorists, including al-Qaeda, from again using Afghanistan as a base from which to operate, threatening our security and that of the region.
The Government have committed itself to keeping Parliament informed about developments in Afghanistan on a monthly basis. This 17th report covers progress in April 2012. It reflects the combined assessment of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development.
Overview
At the NATO joint Foreign and Defence Ministers meeting on 18 April, the UK announced a contribution of £70 million per annum to help fund the Afghan national security force (ANSF) for a period after our forces withdraw from their combat role at the end of 2014. Developing strong and capable Afghan security forces that will help foster enduring stability in the country is critical to our long-term strategy in Afghanistan. Their continued viability is in our national interest and that of our partners. We must ensure that Afghanistan can never again be used as a safe haven for terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda, to plan and launch attacks against the UK and our allies. This contribution is aligned with international objectives for the Chicago summit and underlines our enduring commitment to a stable and secure Afghanistan after 2014.
G8 Summit
At the G8 summit on 18 May, Heads of State endorsed the Tokyo conference process that will produce a blueprint for Afghanistan’s sustainable economic development for the “Transformation Decade” (2015-2024). Heads of State looked forward to making long-term commitments at Tokyo, and emphasised mutual accountability and governance improvements, building on the agreements reached at the Bonn conference last year. The G8 also agreed to support efforts to encourage private sector investment in Afghanistan and the region, and to increase regional integration and trade.
We now look forward to the Tokyo conference in July when the international community and the Government of Afghanistan must agree long-term mutual commitments for the transformation decade, with concrete pledges from donor partners for at least the period 2015-17. It is vital that we and our international partners help to provide continuity through to the point of transition and immediately beyond.
The UK continues to provide support for Afghanistan’s development needs, including for women and girls. In April the UK provided funding for 15 women’s organisations working on improving access to justice, conflict resolution and peace building through the Tawanmandi strengthening civil society programme which the Secretary of State for International Development launched last year. UK support to the Zardozi project has also had a major impact, increasing the monthly incomes of women participating in the project by 123%.
NATO Summit, Chicago
At the NATO Chicago summit on 20 and 21 May, the international community demonstrated its enduring support to Afghanistan beyond the end of security transition. Plans were discussed for future funding of the ANSF and NATO’s post-2014 role was agreed. This sent a clear message to the Afghan people that we will not abandon them, and a clear message to the insurgency that they cannot wait us out. We will provide fuller details in our May report.
On 13 May, the Afghan Government announced the areas to be included in tranche 3 of the transition process. This tranche includes Nahr-e-Saraj, which is in the area of UK operations. We will be reporting more fully on the detail of the tranche 3 announcement in our May report.
Political
Reconciliation and Reintegration
Salahuddin Rabbani was appointed as the new chair of the High Peace Council on 14 April. We welcome this and hope that it will bring fresh momentum towards an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan. The Taliban’s suspension of talks over the proposed political office in Qatar continued through April, but this does not alter our support for efforts to promote a political process to help bring peace and stability. Nationwide, over 4,000 insurgents have now enrolled on the formal reintegration programme, which is closely supported by the UK.
Strengthening the Afghan State
Rule of Law
National
The Criminal Justice Task Force (CJTF) is an Afghan-led facility which provides a national detention, investigation, prosecution and judicial capability for the most serious narcotics cases. In April it convicted 27 individuals for narcotics offences including prison sentences of up to 20 years. They also seized over 4 kgs of heroin, 633 kgs of opium, 186 kgs of morphine, 942 kgs of hashish and about 100 litres of chemical precursor.
April saw the finalisation of preparations for an international police conference scheduled for May in Kabul. The conference will start consultation on the role, structure and professionalisation of the Afghan national police, the reform of the Ministry of the Interior and the links between the police and the justice system.
Helmand
In April, the new chief judge for the province was sworn in and started work in Lashkar Gah. Sixty-two judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, police investigators and civil society members attended 10 days of training on tackling crime.
Long-running friction between the Marjah district governor (DG) and district community council (DCC) over claims of DG corruption led to the resignation of the DCC chairman after Governor Mangal rejected a complaint that was without substantive proof. Fourteen Nad-e Ali district community councillors were referred to the Attorney-General’s office for alleged misappropriation of wheat seed donated by the Indian Government for distribution to poor families.
Economic and Social Development
The UK continued to work with the Afghan Government to prepare for the Tokyo development conference in July. Along with international partners, we are working to develop a “mutual accountability framework”, to be endorsed at Tokyo, that will set out our joint commitments to the people of Afghanistan up to transition in 2014 and beyond. The long-term peace and stability of Afghanistan will depend on continued financial support from the international community to help meet security and development needs after international forces withdraw. For their part the Government of Afghanistan must continue to make progress against the IMF programme benchmarks, as well as other vital economic and governance reforms to ensure that our support delivers lasting results.
The UK-funded forensic audit looking at the Kabul bank fraud was completed in April. The auditors delivered a final report to the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank of Afghanistan. President Karzai subsequently issued a decree stating that Kabul bank debtors who do not repay their loans by 4 June will be prosecuted before a special court. The forensic audit report will provide evidence for such prosecutions.
Economic Development
UK assistance to the Ministry of Mines helped the Ministry to develop a new minerals law, which will help ensure the people of Afghanistan benefit from the country’s mineral wealth. The law addresses ownership of land and mining rights, including tenure and transferability. This is important for private investment. It also clarifies the role of the Government, reinforcing transparent licensing processes for mining activity and making provisions for adequate environmental protection. The Ministry is currently consulting on the final draft of the law and expects to take it to their Cabinet in early June.
UK support to the Zardozi project, which seeks to increase income opportunities for women producers and entrepreneurs, has had a major impact. The monthly income of women joining the project towards the end of 2011 was Afs 446 (US $ 9.49). Since then, average monthly income has grown to Afs 994 (US $21.15), an increase of 123%.
The UK funded Helmand growth programme was revised in April. This included shifting some activities to the national level ahead of security transition in 2014. The revised programme also focuses more on building the capacity of local institutions, such as the Afghan Investment Support Agency and Helmand Business Association, to ensure they can support implementation of the new Bost agricultural business park. When complete, the park will provide a base for local business development.
Research into how the Government and donors can help add value to the production and sale of agricultural produce in Helmand continued with a successful meeting on the dairy sector. This brought together dairy producers and retailers in Lashkar Gah. The second round of meetings with nomadic Kuchi farmers identified grazing patterns, vaccinations and artificial insemination to improve breeding as possible areas for interventions. This work will help to boost farmers’ incomes in a province where agriculture is the backbone of the economy.
The contract for construction of the Marjah Five Ways Junction bridge in Helmand has been awarded. The project will contribute to linking a key agricultural area to the provincial capital, so that farmers have better access to markets for their produce.
Social Development
A total of 27 organisations—15 of them women’s organisations—received funding in April from the UK’s Tawanmandi programme for strengthening Afghan civil society, which the Secretary of State for International Development launched last year. These organisations will now take forward a range of projects focusing on improving justice, conflict resolution and peace building.
In Helmand, the UK-funded Kartelagan comprehensive health centre and Lashkar Gah medical training centre were officially handed over to the Department of Public Health and training materials were delivered to enable courses to begin. The contract was also signed for the construction of the UK funded Qaleh Bost basic health centre, which is due for completion in 2013. These projects will help to boost the Afghan Government’s capacity to offer reliable and sustainable health services to local people in Helmand.
Counter Narcotics
The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) released its 2012 opium risk assessment survey on 17 April. The report predicts likely opium cultivation levels in Afghanistan this year. The report predicted that there is unlikely to be an increase in poppy cultivation in Helmand or Kandahar and that Kandahar may see a further decrease in cultivation. The provinces together produce the vast majority of Afghanistan’s opium. The report predicts a more mixed picture in other parts of the country. Actual cultivation levels in 2012 will not be known until UNODC publishes its annual opium survey later this year.
Eradication of opium poppy continues. By 23 April 6,257 hectares had been eradicated compared with 2,243 hectares at the same point in 2011. In Helmand, where eradication concluded on 26 April, UNODC figures indicate almost 4,000 hectares of poppy have been eradicated since operations began on 6 March 2012, an increase of over 50% on 2011.
Security
Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) Growth and Capability
On 18 April the Defence Secretary announced that from 2015 the UK will provide £70 million a year to help fund the ANSF in the years after our combat role ends. This funding will be kept under review and will contribute to a wider $4.1 billion fund that is being raised by the Afghans and the wider international community. The majority of contributions are expected to be announced in the coming weeks. The UK’s contribution will be provided in addition to our lead supporting role at the Afghan National Army Officer Academy.
Objective (30 November 2012) | Target Strength (30 April 2012) | Actual Strength (30 April 2012) | April Target Met | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ANA: | 195,000 | 181,617 | 197,189 | Yes |
ANP: | 157,000 | 149,237 | 149,208 | No |
ANA Officers: | 29,644 | 28,377 | 24,965 | No |
ANA NCOS: | 72,123 | 65,355 | 53,857 | No |
Target Monthly Attrition | Actual Monthly Attrition | April Target Met | |
|---|---|---|---|
ANA: | 1.4% | 1.6% | No |
ANP: | 1.4% | 1.3% | Yes |
Uniformed Police | 1.4% | 1.3% | Yes |
Border Police | 1.4% | 0.9% | Yes |
National Civil Order Police | 1.4% | 2.0% | No |
Violence Levels
Now that spring has arrived, insurgent activity across Afghanistan has continued to increase. This is in line with historic and seasonal norms. While violent incidents in April were comparable with April 2011 levels, it is significant that year-to-date figures remain lower than in 2011. These trends remind us that there is still work to be done, but also reflect the high tempo of operations in the country as the Afghans, supported by ISAF, continue to exert pressure on the insurgency.
Regional Command (South West), which includes Task Force Helmand in the UK’s area of operations, saw a steady increase in insurgent activity in the first half of April. However, in the second half of the month enemy activity decreased due to the onset of the poppy harvest.
This temporary lull in activity is expected to last into early May, after which point we can expect to see a gradual increase in violent incidents, with activity peaking during the summer months.
In Helmand province, insurgents conducted an attack on the Musa Qal’eh District Police headquarters on 11 April. The attack resulted in the deaths of nine members of the ANSF and injured the district chief of police. The incident is the latest in a series of attacks and assassination attempts on Government and security officials across Afghanistan and illustrated insurgent intent to target those who most threaten their campaign.
Kabul Attacks
After a break of 168 days1 the insurgency finally succeeded in their efforts to launch a high-profile attack in the Afghan capital. On 15 April, insurgents carried out co-ordinated attacks against a number of high-profile targets within the city including the British embassy. Additional and associated complex attacks took place simultaneously elsewhere in Afghanistan. The ANSF responded quickly and efficiently to the attacks with only limited assistance from International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Their performance demonstrated their increasing professionalism and showed improvements in their capability since the last insurgent “spectacular” attacks in Kabul in September 2011.
Tactically the attacks, which were claimed by the Taliban, were not successful and did not demonstrate a new or improved level of insurgent capability. High-profile, “spectacular” attacks are deliberately targeted to distort evidence of campaign progress and affect perceptions of security among the Afghan population and the international community.
Although the Afghan National Directorate of Security has successfully disrupted a number of threats to Kabul in recent months, the fact that these attacks were able to happen is nevertheless damaging and has contributed to speculation of an intelligence failure. Continuing improvements to ANSF capacity and particularly intelligence capability should improve the situation but will not guarantee that all attacks on the capital can be prevented.
The 15 and 16 April attacks should be viewed in context. Kabul, as capital city, is home to 20% of the population, has a large number of high-profile targets and has a symbolic significance for the insurgents. But it experiences less than 1% of all violent incidents. This gap in high-profile attacks was the longest since 2009.
While the attacks had only a minimal tactical impact, they illustrate the insurgents’ intent to conduct a campaign of violence in Afghanistan and remind us that there is still a job to do. As the insurgents attempt to regain the campaign momentum over the summer months, it is likely that they will continue to attempt to carry out similar attacks to sustain their relevance. The ANSF, supported by ISAF, are prepared for this, but we must expect further challenges ahead.
1Excluding the sectarian Ashura attacks in December 2011.
Transfer of Authority
Transfer of authority from 20 Armoured Brigade to 12 Mechanised Brigade took place on 20 April officially marking the end of Herrick 15.
UK Force Levels
On 26 April in a statement to the House, the Defence Secretary explained how the UK would reduce its conventional force levels in Afghanistan by 500 to 9,000 by the end of the year. This follows a commitment made by the Prime Minister in July 2011. The majority of the 500 will be made up of combat troops, reflecting the increasing capability of the ANSF. This reduction in our force levels is consistent with the transition process and the decisions have been made using military advice.
Type of incident | Definition | Change from March 2012 | Comparison with April 2011 |
|---|---|---|---|
Security incidents | Enemy action and explosive hazards, both executed attacks and “potential” attacks (e.g. an IED found and cleared) | Rise in attacks | No significant change |
Enemy initiated attacks | Attacks executed by insurgents (This does not include “potential” attacks) | Rise in attacks | No significant change |
Complex attacks | Attacks conducted by multiple hostile elements employing at least two distinct classes of weapon | Rise in attacks | Fall in attacks |
Country | Contribution | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
US | 90,000 | 69.8% |
UK | 9,500 | 7.4% |
Germany | 4,900 | 3.5% |
Italy | 3,816 | 3.0% |
France | 3,308 | 2.6% |
Poland | 2,457 | 2.0% |
Romania | 1,843 | 1.5% |
Australia | 1,550 | 1.2% |
Spain | 1,481 | 1.2% |
Turkey | 1,327 | 1.0% |
Others (38 nations) | 8779 | 6.8% |
Current Total | 128,961 | 100.00% |
Above numbers are indicative of troop contributions as at 18 April 2012, actual numbers fluctuate daily. Source: ISAF |
Friends of Yemen Ministerial Meeting
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I am pleased to inform the House that on 23 May in Riyadh, I co-chaired, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for International Development, a successful meeting of the Friends of Yemen. This was the first meeting at ministerial level for nearly two years. It confirmed the strong political commitment of the international community to support Yemen through its process of transition, leading to elections in 2014. Key announcements were also made on humanitarian aid to Yemen and the date of a Yemen donor conference.
Monday’s appalling terrorist attack in central Sana’a underlines the security challenges and instability facing President Hadi and his Government as they seek to rebuild Yemen following last year’s political upheavals and years of under-development. Friends expressed their condolences to victims and their families and reaffirmed our commitment to helping Yemen tackle the shared threat of insecurity and violent extremism. Supporting political and economic reform and tackling Yemen’s deepening humanitarian crisis requires equal determination and will be vital to Yemen’s long-term stability and security. This meeting was an opportunity to take stock of Yemen’s achievements to date, reaffirm our support, review Yemen’s transition plans, and plan for concrete forms of assistance and future action.
Yemen has made significant progress in implementing the initiative brokered the Gulf Co-operation Council, not least the inauguration of its first new Head of State in 33 years. We have also seen the forming of a power-sharing Government, the beginning of a process of national dialogue, and plans for Yemeni-led military and economic restructuring.
The deepening humanitarian situation was rightly high on the agenda and we expressed a clear commitment to addressing acute need in Yemen. The UK announced an additional £28 million of aid towards the UN humanitarian appeal, which will provide emergency food to up to 250,000 people, life-saving nutrition for 150,000 children and safe water to 68,000 people affected by conflict. And collectively over £2.5 billion of economic assistance was announced. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pledged almost £2 billion. It is important that the group now meets the expectations of Yemenis by providing necessary support resulting in real improvements to their lives, including basic services, employment, security, good governance, and political inclusion. The group welcomed the agreement by the kingdom of Saudi Arabia to host a donor meeting in Riyadh at the end of June. The Friends decided to meet again in September in New York.
General Affairs Council
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I will attend the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 29 May.
The focus of the meeting of the General Affairs Council, which will be chaired by the Danish EU presidency, will once again be the multi-annual financial framework (MFF). The other items on the agenda are preparation for the European Council of 29-30 June 2012, the G20 summit in Mexico (18-19 June, Los Cabos) and, at our request, a discussion of Croatia’s progress in the accession process following the recent publication of the Commission’s monitoring report.
On the MFF, there will be an orientation debate in which the Danish presidency would like Ministers to address the key issues in negotiations. For the first time, the discussion will be held on the basis of a negotiating box that covers all parts of the negotiation: all areas of spending, all headings, horizontal aspects of the financial framework (such as what should be kept on, or taken off the budget) and the system of own resources, including the UK rebate and other correction mechanisms.
As with previous meetings of the General Affairs Council, my overriding objective for the discussions on the MFF will be for the negotiating box to reflect a restrained EU budget, limited to a real-terms freeze. I will defend the UK rebate and press for the language on new own resources to be removed from the negotiating box.
On the June European Council preparation, the General Affairs Council will have a short discussion on the agenda set out by President Van Rompuy which currently covers economic policy (specifically growth), the MFF and justice and home affairs (specifically Schengen, asylum policy and the abuse of the free movement directive).
Finally, the Council discussion and conclusions on the Commission’s interim report on Croatia’s continued progress towards accession provides an opportunity for the EU, and the UK, to maintain political focus on the pre-accession monitoring process and the importance of Croatia delivering against all of their commitments ahead of accession. Croatia has already responded with a detailed action plan to follow up the report’s recommendations.
G6 Meeting
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The informal G6 group of Ministers of the Interior from the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland held its most recent meeting in Munich, Germany on 17 and 18 May 2012.
The meeting was divided into three working sessions over one day, with a dinner the previous evening. It was chaired by the German Minister for the Interior, Hans-Peter Friedrich, and I represented the UK. The other participating states were represented by: Manuel Valls (France), Anna-Maria Cancellieri (Italy), Jacek Cichocki (Poland) and Jorge Fernández Diaz (Spain). The US Attorney-General, Eric Holder and the Secretary for Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, attended as guests for the final session.
The first working session was on north Africa and Syria. Ministers considered the need to work with new Governments in the area to build stability and tackle the risk of terrorism and illegal migration. I emphasised the importance of working with countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and with Turkey, as well as those in the immediate region. I also urged continued support for the Annan plan on Syria, while noting that the Syrian Government were not presently complying with their obligations, and highlighting the need for the opposition to refrain from violence and distance themselves from terrorist elements.
The second session focused on the European Commission’s recent draft directive laying down data protection rules for the police and judicial authorities. Ministers questioned the need for the directive and called for more flexibility in it. They were particularly concerned about proposals that would govern the processing of data within individual member states, and with the proposed requirement to renegotiate existing agreements for the sharing of data with countries outside the EU. I supported these concerns, arguing that member states should seek fully to implement the existing data protection framework decision.
The third session covered the movement of terrorist networks across borders, both within the EU and more widely (e.g. to training camps in Africa or Asia). Member states, and the US representatives, emphasised the importance of exchanging information on suspicious movements effectively, adding that data protection rules, while important, need to recognise the day-to-day reality of law enforcement work. I stressed the need to identify suspicious patterns of movement, and the important contribution that the provision of passenger name records can make to this.
The US representatives explained that their electronic system for travel authorisation (ESTA) had, in their view, been a great success, enabling them to detect a number of potential terrorists seeking to travel to the USA. They also expressed their appreciation for the recent approval of the new agreement on passenger name records between the EU and the USA.
I also held separate bilateral meetings with other heads of delegations.
The next meeting of the G6 is expected to be held in the UK in November.
Report on Corruption in the Police Service in England and Wales
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Today I am laying before the House and publishing the second report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) on their experience of police corruption.
The Government are currently considering the findings of this report.
The document will be available on both the official documents and IPCC websites and copies will be available from the Vote Office.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 received Royal Assent on 1 May 2012. The Government have already announced that the provisions in part 2 relating to civil litigation funding and costs will come into force in April 2013. However, there are two exceptions to that.
First, the provisions in relation to sections 44 and 46 (recoverable success fees and insurance premiums) will not come into effect in relation to mesothelioma claims until a review has been undertaken and published in accordance with section 48. The Ministry of Justice will set out further details of the timing and contents of the review in due course.
Secondly, the provisions in relation to sections 44 and 46 will not come into effect until April 2015 in respect of insolvency proceedings. Insolvency cases bring substantial revenue to the taxpayer, as well as to other creditors, and encourage good business practice which can be seen as an important part of the growth agenda with wider benefits for the economy. These features merit a delayed implementation to allow time for those involved to adjust and implement such alternative arrangements as they consider will allow these cases to continue to be pursued. Success fees and insurance premiums will therefore remain recoverable beyond April 2013 in respect of these two classes of case only (in addition to insurance premiums in respect of expert reports in clinical negligence cases provided for by section 46 of the Act), although the fixed recoverable success fees in respect of employer’s liability disease claims in section V of part 45 of the civil procedure rules will continue to apply in respect of mesothelioma proceedings for the time being.
The Government have asked the Civil Justice Council for further advice in relation to detailed aspects of implementation by the end of June in relation to qualified “one way costs shifting” (QOCS).
The Ministry of Justice will also continue to engage with key stakeholders and the senior judiciary and will announce further details of the policy position by the summer recess. Changes to the civil procedure rules (CPR) will be considered by the CPR Committee in the autumn, in order for the necessary changes to come into effect for April 2013. Updates are provided on the judiciary website at: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications-and-reports/review-of-civil-litigation-costs
Infrastructure (Roads)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)
As part of the spending review settlement in October 2010, the then Secretary of State agreed to commission an independent review to examine whether Government have the right approach to operating, maintaining and enhancing the strategic road network. Alan Cook, the non-executive chairman of the Highways Agency, led this review and his report “A Fresh Start for the Strategic Road Network” was published in November 2011. I am very grateful to Alan for his work on the study, and to the many stakeholders who offered advice and supported this process.
Today I am publishing my response to this review. I am also publishing the terms of reference for the study which the Prime Minister has asked my Department and HM Treasury to carry out, into the feasibility of new ownership and financing models for the strategic road network. This will build on the evidence provided in Alan Cook’s report on the efficiency savings which have been made in the regulated utilities, and will test whether similar savings can be made through a different structure for managing the road network. The study will develop options for bringing more private sector involvement into the strategic road network, generating increased investment and driving further efficiencies in the network.
Nevertheless, we do not need to wait for the conclusions of the feasibility study before making progress on a specific set of reforms as recommended by Alan Cook, which are both worth while in their own right and essential precursors to any future structural reform.
My announcement today constitutes the first stage in an ambitious integrated programme for reforming the road network to ensure that ultimately we deliver a more effective and efficient strategic road network, which enhances the experience of motorists and puts the road users and communities which rely on this network at its very heart.
I have carefully considered Alan’s recommendations and solutions and my response sets out how the Government intend to take these forward in parallel with the feasibility study. I am accepting, in detail or in principle, many of the actions which Alan recommends that I or the board of the Highways Agency should take. At this stage, the area where I am not progressing Alan’s recommendation is on the question of changing the status of the agency within the public sector. I do not propose to make decisions on the agency’s status ahead of the feasibility study concluding and the Government taking decisions on the future reform of the roads network.
In my response to Alan’s report, I set out a programme of work to transform the agency into a best-in-class executive agency by:
Delivering a long-term strategy and setting an outcome performance specification for the strategic road network, providing far greater clarity about what Government wants, as well as a basis for consistent and transparent challenge to the Highways Agency to deliver against this specification.
Championing the road user. I am determined to ensure that the voice of the user is listened to and championed. I will be bringing a stronger “consumer focus” to the concerns of users and to respond to those through the setting of the performance specification.
A much smarter approach to planning through the production of route-based strategies. These documents will set out investment plans to inform our decisions for the next spending review and will support much greater participation in planning for the network from local and regional stakeholders.
Work towards smarter financial relationships with Government. We are not accepting in full Alan’s recommendation about funding certainty and ending annuality, but we do propose to work closely with the Highways Agency and HM Treasury to consider the evidence for embedding greater certainty and flexibility into the funding regime of the strategic road network. This will help to inform any future decisions we may make on changes to the funding regime in any operating or ownership model for the network.
In advance of the conclusions of the feasibility study on ownership models, this immediate programme of work will deliver real progress towards a better performing strategic road network, with a clear strategic purpose, transparent expectations on performance, locally grounded investments plans, and a real consumer-focused culture.
My response and the feasibility terms of reference can be found on the Department for Transport website: www.dft.gov.uk and electronic copies have been lodged with the House Library.
Local Sustainable Transport Fund
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I am pleased to announce today that the Department is awarding a further £112.941 million to support authorities in delivering local economic growth while cutting carbon emissions from transport.
On 24 February 2012, the Department received 53 bids to tranche 2 of the local sustainable transport fund from 48 lead authorities.
Proposals were assessed against the criteria as published in the “Guidance on the Application Process”, which was published on 19 January 2011. Successful proposals were those judged to perform well against the twin objectives of supporting the local economy and facilitating economic development, while reducing carbon emissions. They were also scored on their potential to deliver wider social and economic benefits, to improve safety, to bring about improvements to air quality, or to promote increased levels of physical activity.
Proposals were required to demonstrate financial sustainability with benefits enduring beyond the life of the fund, to incorporate a credible delivery plan, and to include a commitment to make a local contribution towards the overall costs.
In line with the published guidance, an assessment of value for money was undertaken. The Department is confident that the overall package of proposals approved in this second round represents high value for money.
I have decided to announce funding for 30 proposals in this round today, with a further announcement regarding the status of 18 more bids to be made soon. Twenty-six proposals will be funded in full and a further four proposals will be funded in part. The list of decisions made today regarding tranche 2 bids is attached.
On 20 December 2011, the Department received 13 business cases for larger projects (requiring up to £50 million funding from DFT). I intend to announce by the end of June which of those authorities have been successful.
I am very pleased that all eligible local authorities across England have applied for funding to the local sustainable transport fund, either as a lead bidder, or as a partner authority to a large project. The fund has been well received by local government and I am confident that it will be effective in addressing the two key objectives of creating growth and cutting carbon.
House of Lords
International Criminal Court
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in securing the arrest of Joseph Kony, Omar al-Bashir and others indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, the International Criminal Court relies entirely on state co-operation to ensure enforcement of its arrest warrants. The British Government, together with our EU partners, frequently raise the importance of states fulfilling their international obligations and taking the necessary steps to bring to justice individuals indicted by the court. Those currently fugitive from ICC warrants should be reminded that they, like Radovan Karadzic and General Mladic, cannot evade the international justice system indefinitely.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, given that Kony was indicted in 2005, and that Omar al-Bashir, who was indicted in 2009 for crimes against humanity in Darfur, is now waging a new war against his own people in Southern Kordofan, does not a failure to bring those indicted to account risk compromising the ICC and bringing it into disrepute? What resources are we committing to the work of the ICC? When a head of state is indicted by it, how is that reflected in the conduct of our economic and diplomatic policies? Either this is genocide or it is not. Either it is crimes against humanity or it is not. Either they are indicted or they are not. Either it is business as usual or it is not.
Lord Howell of Guildford
It certainly is not business as usual. The noble Lord, who follows these things very closely, is perhaps not taking into account the fact that this system has taken some years to get going. The indictments are out but there are real problems in pinning these people down. He mentioned two cases. We know that Mr Joseph Kony is highly elusive and can slip across borders. At least the Government of Uganda were very successful the other day in capturing his deputy, Caesar Acellam. Uganda is a signatory to the ICC and I am sure that it will fulfil its obligations in accordance with international justice.
As for the leader of Sudan, we know exactly what the position is. We and our EU colleagues seek to keep contact with Khartoum because all the parties—South Sudan, Sudan itself, the opposition parties and, indeed, the Opposition—believe that we should do so. However, the problem of fulfilling an ICC charge against Mr Omar al-Bashir is obviously a practical, physical one in that he is not in reach unless he were to leave the country.
Lord Chidgey
My noble friend will be aware that since April, when Bosco Ntaganda’s rebel troops defected, they have managed forcibly to recruit more than 150 child soldiers and caused 40,000 villagers to flee, thereby causing more chaos in that region. The United Nations Security Council is absolutely clear about MONUSCO’s mandate for its mission in the Congo: it has the authority to assist the Government to arrest indicted war criminals. MONUSCO officials on the ground say that they have not been asked to do anything and are not involved, yet ICC officials have asked the Government to pursue the matter. However, nothing has happened. Overall, this is a case of prevarication.
Lord Howell of Guildford
It is very difficult to ascertain exactly what is happening on the ground. No one could expect there to be full information, full access or full details. However, we fully support the work of the ICC in bringing Bosco Ntaganda to justice and bringing additional charges against him. I think the implication of my noble friend’s question and the preceding one is that somehow the ICC should have further powers over and above the existing situation in which national Governments have to seek to co-operate and take the initial action. That, of course, would raise fundamental questions about the workings of the ICC and whether we should go back to square one and revise the legislation. I do not believe that we should; I think that we should give the present process more scope and more encouragement. However, I understand what is behind my noble friend’s question.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, given that crimes against humanity are defined by the United Nations as,
“a widespread attack on a civilian population”,
does the Minister not agree that Robert Mugabe should be investigated by the prosecutor and subsequently indicted by the ICC? Is it not tragically clear that there is evidence of his responsibility for the Matabeleland massacres in the 1980s that were committed by his army brigade, continued state-sponsored violence against political opponents, and ongoing atrocities in the diamond fields in Zimbabwe? What pressure is Her Majesty’s Government using to ensure that this wicked man faces international criminal justice?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not dispute anything that the noble Baroness has said, with her acute understanding of the situation there. However, the realities are these: Zimbabwe is not a party to the Rome statute and to get an ICC charge against Mr Mugabe would require a UN Security Council resolution. That means getting past all five of the permanent members. We know what the view of some of the permanent members is: they should not take such action. Until we can get past this problem of the permanent five, and particularly the reluctance of China and Russia, to name two, to see these matters taken up by the UN and remitted to the ICC for charges, these people who have committed most unsavoury acts—the noble Baroness mentioned Mr Mugabe as one—are outside the reach of the ICC.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, is the Minister aware that not only is President al-Bashir indicted by the ICC but he actually deposed the elected governor of Southern Kordofan, replacing him with Ahmad Harun, who is also indicted by the ICC and has since been carrying out systematic slaughter and aerial bombardment of his people, leading to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people? What reassurance can Her Majesty’s Government give to the victims of those policies? I have spoken to people in the refugee camps and—I am afraid this sounds harsh—many have said to me, “Why does Britain not intervene? Our suffering is far worse than that of Libya. Does Britain really only do business with Khartoum and those indicted by the ICC?”. That is the feeling among many people in Sudan.
Lord Howell of Guildford
With respect to the noble Baroness, that is unfair because she knows better than most of us that the real problem is access. We cannot get access to these very ugly and difficult areas to establish what is happening. She quite rightly mentions that the governor of Southern Kordofan and one other are already indicted by the ICC and need to face justice. The UN has ruled through the Security Council that they should be referred to the ICC, which has issued warrants against them. The question is: how can they be secured and brought to justice in The Hague? That remains a continuous battle. As for the general proposition that we speak only to Khartoum or Djuba, that is not to understand the enormous amount of work we are doing at every level with the international agencies to bring some hope to this very unpleasant and ugly situation.
Entrepreneurship Opportunities
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to develop entrepreneurship opportunities for young people in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, the evidence shows that to build enterprise, ambition and capability in young people it is important to provide hands-on experience at school and ensure ongoing access to support and advice. My Government have therefore developed a range of activities to inspire and give confidence to young people throughout schools, colleges and universities. Next week, my noble friend Lord Young will launch a new start-up loan scheme to improve access to finance for young entrepreneurs.
Lord Storey
I am grateful for my noble friend’s Answer. She may be aware that at the Global Entrepreneurship Congress held in Liverpool Sir Richard Branson suggested that, for many young people who had a business acumen, university was not for them; that we might consider instead that student loans should go to them to establish businesses; and that they should be mentored by business leaders. Does the Minister think that that is a good proposition? If so, how do we develop it? Perhaps a meeting should be held with Richard Branson to develop his idea.
Baroness Wilcox
The Government recognise the need to help young people to access the finance that they need to start up their own businesses and to be entrepreneurs. As I just said, next week we will be launching the £10 million start-up loans scheme which is specifically aimed at 18 to 24 year-olds. My colleague the Minister for Business and Enterprise in the other place, Mark Prisk, met Sir Richard Branson last week, and the issue of start-up loans was raised during those discussions. So it looks as though I have missed my chance to fly to the moon with Richard Branson but he is a wonderful role model, and more courage to him.
Lord Sugar
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many young people considering taking the leap of leaving employment and starting their own business are hesitant to do so for what I consider to be the least of their troubles? They are hesitant because, for example, they are worried about how to register for VAT, how they will be able to pay their taxes and how they will pay national insurance. However, as I said, this is the least of their problems. Can the Minister consider an initiative whereby HMRC publicises in some way how easy it is to start up in business and perhaps publishes some kind of crib sheet which says that it is easy to get going?
Baroness Wilcox
I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is a very sensible idea. We have many things under way but I think that this is a new way of thinking in that direction. It is what we expect from the noble Lord, and I would love to think that one day we could get him to sign up as one of our enterprise champions.
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that there have been some very welcome investments in the school for entrepreneurs, the Enterprise Academy and the work at Suffolk One sixth-form college in Ipswich. However, these sit alongside a disturbing and rising figure for young people not in education, employment or training. Does the Minister agree that, if more investment were put into such excellent facilities, that might have an effect on the other figure?
Baroness Wilcox
Yes, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich is right. Everything we can do to help to build the confidence of the young in this area is very important. We have the new enterprise allowance, which helps unemployed people to start their own businesses. It is available to those who have been claiming jobseeker’s allowance for six months or more, and it provides access to business mentoring, as well as offering financial support. Very often, it is a case of having somebody to talk to who understands the situation. I am lucky that I grew up in an entrepreneurial family and therefore I grew up with the language of entrepreneurs at home. These facilities provide an enormous advantage for children who come from homes where perhaps no one at all goes out to work and where they are therefore starting from a point of terrible disadvantage. We are looking at this carefully to see what we can do to help.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, on entering the White Lion pub in Alvanley in deepest Cheshire on Sunday, my wife and I discovered that it was national sandwich week. When I asked the young lady behind the bar who had so declared it, she replied, “The landlord”. Catching that enterprise, she then declared to me that next week was to be national vegetarian week. I wonder whether the Minister could explore the opportunities for mentors and young people to come together, full of ideas, and so build the small businesses and enterprises that we so badly need in this period of recovery.
Baroness Wilcox
Somebody clever beside me has just said that the noble Lord was describing a sandwich course, but there we are.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, following the Minister’s comments in relation to families, does she agree that young people’s initiative can be either stifled or encouraged by their family background? In the past, there have been initiatives on family learning. Does the Minister know where the initiatives have reached and will she encourage them in the future?
Baroness Wilcox
I have to admit that I do not know anything about such courses but I shall look into this when I leave the Chamber. No doubt the people in the Box will tell me that I should have been able to answer the noble Baroness. This bears out what I said earlier about family background and the need to help as much as possible. We are working with schools and are even working with primary schools to see whether we can encourage parents to be more engaged with the school. Of course, it is for schools to do that but where we can help we will, and I thank the noble Baroness for the suggestion.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, we all hope that our young entrepreneurs will grow up to become employers, and the Government have invested a lot of political capital in promoting the John Lewis model of employment relations. Given that Mr Beecroft’s report has promoted a new government policy of no-fault dismissal, the Government will have to make a choice about which one of those two policies to promote. Which will they choose?
Baroness Wilcox
That is something to think about. Mr Beecroft was asked to give us his view because we needed to hear everybody’s view, and we have now heard the noble Lord’s view. I am very happy that we can go back and consider these things.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold
My Lords, following the extremely helpful suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, I would like to ask my noble friend—as there has been quite a lot of questioning about advice for young people—what plans the Government have for developing the careers service which I believe is beginning to get under way. It seems to me that quite a lot could be achieved by giving useful advice to young people, as used to be provided through the careers service in schools.
Baroness Wilcox
We have certainly been reviewing the careers service. We are bringing in an all-age careers service because the need for such a service does not stop when you leave school at 16 or 18. We also realise that it needs to start much earlier than that. If we are to get people going along the path that will suit them we need to start early. I thank my noble friend for the suggestion. I hope that I can pass on to her even more information about the careers service.
EU: Euro Area Crisis
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect on the European economy and financial institutions of the crisis in the euro area.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the Government make regular assessments of the economic situation as part of the normal process of policy development. The OBR, the OECD, the European Commission, the IMF, and many others expect a euro area recession this year. As we have said, if the euro area does not definitively sort out its ongoing problems, the uncertainty that that will create and its impact on confidence across Europe will continue to have a chilling effect on Britain and the global economy.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, does not Germany bear some responsibility for problems in the eurozone in that it was Germany that turned a blind eye when Goldman Sachs fixed Greece’s books to secure its entry into the euro; it was Germany that turned a blind eye to breaches of GDP limits in the European stability and growth pact; and it was Germany that promoted the euro currency to prevent regional devaluations in neighbouring nation states, thereby protecting its own export markets within Europe? Surely Germany should show a little more flexibility in these matters.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the key issue about Germany in relation to this Question is that we should be grateful that the German economy continues to grow. About 9% of the UK’s exports go to Germany. It is a very important market for us and it is critical both for us and for the eurozone that Germany and its economy continue to perform relatively strongly.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that countries which, for one reason or another, have to leave the euro area could well continue to use the euro as their currency rather than inventing a new currency, like perhaps the drachma, in which markets might have little or no confidence?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, many people have been painting scenarios of which my noble friend sketches out one. This is not the time to talk about different scenarios. We want to see an early resolution of the Greek uncertainty, the ring-fencing of other vulnerable economies, the recapitalisation of the banks and work on European growth. That has to be the priority for the moment.
Lord Soley
The Government say that the eurozone countries must take decisive action. What decisive action do the Government have in mind?
Lord Sassoon
Again, my Lords, I will not speculate on the range of scenarios. Plenty of advice has been given to the UK Government, to each of the individual Governments in the eurozone and to the eurozone collectively. The important thing is to get on with it. The next major milestone will be what the Greek people decide at their forthcoming election.
Lord Dykes
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the British Government played a very constructive role in last night’s summit meeting? Will they use their voice to persuade Germany to think again about the business of collective Eurobonds, and enlarging the firewall to make it realistic? That would be an excellent and effective way, without causing inflation, of having a lower yield overall, which would get over the nonsense that eurozone market ratings at the moment are generally lower than those of the much more heavily indebted United States of America and Japan.
Lord Sassoon
I certainly agree with my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister played a very constructive role in the discussions last night and is clearly open to a range of ideas.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, would it not be in the UK’s best interests to recognise the major differences that exist? If we are to help in any way to avoid a messy break-up of the eurozone, would it not be in our best interests to help set up some kind of scheme that would bring about the usual kind of compromise that would help at least in the short term? The noble Lord said recently that the Prime Minister was right and might agree to some kind of support for a growth fund. Does that option still exist?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, as I said in answer to the previous supplementary question, we are playing a very constructive role at the table with the 27, discussing all the possibilities for getting Europe through the present crisis—not only short-term measures that need to be taken but important questions about sustainable growth and the structure of the single market. However, fundamentally it is for the euro area countries to take decisions now about the euro area’s very immediate problems.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
What does my noble friend think about the article in the Times yesterday in which the German Foreign Minister said that within the European budget there were resources that could be used to stimulate the eurozone economy, including about €80 billion which remains unspent as we speak?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, within what needs to be tight discipline—tighter than has been exhibited in recent years—over the overall European budget, certainly these ideas of targeting funds better within the existing budget envelope need to be looked at very hard.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, when the noble Lord appears next on the BBC “Today” programme, will he remind listeners that stability bonds are not mini-Eurobonds? What is the Government’s view of stability bonds, which could be part of the growth agenda that we so badly need in the eurozone area and in the EU as a whole? Would we be prepared to join in?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, as I said this morning and on other occasions in the past week, we are prepared to look at ideas. Those that are being floated include increasing the lending capacity of the European Investment Bank and issuing project bonds. We will look at these ideas as they develop.
Iran: Capital Punishment
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Iran regarding the use of capital punishment against homosexual men.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we have been extremely clear about the human rights situation in Iran and about Iran’s excessive and cruel use of the death penalty. We deplore Iran’s persecution of, and use of the death penalty against, homosexuals. This, like many other practices in Iran, is inconsistent not only with international obligations but with common humanity. The United Kingdom has been and will remain at the forefront of international efforts through the European Union and the United Nations to encourage an improvement in Iran’s very poor human rights record.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. What has been the response in Iran to all the objections that we have made over the years to these thousands of executions? Is Iran ready to consider complying with the United Nations declaration of human rights? Also, what co-operation do we have with Amnesty International in these moves?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We certainly have co-operation with all the major NGOs and international movements, which are equally concerned at the horrors in Iran. It is very hard to answer my noble friend’s first question as to what impact these comments and pressures have. My personal belief is that they do have some impact. After all, we have to remember that when the elaborate EU sanctions were discussed and formulated—they are now having, apparently, some impact on Iran—there were discussions about Iran’s human rights record and the horrific rate of persecutions and executions in that country. As far as we know, this includes over 600 people executed last year and 130 executed so far this year—indeed, 60 in the last week.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, when did Her Majesty’s Government last raise the issue of human rights with Iran? When they were in full diplomatic relations with Iran, did they discuss the execution of people for their sexual orientation, of others, such as the Baha’is and Christians, for changing their religion, and of women, who are regularly publicly executed for so-called social offences? Is this not something that we should at least be making a démarche about and certainly trying to draw the international community into full unison, not just on the security questions, which we regularly raise, but on these profoundly important human rights issue too?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The answer to the first part of the noble Lord’s question is almost continuously. However, we are constrained by the fact that our diplomatic relations with Iran are now at a very low level. As he knows, there are no ambassadors between the two countries because our embassy was attacked and had to be evacuated. So far we have not got any agreement from Tehran to our request for a protecting power to look after our interests and maintain contacts. However, that does not stop us almost continuously working with the UN special rapporteur to keep this kind of horror on the UN agenda and to keep up the international pressure in every way that we can.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I recognise that it is difficult to exert direct pressure on and have a conversation with a country with which we no longer have, for understandable reasons, diplomatic relations. I welcome the Minister’s mention of the European Union sanctions. I wonder whether, in any of the discussions, the list of things being provided by the European Union to the Iranians, alongside all the issues about the development of their nuclear capability, has been included and whether there has been any response from the Iranian Government on those items. If there has not been, would it be a moment to perhaps urge the European Union to make the discussion more comprehensive?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The discussions with Iran are going on continuously at this moment in Baghdad. They have not yet stopped; they were due to do so yesterday but the Iranian team, as I understand it, is still in Baghdad this morning. Those discussions are, of course, focused on Iran’s nuclear programme and its weaponisation ambitions, but behind them is the obvious point that the EU sanctions—and particularly the oil embargo—clearly concern the Iranians. They keep raising the issue, which is a good sign that they are worried. As to the other items to which the noble Lord referred, these will come in at the right opportunity. I cannot assure him at the moment on everything that he referred to—I am not sure whether his full list is included—but he can be sure that, within the present climate of trying to get Tehran to make some sensible concessions and to comply with the IAEA, these issues will all come up.
Lord Cormack
The figure for the executions that my noble friend gave the House is positively horrific. When did we last initiate a United Nations resolution on this subject? Could we perhaps initiate another one very soon?
Lord Howell of Guildford
There have been successive UN resolutions. We are limited by the fact that not every member of the UN Security Council is agreed on how far we should go in these affairs. I cannot answer my noble friend precisely on when the last resolution came through—I do not have it in front of me—but I shall certainly write to him giving the details that he wants.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, following the welcome judgment by the UK Supreme Court in 2010 that overturned the previous Government’s refusal to grant asylum to homosexuals from Iran, what are the UK Government doing to work with other Governments, such as that of Australia, who bizarrely still believe that it is acceptable to argue that it is possible to hide one’s sexuality?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Our position is quite clear. As my noble friend is aware, we regard all these abuses and attitudes as offensive against human rights and we would like to see them changed. We are working both bilaterally and at the United Nations on all these issues and I assure my noble friend that every opportunity is taken to make known our views and to press them on the countries concerned.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is the Minister aware that there is a Private Member’s Bill before the Parliament in Uganda to introduce the death penalty for homosexual acts? Is he further aware that at the recent IPU Assembly in Kampala, the British delegation, of which I was privileged to be a member, had a difficult but none the less very hard-hitting meeting with the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, making clear how unacceptable we regard this proposal? Now that we have come home, we hope that our high commission is continuing with those representations.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes, I am aware. We have made it quite clear that we deplore this proposal in Uganda, as indeed we deplore attitudes taken in other African countries, including Nigeria. The answer to the noble Lord’s question is yes.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will find it helpful if I remind the House that the rest of today’s debates are all time-limited. The next debate, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, is limited to two and a half hours. With the exception of the noble Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lady Warsi, all Back-Bench speeches are limited to four minutes. As noble Lords are aware, when the Clock reaches four minutes, that is the end of the time allocated. As the first Whip on duty, I hope that it will not be necessary for me to stand up at all.
Minority Ethnic and Religious Communities: Cultural and Economic Contribution
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bilimoria
That this House takes note of the contribution made by minority ethnic and religious communities to the cultural life and economy of the United Kingdom, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the formation of the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, more than 1,000 years ago, a group of Zoroastrian refugees fleeing religious persecution in Iran arrived in India in what is now the state of Gujarat. The Zoroastrians asked the local king for refuge but he said there was no space for them in his land. One of the Zoroastrian priests asked the king for a cup of milk filled to the brim. The priest gently took a teaspoon of sugar and stirred it into the milk without spilling a drop. He then said to the king, “If you take us into your kingdom, we will be like the sugar in the milk: we will blend in with you but we will also make your kingdom sweeter”. The king allowed them to stay and that group of refugees, and others who followed, flourished to become India’s Zoroastrian Parsee community.
Fast-forward over 1,000 years and the Zoroastrian community is still tiny: only 69,000 people, less than 0.006% of India’s population of 1.2 billion people, and yet wherever you go in India, everyone knows who a Parsee is. Moreover, what makes me so proud as a Zoroastrian Parsee is the reputation of our community within India. When I took over as UK chairman of the Indo-British Partnership, now the UK India Business Council, of which I am president, my Indian counterpart Narayana Murthy, one of India’s most respected business leaders, said to me, “I have never met a bad Parsee”. Mahatma Gandhi said:
“In numbers, Parsees are beneath contempt, but in contribution, beyond compare”.
Over the centuries, the Zoroastrian Parsee community has excelled in every field. Today, both the Chief Justice of India and the Solicitor-General of India are Parsees. Maestro Zubin Mehta, the world-famous conductor; the late Freddie Mercury of Queen; Farokh Engineer, the great cricketer—all Zoroastrian Parsees. I could go on. In fact, I could go so far as to say that in achievement per capita, the Zoroastrian community is the most successful in the world by far. However, the community has not only looked after its own but has always put back into the wider community. It exemplifies one of my favourite sayings: “It is not good enough to be the best in the world, you also have to be the best for the world”.
The Zoroastrian faith was brought to the world by the prophet Zoroaster in around 1500 BC. It is said to be one of the world’s oldest monotheistic religions, if not the oldest, with a god, a supreme being, and the concepts of good and evil and heaven and hell. This was the religion of the largest of the ancient empires, the Persian Empire. This was the religion of the Emperors Xerxes, Darius and Cyrus the Great.
The Emperor Cyrus is of course credited with writing the world’s first Bill of Rights, the Cyrus cylinder, which is far older than our own Magna Carta, whose 800th anniversary we will soon be celebrating. The basis of Zoroastrian faith is three words: “Humata, Hukhta, Huvarshta”—good thoughts, good words, good deeds. I was the founding chair of the World Zoroastrian Chamber of Commerce in the UK. Our motto is: “Industry and Integrity”. When the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury visited the Zoroastrian Centre recently, he explained that the word “integrity” comes from the Latin word “integrum”, which means wholeness. In order to practise integrity, you need to feel complete and whole.
During our 150th anniversary, when His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh visited the Zoroastrian Centre in Harrow—a grade 2 listed building—he arrived in a Land Rover. When I greeted him, I said: “Sir, thank you for arriving in a Tata-mobile!”. Jaguar Land Rover is, of course, now owned by one of India’s largest conglomerates, the Tata Group, a Zoroastrian Parsee company. When Jamsetji Tata, the founder, set up Tata Steel over 100 years ago in the jungles of what was then part of the state of Bihar, where our company, Molson Coors Cobra, now owns the only brewery in the state, a British civil servant at the time dismissed the idea of an Indian ever owning a steel factory and said he would eat every bar of steel that came out of that factory. He has certainly had to eat his words. Now, a century later, Tata Steel owns British Steel—Corus—and is one of the largest steel manufacturers in the world.
I am proud to be the first Zoroastrian Parsee to sit in your Lordships’ House. Before I made my maiden speech, the first thing I did was to read the maiden speech of the first Indian to be elected to Westminster. Dadabhai Naoroji entered the House of Commons as a Liberal in 1892, against all odds. In fact, the then Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, said that no British person would ever accept a “black man” as their MP. In 1895, just three years later, the second Indian, Mancherjee Bhownagree, also a Zoroastrian Parsee, was elected to the House of Commons as a Conservative. In 1922, the third—and the only one of the three Indians elected to the other place before India’s independence—was Shapurji Saklatvala, or “Comrade Sak”, who was elected as a Communist with Labour support. All three were Zoroastrian Parsees—one a Liberal, one a Conservative and one Labour. I now sit, as a Zoroastrian Parsee, as an independent Cross-Bench Peer. We have squared the circle.
The Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe was founded in 1861 and is now celebrating its 150th anniversary. Dadabhai Naoroji himself served as president of the ZTFE from 1863 to 1908. During this time, ZTFE functions were attended by young barristers and professionals, including none other than Mahatma Gandhi.
Earlier this year, my friend Maurice Ostro presented Her Majesty the Queen, on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee, with a specially made necklace with symbols from the nine recognised faiths of the United Kingdom—Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Baha’i and Zoroastrian. These nine faiths are represented by the Inter Faith Network, which has been enormously successful.
The Zoroastrian community has made an enormous contribution to the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, with my own family as an example. My late father, Lieutenant-General Bilimoria, was commissioned into the Indian army. His father, Brigadier Bilimoria, was commissioned from Sandhurst. My father’s cousin, Lieutenant-General Jungoo Satarawalla, from my father’s regiment, the 5th Gurkha Rifles (Frontier Force), was awarded the Military Cross in the Second World War, as was India’s first Field Marshal, Sam Manekshaw, also a Zoroastrian. My maternal grandfather, JD Italia, served as a squadron leader in the Royal Indian Air Force during the Second World War. I could go on with a long list of Zoroastrian Parsees who have served in the British Armed Forces. However, I am disappointed that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has not yet allowed the Zoroastrian community to be represented at the annual Cenotaph ceremony each Remembrance Day. Can the Minister ask her Cabinet colleagues to rectify this anomaly?
I mentioned the Gurkhas. What an amazing contribution they have made to Britain over the centuries. My father’s battalion, the 5th Gurkha Rifles (Frontier Force), was awarded three Victoria Crosses in the Second World War. I am so happy that the previous Government eventually recognised this contribution, allowing retired Gurkhas to settle in this country should they so wish.
When I came to this country 30 years ago as a student from India, I was told by my family and friends to remember that if I decided to stay on and work in Britain I would never be allowed to get to the top, because, as a foreigner, there is a glass ceiling. They were absolutely right 30 years ago. Today, they would be absolutely wrong, because I have seen before my eyes this country being transformed over the past few decades into a country of meritocracy where there is opportunity for all, regardless of race, religion or background. The glass ceiling has well and truly been shattered and the ethnic minority and religious communities are now reaching the very top in every field, whether it is in sport, academia, the Civil Service or politics—just look around your Lordships’ House at the speakers in this debate who come from so many minority communities, having reached the very top in their respective fields. I am so proud of them and so looking forward to the wide-ranging perspectives that will be reflected in this debate, and the high quality of debate and contributions that I know my colleagues will bring to this discussion.
Indeed, yesterday there was a photograph taken in Westminster Hall to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the election of the first four ethnic minority MPs since the war, in 1987. From just four MPs 25 years ago, we now have 69 ethnic minority MPs and Peers at Westminster and in Parliament. This is the progress that I have been talking about. In fact, I believe strongly that in my lifetime we will see a member of the ethnic minority community become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Immigrants from all ethnic minorities and religions have been the making of the “Great” in Great Britain. They have been crucial to Britain’s success, contributing enormously to the economic and cultural life of Britain and enriching it in every way by punching far above our weight. One example is the Asian community, which makes up just 4% of the population of Britain yet contributes double that percentage to our economy. Yet the Government have brought in the immigration cap—a madcap idea, and a crude and blunt instrument. Foreign students bring up to £8 billion a year in revenue into our country, both direct and indirect, yet potential foreign students are asking themselves, “Does Britain really want us?”.
I know from my experience as a member of the advisory board of the Cambridge, Cranfield and Birmingham business schools that we have seen the number of applications from Indian students, for example, plummet. This is so short-sighted when student numbers should not be included in immigration figures to start off with. Would the Minister ask her Cabinet colleagues to once again look into removing students from immigration figures? Yes, the Government need to crack down on phoney students and, yes, they need to crack down on bogus colleges, but why tar everyone with the same brush? Furthermore, foreign students bring generation-long links between Britain and their own countries. I know this, coming from a family that has been educated in Britain for three generations.
The immigration cap is also affecting business. My own business, Cobra Beer, supplies 98% of the UK’s Indian restaurants. Well over two-thirds of the country’s Indian restaurants are actually owned and run by Bangladeshis, and the Bangladesh Caterers Association does tremendous work supporting this industry. Because of the immigration cap, the industry is unable to bring in the skilled staff—the chefs—which it so desperately requires.
This industry has been an inspiration to me. It is made up of pioneering entrepreneurs who have gone to every corner of Great Britain, opened up restaurants on every high street, won customers and made friends, put back into their local communities and made Indian food a part of the British way of life. They deserve our support and our gratitude, and we must do all we can to help them. I know that the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, has mooted a curry college. It is a great idea to train British people in the industry but it will take time. The restaurants are suffering. They need the staff and have the skills shortages. Can the Minister look into this with her Cabinet colleagues and see what can be done to help this important industry in the mean time?
I am often asked to express what Asian values are and I summarise them as the importance of hard work, family and education. Britain prides itself on being a secular and multicultural society where all religions are allowed to be practised and where all races, communities and cultures co-exist side by side. There is a word, however, that I do not like: tolerance. I believe not that all this should be tolerated but that it should be celebrated. It should be about mutual trust and mutual respect. I have spoken a great deal about the inspirational achievements of the minority and religious communities in Great Britain, but none of this would have been possible without the great opportunities that this great country has given us.
In this country, renowned around the world for its sense of fairness and opportunity for all and where the glass ceiling has been shattered, the wonderful thing is that when people from minority ethnic and religious communities do well they reach the top. Their achievement creates inspiration, which creates aspiration, which in turn leads to achievement, and the virtuous circle continues. That is the magnifying, multiplying and inspiring power of minority ethnic and religious communities succeeding in Britain. We are a tiny nation, yet we are still one of the 10 largest economies in the world, with hardly any natural resources. The one resource that we have is our people and among our people it is the minority, ethnic and religious communities who punch far above their weight. Without their contribution, Britain would not be where it is today.
The Nobel laureate Professor Amartya Sen talks about identity. He says that each one of us has not just one identity but several identities—religious, ethnic, professional and national. When I came to this country, my father gave me some great advice. He said, “Son, you are going to study abroad. You may stay on in Britain. You may live in another part of the world. Wherever you live, integrate with the community that you are in to the best of your abilities, but never forget your roots”. I am so proud to be a Zoroastrian Parsee. I am so proud to be an Indian. I am so proud to be an Asian in Britain, and most importantly I am so proud to be British.
Lord Wei
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for tabling this timely debate and for his truly enlightening speech. It is a testament to the value of this House that so many Peers are able to represent and speak on behalf of different minority interests here today, a strength I fear the current proposals for Lords reform may eradicate forever if carried out without very careful consideration. Somewhere in our system we must preserve a means by which the voiceless can have a voice.
In the interests of time, I will speak primarily on the contribution played in British society by ethnic Chinese. In this, I declare an interest as the only active parliamentarian of Chinese origin, as chair of the APPG for East Asian Business and an adviser to several organisations involved in trade between the UK and Asia. The Chinese in Britain represent the third largest ethnic minority group and also the fastest growing one. From 2001 to 2007 the number in Britain grew 9.9% annually according to the Office for National Statistics. The population is estimated to be about 700,000, excluding tertiary students and tourists from China.
There are many diaspora Chinese, from all over the world. There are the Hong Kong Chinese, such as my parents. Many of them came in the 1960s through to 1997. There are the British-born Chinese, such as myself. There are the Taiwanese Chinese, the Singaporean Chinese, such as the late Michael Chan—the much-loved physician who served in this House—the Malaysian Chinese, the Vietnamese Chinese, the Mauritian Chinese and the mainland Chinese, including those who have recently arrived and who are often highly educated and affluent.
Without their necessarily having shouted about it from the hills, it is important to recognise that the Chinese who live, study and visit here contribute a huge amount to the UK. That might be in the Chinese catering industry, which employs in excess of 100,000 people and contributes £4.9 billion to the economy; or in the 200,000-odd students who, during and after university, contribute to our economy through educational fees; or the many professionals of Chinese origin who work in the City and around the country. Whether in the large numbers of wealthy tourists who come to purchase British goods and services, or in the networks of diaspora investors and their firms who are investing billions in our economy and creating thousands of jobs, or in their general law-abiding contribution to our cultural life, the role of the Chinese in British society cannot be ignored.
There are more opportunities for the Chinese to play an even bigger role in British society. First, I and others would like to help train more up-and-coming Chinese living and visiting these isles to develop socially entrepreneurial skills so as to take up a more visible and integrated role in British society. I would like them to be more engaged in informed political debate and to come up with solutions to the issues that the community faces. These can help create jobs, tackle ignorance, and address social ills for other groups and the public at large.
Secondly, there is a significant untapped opportunity for the Chinese to help positively to influence the British education system, not only because they often perform well at school, but also because of more British people’s hunger to learn about Chinese language and culture.
Thirdly, given the significant numbers of Chinese involved in the professions and in trade with east Asia, there is a role for the British Chinese in helping British and Chinese firms connect and do business together across the cultural and linguistic divide, whether as workers, or on management, or on boards. That will create jobs and prosperity at a time when we most need it. To grasp these opportunities fully, we will need the help and understanding of parliamentarians, the public and government.
In closing, I shall ask the Minister, whose work in this area I greatly respect and admire, the following questions which I know matter in our particular community. What can we do to keep policy on immigration and visas balanced so that we can continue to trade with and access talent and skills from the East while rightly protecting our borders? What is being done to help to tackle ongoing prejudice and fear towards Chinese people in the media and at large? What is being done to harness local British Chinese in building trade with east Asia? How can we harness Chinese learning methods and speakers more in our education system? What can we do to help to mentor the next generation of Chinese British leaders to be more involved in our public life and party-political system when many are underrepresented at present due to the widely dispersed nature of the Chinese across the British Isles?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, made a superb speech. Like him, I am proud to live in a country that has diversity at its very core. The hands that built this country have come from every faith, every continent and every culture. Some of those who helped lay the foundations were members of the Zoroastrian faith—those who used their faith as a tool for good in the world. They are a creative, courageous, entrepreneurial, industrious people who have made, and continue to make, a huge impact on our lives. I pay particular tribute to one, Zerbanoo Gifford, a tireless campaigner for justice and human rights and a passionate advocate for democracy and women’s empowerment. She is the founder of the Asha Centre in the Forest of Dean. “Asha” means “hope”. It is a place of many faiths and cultures, a haven of peace and beauty where people, especially young people, from Britain, the European Union and the rest of the world come together to learn about conflict resolution. Arab and Jewish Israeli young people spend time with each other then go home united rather than divided. It promotes volunteering. The centre fosters community participation through a programme of projects, arts and working on the land encouraging young people to celebrate their similarities, not their differences. Young people, united by the strength of their common endeavour, work together for a better future in which we celebrate our differences as well as our similarities.
I believe that politics and democracy have a huge role to play in ensuring greater community cohesion. Sadly, a certain breed of politics thrives on tearing communities apart. The politics of division are not the politics of progress; they are the politics of fear and political expediency. Democracy must be nurtured by political participation, but that participation depends on trust, communication, a sense of hope and the breaking down of barriers and prejudices within our communities. I am alarmed and ashamed that only 30% of our electors thought it worth voting in the recent local elections. It was a real indictment of all political parties. They must reach out, be more inclusive and not be afraid to address difficult issues, such as immigration, that are of real concern to all communities, including minorities, and they must address issues such as visas for foreign students. I endorse the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria.
There are many terrific initiatives up and down the country which are building trust between and within communities. I am proud to be an ambassador for UpRising, a charity which fosters the leadership qualities of young community leaders and ensures that they nurture understanding between their communities. I pay special tribute to the Speaker’s parliamentary placements scheme, which ensures that interns from all backgrounds have an opportunity to work within the Houses of Parliament. The myriad initiatives are often inspired or run by religious communities, and they pave the way for an even more diverse culture and an end to tribalism and the prejudices of the past.
However, barriers still remain. They are sometimes real, sometimes perceived, a consequence of fear rather than fact. While campaigning during the recent elections in the tower blocks of Westminster North, I ran into a group of young people in the stairwell wearing hoodies. I talked with them quite happily, but as I walked into the street I was stopped by someone who asked me what on earth I was doing chatting to those dangerous young people. That was someone choosing fear over hope, not hope over fear. For too many people, hope is lacking and without hope, people put up protective barriers.
We all have a responsibility to break down these barriers, including the Government. The big society is not enough; economic growth, jobs and the dignity that comes from work are an integral part of ensuring a diverse and harmonious society. With work comes confidence to reach across and into other communities. Without work the health of individuals and communities suffer. When communities wither and die, a vacuum is created, and in that vacuum extremism spreads.
The voluntary sector is a key part of a thriving community, but as the cuts in local government finance bite and the state withdraws from some of its responsibilities, we rely ever more strongly on the voluntary sector and charities, many of which are faith-based. Notwithstanding their ever-increasing burdens but diminishing budgets, they manage to provide a safety net for many of our citizens and sustain local communities, but they can be stretched only so far.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for this debate. The Zoroastrian community is small, yet has made a significant contribution towards the economic development of the countries in which it has settled. Its members have also excelled in other diverse areas of our civic life. Their diversity, supplemented by their culture and faith, has added richness to our multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multicultural society.
History throws an interesting light on the Zoroastrian community, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has spelt this out. We now know that there are around 250,000 individual Parsees worldwide, and some 5,000 in the UK. Zoroastrians are a small but significant minority, setting an example of tolerance and diversity. We have long cherished and considered the development of a value-driven society as a core goal. Over the years, there has been a confused debate about multiculturalism in Britain. We often shelter under expressions like, “community cohesion”, a concept which, to my mind, lacks strategic thought. Some argue that it is important to articulate a shared sense of national identity in contemporary conditions of flux and change. If so, how can we reconcile this with diversity, openness and pluralism of belief and practice?
We should look no further. The Zoroastrian community is an example we could all follow. Fixed notions of shared identity, even if they could be agreed on, are less necessary than promoting individual identity, pluralism and genuine multiculturalism. We should be proud of Britain's record in race and community relations. It is now a few decades since the establishment of the Race Relations Act 1965. We have been at the forefront of legislative and other machinery to establish equality of opportunity for all our citizens with a strong emphasis on disability, gender, age, faith and sexual orientation.
We now need to move to the next stage. We need to examine changing patterns within all our communities. True multiculturalism is proactive and means that equality and diversity is at the core of everything we do, from government to individual responsibility. We need to take a much more pro-active stance towards combating racism and discrimination, really tackling inequality in all aspects of our society in social and economic matters and in civic participation, positively valuing—not merely tolerating—the contribution of different cultures and perspectives, and treating them with respect.
Increasingly, the globalisation of the economy relies on the skills of people wherever they are available, and international migration is a key feature of ensuring that Britain benefits from the phenomenon. We have seen a steady development of the concept of human rights and the very positive step of incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998. For too long we have simply assumed that our liberties are protected by a set of traditions and customary activities assisted by a general consensus within our society about the liberty of individuals. The Zoroastrian community demonstrated that common values cannot and should not be assumed in a multicultural society. The cosy assumptions of a homogeneous consensus in which we rooted our liberties simply will not do. Cultures do not remain static. Communities change. Conflict often occurs of matters of gender, generations, religion, language and the community's relationship with the wider society.
There is nothing to be frightened about. We are already witnessing fusion in music, arts and fashion. These new emerging cultures will be exciting. Equally, the emerging third, fourth and fifth generations are British to the core. Let us accept this. In years to come, we shall ask the question, “What was all that fuss about multiculturalism?”.
Lord Bew
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bilimoria for securing this debate and for the fine speech with which he opened it. I declare an interest as the chairman of both the British-Irish Association and the Anglo-Israel Association. I will speak briefly under both headings.
It is easy to make a case for the Irish contribution to the cultural and economic life of the United Kingdom, particularly in this Chamber, where two of the great Paintings, Daniel Maclise’s “Spirit of Justice” and “Spirit of Chivalry”, look down upon us. Of course, the two great Paintings in the Royal Gallery are also the work of Daniel Maclise from Country Cork.
It is well known in this House that no medium-sized city in Europe has produced as many Nobel prize-winners in literature as Dublin. These things are widely understood. Perhaps less widely understood is the role of Ireland now in the economic life of the United Kingdom. We now have significant Irish employers such as Glen Dimplex, Kerrygold and Greencore, which all play a significant role in the employment opportunities of this island. When the two economies are so deeply intertwined at this moment of peril, it is worth stressing the positive contribution that Irish employers make to the United Kingdom.
I turn briefly to the Jewish community, which owes so much to King Cyrus, who was mentioned in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. It is appropriate to turn to that community. Ever since Perry Anderson published his famous article Components of the National Culture 40 years ago, there has been widespread understanding of the incredibly important influence of the Jewish community on the intellectual, artistic and scientific life of this country. The role of the Jewish community is widely understood. I refer briefly to a historic figure, Sir Montague Burton, who endowed so many chairs in my own field of study as an act of generosity.
I lead on to say that it is tremendously important to understand the scale of the philanthropic activities of the Jewish community today, particularly in the treatment of degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. The role of the Jewish community in raising money for research in this area is absolutely remarkable, and in a debate of this sort it is worth drawing attention to such a development.
I conclude by referring briefly to one of the United Kingdom’s oldest Muslim communities, the Ahmadiyya, and to something that many in your Lordships’ House will have noticed in recent days—the remarkable, huge sponsored charity walk that the Ahmadiyya held in celebration of the Diamond Jubilee. It is a remarkable indication, yet again, of this country’s ability to inspire that sense of citizenship and generosity, which we are so fortunate to experience.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I offer just a few quick thoughts in my role as one of the two co-chairs of the Inter Faith Network. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for his gracious affirmation of the work of the network, which serves the great faith communities and those interested in relations between them by doing two things. It invites people to work together and appreciate one another and encourages us to work together for the common good. A recent manifestation of the fruits of that work is the development of Inter Faith Week, which will be in November. The Government have generously supported us by making that happen. I hope that the Minister might reassure us about a continuing commitment to enabling that manifestation of the riches of faith communities working together for the common good. It is lovely to see some of our colleagues from the Inter Faith Network in the Gallery.
The Zoroastrian community makes an outstanding contribution to this work of interfaith relations and service to our communities. When the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury visited the community, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, mentioned, he explored very creatively the way in which the Zoroastrian community, although small in number, has had, as he said, a vocation throughout history to help different perspectives, cultures and religions interpret themselves to one another. That is part of the power of the noble Lord’s nice image of the sugar and the milk. It is true in Iranian and Indian contexts, and I can testify to the Zoroastrian community’s contribution in our own context today, helping that sweetness and improving the quality of relationships. The community is small in number but very effective.
Those of us who are privileged to lead Prayers in this place often receive requests for the Psalm that begins:
“I will lift up mine eyes”.
That indicates to me a deep instinct in all of us, with varying degrees and various sources of faith, for a recognition that there is something in our hearts that seeks what we would call “the transcendent”—a greater horizon and a greater possibility than we can grab, tangibly, in this life. Yet it motivates us to set out as the noble Lord described in the foundation of Zoroastrianism and the way in which it has developed.
We need to take seriously that faith and desire for a greater horizon, a greater connectedness, as deep in all human hearts. I hope that the Government will continue to recognise the importance of faith in that spirit and the bigger horizon that it offers, and continue to support organisations, such as the Inter Faith Network, which seek to encourage that spirit in which there is a hopefulness and a trustfulness that our world so badly needs when division is so magnified and so destructive.
I thank the noble Lord very much for sponsoring and introducing this debate, and for his very powerful and helpful speech. I congratulate him on this wonderful 150th anniversary.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on initiating this debate. He has chosen to hold this debate on the 150th anniversary of the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe. One of the earliest patrons and founder of the funds was also the first Asian Member of the House of Commons— Dr Dadabhai Naoroji was elected in 1892. He, along with Sir Mancherjee Bhownagree, elected in 1895, and Shapurji Saklatvala, elected in 1922, are known as the original trio of British MPs of Indian origin, and they all followed the Zoroastrian faith.
Today, we have a number of British parliamentarians from the ethnic minorities and, yesterday, a photograph was taken of them in Westminster Hall. We would of course like to see our numbers augmented. The contributions made by ethnic and religious minority communities are evident all around us in every facet of our lives. Perhaps one of the most obvious cultural examples is in our modern-day choice of food. Asian food has become a staple part of the British diet and numerous surveys have reported Chinese and Indian dishes as becoming the most frequently cooked meals in the United Kingdom. The first Indian restaurant in the UK was opened in 1812 here in London and seemingly began a culinary revolution.
In terms of our media, Bhangra music, originating from the Punjab region of India, has become increasingly popular in the United Kingdom over the past 20 years. I may add that the late Freddie Mercury of the rock band Queen was born in Zanzibar and belonged to the Zoroastrian faith. In sport, Prince Ranjitsinhji of India has become one of the most enduring names in English cricket. In 1899, he became the first cricketer to score more than 3,000 runs in one year and was the first Indian to play Test cricket. Today, there are stars from various ethnic backgrounds in our national games and sports.
One of the more important contributions that the minorities have made to our country has been to the medical profession, both in research and as doctors on the front line. Some 19% of our doctors are of Asian or British Asian origin and more than 10% of our doctors were qualified in India. In addition to the medical profession, people from the ethnic minority communities have excelled in a number of other professions.
In regard to the economy, the ethnic minorities have been successful in the business world. The UK’s rich list includes a number of persons of foreign extraction, including people in the manufacturing, retailing and service industries. In addition to multimillionaires, there are of course persons who are owners of SMEs. They have all created wealth, employed staff and paid taxes. I have a close connection with the City of London where I know people of ethnic minorities who are doing extremely well in the square mile.
I also want to pay particular tribute to the contribution of our minorities to our Armed Forces and the police service. These communities made significant contributions fighting for our country through two world wars. Today we see them in the military and the police at senior levels, developing and maintaining our security on an everyday basis. I maintain close links with the Armed Forces Muslim Association and have been assured by its patron, Sir David Richards, that promotions in the Armed Forces will be based purely on merit.
We celebrate religious freedom in this country. There are now hundreds of mosques, temples, gurdwaras and synagogues in the UK, which I think evidences just how entrenched our minority communities are in the country. Our tolerance and diversity is a flagship characteristic of our country’s heritage and the envy of much of the world, and long may it continue.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
My Lords, this was a brilliant idea for a debate, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, conveys the congratulations of this House to those shouldering responsibility for the Zoroastrian Trust Funds as they go on to their next 150 years.
I came to the House this morning after counting 40 flags that we have just bought in the church of which I am a minister—they will be hanging out for the jubilee next week. There are people from 40 different nationalities in my congregation. John Wesley said that he looked on the world as his parish; the world has taken him seriously, and has come to live in his parish, and a very brilliant thing it is, too.
I say 40 nationalities, but out in the community it is more than that. In the school of which I am a governor, there is more than twice that number, because you can throw in faiths and other differences, in a diversity that is truly mind-boggling. Why do people think that this is a problem? Why do they not see it as a challenge and—if they have the stomach for it—something that will open their eyes to a dimension of life and human living that they have not known before? It is absolutely wonderful to live in a diverse country. When I go back to my native Wales now and see the same tired old faces, I want an injection from the ethnic minority groups to be liberally applied to the community that I grew up in. So this should not be a problem and, if the press portrays it that way, everybody in our Parliament should be working hard and recommitting themselves to changing the attitudes that prevail out there.
Writers from Edward Said to Homi Bhabha have shown how the British majority population has dealt with the minority peoples who have come our way—first as those who bring quaint, lovely and interesting things for us to look at, smell, see and taste. But it cannot stay there. We go on to intellectualise the matter, to catalogue the things that distinguish us from them. It is a way of othering the other and keeping them objectified, which is certainly what Edward Said said in spades. We cannot leave the matter there; we must know more about each other, but that is not what living together is all about. The vocabulary that has been generated by post-colonial literatures has been about hybridity, overlap, third space, in-betweenness, where we actually live an integrated life alongside each other, stimulating each other and enjoying each other’s company, celebrating diversity.
One thing about this debate is that I wish that every single member of a minority group who was a Member of this House were present today and sitting down and not making a speech so that they could give the opportunity to those from the majority ethnic population to congratulate them on their contribution to British life and assure them that together we can make Britain an even greater place than it has been. I certainly want my voice to be raised this morning in that sense.
As I come to the end of this gruesome, tiny 240 seconds that is afforded me, let me just say that when we process the flags, as eventually we will, we will ensure that people do not carry the flag of their own country. Our people will carry flags for each other to suggest that we belong to a multicultural country, are proud to do so and want to parade that fact for everybody to see.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, it is always an inspiration to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. He has done a great service to the House in achieving this debate. As he spoke of the good thoughts, good words and good deeds, what struck me was how clearly he was describing the importance of fundamental principle and of faith in the production of a successful community, as the Zoroastrian community and the Parsee community are and have been for such a long time.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, like me, comes from Ireland. While listening to him, I was also struck by how some Members of your Lordships’ House might find it strange that he spoke of the Irish as an ethnic minority. I am afraid that the truth is that, in the last century, there were still posters on doors of boarding houses saying, “No Irish or blacks”. If we go back to 1828 when Daniel O’Connell was elected to the other place, he was unable to take his seat because he was a Catholic. That was changed because His Grace the Duke of Wellington, the Prime Minister, realised that it was no longer acceptable. Because the change was made for the other place, His Grace the Duke of Norfolk was able to come into this place even sooner, and that meant that Presbyterians could come into these Houses. By 1858, the Jews Relief Act meant that Jews could come into the House. The point is that once we start opening our minds to the opportunity for a multiracial, multifaith community, there should be no end to the route down which we go. As my noble friend Lord Dholakia said, it should eventually become so natural that the Irish are not considered an ethnic minority, and Catholics are not regarded as a faith minority, because we are all part of the same community.
But we need to think our way through this, because it is not quite so simple. Other countries have developed a different cultural approach by setting some of the diversity out of the public sphere. For instance, our friends in France have a culture of laïcité, which effectively says that religion should be kept out of the public space as much as possible. That is not our culture. Our culture is to value religious faith and to keep it available in the public space. From my experience in my part of the United Kingdom, I am absolutely convinced that valuing and keeping open the space for ethnic-minority groups, religious faith and other elements of our community life is important. The noble Lord, Lord Wei, mentioned Hong Kong Chinese, and of course the Northern Ireland Assembly is where the first ethnic-Chinese parliamentarian in the whole of Europe—Anna Lo—was elected, in 2007, and re-elected with an even greater majority in 2011. These are valuable developments but we should never accept the right to dismiss the human rights of others, or become tolerant of the intolerance of some cultures, or we will lose what is most valuable in our variegated society.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on having secured this important debate and on his thoughtful introduction to it. I take the opportunity afforded by the debate to draw your Lordships’ attention to the important contributions made by healthcare workers and doctors from the Indian subcontinent to the delivery of healthcare in our country. In so doing, I declare my own interest as consultant surgeon at University College Hospital in London and professor of surgery at UCL.
It is well recognised that, since its inception in 1948, the National Health Service has been dependent on the dedicated service and contribution of a wide range of communities, many from overseas, to ensure that healthcare can be sustained and delivered to all parts of the country. It is clear that, without those important contributions, not only the delivery of everyday care but many important advances in biomedical research and developments in our healthcare system would not have been possible.
I am the son of two doctors who completed their medical education in India and came here to the United Kingdom to complete their further education and training in 1961. They were able to come here because of a long-held national consensus that has welcomed those from a diverse range of communities who are prepared to come here, integrate and make a contribution to society more broadly. In return they were given opportunities to advance themselves. My mother continued to practise as an anaesthetist. My father was a professor of surgery and undertook fundamental research to identify the problem of thrombosis blood clots that occur in patients after surgery. He developed methods of preventing post-operative thrombosis that have changed clinical practice and saved the lives of many hundreds of thousands of patients around the world.
Contributions have been made in many other areas. Many from the Indian subcontinent made a contribution by going into general practice in difficult and deprived areas and delivering dedicated service. One of the great challenges our healthcare system now faces as these practitioners retire is how we continue to ensure that universal healthcare is provided in all parts of our country.
However, many people went back home to India and other parts of the Commonwealth where they made important contributions. What they learnt in our country drove them to adopt systems, technologies and outputs from the United Kingdom. Therefore, our life sciences and healthcare industries had a huge influence in the Commonwealth and the Indian subcontinent as a result of the training that those young doctors received in our country. As our national gaze turns more to the European Union, what arrangements will be made to continue to encourage medical trainees from the Indian subcontinent and the Commonwealth to come and complete their training here? How will we ensure that those opportunities are not lost so that those trainees go back to their countries fully understanding the great contributions that our own country has made to healthcare and promoting our life sciences industries in their countries? How will we ensure that the broad diaspora of doctors and other healthcare professionals from the Indian subcontinent are able fully to engage and promote our healthcare and life sciences industries in India and other parts of the Commonwealth? We should not forget that some 44,000 out of 240,000 registered doctors in the United Kingdom declare themselves Asian or British Asian—some 19%. It is vital that the resources which these fellow citizens bring are fully engaged to promote opportunities for British healthcare around the world.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I do so on three fronts. First, I congratulate him on initiating this most vital debate which celebrates the contribution of all communities to Britain. Secondly, I congratulate him on the 150th anniversary of the Zoroastrian trust funds and, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the Zoroastrian community on that achievement. Thirdly, I congratulate the noble Lord on his personal contribution not just to this Chamber but to the country and business community at large. I assure him that I speak on a factual basis when I say that he is an inspiration to many youngsters from all communities and backgrounds in our country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, if you glance at the list of speakers, you will see that there are speakers not just from some defined minority communities but from all communities. That is what Britain represents today. The strength of our diversity is evident. A speaker who is to follow me shares my surname and another comes from Wimbledon, like me. Noble Lords speaking today are testament to the dedication, devotion and commitment shown by many communities throughout the country, and indeed by former generations such as people of my parents’ generation who made Britain their home and were willing to work hard. To my mind the most important point is that their success truly reflects the incredible country in which we live.
As we celebrate and recognise the contributions of different communities, particularly the Zoroastrian community, and the contribution that faith has made to Britain, we should also pay tribute and recognise the fact that our country is one where opportunity, progress and perseverance are rewarded, where freedom of religion is not just protected but promoted, and where the strength of our country is evident in the diversity of what Britain is today.
I wish briefly to focus on two elements—first, in terms of my professional background in business and the City. Glass ceilings, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, have been broken. Look around the Square Mile and you will see the diversity of our nation in the people who work in that most important of London areas— not through regulated quotas but by an evolution in our society, a meritocracy and sheer hard work.
Secondly, as a Muslim in Britain, I consider Islam to be under the microscope, and often headlines are made because of the work of splinter and radical elements who present Islam in a negative and erroneous way. It clear that there are many Muslim communities in Britain—including my own, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community—that demonstrate not through words alone but through actions that they are not just law-abiding citizens but active and productive contributors to the economy and welfare of our society. Therefore, as we rightly condemn those who burn flags on the return of our brave troops, we should also recognise the efforts of Muslim communities such as mine, whose youth groups have raised thousands of pounds through poppy appeals and, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said, have most recently celebrated Her Majesty’s Jubilee by raising a quarter of a million pounds for British-based charities.
Like other Peers, I recognise that all communities serve actively on the front line. They serve their Queen and country. Today, as the world focuses on London, with Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee and the arrival of the Olympics, from churches to synagogues, from mosques to temples, and from gurdwaras to community centres—indeed, in every street in every home across Britain—let us raise a glass, say a prayer, or in some cases both, to celebrate these two historic occasions, and also our country and people who make Britain the absolutely incredible place that it is.
Lord Ahmed
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for providing us with the opportunity to speak in this debate. I join the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in praising the work of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, particularly his distinguished career and successful business story, and for making a huge contribution to our economy and Exchequer. I am grateful for the contribution made by the Zoroastrian Parsee community from India to the UK.
It is unfortunate that much of what we hear about ethnic minorities is of a negative connotation. Some tabloid newspapers have a habit of focusing on the bad and rarely mention the good. But then they say, “Bad news sells”.
There is no doubt in my mind that Great Britain is one of the greatest nations in the world, and the prefix “Great” is there for a reason. Britain takes great pride in the way it treats its citizens and the equal opportunities it provides to them all. However, it is important to mention that my father’s generation and many who came to the UK in the early 1950s and 1960s did so for a particular reason—it was an interdependent relationship. Britain was in urgent need of a labour force to rebuild its post-war economy and labourers needed an excuse to come to the motherland. However, there is one outstanding fact that is seldom mentioned; most of these labourers came from provinces that had played an instrumental role during the two world wars.
My knowledge of history has improved tremendously thanks to military historian Jahan Mahmood, who has conducted an in-depth study of the contribution of Muslims from the British colony of India since 1914. I am grateful to him. At the beginning of the First World War, the only regular army available to Britain was the British Indian Army. Over a period of four years, the Indian Army expanded from an organisation of 155,000 soldiers to become a colossal 1.2 million-man force. By the end of the war, Muslims constituted a third of the overall army, and the Punjabi Muslims forged the largest single ethnic class within its ranks. To be exact, there were 136,126 Punjabi Muslims, 88,925 Sikhs, and 55,589 Gurkhas. The remainder of the Indian Army consisted of Hindu soldiers numbering around 300,000, followed by minority groups, including Christian Indians and Parsees, among many others. India’s material and financial contribution to the war is placed at a staggering £479 million.
Similarly, during the Second World War, 2.5 million south Asian soldiers participated. The ethnic composition was as follows: 700,000 Muslims, 900 000 Hindus, 150,000 Sikhs, 120,000 Gurkhas and 90,000 Indian Christians. The financial contribution is estimated to be £1.3 billion and the human cost was 80,000 men.
I now turn to the present-day contributions. I do not have the latest figures, but, according to a speech in 2008 by the former Home Secretary, the right honourable Jacqui Smith, the Muslim contribution to our economy was over £31 billion pounds per annum and there were more than 10,000 millionaires who contributed to our Exchequer. I would be obliged if the Minister in her reply could state the latest figures in relation to the contribution made by the Muslim community—£4 billion from the curry industry alone. It is also estimated that 23% of employees in the National Health Service are of Asian origin. There are many more figures, but time does not allow me to give them.
Lord Loomba
My Lords, I thank my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for initiating this debate, which is very important and highlights the contributions of the minority ethnic communities in the United Kingdom.
Let me start by saying that yesterday I took part in a photograph session in Westminster Hall. There were 40 Peers and MPs from both Houses. As noble Lords have already heard from the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Sheikh, there were only four such Members 25 years ago. I am sure your Lordships’ House will agree with me that that in itself is a testimony to the huge contributions made by the people of ethnic minority origin in this country.
Ethnic minorities, found in all walks of life, have integrated into the society in which they live by taking opportunities, utilising their skills and making their own mark on society. Here I might add that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, is an example of one of those who has made his own mark, in his own way, on his own Parsee community, with which he is involved.
Contributions have been made in every sector from religion, business and professions such as the law, accountancy, medicine, and of course philanthropy and politics. As we are restricted to speak for a short time in this debate, it is not possible for me to talk about all those sectors. However, I would like to make a point on business. There are many people who contribute, from those on news stands and in small corner shops to multinational corporations. Examples are my local shop, which is run by a Gujarati, and the Tata Group, which owns Jaguar Land Rover, Tetley Tea, TSC, Corus, and many other businesses. The benefits enjoyed from gainful employment and remuneration are enormous, and aid the growth of the economy.
I, too, have contributed in a small way through my own company, Rinku Group. Here, I wish to declare an interest. My company started in 1964 from a market stall in the market town, Widnes, with only me and my wife, and is now a respectable fashion business with more than 300 concession retail outlets employing some 400 staff in this country. It is hard work, but at same time the opportunities offered by this country are tremendous in promoting and helping people to start up businesses that can grow to provide employment and security, as well as contribute to the communities that they are involved with through charitable giving.
However, this progressive assimilation of minority ethnic people is a wealth that is measured not in pounds and pennies but in enrichment, enlightenment, integration and a uniting of different cultures within the local community in which they live and work. This is a solid foundation on which to move forward, taking with it a new generation, who, shaped by this evolution, can surely bring further advances and benefits to the cultural life and economy of the United Kingdom.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Bilimoria on securing this debate, as well as on his brilliant and inspiring speech.
I begin with a brief personal comment that illustrates the rapid rise of our different faith communities in Britain. I grew up in a part of the Midlands where we were the only non-white family. The same area is now home to substantial minorities of different faiths and cultures.
Many will recall that in the 1950s and 1960s shopping hours were rigid and limited, and customers would receive hostile looks if they entered a shop just before closing time. Then suddenly, thanks to the enterprise of new faith communities, everything changed and we had corner shops open until late at night, well stocked to meet the needs of those who worked unsocial hours, or those who suddenly discovered that they had run out of milk or bread. I remember one shop where a young lad would do his homework between serving customers. He is now a university professor. Inherent business skills also began to flourish, with corner shops giving way to large wholesalers, supermarkets, hotels and even hotel chains, and the growing popularity of Indian cuisine has added spice to an otherwise staid British diet.
As we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the arrival of the Parsee or Zoroastrian community in this country, we reflect with admiration that some of the most important innovators are members of that highly enterprising community. The Tatas are significant players in steel, car production and much else. Among many others, we have the Cobra Group of my noble friend Lord Bilimoria, which is doing much to quench the nation’s thirst.
Turning to my own community, Sikhs have become one of the wealthiest and most successful communities in Britain, with the average household income being second only to that of the Jews. The contribution of the community has spread to many different activities. If you look on the back of a bus or travel by tube train, you can hardly fail to notice the advertisements for Vitabiotics, a vitamin supplement company owned by a Sikh, Dr Kartar Lalvani. In sport, we have the Olympic torch bearer, Fauja Singh, who is 99 years old, and Monty Panesar and Ravi Bopara regularly make it into the England team.
The one area in which Sikhs have not made the contribution that I believe we should have made is in furthering interfaith understanding. Perhaps I may explain myself. To my mind, interfaith dialogue in this country has lost some of its momentum, with representatives of different communities being superficially nice to each other but not doing more to enhance understanding and social cohesion. The difficulty in moving to constructive engagement lies in the balance between reaching out to other communities with different beliefs while preserving our own distinct religious integrity. I believe that Sikhs are ideally equipped to revive the momentum. A religion that includes the writings of Hindu and Muslim saints in its holy scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, to show that no one faith has a monopoly of truth, can and should be playing an important part in reconciling different faiths and cultures. While Sikhs can count successes in other fields, our report card here reads, “Can and should do better”.
In conclusion, my hope and belief is that our different communities will build on their achievements and make Britain a showcase for the world in enterprise, tolerance and understanding.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Bilimoria for calling this timely debate on the 150th anniversary of the formation of the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe. In a recession of this gravity, it is right to look at the inspirational leadership that ethnic and religious minority communities have shown, particularly in establishing vital public institutions. I listened particularly closely to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, when she spoke of the ASHA Centre, established by a Zoroastrian Parsee. I also remembered that the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, in her report on women in custody, noted the important work that the ASHA Centre did in allowing mothers to keep in touch with their children, rather than being removed into the secure estate.
I wish that my father could be in his place today. As the last Secretary of State for India and Burma, as a Minister for the colonies at that time and as the last Governor-General of Ghana, I am sure that he would have taken particular pleasure and interest in our debate today.
I should declare my interest as a trustee of the Michael Sieff Foundation and as a patron of the Who Cares? Trust, YoungMinds, and Volunteer Reading Help. I am also an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Looked After Children, chaired by Edward Timpson MP.
I should like to speak of a minority and how its needs have too often been overlooked, with appalling consequences for that minority group, and how the foundation of a new institution might secure the group’s future. The minority I am speaking about are the 4,040 children in children’s homes in this country, 1,300 of whom are girls. The need that has too often been overlooked has been their need for the most expert and nurturing care. The appalling consequences have been the historical abuse of children by staff in children’s homes and the current apparent failure of some children’s homes to protect girls as young as 12 and 13 in their care from predatory men. The Times of Wednesday 9 May had local authorities recording 631 incidents of girls from children’s homes being sold for sex during the past five years, including 187 in the past 10 months.
The new institution that might secure their future is a centre for excellence for looked-after children. The Scots established such an institution several years ago. Set in the University of Strathclyde, the Centre for Excellence for Looked After Children, formerly the Scottish Institute for Residential Child Care, provides training and research, and influences policy. It is currently funded to the tune of £3 million per annum by the Scottish Government.
I suggest that those of us who are particularly concerned with the welfare of children might assist in establishing a similar institution in this country, following the example of the Zoroastrian Parsee and other minority communities in establishing such important institutions. Some £100,000 has already been offered towards securing such an endowment to a university. Will the Minister take back to her colleagues this suggestion of establishing such an institution in one of our universities, dedicated to residential childcare and to supporting foster care and funded jointly by endowment and government investment?
Important improvements have been made by successive Governments in building capacity in children’s homes and in strengthening regulation. In recent years, Ofsted has reported improving quality in the care provided. However, those of us who know the sector know that the fundamental problem has not been addressed. The most vulnerable and challenging children in this country are cared for by workers who too often lack appropriate professional development and are often poorly paid. Research by Professor Pat Petrie and Professor Claire Cameron at the Thomas Coram Research Unit found that staff on the continent are far more highly professionally equipped, yet they also deal with children with far lower levels of need.
I have spoken for too long, but I hope that the Minister will take back these concerns to Tim Loughton MP, the Minister responsible in this area, and I look forward to her response to the debate.
Lord Popat
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for bringing this debate before the House. I start by paying tribute to the Zoroastrian community, both in the UK and elsewhere, for its enduring values. In India, it is an incredibly well respected community, living peacefully side by side with other faiths. There are many parallels between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism—my own faith—and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, is one of many Zoroastrians that I am fortunate to call a friend.
I wake up every day and consider myself fortunate to be British. Forty years ago those of us forced to flee Uganda had a choice: to be Ugandan, Indian or British. Most of us chose to be British. Britain’s tolerance played a big part in that decision. While this country historically has not always been tolerant of other religions, the successful integration of so many faiths into the fabric of modern Britain—without, in my opinion, losing the distinctive elements which make Britain so superb—is an underappreciated truth.
In Britain today there are just under 1 million Hindus living—almost unanimously—peacefully and very happily. Our new British-born Hindus are succeeding in education, with huge numbers at top universities and going on to work in the professions. We are statistically more likely to be self-employed and less likely to be unemployed than, I believe, any other religion in Britain. We also have the lowest prison population of any religion and, like many faiths, take very seriously the need to give back to our local communities and carry out our civic duties.
However, I do not wish to deliver a marketing pitch for my faith; rather I want to focus on the modern approach to Hinduism. The Hindu Forum of Britain recently adopted a slogan: Proud to be British and Proud to be Hindu. We are proud of our country. My inbox is overflowing with invitations from Hindu organisations up and down the country looking forward to celebrating the forthcoming Diamond Jubilee.
Modern British Hindus are also hugely respectful of other faiths. Recently the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and I helped to launch the Hindu Christian Forum, one of many interfaith organisations that Hindus are involved in and help to increase understanding.
Finally, but by no means least, we are very grateful. Britain is undoubtedly stronger because of the contributions of its religious communities, but it is easy to forget how being a person of faith in other countries can lead to persecution and even death. While we celebrate the contribution of religious groups to Britain, let us not forget the freedom that Britain has given to all of us.
Lord Janner of Braunstone
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate proposed by my great and brilliant noble friend Lord Bilimoria. It celebrates the 150th anniversary of the Zoroastrian Trust Fund, when the Parsees established their own community outside Mumbai, or Bombay, from where they originated. However, I also want to recognise other minorities who have also put their mark on this great country. We in Britain should be very proud of our country’s diversity. Every town, city and region has both ethnic and religious communities that bring their culture to the places where they live. Just looking at the Houses of Parliament, especially in the House of Lords, we can see all different faiths and minorities working together. I am pleased to be a Member of one of them.
When I was Member of Parliament for a part of Leicester, it truly was—and continues to be—a very distinctive city. Although Christianity is the most practised religion in Leicester, there is a very large population of Indian origin, with more residents who are practising Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims in comparison with almost all of our other cities. There are also small, thriving Jewish and Buddhist communities. Each minority brings its own values and cultures to this city and to British traditions.
I have dedicated much of my life to the importance of ensuring that minorities are treated and respected with equality, because without understanding and respect, we have only got ignorance. I am proud to have founded the Coexistence Trust with Prince Hassan of Jordan, which is now chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. It is an organisation that identifies and promotes trust and understanding for the growing Jewish and Muslim communities, emphasising our cultural and traditional similarities.
The contribution made by minority ethnic and religious communities to our culture and economy is outstanding and we should recognise and praise their input to this country. Were it not for the Indian community, we would not have one of our most famous cuisines in the UK. The famous British fish and chips were first introduced by eastern European Jewish immigrants, like my family, so we have made a contribution to this country. We must all recognise and celebrate our true diversity, continue to work with all our minorities in our fine country, and keep Britain a truly unique and wonderful place in which to live.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord for securing this important debate, as it gives us an opportunity to celebrate unsung heroes of culturally diverse backgrounds who have made outstanding contributions to our society, making this great country rich, diverse and vibrant.
One such unsung hero is the British composer known as the “black Mahler”—Samuel Coleridge-Taylor, who was born in London in 1875. He was one of the few mixed-race children in Victorian times. He was regarded by his contemporaries—Elgar, Mahler—and Vaughan Williams as the most talented composer of his generation, both in Britain and America. His best known work, “Hiawatha’s Wedding Feast”, became a worldwide sensation that captured the public’s imagination. For years it was the centrepiece of the Royal Albert Hall’s summer programme. The lavish productions were performed to packed audiences, including the Royal Family. At the time, it was more popular than Handel’s “Messiah”. Coleridge-Taylor became a cultural icon in America and was the first black man to conduct the band of the US Marines.
Interestingly, the only copy of the manuscript of his violin concerto went down with the “Titanic” on its way to America—for use in a concert—in 1912, so he had to rewrite it from memory in a very short time just before he died. His immense talent was never truly given the status that he deserved as a major composer here in Britain. He died tragically at the age of 37, a broken man who passed away sitting up in bed, conducting an imaginary symphony after being attacked by racists thugs on West Croydon station. Happily for his fans, his lost opera “Thelma” was found in the British Library recently, just in time to be performed this year, on the centenary of his death.
In more recent times, Caribbeans who came to Britain brought with them their style, flair and culture. Their music transformed and influenced the British music scene. Ska, bluebeat, rocksteady and reggae are now part of British musical heritage. Carnival, calypso and steel pan music were brought to these shores by people from Trinidad and Tobago, who celebrate their 50th anniversary of independence this year. Steel pan music—which uses the only musical instrument created in the 20th century—also played its part in creating a musical extravaganza. It has become a well established and much loved instrument played by many British school children today.
Calypso music was introduced to London by the arrival in 1948 of two “Empire Windrush” passengers, Lord Kitchener and Lord Beginner, who wrote and sang calypsos about the Caribbean immigrants’ experiences here in Britain at that time, with songs such as “London Is the Place for Me” and “Cricket lovely Cricket”. It was Lord Kitchener who led an impromptu, Trinidad carnival-style musical parade around Hyde Park and down Piccadilly towards Eros, much to the amazement of onlookers. Carnival was embraced, and perhaps this marked the moment when a new, distinctively Caribbean spirit and rhythm started to infiltrate our national culture. The carnival celebrations, fostered by Claudia Jones, became an annual event in 1959, first in St Pancras Town Hall and then in Notting Hill from 1964, where they evolved into the world famous Notting Hill Carnival, the largest in Europe, which attracts millions of visitors every year.
For centuries, this country absorbed into its fabric a melting pot of cultures, religions and races, creating the rich tapestry of our nation; but sadly, the contributions made by black, Asian and Chinese people are often absent from our cultural history. For the sake of our children we need to rectify this, and to create and stimulate national pride and unity among all people. We need to appreciate, celebrate and be proud of all that makes Britain unique and great in the 21st century. Surely this should be the overriding mission of government. I will be interested to hear from my noble friend how the Government intend to encourage these principles.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, there is an old tradition that the Magi—the wise men from the East—were Zoroastrians. My noble friend Lord Bilimoria demonstrated today, 2,000 years later, that Zoroastrians still have great wisdom and precious gifts to share with the rest of us. However, those gifts are not universally recognised. In the recent report of the United States commission on religious liberty, Zoroastrians were listed among the many religious minorities who face persecution, discrimination and imprisonment, not least in Iran. Many noble Lords heard the exchange at Question Time today about the continued abuses of human rights in that country for a variety of reasons.
Two weeks ago I delivered the annual Tyburn lecture. In penal times, Tyburn—today’s Marble Arch—was where 105 Catholic men and women were executed for their faith. Among them were Edmund Campion, a distinguished Oxford scholar, and the poet Robert Southwell, a cousin of William Shakespeare. I reflected during the lecture that Tyburn’s disturbing and poignant story is one of immense cruelty and barbarism. It is the story of a perverted legal system, and reminds us to what intolerance, mutual persecution, the crushing of conscience and what Thomas More called the breaking of the unity of life inexorably lead. Parliamentarians even brought forward measures to remove children over the age of seven from their families if their Catholic parents did not conform.
The story of Tyburn does not call for revenge and should not be used for the stoking of old hatreds. However, it is instructive and has applications today. It reminds us that the struggle for religious freedom is intrinsic to the struggle for democracy and freedom itself. This debate is timely and should remind us that we should appreciate the privileges that we have and be aware of the sacrifices that were made to secure them and committed to speak up for the millions of people who suffered or died for their faith in previous generations so that we could enjoy the freedoms that we have today.
I am a Catholic and am proud of my British and Irish antecedents. My mother was an immigrant from the west of Ireland. Her first language was Irish, not English. She married my late father, who was a Desert Rat, in the East End of London. I hold British and Irish passports, as do my children. I have always taught them that you do not hate one country because you love another. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said about holding on to the preciousness of your roots while integrating and playing your part in the nation where you live.
During my time in another place, where I was Irish affairs spokesman for many years—the day after I was elected to the House of Commons, Airey Neave was blown up in its precincts—I heard interminable Statements about tragedies both in Britain and in Ireland. Today there are 6.6 million Catholics in this country—10% of our population—and 600,000 people in England were born in Ireland. Ireland has been the largest source of immigrants to this country for more than 200 years. It is estimated that as many as 6 million people in the United Kingdom have at least one Irish grandparent. Surely it is worth reflecting, exactly a year after Her Majesty the Queen visited the Republic of Ireland, that we have made extraordinary progress despite 800 years of history and mutual hatred.
On the economic issues raised by my noble friend Lord Bilimoria and the noble Lord, Lord Bew, it is worth mentioning, especially in these troubled times, that last year €13.6 billion-worth of UK goods were sold to Ireland, and that British trade with Ireland is still greater than its business with the huge emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China combined.
Today is a day for celebrating our nation’s diversity—the whole world in one country. It is an important moment to insist that along with respect for difference and minorities must come a commitment by us all to do all we can, using all our energy, to promote the unity, democracy, freedom and justice that we treasure in this nation. They are precious gifts worthy of the Zoroastrian Magi.
Baroness Prashar
My Lords, when I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, had secured this debate, I, too, was reminded of the story that he told about the Zoroastrians coming to the shores of India, and about milk and sugar. History has borne out the fact that wherever the Zoroastrians emigrated to, they sweetened the country. Here in the UK, diverse immigration has not only sweetened Britain but spiced it up.
We heard about the many contributions made over centuries by different communities that settled in the UK, and about the diverse society we have now. Of course, this diversity has enriched us and has built a vibrant Britain. We also heard about the contributions made by minorities in all walks of life. It is a tribute to this country, and also to the resilience and ingenuity of those who came to settle here.
We should applaud and celebrate the contributions that different communities have made, but we must not forget that there are still issues that deserve serious and concerted attention. I draw the House’s attention to the report, Creating the Conditions for Integration, published in February this year by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The aspirations and sentiments expressed in the report are fine. It states that core values and experience must hold us together and that we should robustly promote British values such as democracy, the rule of law, equality of opportunity and treatment, freedom of speech and the right of all to live without persecution. It states that these values must be underpinned by the opportunity to succeed and a strong sense of personal and social responsibility.
No one would disagree with that. However, the document provides very few solutions on how to foster these values and integration. Furthermore, the comments made by Mr Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State, focused on how it would promote British values. These values have been seized on as a way of building a cohesive society. Integration is seen as a one-way process, pluralism as divisive. However, diversity and pluralism do not threaten cohesiveness: inequality does. As we heard, pluralism is our strength. For a plural and cohesive society to be successful we need a shared respect for, and loyalty to, the law of the land. However, integration does not secure loyalty to a set of values; it is about one’s view of society and one’s place in it.
The document does not address the issue of the existence of deep-seated inequalities that need to be tackled. As I listened to the debate, I wondered what unemployed youths in Brixton and Bradford feel about the issues we are debating. Programmes such as the Big Lunch and community music days are worthy, but encouraging local authorities in particular to take responsibility does not amount to a strategy to create the conditions for integration.
The report also downplays earlier approaches that dealt with the challenges of integration by focusing on legal rights, equality, discrimination and hate crime. Those of us who have been involved in this area not for years but for decades have always argued that strategies to deal with inequality and discrimination must be supported by wider initiatives such as those in the document. To ignore the issues of discrimination and inequality and just focus on inculcating British values is a flawed approach. Therefore, it would be very helpful if the noble Baroness would tell the House what strategies have been put in place to tackle the issues of discrimination and entrenched inequality.
Lord Gold
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for introducing the debate. I congratulate the Zoroastrian Parsee community on its 150th anniversary and on making a true contribution to every society in which it occupies a place.
The British Isles comprise a wonderful mix of people from all over the world who have chosen to make their lives here. Generally, all races and religions have been welcomed. However, it has not been without difficulty. For example, the Jews came over with William the Conqueror, but they were thrown out in 1290 by Edward I and only allowed back 350 years later at the time of Oliver Cromwell. Of course, from time to time, Protestants and Catholics have had their problems and we have recently seen an unwelcome rise of Islamophobia. However, overall, as my noble friend Lord Popat said, Britain has a worthy tradition of tolerance for minorities. It has been a safe haven for the oppressed.
Generally, we have welcomed immigrants here to our mutual benefit. We benefit as a country from the rich cultural contribution made by those who have come here. Others have spoken eloquently of their contributions to the arts, sciences, professions, business, sport and even to politics. Individually we have benefited, too, by learning about and experiencing different cultures. The culture that I also had thought about—perhaps because we are speaking at lunchtime—was food, rather like my noble friend Lord Sheikh and the noble Lords, Lord Singh and Lord Janner. However, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and I must disagree because, as I understood the position, fried fish came here with the Spanish and Portuguese community in 1700. We may have to debate this afterwards.
It is very important that the traditions that have been brought into the UK by minority groups are maintained, not least so that we may all learn from their example and adopt the very best of what has come in. It is also important that, while maintaining their own traditions, everyone also becomes part of the fabric of British society; that there is one nation; that there is true integration. That is what we want. We want British citizens, from wherever, speaking English and playing a full part in the life of the community while also maintaining their traditions. Those Members of this House who come within the classification of the title of this debate have ably demonstrated that they are doing just that. They are setting a great example to the groups with whom they are associated.
While I welcome the debate, it saddens me that we single out any group to speak of its contribution to our society. I fully understand why this has been done and why there is a need to do so, but if we truly had integration here and crushed the prejudices that exist, this debate would not be necessary.
The media have a role. Why do newspapers find it necessary to point out the religion or background of people they write about? I am afraid that it is mostly when the individuals seem to be in some trouble. How can we expect minority groups to feel part of the fabric of our country if persistently we remind them that they are different? Maybe I am being somewhat naive to crave this nirvana but it is an aspiration that we should strive for. I hope this debate moves us along the road to achieving it.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, I am delighted to contribute to this debate and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on securing it.
The contributions of many of today’s speakers—not only to the debate but through their own life stories—bear testimony to the many varied and vital contributions the religious and ethnic minority communities make to this country. The huge part played by immigrant communities in Britain’s economic and social development since the Second World War is now widely recognised. Their role in creating a more diverse and tolerant society is indisputable.
I echo the question to the Minister of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on international students. Our key competitor nations—the USA, Australia and Canada—all class international students as temporary migrants and exclude them from the calculation of net migration. Why cannot the UK do the same?
In 21st century Britain, we live in a truly multiracial society. Estimates updating the latest census figures suggest that ethnic minorities now make up some 12 per cent of the population in England and Wales. London, our capital, is one of the most ethnically diverse cities on earth, with over 300 languages spoken. In particular, the creative industries, which have been among the fastest growing and most important to the capital’s economy, owe much to London’s cultural diversity. The capability of London’s businesses to communicate in many languages across cultures means that London’s creative industries can flourish on a global scale.
Over the next 10 years, ethnic minorities will account for more than half the growth in the working-age population. Nowhere is this more evident than in my home town of Bradford. Bradford has the youngest, fastest-growing population outside London. Some 22% are of British-Asian origin.
As a former textile capital of the world, Bradford has a long history of immigration and, as a result, has become enriched as one of the north’s most culturally and ethnically diverse cities. The German merchants who settled there in the 19th century were followed by Italians and eastern Europeans, then by immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, particularly Pakistan, who came to work in the mills. As the textile industry declined, the workforce moved to other sectors of the economy so that today the city has a thriving Asian business community. Engineering, printing and packaging, chemical, financial, banking and export industries, as well as high technology and the media industries, are all part of the local economy.
Culturally, it is buzzing. Its National Media Museum is the most visited museum outside London. It was the first of the two UNESCO Cities of Film. It has the world’s first Fairtrade café. It has the internationally renowned Hockney Gallery in Salt’s Mill, where I try to make an annual pilgrimage. The Bradford Mela—which, back in 1988, was the first such festival in Europe and is now the biggest of its kind outside Asia—takes place in a couple of weeks. It attracts thousands every year, who come together to share and celebrate their cultures.
Other speakers have lauded the work of ethnic chefs. Bradford is also, of course, famous for being home to some of the best curry houses in the country and was last year crowned Curry Capital of Britain.
I could continue with my ode to Bradford but I simply urge noble Lords to visit and enjoy it for themselves.
With my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port I happily acknowledge the talent, entrepreneurialism and creativity that ethnic and religious minorities give to our country. I add my congratulations to those of others on the 150th anniversary of the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe, celebrated with such passion and warmth by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria.
Lord Hussain
My Lords, I apologise for being slightly late because of transport problems and for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for securing it.
Britain owes its place in the world to the contributions of many people, of all races, colours and creeds, who have settled in the United Kingdom from various parts of the world. They have contributed to the economic growth and well-being of the nation. I work with many of them.
Owing to the limited time for today’s debate, I shall focus on the Muslim community, many of whose members migrated from the Indian subcontinent for economic reasons. Most of them were invited to work in our manufacturing industries in the 1950s and 1960s. They arrived almost empty handed. According to the Guardian of 28 January 2011, the Muslim population in the UK is now more than 2.8 million. Over the years, these communities not only carried out some of the tedious and physically demanding jobs that were hard to fill but contributed enormously in many sectors.
I will quote a few examples. According to the Muslim Council of Britain, Dr Mahmood Adil, the Deputy Regional Director of Public Health for NHS North West, has made a substantial contribution through his clinical, public health, academic and senior Civil Service roles, notably the development of the Diabetes National Service Framework and the preparation of the Department of Health’s toolkit to support good practice in international humanitarian and health work.
Professor Waqar Ahmed is deputy vice-chancellor of research and enterprise at Middlesex University. His previous academic career was at the University of Leeds as a professor and director of the Centre for Research in Primary Care, and at the Universities of Bradford and York. For three years, he was the chief social scientist in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, where he launched the ODPM/ESRC Fellowship and Studentship Scheme and the ODPM research networks.
According to the London Chambers of Commerce report of December 2001, one in 10 businesses in London is owned by people of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin. A good example of entrepreneurship is Sir Anwar Pervez, who came to Britain aged 21 and became a bus conductor in Bradford, before opening a corner shop in London in 1962. He launched the Bestway cash and carry firm in 1976. According to the Female Entrepreneur Association in September 2011, the company is now worth over £500 million, employing 5,000 people in the UK and many more abroad.
The online newspaper Muslim View wrote on 23 May 2012 that Britain has more than 10,000 Muslim millionaires, including 53 billionaires. According to the Salaam Portal website, there are 100 charities in the UK run by Muslims. The list of Muslim contributions to contemporary Britain goes on. If the time allowed, I could have given similar examples of contributions made to our society by the Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and other communities.
Finally, I ask the coalition Government, when they are assessing immigration policy, to learn from history in order to implement policies that will benefit everyone in all communities in Britain.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bilimoria for introducing this debate with great verve. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, I approached the debate from the direction of British Muslims. It is not always recognised that this community is far from monolithic—on the contrary, ethnic, cultural and even theological divisions abound. That is why it is not easy for all Muslims to speak with one voice, and why official and unofficial agencies sometimes find it difficult to approach Islamic communities.
I declare a non-financial interest as a founder-trustee of the English charity Forward Thinking. Since 2004, it has worked in a facilitating role to increase understanding and confidence between the very diverse local Muslim communities and wider society in the UK, including the media and established institutions. We seek to assist local community development without the fear that individuals and families will lose their faith identity. We therefore work in partnership with many culturally and religiously diverse Muslim groups in addressing local needs and community concerns.
The aim is to retain a strong faith identity while the partners live as full British citizens. To achieve this, we provide capacity-building support to a number of Muslim charitable or non-profit organisations, both local and national. Thanks to the trust established and our unique access, we have been able to arrange exchange visits between senior government officials and local community organisers. Our programmes are delivered mainly by British Muslims, including regular meetings for journalists and broadcasters.
More work of this kind is needed wherever there are local Muslim populations, some long-standing but others who have arrived more recently. I am confident that it will pay huge dividends in mutual understanding, crime reduction, development of employability and careers, and civic cohesion in general. Forward Thinking is a sensitive exercise in bridge-building. It welcomes dialogue about its work in England and its wider concerns, mainly located in the Middle East.
Lord Paul
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bilimoria on initiating this timely debate, and his excellent speech.
The Zoroastrian community has always been a minority community in whatever country it has existed. But by its conduct and its contribution, it has without exception been a model of good citizenship, holding its members to the highest standards of ethical behaviour. At a time when grievances are often provoked and expressed by violence, this approach has been a lesson for us all. As Mahatma Gandhi said:
“An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind”.
I now move to the larger implications of the noble Lord’s Motion: the contribution made by minority ethnic and religious communities to the United Kingdom. Too often, minorities are viewed by significant parts of the majority as takers and not givers. Of course, this is palpably wrong, as is evident from the minority involvement in every field of endeavour: from public life to commercial enterprise, from the arts to sport, from education to government services. Minority involvement is growing and is now irreversible.
I do not need to remind your Lordships that this has been somewhat slow in coming, not because minorities were reluctant or unqualified but because barriers were placed in their way. Recent times have seen these formal and informal obstructions being dismantled. We must continue these efforts and guard against any reversal and, in doing so, open up avenues of advancement to higher positions, a situation in which recent studies have shown there is considerable inadequacy.
People are not born with discrimination in their blood. They are socialised into it, as I know well. I visit London Zoo as often I can because it is partly a memorial to my infant daughter. I well recall how, 46 years ago, her last tragic months were brightened by regular visits there and by being with other children of all communities. When London Zoo was in danger of closure in the 1990s, I was delighted to step in and help. My delight today is to see how children of various ethnic communities mingle freely and enjoy companionship without any regard to racial, religious or other backgrounds. In this camaraderie, small children have many lessons for their parents.
I have been, and am, chancellor of two British universities: the University of Wolverhampton and the University of Westminster. Both have overseas branches and consequently a sizeable student body representing a number of nationalities. It must be remembered that when these overseas students return to their countries, they continue to make a great contribution as ambassadors for Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, succeeded me as chancellor of the University of West London. He will confirm that a majority of younger students is far less concerned with ethnic and religious differences than with joint activities. These are the very people who, as they grow into full adulthood, can harbour prejudices that are of much concern in this country. Responsibility for enlightenment cannot be left to the individuals alone. That is why I urge the Government to make every effort to encourage the expansion of educational curricula to include more information and analysis of minority contributions.
These are difficult days in community relations, and economic distress often makes them more difficult as retrenchment takes place that often affects minority communities first. However, whatever areas are drawn down, that should not include cuts in the minority-related programmes. Small economic gains must never be at the expense of the social fabric of the nation.
In common with the majority of Members of this House, I have over the years been pleased to serve on a number of charitable, government and non-government bodies, including the NSPCC, the Prince’s Trust, the RNIB, the Royal Albert Hall and London 2012. I chaired the Indo-British Round Table—
Lord Ouseley
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on his excellent contribution today, first in managing to secure the opportunity for us to debate this very important subject and on his very inspirational speech. He is an illustrious role model for all of us and makes an enormous contribution, as indeed do all Members who have spoken today, particularly those who have been successful within the minority-ethnic and religious communities in this country, in providing inspiration for others, as he rightly said in his introduction, to follow. I am most grateful to all that he does for us in this House as well as in the wider society here and for businesses in India.
It is important, having acknowledged all the achievements that minorities have made in this country and contribute to Britain, that we also recognise some of the pain that goes with that. Minority-ethnic communities have made a substantial contribution, as we have heard to a substantial extent already today. London is the most culturally diverse city in the world. As someone who has travelled to many other cities from time to time, I marvel at what we have and enjoy, notwithstanding the fact that many who live in this great city are suffering disadvantage and deprivation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, very excitingly told us about all the contributions that African-Caribbean people have brought to this country. It is quite important, as we listen to the history in the various contributions, to recognise the value of that particular contribution. However, there was a reference to the glass ceiling being broken. For those who have been successful, it has been; but for a lot of other people it still remains. We hear daily from many people from minority backgrounds who are highly qualified and also highly professionalised about their failure to make the breakthrough and get access to those opportunities that we know are available. In the Metropolitan Police Service, many black and ethnic minority officers came very close to getting to the top—but where are they now? That is just one simple example.
We talk about “our” country, as noble Lords have—quite rightly—today, but there are many minority-ethnic communities in this country where people do not feel they belong. We have a very important role to help people feel that they do belong. If Britishness encapsulates a variety of ethnicities, religions, cultures and heritages, then we owe it to those who feel disaffected to help them feel they belong to the notion of being British and being part of Britain, make their contribution, and go on to be who they think they are and what they want to become.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, mentioned that we need to have an open mind. We are able to do so in a place such as your Lordships’ House but we have to work harder to open the minds of many more people so that we can bring those who feel disaffected into the fold to see the value and the benefits of being part of this great society.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on this debate and his notable introduction, reminding us of the long contribution of the Zoroastrians and of the rich and diverse contribution made by a wealth of minority ethnic and religious communities to all our lives, our culture, our history and, I believe, our future. In his words, one of the strengths of those groups was to blend in with us. That is what we celebrate today.
I also, along with others, pay tribute to the work of the Zoroastrian community in the UK, particularly on interfaith issues, about which I have heard from the Member of Parliament for Harrow West, Gareth Thomas, in whose constituency they are headquartered.
Born outside the UK, and from a Welsh heritage, I have always felt a bit of an outsider to what may be called “mainstream” English culture. However, I was horrified some years ago, cleaning out a very old filing cabinet, when I found a programme for a 1960s university debate where I had seconded the motion: “Immigration threatens our way of life”. I cannot tell you how sick and ill I felt. I had a cup of tea—of chai—but nevertheless went on clearing out the mass of paper, of which I collect rather a lot. It was some hours later before I was enormously relieved when I found my speaking notes. I had completely forgotten that the teenage Hayter had extolled and rejoiced in the threat to our way of life, especially the threat to our stuffy society. I went on to praise the aromatics of the food and the break from meat and two veg, which the noble Lord, Lord Singh, and others have mentioned, the music, the different voices and the colour of swirling clothes.
I was young and apologise to one and all that it was the food, including the salt beef bagels, and fashion rather than medicine, the City or military records, that attracted me first to the richness and variety of the worlds I experienced in London: for me, at that time, the very Mecca of internationalism. I still remember the absolute joy of walking past newsagents near Bayswater Road with newspapers in languages whose alphabet I could not even then begin to recognise. It began a serious love affair with “abroad”, whether that was here or away. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, it opened my eyes. Slowly, of course, I learnt more of the religions, language, histories and culture of distant parts, and revelled in the contribution these made to our own daily life.
Neil MacGregor’s BBC series, “A History of the World in 100 Objects”, has been a stunning reminder of our intertwined heritages, although even that failed to document how our own economy and culture have adopted and absorbed titbits, or indeed sometimes great swathes, from the groups who moved here to live: the Huguenots, Jews, Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus, the lace-makers, printers, chefs, academics, medics, playwrights, jazz singers, Italian opera lovers, rappers, violinists, designers and tailors, Chinese seafarers, Vietnamese chefs, Italian cooks, Polish miners and Irish builders, writers and students, scientists and politicians, as well as synagogue, temple and mosque builders, and, of course, the Pugin family. It is in Pugin’s masterpiece that we speak today.
Many of our own religious groups are of course themselves minorities, such as the Methodists whose million pennies in 1912 built the iconic Central Hall on the other side of Parliament Square, but many of those who moved to our shores came to escape persecution or poverty. Some came as prisoners of war and stayed, some came as children, some came in groups. However, all brought with them a history, a language, a religious faith, their music or their craft, from which we have taken, learnt and benefited. Indeed, our language as much as our food today reflects the influence of immigration across the centuries.
Immigrants also help to teach us the importance of human rights. It was their suffering in other countries that spurred us to work for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have to confess that it was only today that I learnt from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, a rather longer history of human rights development. It was the poverty from which some escaped that spurred our efforts in Make Poverty History, although we should acknowledge that these immigrants’ own remittances to their own countries, where they retain their roots, far outweigh our own donations. One of the measures of a civilised society is its tolerance of those of other faiths and none. A report by Demos has demonstrated that people who belong to a religious organisation are more likely to practise philanthropy but also to value equality over individual freedom and less likely to have a negative association to living next door to immigrants.
On Tuesday, we will have a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, on how Her Majesty’s Government have recognised and supported the role and contribution of faith communities in Britain and in the Commonwealth. I give notice to the Minister that I will be asking why the Government have disbanded, without consultation, the Faith Communities Consultative Council and what is proposed to be put in its place. As my noble friend Lady Royall mentioned, the Government have spoken of the big society and the role of communities in strengthening themselves. However, I would like to hear the same urgency from this Government about the scar of youth unemployment. I feel no anger from the Government on this and no fear of what the threat posed by youth unemployment will do to growing communities, whether in Brixton or Bradford, as have been mentioned, particularly its potential to increase racism.
Finally, may I be forgiven for saying a word about the Labour Party and the role of religion and minority communities in our own history? The churches were absolutely crucial in our development. In 1906, virtually the whole of the inaugural PLP came into politics through the church. Since then, other faiths and communities have been particularly involved, such as: Poale Zion, now the Jewish Labour Movement, founded in the UK in 1906 and affiliated to the party since 1920; the Christian Socialist Movement; Muslims for Labour; Sikhs for Labour; the Labour Party Irish Society; and Labour’s latest affiliate, Chinese for Labour.
I should declare an interest as I think I am probably an honorary member or president of all of those, but the interest is non-pecuniary. It is wonderful to see their development, not just historically but currently. Despite sharing none of these faiths, or indeed any other, it might therefore be easier for me to acknowledge and cherish the amazing contribution that faith groups and minority ethnic groups have brought to our shores and which we celebrate today. Many are represented in this House and to all of them we simply say thank you.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, I am delighted to be here today to reply to this fascinating debate on behalf of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, is a noted entrepreneur and a great speaker, as we heard earlier today. He is a great businessman; Cobra Beer, which he founded, has celebrated a 5,000-mile journey from Bangalore to Burton, spanning 25 years. I am pleased to say that it is now fully brewed and distributed from the flagship Molson Coors brewery in Burton, the UK’s biggest brewery. The noble Lord is renowned for his philanthropy and I can therefore think of no fitter person to initiate this debate. He is respected as an adviser both to previous Governments here and to the Government of India.
I am also pleased to take this opportunity to congratulate the Zoroastrian or Parsee community on celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe. It is a community just a few thousand strong but one that punches well above its weight. It is a community noted as much for its musicians such as Zubin Mehta and Freddie Mercury as for running businesses—not least Tata Motors, which has been referred to and whose Jaguar Land Rover enterprise employs over 19,000 people in this country. The Zoroastrian community has surely set an example for us all.
As we have heard from a number of noble Lords today, Britain’s black and minority ethnic communities make a huge contribution to our economic, social and political life. You need only look at the bustling high streets, pick up a newspaper or switch on the television to see how much richer our society is because of these minority communities. My noble friend Lord Sheikh referred to their influence on food and the culinary delights of this country are now so immense, as I remind myself every time I hit the treadmill. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, reminded us that we owe even the very British fish and chips to the eastern European Jewish community, although my noble friend Lord Gold corrected him, suggesting that it is possibly the Spanish or Portuguese. Whoever it was, I am glad they did.
The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, spoke about the economic contribution that Britain’s black and minority ethnic communities make. There are hundreds and thousands of ethnic minority-led small and medium-sized enterprises in the United Kingdom, contributing an estimated £25 billion to the UK economy per year. The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in BME communities and is needed in these difficult times more than ever.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred specifically to immigration and students. I can say categorically that there is no limit or cap on tier 4 student visas. This country will always remain open for genuine students who are coming here to study a genuine course at a genuine university. However, I am sure that many in this House would agree that if this country is open and welcoming for students coming to it to study, it should not follow that it must be an automatic right that they can remain here for ever. He also raised the catering industry, specifically in the Bangladeshi community. The Government are taking necessary steps to train British people to fill the gap in the Asian restaurant business as part of the wider skills for sustainable growth strategy. While I accept the huge contribution made by chefs who have come in from overseas, I am sure that your Lordships will acknowledge that sometimes it is in the very communities where these businesses come from that we see the worst rates of unemployment. Surely we must target the youth in those communities to be trained to do the very jobs for which we think that we can bring in only people from overseas. As my noble friend Lord Wei said, we must strike the right balance.
We have a huge economic advantage. We have a diaspora community that links us with many growing economies: the powerhouses in India, China, Pakistan and Africa. My noble friend Lord Hussain was quite right to highlight the contribution and achievements of many in this diaspora community, some of them from the Muslim community, who came to these shores with very little and have made such great contributions.
Many of your Lordships spoke about the political contribution that Britain’s black and minority ethnic communities make. A record-breaking 27 individuals of African, Asian or Caribbean heritage were elected to the other place during the last general election in 2010. Sixteen of them were Labour and 11 were Conservatives. I am pleased that 10 of the 27 were women. However, we must do more and I must congratulate the party opposite on having achieved many of the milestones in relation to black and minority-ethnic parliamentarians many years ago. I am glad that the Conservative Party followed in 2010 by having its first Asian elected in Priti Patel and its first black woman elected in Helen Grant. This is indeed the greatest number and percentage increase ever seen in British politics, but I think we would all acknowledge that we must do more.
Greater black and minority-ethnic representation and greater involvement from all communities in the political process will only enhance our democracy. We are all aware of the positive contribution that black and minority-ethnic Peers, many of whom we heard from today, make to the work of this House. We are reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, about the Zoroastrian community’s fine history in the Houses of Parliament in his references to Dadabhai Naoroji and Shapurji Saklatvala who were elected many years ago. Political parties indeed have a role in engaging with various communities. I know of the work that my noble friend Lord Wei is doing in relation to the Chinese community. I also know of the work done by the Labour Party. We saw in Bradford West that we must never take for granted the votes of these minority communities. They can turn quickly and we realise that by not listening and engaging extensively with them electoral losses can come about.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, spoke about the vital role that Britain’s black and minority-ethnic communities make in our public services and have made in the past, especially in the Armed Forces. The research and work of Jahan Mahmood, to whom he refers, is truly fascinating. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, referred to the work of the Asian community in medicine, specifically to his contribution and that of his family and members of the Asian community to the National Health Service. Over a number of recent years, there has been less reliance on securing staff who have been trained overseas. The reformed education and training system is designed further to improve planning and to track progress and ensure that there are enough trainees in the National Health Service to create a workforce that meets the changing needs of patients.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, spoke about the cultural contribution that Britain’s black and minority-ethnic communities make, specifically that of the Caribbean community, in referring to the culture of carnival. In the arts, there are so many talented individuals that one could mention contributing to our rich cultural life: visual artists such as Chris Ofili, writers such as Monica Ali and Zadie Smith, musicians such as Tinie Tempah, Dizzee Rascal and still one of our biggest musical exports Sade. The noble Baroness herself played an enormous role in my life. Her presence on that iconic children’s programme, “Playschool”, formed the aspirations of many a non-white child. In fashion and clothes we can see further contributions. I was asked by one of my colleagues whether my outfit this morning was a nod to the debate that I was to going to close on behalf of the Government. I said that it was simply hot and too stuffy to wear a suit.
The noble Lord, Lord Paul, spoke of the contribution of black and minority-ethnic communities to sport. In football we have 66 black players who have represented England over the years. A little, unknown story behind that of the black footballer Fabrice Muamba, whom we saw collapse on the pitch, is that the doctor who came to his aid is Shabaaz Mughal, a British Pakistani. In cricket, we have Monty Panesar and Sajid Mahmood. In many ways, with cricketers like these maybe there is no further need for the famous cricket test. In rugby league and rugby union, we have black and minority-ethnic communities providing some of the best and most recognisable personalities, such as Martin Offiah, Jason Robinson, Jeremy Guscott and Ikram Butt. In boxing we all recognise Amir Khan and Lennox Lewis and in motor racing our very own Lewis Hamilton.
Diversity was a key reason why London, one of the most multicultural cities in the world, was chosen to host the Olympic Games. The London Organising Committee is making diversity and inclusion the key aspect of our Games, celebrating the many differences among the cultures and communities of the United Kingdom. That is not just about our athletes. It is about the suppliers, the competitors, the officials and the spectators—in fact, everyone connected with the Games, from the security guards to the bus drivers. With just 64 days to the Olympics, I would like to take this opportunity, and I am sure noble Lords will too, to congratulate a member of this House who has been a huge driving force behind this event, the noble Lord, Lord Coe.
My noble friend Lord Popat spoke about the charitable contribution that Britain’s BME and faith communities make, specifically the Hindu community. I also congratulate the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, and of Forward Thinking, who do much to create better understanding between communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, spoke about the Government needing to do more in relation to social action in the voluntary sector. The Government are doing all that they can to open up more public services being delivered by the voluntary sector, not because the Government are shrinking from their responsibility but because the voluntary sector is invariably better at delivering them.
In relation to charities and faith organisations, I have rarely come across a church, mosque, temple, synagogue, gurdwara or any other place of worship that has looked holy within that did not want to take care of its neighbours, no matter if they had a different faith or indeed none. Some 31,000 religious charities are now registered in England and Wales, as well as many that draw their inspiration from faith. Six hundred and sixty-two new religious charities were registered between October of last year and March of this year, a quarter of all newly registered charities during this period. Religious charities have a combined annual income of over £7.5 billion and spend over £7 billion each year. Many of the best known charities have faith origins and are linked to particular denominations, including Christian Aid, Muslim Aid, Islamic Relief and Jewish Care. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, was right to refer to the contribution of the Jewish community in charitable work. The Children’s Society, Save the World, World Vision and Tear Point and many charities which are now secular had faith origins, such as Oxfam.
This Government are on their side. As I said at the Anglican Bishops’ Conference, that is why as a Government we do God. I assure the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Derby that I will do all I can to continue to support initiatives such as Inter Faith Week and I hope that he gets some comfort from the Government’s decision to enter into a three-year funding programme for the Inter Faith Network. We are keen, however, to see different faith groups link up to pool expertise and resources so that their impact is increased.
In conclusion, there is still much to do. Opportunity is the cornerstone and it is right that as well as the positives about which we heard this morning we remain committed to and aware of the reality of some as detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley. There are still many who feel that they do not have that opportunity.
I congratulate the work of UpRising, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. They are the leaders of the next generation and they do some tremendous work. In relation to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on representation of the Zoroastrian community at the Cenotaph, I will ensure that I raise this with the Secretary of State. If he so wishes, I will also facilitate a meeting between him and officials at the department to take that forward. I agree wholeheartedly with some of the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, but I do not believe that British values and integration is a one-way street. British values are made of the values of everybody who is on these shores. When he visited a Muslim family with whom he spent time in Birmingham, the Prime Minister said that the value of looking after your elders, which he saw so starkly and strongly within the Muslim community, is a British value that we can all sign up to.
What are the opportunities in relation to entrenched inequalities? I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that most fundamentally it boils down to opportunity and opportunity through schooling. The Government’s programme of reform and investment in schools, in relation to academies and free schools, many of which have been opened in the most deprived communities, will be that first opportunity for those children to have a better life.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to work on tackling discrimination. He has a long and commendable history in this work. I congratulate him on continuing on it. He asks, “What is all the fuss about multiculturalism?”, a question that I find interesting. It sounds like the title of a very good paper which I am sure that the noble Lord could write.
We have been here before. We were reminded of this by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and I support his comments on keeping the public space open for religious opportunity. We are not like the French. I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. Politicians are not great historians. Every time I read British Catholic history, I see lessons that we can learn for challenges which are personal to me as a British Muslim.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the recent case of children in care, specifically girls in care. I will take his comments back and ensure that the Minister responsible for this, who I know is looking into this case, makes contact. The noble Earl may be aware of the comments I made last week in relation to that case.
Discrimination wherever it occurs and whoever instigates it must be spoken out against. Vulnerability can come in many forms. It is not just about the colour of a person’s skin. We must also celebrate. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, was right to refer to celebrating each other’s cultures by carrying each other’s flags. I would go further and say that it is about speaking out for each other. It is when I, a Muslim, can speak out against anti-Semitism and my Jewish friend can speak out against Islamophobia that we are making true progress.
I was pleased to see my right honourable friend the Communities Secretary celebrate alongside the Ahmadiyya community on the recent charity walk. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, on all the work he does in relation to that community.
There is a tapestry in what we have seen this morning and in what we have seen in this debate. It is a tapestry that influences each and every aspect of our lives. I know that when I wake up in the morning and listen to the tones of the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon, on “Thought for the Day” it sets me up for the rest of the day. I acknowledge that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, said, we can all continue to learn. I know that in this job, I have the privilege of doing that every single day.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that excellent summing up and for her positive response to a superb wide-ranging debate. We heard Peers from a range of minority religions and communities speaking from experience. I have been genuinely inspired and touched by what has been said and by noble Lords’ kind words about the Zoroastrian community. I have been considering forming an all-party parliamentary group on Zoroastrians, and this debate has convinced me that I have got to get on with it in this 150th anniversary year.
I thank noble Lords very much. The debate has shown that Britain is a Great Britain thanks to the contribution of minority ethnic and religious communities. As I said in my opening remarks, I hope that this debate sends out a message of recognition, encouragement and gratitude to the minority religious and ethnic communities for the amazing contributions that they have brought the past, bring today and will always continue to bring to Britain in the many years to come.
Motion agreed.
Food Security Policy
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
That this House takes note of the Government’s policies on food security.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I declare an interest in my family vineyard and farm, Vignobles Temperley, and family cider business. I was absolutely delighted to win this topic in the balloted debate, but I am even happier to see such an array of experts who will contribute. Noble Lords know that even in the UK and Europe we cannot afford to be complacent about food security. We are the lucky post-war generation who, by and large, have not seen shortages. We have only recently begun to understand the importance of the concept of global food security rather than seeing it as an issue only when there is a regional famine or shortage far from these shores.
One of the problems has been that political attention has not really focused on food production or nutritious consumption for a long time. We did not even get government time to debate the Chief Scientific Adviser’s immensely important report The Future of Food and Farming but, just like buses, you wait for ever and then they all come at once. The G8 had food security high on its agenda last weekend. This week, the Environmental Audit Committee in the Commons published its excellent report Sustainable Food and in this House this subject for debate wins the ballot. At least we are focusing attention.
In March this year, the UN high-level task force on food security made the point that there is no one set of policies to tackle food security that is globally applicable, but it identified some key pointers and the crucial importance of sustained political commitment. Historically in the UK, political attention has focused on food production when there has been a crisis or a scare such as salmonella in eggs or a disease such as foot and mouth or BSE. For a moment, food and food issues are a political hot topic, and then attention wanders away again to the more seductive stage of foreign affairs or the Olympics, but circuses would lose their charm without bread. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is going to speak this afternoon because his commission did a lot to bring this to national attention.
In nations where many people live a precarious existence, a food price increase or a shortage can cause the sort of riots that we saw in dozens of countries in 2008 and that were repeated to some extent during last year’s price spike. Even in rich and middle-income nations, we must assume that things are not always going to be as comfortable and easy as they have been over past decades. The expertise in today’s list of speakers allows me not to attempt to address why and how climate change, water shortages, storage problems and animal diseases are undermining food security.
The only international issue I will touch on is the relatively new phenomenon of some richer nations and multinationals buying up vast tracts of land, especially in Africa: so-called recolonisation or land grabbing. At its worst, land grabbing dispossesses whole villages from their subsidence existence against their will. There is an illusion that big international deals bring investment and new technology to a region, benefiting local people, but in fact that ideal is rarely achieved. More often, local communities are dispossessed of their lands and return, if at all, only as minimally paid workers and profits are exported. Fred Pearce in his recent book, The Land Grabbers, gives many examples from different continents of the huge downsides to the practice. I am sure many of your Lordships have seen examples on your travels. I certainly have, notably in Ethiopia. The UN has just adopted historic land grab guidelines for rich countries buying land in developing nations. Guidelines are better than nothing, but there is something immoral about dispossessing the already very poor to feed the well off better or to provide biofuel for their motorcars. I hope the UK Government will support this UN initiative and ensure that UK-listed companies do not ignore the UN guidelines.
I am going limit the rest my contribution to Britain. This week, the NFU launched the campaign “Farming Delivers for Britain” which demonstrates that our agriculture is a bright spot among the austerity gloom. That is good news indeed, but how well are we caring for the basics that enable that agriculture and make us so well placed to feed ourselves and to maintain healthy exports not just of food but also of knowledge? Knowledge and expertise are probably our most useful contribution to global food security.
I am going to focus on just a few of the essential ingredients of a healthy UK production and consumption food policy and on perhaps the most fundamental thing of all, which is soil. A properly managed soil can do so many different things. It stores carbon, retains water, maintains a vibrant ecosystem, reduces pollutant run-off and cuts greenhouse gas emissions, and also produces healthy, nutritious crops. However, I am sure that your Lordships have often seen water flooding off the fields during heavy rain, washing down the drains into streams and filling rivers. It is even more terrifying when you fly, look down at rivers and see that they are dark brown after heavy rains. That is the soil washing into the oceans. We have not looked after our soils. They are literally disappearing through erosion, including wind erosion. The erosion rate is about five times faster than the formation rate. We are also losing prime soils to development. We are just tarmacking them over. We cannot afford that rate of loss and, if we have not lost it, soil fertility itself has been diminished by farming practices over decades. The Food Ethics Council recently produced an excellent collection of research called Soil: A Fragile Foundation. It highlights the national lack of targets and indicators of a healthy soil. I wonder whether the Minister’s department is tackling that now.
Back in 2006, there was an EU soil thematic strategy which would have helped with some of this but the then UK Government blocked its implementation, thereby setting us back many years. Now I assume that we are supporting the EU soils framework directive wholeheartedly. Then there is the farm regulation review, which suggested a duty of care for soils. Can the Minister say whether Defra is considering that? How does practical support for farming practices—increased soil and health structure—fit into the CAP reform proposals?
Secondly, we should play to our strengths. In the UK, we have some of the best grass-growing conditions in the whole world and a wonderful range of livestock breeds, both old, traditional breeds and modern breeds. Their genetic strengths are in world-wide demand. I hope that Defra’s policy will be to support and strengthen this sector rather than to encourage the development of a livestock sector that will rely on vast quantities of imported soya or require the UK to devote considerable acreage to protein production for cattle lots and dairy production, US-style. How is Defra’s assessment of the intensive dairy proposals going? What work is Defra doing on carbon footprinting the different production methods?
On insects, they have an up side and a down side. The down side is, of course, that they can be such tremendous pests. Last year, a letter in the Times from the UK’s leading entomologists highlighted the fact that there were actually only 10 professors of entomology left in the UK. It is such a crucial area of study—the huge impact of insects on food production and storage. I ask the Minister whether that position has improved.
While I am on the subject of insects, I turn to bees. I welcome Defra’s healthy bee action plan, which is a great step forward. It addresses the health of the honey bee, but the honey bee pollinates only about 15% of our crops and wild flowers that are insect-pollinated. The other 85% are pollinated by the other 265 species of bee and pollinators, which are also suffering severe declines of about half their numbers. Can Defra produce similar plans and guidance to help to ensure that the decline of the wild bee population is halted and reversed?
Food security is all about resilience and diversity. We must value our seed heritage and our different animal breeds. I congratulate Garden Organic on its heritage seed library collection and, indeed, Kew on its work. These and other organisations are guarding and developing for future generations—and, in the case of Garden Organic, for the public to use—a large number of unusual and heirloom varieties.
The hot topic of this afternoon may well be biotechnology. I am looking forward to the contributions on that. Public confidence in GM was adversely affected right at the beginning by the Monsanto approach which tried to prevent farmers saving seed. The public came to understand that it was just about the bottom line and not the public good. That approach bred distrust and suspicion. I hope that we can move away from that first generation of GM. I do not that think GM is the answer to food security issues, but nor should we seek to halt scientific exploration and trials. There are many interesting things to explore. Among the less controversial but very interesting advances of biological sciences that are being progressed is accelerated selective breeding, which deals with same-species genetic changes rather than cross-species manipulation. I am anxious that we not be diverted by huge EU battles over GM. It has already sucked so much political capital, energy and investment, leaving fundamental deficiencies in the rest of the scientific effort. Can the Minister tell us the latest UK position on EU negotiations over GM?
We have another round of CAP reform coming up. We must use this round to make sure that it offers farmers support that is all about farming for the future as well as for today. One of the things that worries me most about the future is the lack of young entrepreneurial people choosing to go into farming and food production. On this, I miss my late noble friend Lord Livsey, who often decried in this House the contraction of our agricultural college places. I hope that that decline has halted or will be put into reverse.
There are lots of other forms of support for farmers, such as co-operatives—buying co-ops, selling co-ops, machinery co-ops—which other countries practise far more than we do. There is a great strength of advice for the struggling lone farmer from that sort of circle. I hope that Defra plans to strengthen co-operation between farmers. There have been some interesting examples in various parts of the country, including Somerset. It is work that needs more impetus.
I am sure that other speakers will highlight other examples and the very interesting report, Innovation in EU Agriculture, from Sub-Committee D of the EU Committee. I am pleased that members of that sub-committee are speaking this afternoon. The report covered developments such as precision agriculture, with precise dosages and timing of fertilisers, and better land practice. I will not have time to talk about agro-forestry or perennial crops, or low-till and no-till regimes, but all these things offer us a tremendous amount for the future. It is actually an exciting time in agriculture.
Amartya Sen said that,
“there is no such thing as an apolitical food problem”.
We have many of the tools that could enable us to solve the issue of precarious food security. We can do it, but we need to keep the political attention firmly focused on food and food security. I beg to move.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this is a time-limited debate. When the clock shows “6”, you are in your seventh minute.
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Miller on the way in which she has introduced this important debate and given us an opportunity to address this critical issue. I declare an interest as a farmer; as the chair of Living with Environmental Change, which is a partnership of government-funded research; and as a trustee of East Malling Research. I will confine my remarks to global food security issues.
As my noble friend reminded us, the agenda was helpfully set out by Sir John Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, and his colleagues in the Foresight report, The Future of Food and Farming. This report was addressed not just to government but also to the private sector and civil society. It was a comprehensive agenda for achieving global food security. Indeed, as we were reminded just now, it is part of a convoy of reports, committees and meetings which have come in something of a rush. Sir John Beddington also chaired the latest report, produced by the international Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, which had the advantage of a much greater international dimension and the participation of both developing and developed economies. However, the essential message of both reports was the same—that humanity faces very difficult trade-offs in producing sufficient food to feed the growing global population.
Our present food system is clearly unsustainable, inadequate and failing in some respects. It does not provide adequate nutrition for all. Through inappropriate subsidies and adverse financial instruments, it disadvantages producers in some regions suffering food insecurity. Agriculture contributes to a loss of biodiversity and leads to leaks into the soil, air and water, not least of greenhouse gases. Agricultural systems also often lack resilience to climate change, natural disasters and other shocks and stresses. However, although it is easy to blame agriculture for a multitude of sins, one must recognise that as soon as you start manipulating the environment, there will inevitably be leakages and a loss of biodiversity. The question is not whether agriculture is guilty of causing these, but whether there are better production systems that can reduce the adverse effects and, in some ways, ameliorate the situation and contribute to the green economy, which agriculture around the world can certainly do.
In looking at the essential components of sustainable agriculture we must, first and foremost, simply look at the economics. Unless it is profitable for a producer on any scale—whether global agriculture, a large corporate company or a small-scale farmer—and there is an adequate return on their investment, there simply will not be sustainable agriculture. It will stop. That is a fundamental law of economics.
We must recognise that now, for the first time in the history of the world, we have a population that is centred more on urban areas than in rural communities. Therefore, it follows that the rural communities must be able to support those who live in cities. This requires appropriate investment, governance—equitable land tenure is often a problem—and, above all, infrastructure in the form of roads, storage and market information. It also requires access to extension services and education. We must not ignore the fact that the ability to control human fertility—or at least for a family to control its own fertility—is clearly something that must be taken seriously and considered carefully. All this must be underpinned by appropriate agricultural research and development.
The other elements of sustainable agriculture include a move towards reducing dependence on fossil fuels; reducing the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources; a more economic use of available water, 70% of which is used in irrigation around the world; and contributing to carbon storage through increased use of biomass and reducing leakages.
The problems of food security are very different in different parts of the world. In south-east Asia, which is clearly one area where food insecurity can be a major issue, the problem is to do with urbanisation. There are already large cities, which are getting larger. Problems arise from the disease of crops, pollution and the steady increase in urbanisation. The issues in Africa, where there is perhaps greater insecurity, often arise from the lack of economic opportunity, the lack of fertiliser and massive urbanisation—starting from a much lower base, admittedly—which has increased by around 50% in the past 10 years or so. You can see dramatic changes. A question arises: how will this massively changing demography in Africa and elsewhere be supported? Who will be able to do the production? Agricultural systems that are fit for purpose will be needed. Agriculture will change, whatever the scale on which it operates.
Therefore, there are opportunities for the rest of the world, not least the United Kingdom, to participate in supporting and underpinning the agricultural sciences. That will involve the biological sciences, the use of water and furthering our understanding of nitrogen. We have been exploring that for many years but we are only beginning to understand some of the opportunities to use more efficient systems. Genomics and other new sciences are already showing benefits in animal and plant breeding, even with so-called orphan crops—those that are not so readily traded in international markets. On emerging technologies, my noble friend referred to GM but one could refer also to nanotechnology and others. It would be simply rash, to say the least, to say that none of these was appropriate. They may or may not be appropriate; there must be a proper risk assessment.
It will not be agricultural science that delivers totally. Financial services, the communications sector and a whole raft of interventions—political, economic, sociological and technological—will be involved. I gather that there will be a new version of the Foresight report soon, which I am delighted to hear. It must spell out in detail the targets and measurements of success for each of those interventions.
Lord Giddens
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for initiating this debate on a manifestly important topic. I speak as a member of the aforementioned Sub-Committee D. I know that other members are here, too; they all seem to be clustered on the other side for some reason. As the noble Baroness mentioned, food security has zoomed up the global agenda in recent years, and rightly so. A range of reports have been referred to, a number of them from the UN. There is the Royal Society report, Reaping the Benefits, and the Government’s Foresight report, which is one of the best to be produced on this issue recently.
As the reports do, I want to discuss the issue on a global level. Noble Lords will forgive my being slightly didactic by sketching the backdrop to the world as I see it today. The industrial civilisation in which we live is spreading across the world. It is the first truly global civilisation in history and is far more advanced than any other civilisation has been. It is discontinuous with previous civilisations. Looking at the history of civilisations, one observes that they tend to go down a little and then gradually up. Around 1850, civilisation starts to rise steeply. I suggest that we have essentially created a new world, with which we do not have experience of dealing by looking at history. This is one reason why it is so hard to cope with the risks that we have created. Essentially, we face what I call “new-style risks”, associated with the globalisation of industrial civilisation.
New-style risks are not like old-style risks, which can be covered by insurance companies. I can unfortunately tell you your chances of being involved in an accident every time you get into a car, because there is a long series of events on which to base them. With new-style risks, which are about present trends accelerating into the future, you cannot use that kind of risk calculation. That is one of the reasons why we tend to be in denial about those risks. We are in a civilisation in which the risks that we have created for ourselves—these are all humanly created risks—are rising steeply, but we are not in a world that is getting close to managing their consequences, or even to accepting their seriousness.
Climate change is the granddaddy of all these things. Imagine it: we are on the verge of radically and irretrievably changing the world’s climate. There is no way of getting greenhouses gases out of the atmosphere once they are there and they will be there for centuries. What are we doing? Virtually nothing. Anyone who saw the IEA report that came out today will see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing, not decreasing, and it is increasing by more every 10 years than it did in the years before.
Three of the biggest new-style risks are climate change, population growth and world urbanisation. We have no experience of any of these. In 1850 there were still fewer than a billion people in the world. It is not that long ago in historical terms. We are now almost certainly coming up to there being 9 billion people not that far into the future. This is likely to happen, and some people think that there could be as many as 11 billion. This is an extraordinary transformation in the history of the world; it is totally different from anything that we have had to deal with before.
In the case of food security, each of those three risks—climate change, population growth and urbanisation—overlap. Sir John Beddington, who was referred to earlier, spoke of a perfect storm affecting the future of world society. He said that from a 2010 baseline we would need to create 40% more food, 30% more water and 50% more energy by 2050. Failure to generate these could produce massive conflicts over diminishing resources. To me, the world is like that old joke. A guy jumps off a skyscraper—in the City of London, let us say—and, as he falls, people on every floor hear him say, “So far so good, so far so good”. That is about our approach to the risks that we face globally. We have to get on with it. We have to make far more of a dent in these risks than we have so far.
How can the UK contribute? In my view, it can contribute in four ways. First, the Government should support research, including blue-sky research, around the edges of nanotechnology, for example, and other areas that directly affect food production. We have to increase productivity of crops and their resilience in the face of climate change, as the Foresight report noted. Brazil has made amazing strides in these respects and we should learn from best practice around the world.
Secondly, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, any solution must involve biotechnology, which I take to stretch quite a long way beyond GM crops, as well as conventional breeding techniques. Sir David King, another former Government Chief Scientific Adviser, got himself into trouble when he declared that food insecurity in Africa was partly the result of anti-GM campaigns. Obviously, there is a balance of risk. The risk of not feeding the world’s population is much larger, I think, than the risks involved in biotechnology.
Thirdly, we must counter changes in diet that are going on across the world and transforming our world dietary habits. It is weird to live in a world where 1 billion people go hungry and 1 billion people are obese or radically overweight. To me, the fast food corporations do not pick up the consequences of their advertising campaigns. They have to be picked up by publicly funded health services.
Finally, and fourthly, we must get to grips with food waste. It is estimated that some 40 per cent of food in the UK is wasted, if you include supermarkets, shops and restaurants. That is absurd in a world struggling to feed itself. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on any of these points.
Lord Taverne
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow my noble friend because few Members of this House have contributed more to debates about agriculture and food, and the environment generally. Food security depends crucially on support for every kind of science and technology that increases yields, makes the best use of scarce available agricultural land, protects the environment, limits the emissions of greenhouse gases and feeds mankind without harm to health.
At Rothamsted Research, which is one of our oldest and most respected research institutes, a trial crop of genetically modified spring wheat is being tested in the field, with all these aims in mind. A group called Take The Flour Back has announced that it intends to destroy this crop next Sunday. The issues that this raises are enormously important, which is what I intend to talk about.
First, I should declare an interest. Ten years ago I founded the charity Sense About Science to promote good science and respect for evidence. Some anti-GM campaigners have denounced it as a pro-GM lobby group. It is nothing of the kind. It is a charity and not a lobby group. It has refused all financial support from the agricultural industry. In its first five years it was not concerned with genetic modification at all. While I have written and spoken about genetically modified crops, the charity has mostly concentrated on other subjects. Indeed, many of your Lordships have been closely associated with our work and have often expressed great appreciation of it.
Turning to the trial crops, the wheat has been modified by the insertion of a gene for a pheromone that repels aphids because it releases a chemical that they do not like. They do not like the smell. Furthermore, it also attracts the parasitic wasps which destroy aphids. Laboratory tests have produced good results but the trial is necessary to see if it works in the field.
Anti-GM campaigners say the crops have not been tested. They are right. That is what the trial, which the campaigners want to stop, is for. Who can justify suppressing evidence before you know what it shows? They allege that the wheat may be toxic to people and endanger our health. But the pheromone concerned is found naturally in some 400 other plants, many of which are consumed every day. For example, it is present in hops used for brewing beer. However, this is a trial and the crops are not for human consumption but to see if aphids are repelled in the field.
Campaigners are concerned about the environment—so they claim. They fear that the trials may spread the gene to other plants by cross-pollination. Wheat self-pollinates. Its pollen is heavy and is not blown far by the wind, and no cereals are grown within 20 metres of the site. But what harm could anti-aphid pheromones do that are already present in other plants? In fact, this wheat would greatly benefit the environment by reducing the need to protect it by spraying it with pesticides. At present, farmers can protect wheat only by spraying pesticides that kill the aphids.
What if the vandals succeed in destroying the crop? The environment will not benefit and the chance of developing a worthwhile crop that would reduce the use of pesticides will be lost. Publicly funded research will suffer. The cost of security for protecting trial crops from vandals is huge and only large companies can afford such trials. But this modified wheat will not be patented and will be supplied to farmers at minimum cost. The potential benefits of genetically improving crops will be held back. They are needed as one of the instruments to fight against hunger, global warming and water shortage. Outside Europe, they have been a huge success. The fastest increase in uptake of the cultivation of genetically modified crops is among small-scale farmers and more than 15 million of them in the developing world now grow GM crops. After more than 12 years of experience, no evidence of harm to the environment or to human health from genetically modified crops has been found by any top scientific academy anywhere in the world.
Finally, democracy suffers if a tiny minority can impose its view against all the evidence, prevent the acquisition of important knowledge and decide which scientific experiments may or may not be permitted. This happens in dictatorships; it should not happen in a liberal democracy.
Lord Stern of Brentford
My Lords, I join other speakers in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for raising this vital issue. In my remarks, I shall draw on my experience as a professor of economics at the London School of Economics, my work on development issues for four decades, and my experience as chief economist of the World Bank.
Let us be clear at the outset on one key practical and conceptual proposition, which is vital for the understanding of this issue and for the construction of policy. I hope that it is obvious, but it is important. People go hungry or starve because they do not have the wherewithal to acquire food. Usually, they do not have the income to buy food because of all the prices that they face. For subsistence farmers this may arise because their farming activities have failed; for agricultural workers it may be because droughts or floods are so bad that employment has collapsed; or, for workers outside agriculture, it may be because there is severe unemployment or underemployment. Thus, this issue concerns the real incomes of very poor people. It is about poverty.
Noble Lords do not have to worry much about their own food security because our incomes are sufficiently high. We make a serious analytical and policy mistake if we argue that food security is simply about food supply or fluctuations in agricultural markets, important though they both are. Thus, we should support DfID and other development institutions in their focus on raising incomes and fighting poverty wherever it is in the world. We also should support DfID in its emphasis on entrepreneurship and private sector opportunities in raising the incomes of poor people. We should encourage all development institutions to continue to devote their energies to health and education, which is key to opportunity, particularly for women. As I said in my maiden speech, the evidence is clear that women generally make better use of opportunities and allocate resources more wisely and responsibly than men.
The volatility of food price and the availability of food matter. Locally, these depend not only on how markets function but also on transport and storage infrastructure, and governance. Thus, for example, it is crucial that food can flow into areas of food shortage and that this is not prevented by trade restrictions, internal and external, as we have seen all too often. And it is no good having decent roads, even assuming you do, if these are vulnerable to highwaymen and hijacking, even occasionally by those associated with government. Thus DfID and other development institutions are right to focus on governance.
Having said that, it is clearly vital to examine food production in a world where population is likely to grow from 7 billion to 9 billion or more in the next 40 years. As my friend from the LSE, the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, emphasised, in many parts of the world, particularly the rich world, food and resources are wasted by casualness or greed. But throughout the world they are wasted as a result of bad policy, poor storage and weak infrastructure. A recent McKinsey report on the waste of these resources has documented in great detail this waste. Thus there is great scope around the world for raising the productivity of land, water and energy by better techniques and policy. How this is done should be a priority for governments and development institutions, which all too often have drifted away from rural and agricultural issues.
I give five examples. First, using degraded land in Indonesia could make a major contribution to increasing food production, reducing greenhouse gases and increasing incomes. Secondly, in Brazil there is one head of cattle per hectare. That cannot be a good use of land. The animal has to look for about 100 metres before it sees a friend; it must be pretty lonely. Thirdly, slash and burn agriculture is widespread across the world. Fourthly, water and energy in India are squandered by the unwillingness and inability to price properly, thus also restricting vital investment. Finally, agricultural research could deliver on great potential, ranging as others have remarked from low-till agriculture, to better seeds, to the use of algae for protein in animal feed, which could substitute, for example, for soya and reduce the pressure on rainforests.
I must also stress the extraordinarily destructive potential of climate change. Its effects are largely in terms of water—that means floods and inundations; storms; drought and desertification; and sea-level rises and sea surges. They all damage livelihoods, especially of poor people. We saw the effects, for example, of the floods in Pakistan in 2010, when one-fifth of the country was under water and 20 million people were directly affected. We see now the devastating effects of the continuing drought in north-east Africa. Both events are likely to have been strongly influenced by climate change. I invite noble Lords to consult chapters 3 and 4 of the report that has just been published by the International Food Policy Research Institute on the impacts of natural disasters and their links with climate change on agriculture and food security. We are seeing all this on the back of just 0.8 degrees centigrade increase in global surface temperature since the 19th century. On current policies, we may be heading for 3, 4, or 5 degrees centigrade by the end of the century above the benchmark 19th century level. At the higher levels of possible temperature, hundreds of millions, possibly billions, would have to move. That would likely result in the generation of the greatest insecurity of all—extended and severe conflict.
There is a great deal we can do across the board to reduce emissions, particularly in agriculture. For example, we can increase land and water productivity, and thereby reduce pressure on forests. And we can work to realise the great potential in second generation biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol. This means that food and biofuels become complements, not competitors and substitutes; cellulosic ethanol is made from the waste from, for example, corn or wheat after the grain has been extracted.
As I conclude, I pose two specific questions to the Government. Why has the UK failed to meet its commitments made at the 2009 G8 summit in Aquila in Italy on agriculture and food security? If I understand the numbers correctly, the UK committed $1.7 billion of the $22 billion total, with delivery estimated within three years. So far, the UK has fulfilled only around 30% of its pledge. Given the Secretary of State’s commitment to supporting the Prince of Wales initiative calling governments around the world to undertake an economic review of their national food security, what progress has been made?
Food security is largely about economic development and overcoming poverty. No doubt resources in the rich world are under great pressure at this time of economic crisis, a crisis which we have ourselves created in the rich world. But this is surely not a time for us to forget that we are rich and it is not a time to forget about our common humanity.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I offer some thoughts about food security from the perspective of international development. We have had some amazing, impressive and helpful perspectives about scientific and technological approaches, and I want to offer some thoughts from the perspective of people who suffer from the need of food and that element of the food security issue.
Noble Lords will know that the Christian faith operates through people gathering around a table to share food—people of any culture or race. That is a great picture of an international family and sharing around a common table, which most human hearts can assent to and desire. As we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stern and others, the fact is that many people do not participate or do not even feel that they are at a common table. That is the risk of the food security issue, which is why I welcome the Government’s concern—and the statement from the Prime Minister yesterday about a summit to consider those issues during the Olympics, when a lot of people will be in this country.
Christians also talk about word and sacrament—that is, you do not just talk about things, you have to do things and act them out as a sign of how things could be better. That is what people who feel excluded from the table are looking for and longing for. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, about growing population, and about climate change and industrialisation. All those things are threatening the sustainability of human life across the globe for millions of people. Therefore, we have to look at our own consumption patterns and the needs and demands of our brothers and sisters.
I am not going to push this common table analogy too far, but I shall make one last reference. St Paul, writing at a very early stage of Christians trying to gather round a common table, noticed in Corinth that some people took a whole lot of food and drink and got drunk and had a good time and quite a lot of other people did not have anything at all and were not noticed. That is a pretty sharp picture of what human behaviour is often like.
There are two ways of looking at that in our own context. One is the issue of what is called tax justice, for which I have a particular concern. In many countries where crops are grown the result and profit of that enterprise is not reinvested in the country for the well-being of the people who could be round the table in that part of the world; it is shifted out and piled up in front of other people in another part of the table so that they can live well and other people are excluded. That is happening more and more, and is a very major issue about food security. By contrast, Christian Aid, Oxfam and other agencies are trying to work in partnership with people on the ground. One billion people are either landless or small farmers; they need folks alongside them to see their needs and then to use the technology and wisdom that is around to grow things from the bottom up, in partnership with people who are excluded from the table and suffering enormously.
I ask four things of the Government. First, can they target their investment in the area of food need and security to have a special emphasis on the partnership with local people through agencies that can work through genuinely local people, discern their needs and target the technology and food changes appropriately? Secondly, what is the Government’s view on tax justice, which is excluding many and piling up the resources from agriculture in a very few places for the benefit of a very few people. Thirdly, how are the Government going to continue to monitor global institutions such as the UN and the World Bank so that their policies take account of the partnership needs of people at a micro level and not simply just act at a macro level? Fourthly, as we have heard, there is an issue about obesity in our own society, which is costing a fortune. How can the Government take a lead on our own consumption patterns, and on how we literally pile up trolleys in the supermarket and act out what St Paul warned us against—of looking after ourselves and ignoring others? That might say something about advertising and other ways in which messages are conveyed in our society.
I congratulate the Government on their concern with this area. I hope that they consider some of these questions and pay particular concern to human beings—brothers and sisters—on the ground, who need partnership and targeted and tangible signs of hope.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Miller for initiating this important and timely debate. Just a few days ago, food security was an issue discussed by the G8 leaders with those of Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana and Tanzania. It must remain our overriding objective that all people have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs. Indeed, as President Obama put it:
“You cannot have stability and security as long as regions and countries and communities are deeply food-insecure”.
I would also include adequate water supply in the essentials of stability.
The brief sent by Save the Children highlighted its work on the global crisis of malnutrition. It is a shocking fact that every hour of every day 300 children die because of malnutrition. Lack of food, particularly in Africa, is becoming ever more acute and grave. Over 18 million people across west Africa face a growing hunger crisis triggered by crop shortages, rising food prices and political insecurities.
The moral obligation to help tackle this crisis is not just for government but extends to civil society organisations and business. Through the Department for International Development, the UK Government are contributing to tackling the issue of food security. One of the department’s key approaches is working with international partners, Governments and private sector and civil society organisations to create an environment that supports farmers and agricultural development. The G8 leaders pledged to promote investments in sustainable agriculture as a strategy for taking millions of Africans out of poverty. That pledge includes securing private sector financial support. Indeed, DfID has announced that 45 leading firms, including Diageo, Unilever and Vodafone, will invest £2.5 billion in developing African agriculture and sign up to a new code of responsible investment. That investment is hugely encouraging and private businesses, with their resources and expertise, can help to advance agricultural sectors in developing countries so that they can lift themselves from poverty, hunger and malnutrition.
As the world’s population continues to grow, the issue of food security will become ever more pressing. Much of the demand will be driven by developing countries, but British farmers will have an ever more important role in meeting this demand not only at home, but abroad by increasing agricultural exports. British farmers are fundamental to domestic food supply; I should declare my farming interest. We have seen a decline in food self-sufficiency here over the last 30 years. Defra statistics show that the UK’s self-sufficiency has consistently dropped since the highs of the 1980s. In terms of the UK’s self-sufficiency in all food types, in 2009 the figure was 59%, down from a high of 78% in 1984. We have the expertise and agricultural skills to reverse that, without jeopardising the farmers’ essential role in the custodianship of the land and environment. The British farmer is responsive to the diverse set of requirements that we place on the countryside—habitat, biodiversity, recreation and tranquillity, alongside food production. We all increasingly recognise the balance that has to be struck.
To meet future demand for food, production needs to increase, but in an environmentally sensitive way so that we avoid creating even bigger problems. Agricultural science will play a vital role in raising productivity. Through better animal disease control, improved irrigation and water management practices, and better fertilisers, food yields can be increased in an environmentally sustainable way. British scientists will have much to contribute in this regard and, while we all recognise the challenging economic times in which we live, these are people in whom we must invest for the future.
We have been asked to take note,
“of the Government’s policies on food security”.
I am extremely glad that under this Government it is recognised that there is a need for policies on food security both at home and abroad. Increasing imports is no longer the answer. We are extremely fortunate to have Ministers in Defra who come to their task with direct and practical experience of agriculture. As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, the challenges for the world are immense and, by 2050, 40% more food, 30% more water and 50% more energy will be required. Those are not figures for the faint-hearted, but with resolution and ingenuity we must rise to those challenges.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for having introduced this debate so well. Her instinctive priorities are, as usual, absolutely right. I should declare an interest as a former director of Oxfam and as a trustee of Saferworld.
For many millions across Africa, world food security is a distant dream; food insecurity is the endless reality as they struggle to survive. As of today in west Africa, hunger affects more than 18 million people, with approaching 1.5 million children suffering acute malnutrition and 3 million at risk. Violence and turmoil in Libya, Nigeria, Ivory Coast and northern Mali have reduced regional employment opportunities. With its front-line experience, World Vision recently described how the migrant workers of Niger have had to return home, and now clashes in Mali have resulted in 300,000 internally displaced people. World Vision tells of 255,000 refugees arriving in the region of Tillabéri, one of the areas already worst affected by food shortages in Niger. All that has made a grave regional situation still worse; 50% of children under five suffer chronic malnutrition, leading to the death of 300,000 children from causes rooted in that.
Droughts and food shortages are not new to the region, but climate change is accelerating the rate at which they come. There used to be longer periods of separation, which enabled communities to restore their means of livelihood—their crops and livestock—and to rebuild their resilience. The immediate crisis is just two years after the 2009-10 crisis, which was only five years after the 2004-05 crisis. We are not only talking about west Africa. Half the population—4.7 million people—in South Sudan are threatened by food insecurity; in the Horn of Africa, 9 million people are food insecure; the BBC reports that 10 million are food insecure in Yemen, with all its globally dangerous political tensions, and that 5 million require emergency aid; and there are reports of increasing food insecurity across southern Africa.
The immediate, appalling suffering and disease are not anything like the whole story. There are long-term consequences for the productivity of people acutely weakened by hunger, the long-term adverse effect on mental and physical health, the impossible pressures on already minimal health services and the seriously negative impact on school attendance, with all that that inevitably means for the future.
The UK Government deserve credit for having remained committed to their overall targets and to their L’Aquila undertakings on global hunger. Their commitment to fund the Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme with £20 million in its first year was also welcome. These help to provide moral authority to push hard for a more ambitious programme on food and agriculture when the UK hosts the G8 summit next year.
At its recent Camp David meeting, the G8 focused a little on food, nutrition and agriculture. However, those discussions achieved only what Oxfam has described as,
“a shrinking solution to a growing problem”.
It is disturbing that the members of the G8 have together funded only half of the $22 billion that was promised three years ago to fund agriculture in developing countries.
There are other in effect more sinister—some would say—issues strategically affecting food security. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in its current Grow campaign Oxfam spotlights land grabs. Demand for land has soared as investors look for places to grow food for export or crops for biofuels, or simply to buy up land for profit. In too many instances, land sold as unused or undeveloped is in fact being used by poor families to grow food. The Land Matrix database includes deals that are reported as approved or under negotiation worldwide between 2000 and 2010 as amounting to 203 million hectares. This is equivalent to over eight times the size of the United Kingdom. Too often these deals trample over the rights of local people.
Back in May 2001, the Committee on World Food Security agreed voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. These represent the first international norms on tenure of land and other natural resources. They are a significant first step towards ensuring that local communities are empowered to stop land grabs and to benefit themselves from responsible investments. They are not perfect but they are a start. What specifically are the Government doing to highlight these guidelines and to encourage their application? I hope that the Minister will cover this in his reply.
Biofuels are a major driver of food price rises and volatility. As the report by the Committee on World Food Security high-level panel of experts has underlined:
“Biofuel support policies in the US and the EU have created a demand shock that is widely considered to be one of the major causes of the international food price rise of 2007/8”.
That report stresses that such policies increase vulnerability and inequity in the overall distribution of food. The European Commission is currently preparing a report to look at the increased EU demand for biofuels in supplier countries. This provides a real opportunity to ensure that the negative impacts of biofuels both on food prices and in driving land grabs in developing countries are taken into account in the EU’s renewable energy directive. I hope that Ministers are as a priority engaging with those in the EU who are preparing this report and are taking the opportunity to influence the report in the light of our own experience. I am convinced that DfID has a very constructive part to play in that process and I hope that the Government will encourage it to do that.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, I, too, thank my colleague, my noble friend Lady Miller, for initiating this debate. As another member of the aforementioned EU Sub-Committee D, I know that we are only too aware of the challenge of providing nutritious food in the face of a growing population, increasing resource constraints and the effects of climate change.
It has been estimated that food accounts for a third of Europe’s greenhouse gas impacts. Reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and methane produced from agriculture is key if we are to make food production more sustainable. To that end, I welcome the £12.6 million committed by Defra and the devolved Administrations to research the impacts of greenhouse gases in agriculture. The UK Government need to co-ordinate and work with private and public partners to ensure research and development priorities support sustainable diets, looking at how we can grow crops using less water, delivering greater nutritional benefit and reducing reliance on fertiliser and pesticides. Research priorities must support both agro-ecological farming practices as well as projects for agricultural development based on cutting-edge science. Why? Because GM technology is no silver bullet, as the Foresight report, The Future of Food and Farming, rightly concludes.
Public opinion in the UK remains sceptical of the technology and without public consent products will not be sold in supermarkets. As a representative of the retail industry put it to me recently, “The public will accept GM foods only when they are on a cliff edge with nowhere else to go”. Before any decisions about GM cultivation in the UK are made, two things must happen. First, the UK Government must have the evidence on the environmental impacts and potential for cross-contamination of other farming regimes by GM crops. Two weeks ago, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee called on the Government to set up an independent body to research, evaluate and report on the potential impacts of GM crops on the environment, farming and global food systems. The committee is right that an initial focus of such research should be on the scope for, and risks of, the co-existence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming regimes. As my noble friend Lord Taverne rightly said, this would enable us to make the science-based decisions required.
Secondly, no decisions about GMOs should be made without clear evidence of public acceptance of GM food. Food is essential to all citizens and they have the right to be part of the decision-making process. Next year marks a decade since the previous Government’s national conversation on GM food. This Government must engage now with a sceptical public in a way that ensures that they are well informed on this issue.
Consumers are central to the issue of food security in another way, too. We need to reduce global consumer demand for and consumption of resource-intensive meats and dairy and move towards a larger share of diets being plant-based. To do that, we need to empower consumers to make positive food choices. In the past decade, the Food Standards Agency created its eatwell plate to promote a healthy, balanced diet, and last year WWF produced the livewell plate, which shows the proportions of different food groups that people should consume to achieve both a sustainable and a healthy diet. Does the Minister agree that, as the right reverend Prelate suggested, this Government have a role in producing public advice and guidance on what to eat to be healthy and sustainable?
What we waste is as important as what we eat. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, rightly highlighted that 40% of food in the UK is wasted. Up to half of that food waste comes from households. Good progress has been made by retailers and local authorities, with government support, to cut that figure, but we need to reuse food that does not need to be thrown away and recycle that which is not fit for consumption. Charities such as FareShare and FoodCycle are working hard to reduce food waste and food poverty by taking surplus food and delivering it as food parcels and warm healthy meals to people in the local community. The Government should do all that they can to promote the redistribution of surplus food to charities.
There needs to be more focus on stopping food waste going to landfill. If placed in landfill, food waste releases methane, which is 21 times more powerful than CO2. In reviewing the UK’s waste policy, the Government should set a target date for their stated aim of no food waste to landfill. A deadline of 2020 would certainly focus minds. In the mean time, local authorities should be encouraged to increase the separate collection of food waste as well as increasing the resilience of their local food economies.
A number of major towns, cities and counties, including London, Sheffield, Kent and Brighton, are working hard to promote local food security. Bristol City Council, through its food plan, is pioneering in the UK a food systems planning process that supports the development of a resilient food system: safeguarding land for food; increasing urban food production and distribution; protecting key infrastructure for local food supply; supporting community food enterprise models; and safeguarding the diversity of food retail. I would like to see the Government encouraging every city to produce a food plan as a means to increase food resilience, support local food businesses and help more people get involved with food production.
In conclusion, tackling the challenge of delivering food security in the UK will require action at all levels: the Government, local authorities, industry and consumers. An important step to delivering co-ordinated action by all those players would be for the coalition Government to produce their own national food strategy. There is widespread support for such an initiative, including from producer representatives such as the NFU and major retailers. In his reply, I hope that the Minister will comment on whether the Government intend to produce such a strategy and a delivery plan that should focus on both the sustainable production and the sustainable consumption of the UK’s food.
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
My Lords, I echo many in this House who have expressed appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for introducing this debate.
We have heard how fortunate we are to live in the United Kingdom, where there is food and safe water for the majority. I say the majority, but an increasing number of food banks are operating in the United Kingdom, often through the churches and faith communities, ably supported by the Trussell Trust. The poorest in our society are subject to food insecurity, and this should not be forgotten in the broad range of other issues that we are discussing.
I am fortunate to live in a part of the country, Suffolk, that is a proud food producer that is conscious of its own brands and makes the most of that. However, it is not a complacent part of the country. Early on in my time there, I met a group of Christian farmers and others who were acutely aware of the issues of availability of grain stocks throughout the world. We met during a severe shortage, and there were only days left before the stocks ran out. Those people were aware of their place in the food chain throughout the world.
New Anglia local enterprise partnership has green pathfinder status from the Government and is spearheading ideas about sustainability. The east of England is well placed to strengthen a local approach to sustainability and to see whether market towns might be re-established as centres for local trade in food. There is a question about how local sustainability can be achieved in a proper balance with the large retailers. We heard in debates earlier this week how the supermarkets have delivered huge benefits and provide a great variety of food at low cost. However, as fuel costs rise and questions about the sustainability of imports come to us, a more local and complementary approach is surely essential.
However, considering the size of the agri-food sector, we cannot go into a rural idyll thinking that we can all go back to our roots. It is the UK’s largest manufacturing centre and a major source of employment to around 3 million people. Half a million are employed in primary production on land and sea. It is a significant sector.
Sustainable agriculture, as we have heard, will depend on first-class scientific research. Supporting that and overcoming its negative image will be vital. This is where education comes in. The land available is finite. We are also concerned to retain our biodiversity and all the habitats for wildlife. Those issues are all too easily lost in giving over land to biofuel production and other sources. Achieving these aims requires investment in people. We have already heard anxieties about young people going into agriculture—and that is certainly right. I gather that the average age of a farmer in this country is 58. Where are the accessible routes for young people to enter agriculture?
However, there is one sector of food production that we have not yet touched on. In February this year, I was privileged to attend a consultation at St George’s House, Windsor, relating to the fishing industry in this country. St George’s House, like many other church-based institutions, is able to convene groups. The whole subject was confronted by scientists, producers, retailers, community health experts and politicians. The complexity of sustainable fishing could not have been clearer, as were the real possibilities of what might be done. The fishing industry is highly regulated. It is a small sector but has a huge number of regulations that rival even anything that faces our farmers. The industry has radically changed over the years. Incidentally, while the supermarkets have been coming in for hard questioning in recent debates, the representatives of major retailers at this conference showed a clear and advanced understanding of sustainability, and had clear policies on where they sourced their fish and what they were prepared to buy. I commend to noble Lords the report of that conference.
The social and cultural aspects of food production, and indeed consumption, are vital, as noble Lords have said. It is a tough question, but one that we should ask. How can our expectation of continuing to eat the diet that we enjoy be modified? We have heard one idea about moving away from meat and dairy to more plant-based consumption, but how do we face up to the issues of overconsumption and obesity? We have heard much about that and I have a load of horrific figures, but there is no point repeating them. It is all very obvious. There is also the issue of food waste. My figures suggest that up to 5.3 million tonnes of available food is wasted each year, at a cost of £12 billion or £480 for an average household.
This is why education is so important. The things that help children and young people to understand more about the country are much to be commended. The Suffolk Agricultural Association buses in thousands of primary school children each year to look at the processes of agriculture just before the Suffolk Show every year, and pays for the transport so that schools are not faced with those costs. That sort of education will be vital for the future, and I hope that many other related initiatives will find increasing government support.
I echo what has been said. There is a complex task ahead of us, but if we are to ensure that all have access to good quality, affordable and nutritious food—worldwide and at home—sustainability has to be a top priority for government.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for introducing this debate. We could do with far more than two and a half hours to discuss such a major difficulty that faces us.
The Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change produced in March this year another report, Achieving Food Security in the Face of Climate Change. It is an excellent report, but my initial thought was that mankind has faced climate change since mankind appeared on the scene. There have been at least 75 major temperature swings in the past 4,500 years. Indeed, the Norse empire was brought to an end when the west coast of Greenland became uninhabitable at the start of the mini ice age in the early 1300s.
However, one finds on page 6 of the report a sentence that sums up the problems that we face:
“Agriculture is at the nexus of three of the greatest challenges of the 21st century—achieving food security, adapting to climate change, and mitigating climate change while critical resources such as water, energy and land become increasingly scarce”.
That is a very good summary of the problem that we face and we have to set it against population growth in the world. For the first time, 50% of the world’s population lives in urban surroundings. As my noble friend Lord Gardiner and the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, we will need 30% more water, 50% more energy and 40% more food by the middle of this century, and we are getting towards the halfway mark for that. There are 7 billion people in the world and one has to remember that 20% of them—about 1.5 billion—are dependent on land that is currently degrading. Therefore, even if there were no increase in the population, the problems would already be getting more acute.
Water has also been mentioned and there are undoubtedly going to be considerable problems there. The population on the banks of the Nile is expected to double to 300 million by 2025. Looking further afield into Asia, there is the potential for water wars. If one thinks that China is going to build eight dams in the foreseeable future, taking water away from Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, one can see that the existing problems are going to be exacerbated by another country’s actions. How fortunate we are that we live on a funny little island off the north-west coast of Europe and that the only rivers we share are between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and a couple of rivers between Scotland and England. We do not have a problem compared with the rest of the world.
We have talked a little bit about waste and diet but what has not been mentioned is that food for the poorest 10% of households in the UK accounts for 15% of their budget, whereas for the richest 10% it is only 7%. Therefore, any hike in food prices will increasingly hit the poor.
It is terribly easy to set out the problems. Every noble Lord has done that and they are all experts on this, whereas I am not. However, it is much harder to set out the solutions. One can find some solutions in the report of EU Sub-Committee D. I am the third member of that sub-committee to speak today and there are two quotations that I should like to read out. The first is in Chapter 1—the introduction—and is from Mr Paolo de Castro, MEP, chairman of the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament:
“In my mind, agriculture is at the centre of an Innovation Union and the new global challenge”.
A further quotation comes from the beginning of Chapter 6:
“We in Europe are sitting here saying, ‘Agriculture is the old economy’, in what I call an innovation-hostile environment”.
That was said by the head of cabinet of DG Agriculture. That, I think, highlights the problem that we face. Any solutions that we put forward are going to be hampered by the institutional framework in which we work and also by politicians—that is, politicians with a small “p”.
A recent report that we have just published concerns water—the problem of fresh water in Europe and the difficulties that that is going to pose for us. One of our recommendations is that in certain circumstances water prices will have to rise. Again, for the poorest in the country that will come as a nasty shock. Which politician standing for election wants to go around saying that food and water prices will have to rise? There is a small political negative in all that. It is also very difficult for politicians to tell the rich that in future they will have to eat less, particularly less meat, when, as one gets increasingly affluent—and there are more and more affluent people throughout the world—the one thing one wants to do is to eat meat and more of it.
Going back to the institutional framework in which we work, I again draw your Lordships’ attention to our report on innovation. With diseases such as bluetongue and the latest Ug99, rust in wheat, we have to have new technologies and innovation. At the moment, that is all tied up with the words “genetically modified foods”, but that is a very blunt term—rather like using the drought to cover every water shortage. We have to use biotechnology, just as we use nuclear as part of the energy solution. However, at the moment, the EU is preventing that innovation. Its reaction to innovation in the GM world is rather like a wet hen behaving badly in a thunder storm. We have to do more and I hope that my noble friend and the Government will pursue this matter in Europe because, without innovation and support for the research at Rothamsted that my noble friend has just mentioned, we will go backwards, not forwards.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Miller for introducing this timely debate. I declare myself the fourth member of Sub-Committee D to be speaking in this debate.
I spent the first half of April in Egypt. While wondering about the degree to which methods of cultivation seemed to have changed very little over the past few millennia—donkeys still seem to be the main means of transport—I nevertheless found fascinating the narrow bands on each side of the floodplain of the Nile that had been the centre of civilisation three or four millennia ago. When we returned to the UK, there was an interesting programme on BBC Four, which I happened to see, about the sudden collapse of the first kingdom in about 2000 BC. What had been a relatively high level of civilisation suddenly disintegrated. Archaeologists are increasingly of the view that the reason was a major famine caused by the failure of the rains in the upper Nile valleys in what are now Uganda and Southern Sudan, which feed the Nile. Luxor, where we were, had not received any rain for 46 years, but the Nile had traditionally provided the fertility of the Nile valley.
When the Nile failed, the fertility of the valley failed. Hieroglyphs of that period, around 2000 BC, indicated that it was a very serious famine. They were stories about people having to resort to eating their own babies and years of famine—the sort of famines there are now in west Africa and the Horn of Africa, which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke about. This lasted for something like 20 or 30 years—the sort of thing that the Murray-Darling valley in Australia has seen. In those days, of course, there were no global programmes to help. Today, we exist in a global world, but the issue of food security hit home, as did the degree to which crises of this sort destabilise political systems. There are lessons that we can learn today.
The Foresight programme and report, The Future of Food and Farming, put together the four issues that John Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, talks about as his perfect storm: population growth, climate change, the exhaustion of easily accessible fossil fuel energy, and increasing competition for water resources. Above all is the issue of population growth—from 7 billion today to an expected 9 billion, or even more, in 2050.
The key question for food security is: will we be able to feed all these people? In the 20th century, when arguably we faced an equally fast growth in population, we were able to do so by pulling more land into cultivation by the very profligate use of fossil fuel fertilisers—fossil fuels in the form of fertiliser—which underpinned the green revolution, and by building huge dams such as the Aswan and Three Gorges dams to provide for irrigation.
However, none of this is possible any longer. We need our forests and wilderness areas to absorb our carbon dioxide emissions. We are running out of easily accessible fossil fuel energy. Water resources are becoming increasingly scarce and expensive to manage and climate change is causing total unpredictability in rainfall, periods of drought, and so forth.
Nevertheless, I suppose I am slightly surprised at how optimistic in some senses the Foresight exercise was. There were three main messages in the priority themes that it picked out. First, it is vital to spread best practice. Knowledge transfer and exchange are the key to this. One of the problems that we face—this has come out in what many noble Lords have said—is that we have the knowledge today but people are not using it. It is therefore vital that we develop forms of farm advice and advice systems that spread the knowledge that we have. It is not necessarily a question of developing GM, although that may play a part. We must disseminate best practice.
Secondly, we need to invest much more in research and development. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned the study on innovation that we in Sub-Committee D made. Out of that came the fact that the EU spends €400 billion on the CAP and only €2 billion on research. This will rise to about €4 billion, but it will still be a miserable 1% of the total. The European Union target is to spend 3% of GDP on research, which would equate to something like €12 billion. The UK’s research effort is, in relative terms, lower than that of Germany or France. We have superb, leading-edge research institutions, but again we fall down very badly on dissemination.
The final issue, to which my noble friend Lady Parminter referred, is reducing waste. It is appalling that more than 30% of the food produced in the world is wasted. The noble Lord, Lord Stern, spoke about the methods by which that waste could be easily prevented. So much could be used to feed those who are undernourished.
There are questions that we need to put to the Minister. Are we doing enough to promote research and development? Are we doing enough to disseminate knowledge and develop farm advisory systems? Are we doing enough both at home and in international circles to make sure that things are done? There is a great danger of feeling satisfied by coming to agreements in talking shops; the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Stern, instanced the promises made in the G8 summit that were not met. What we are desperately looking for, both in this area and that of climate change, is leadership—not only from our Government but in the wider world—to try to get things done, as distinct from just talking about them.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
My Lords, like other noble Lords I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for securing this extremely important debate. As many noble Lords said, the issue should be extremely high on both the domestic and international agendas.
While there is a high level of food security in the UK, there is also, as other noble Lords mentioned, a very high level of food waste. I will concentrate my remarks on that area. Shockingly, some 30% to 50% of all food produced is never consumed. In the developing world this is for a variety of reasons, which boil down to inadequate infrastructure or adverse weather conditions. In the developed world the problem is far more behavioural. People buy too much, are resistant to buying wonky fruit and vegetables and demand new and exciting food every night, with leftovers not being used. Food that is safe to eat—a total of 7 million tonnes a year—is chucked in the bin, largely because people are scared by stringent food labelling and cautious about sell-by and best-before dates.
Until a couple of decades ago, the old adage, “Waste not, want not”, was well understood, but today it no longer rings true. It is absolutely wrong that wonky and ugly fruit and veg, and offcuts of meat that we have forgotten how to cook, are thrown away. I recently came across Rubies in the Rubble, an admirable social enterprise based in Covent Garden market, which makes jams and chutneys out of surplus produce that would otherwise be sent to anaerobic digestion. Organisations such as this should be nurtured, encouraged and supported to ensure that productivity is born out of what would otherwise be wasted.
Earlier this month I participated—along with a number of other noble Lords including the Lord Speaker, who bravely took part during the week of State Opening—in the Live Below the Line challenge, living on £1 a day for five days for all our food and drink to draw attention to the 1.4 billion people who live on the equivalent of £1 a day every day of their lives for much more than their food and drink. Although we all found the challenge difficult, in this country we have such an abundance of choice that if I could not find a cheap tin of baked beans in one supermarket, I was bound to in the next. Incidentally, I was struck by the fact that cost of a tin of value baked beans had increased from 25p last year to 29p this year. We in this country have become accustomed to this huge choice, even when living on a tight budget, but is it really sustainable in the long term?
I should like to take this opportunity to draw attention to a couple of examples of innovative campaigns, all in their different ways making a real difference. Incredible Edible is a scheme that started in Todmorden in Yorkshire and has now spread to 23 towns and villages across the UK. From their beginnings with herb gardens, local people now plant and grow vegetables and fruit all around their town. They use land outside the fire station, the railway station, the health centre—where they replaced thousands of pounds worth of shrubs with apple and pear trees—turning all available local space into vegetable patches and herb plots for anyone in the town to come along, pick and take home their produce, promoting healthy living and a real sense of community, as well as the start of genuine local food security.
I commend the Mayor of London’s Capital Growth campaign, which aims to support 2,012 new growing spaces in London by the end of 2012. Currently at 1,719, it is an eminently achievable target. Jamie Oliver’s Kitchen Garden campaign and the Government’s task force, led by Garden Organic, are promoting vegetable patches in every school in order to further educate future generations and address the issue of food security, and at the same time are helping to reduce the growing epidemic of obesity in this country, which, as was referred to earlier, is another huge problem waiting for us down the track.
An appropriate infrastructure must be created to connect up demand and supply. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, FoodCycle, with its community cafés, and FareShare, which distributes surplus food to local charities and organisations—they are both known to the Minister—are tackling these issues at different levels of the supply chain, making sure that food that is still good gets to those who are at risk of food insecurity. For each of these different models, all tackling waste and food insecurity in different ways, there are many other local initiatives and examples. I ask the Minister please to do what he can to make it easy for such organisations to innovate and flourish.
I end by reading a short e-mail I received from a friend who sponsored me on my Live Below the Line challenge, which sums up in a very human way the challenge facing us all. It states:
“starting last Sunday I voluntarily decided I would see if a human could live off porridge for breakfast and dinner and 2 eggs for lunch, a glass of milk and a bunch of grapes a day (and as much water as wanted). This was sparked by something that occurred to me on a run—‘how much of the food we eat do we actually need or do we just believe we need it’. The surprising thing for me was that, even still running 15 miles a week, I did not feel hungry and actually felt quite energetic. It is hard seeing so much very appealing food around and ignoring it but my body seems to have coped well on what seem very meagre rations. Importantly here though, in preparation, I did strongly empower my beliefs with the notion that this limited amount of food was adequate which I think is an important part of why it felt OK. I guess the point here is that I wanted to reinforce, in myself, my belief that there is absolutely plenty of food and water to feed the whole planet. It just feels that it is distributed in an inefficient manner. Clearly yours and my little experience prove that we in wealthy countries probably consume, in general terms, far more food than we need … the challenge though is how to best share the food around the whole world population”.
This seems to be the nub of the question we are debating today, and it is one that our generation cannot afford to duck.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
My Lords, I, too, very much welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has tabled this item for debate today. I appreciate her commitment to the cause.
I declare an interest. I farm in the north-east of England and chair the Centre of Excellence for UK Farming, which seeks to bring together scientific research knowledge and to find better ways of applying that knowledge in practice. I am a trustee of the Lawes Trust, which owns Rothampsted Research, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has mentioned, is the subject of demonstration this weekend.
The importance of this subject cannot be underestimated, as has been said by a number of speakers today. The global challenges are well understood. Some of us had the privilege of hearing Sir John Beddington last evening at a seminar ably chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I shall not repeat the analysis of the challenges we face of climate change, population growth, changing lifestyles, urbanisation and so on. It has been well rehearsed this afternoon. We in Britain are part of this global challenge—we are likely to have 70 million people here—and have a role in supporting the global population, as we have heard. We need to find solutions and demonstrate leadership.
Picking up on the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, our investment in science, technology, innovation and skills is critical. I know that my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, is personally very committed to this agenda; he and I discuss it regularly. I also applaud the Government’s decision to maintain the current level of spend on scientific research against a background of significant cuts in public expenditure elsewhere. However, I seriously question whether the current level of spend is enough, in view of the scale of the challenges we face. The previous Administration slashed expenditure on research and development, as did the Administration before that, believing that we had barns full of surplus food across Europe throughout the 1980s and 1990s and we could afford to cut back.
Unlike most other areas of public expenditure, budgetary cuts in public expenditure on R&D in agricultural and food research have been taking place over 20 years. As a consequence, we have seriously reduced our capacity, institutions have closed, departments have shut down, and a contraction in capacity is a real concern in terms of both facilities and scientific knowledge in certain disciplines. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned soil as an example.
I will give noble Lords another example. During this time, spend on horticultural research has fallen by about 40%, with the two remaining institutions struggling to survive. Production of fruit and vegetables overall has continued to decline—at a time when we are being encouraged to eat five portions a day. We are currently consuming fewer than three, so we need a 40% increase to achieve a healthy diet. Where would that come from if we could achieve that increase in consumption?
We all accept that economic growth has to be the current priority for the Government, but we need to encourage the production of local and regional food and recognise that economic growth in the countryside can contribute to the national economy and help drive us out of recession. Investing in science will help sustain economic growth, drive exports and ensure that we have the capacity to feed a growing global population. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, also referred to the current CAP reform proposals. As currently designed, these seem to suggest that Europe can adopt policies that completely ignore these global pressures. That is not acceptable.
We need sustainable solutions that help us to increase food production, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our dependence on chemical inputs, and protect and enhance our ecosystems and habitats, all in the face of a reduction in available land and water and increased weather volatility as a result of climate change. We cannot achieve that with our current resources and a fragmented approach to the challenge.
I will quote two responses to the Foresight report, The Future of Food and Farming. The report says that Defra will:
“Champion a more integrated approach by governments and international institutions to global food security that makes the links with climate change, poverty, biodiversity, energy and other policies”.
It says that DfID will:
“Develop a joined up approach to addressing nutrition which includes health and agriculture inputs and which is based on strengthened evidence”.
These are really important responses. Addressing climate change, increasing food production and encouraging healthier lifestyles and diets are all long-term challenges and involve at least six government departments.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, and I had discussions yesterday with organisations that are trying to give schoolchildren a better understanding of the countryside, food, farming and environmental issues, and the Department for Education has a key responsibility in encouraging a change in behaviour through better informed classrooms. We certainly need joined-up and integrated policies to address these key strategic issues. I am really concerned about how the Government are going to deliver the accepted recommendations of the report and I support the need for a more strategic approach to these challenges.
Lord Selsdon
My Lords, I should begin by declaring my interest as a rather faded and ancient peasant farmer producing wine and a few other things in Provence, although with nothing like the elegance of my noble friend Lady Miller, who has introduced this great debate.
One thing about being tinged with ancienty is that you learn that in order to determine the future it is not a bad idea to look back to the past. Perhaps we need not go as far back as my noble friend Lord Caithness, to the ice age, but in my case it is fairly simple. It is an accident of birth than entitles me to be a peasant farmer and I am proud of it. Our first wine was shipped to what is now the United Kingdom in the second century BC, to Hengistbury Head, near Christchurch, and presumably it went up maybe to Stonehenge. Your Lordships will perhaps remember that Bordeaux was also developed from Provence. We ran the whole of Bordeaux for many years and managed to take control of Eleanor of Provence, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Eleanor of Castile.
When I joined your Lordships’ House, I listened to debates, sitting on my own. I have made the point before that I did not know that when the Government changed you changed from one side of the House to the other, as nobody told me at the young age of 25. My Chief Whip then suggested that it might be a good idea to make a maiden speech. I have to say that I did not know what the word maiden meant. When I asked what I should speak on, he said I should speak from my own experience. My own experience was relatively limited, due in particular to a shortage of food during the war, where, at my prep school, we had only Pom, Spam and powdered egg. I had been brought up in Canada during the war and when I came back I was practically starving.
I learnt, too, that there is a strange thing about the United Kingdom, with a family who were the first people to ship meat from Australia and exploited sugar in the Caribbean. We are not self-sufficient. For the record, I will give the House the Government’s food situation in the year of my birth, 1937. We had to import 93% of our maize, 86% of our barley, 64% of our wheat, 73% of our meat and 95% of our cheese—after the recession, there was a need to produce less milk and more wheat—96% of our tea, naturally, 90% of our cocoa, 79% of our coffee, 79% of our rice and 68% of our sugar, as well as 67% of our butter, 90% of our spices and of course more than 80% of our fertiliser. Much of the latter was guano from Latin America, where William Gibbs “made his dibs on the turds of birds”, as I think it was explained originally.
At my prep school, I got into trouble when I said I had eaten a banana, because no one had seen a banana. I think, and will put on the record in Hansard, that there was a shortage of food. As my noble friend was explaining just now, there is enough food capability and production in the world. If we look back at our own history and the Council of Trade, the reason why we went out into the outside world was because we needed food. We went out to grow and produce all over Africa. The whole of the Commonwealth began initially not so much with the mineral resources but with the potential to create added value on the land.
Why did we get rid of the crown agents of the Commonwealth Development Finance Corporation and why do we not look back to what these countries actually produced? In the days when I did some economic research into agriculture, it was usually to predict what was going to happen to food and I always got it wrong. I came to travel through India and Africa and then gang up with the French in Francophone territories, compete with them, and ask where, what and how we produced. Naturally, sugar was one of those things. Sugar came from the Caribbean. I remember being down in Cameroon with my noble friend Lord Jellicoe when he became Leader of the House and a director of Tate & Lyle, sitting with the president there, who said, “Please, please help us to grow sugar with the Garoua sugar project”. However, Tate & Lyle got a bit nervous about Africa because it was a dangerous place to go to. They had forgotten that it was where we had done extremely well. They had forgotten, too, that Cameroon had named its capital after Victoria because the first slaves had sailed back from Jamaica and were so proud of what we had done to get rid of the slave trade that there was that relationship.
I turn to what I suggest we should do. We should go to these countries where we were before, place orders for what they used to produce and could produce, and give them an off-take agreement. With that agreement, they could fund almost anything. One of my favourite areas, which I have raised before, is the Sudan, which was to have been the bread basket of the Arab world. The Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development under Saeb Jaroudi provided, for people like me, a major grant to look at the possibility of growing grain and exporting it, as we had done before in other parts of Sudan with cotton. If we look at our shortage and what we need to import, and can somehow find a way with the private sector to direct that demand into placing orders where we, using the latest techniques and avoiding the problems of pollution, can help to grow, to deliver to the ports and to have the off-take, we are in good business.
Not so long ago, I suddenly found that I met some gang from Chicago who were very interested in all of this. Some wanted to speculate on the grain market and others on production. A lot of help on this, surprisingly enough, came from Israel. They then suggested to me that it might be possible to produce pork bellies. Thinking of some of the prejudice of the Arab world to the pig—but the pig is a forager and the Romans walked around with it—I was quite intrigued. They wanted to know when grain could be produced because there was a forward market. What I am saying is that if we can use our knowledge, our technology and our historic relationships to revisit these countries and to sit down and help them to grow what we would willingly buy, we could make a major contribution.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for instigating this debate and congratulate her on her timing. There can have been no more topical time to discuss this, given the establishment of the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition by the G8 last weekend and given that we are in the build-up to the Rio+20 conference. There can be few more profound issues for this or any other Parliament to grapple with, and this debate has demonstrated the merits of having a House of expertise and experience to address such a complex issue. As we have heard, there is an interplay of issues such as food production, food distribution, sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem services, population change, energy supply, water supply and, of course, climate change, so authoritatively discussed by my noble friend Lord Giddens and by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, who asked a key question of the Minister on the Government’s failure to meet the 2009 G8 commitments—a point reinforced by my noble friend Lord Judd.
As has been clear, the debate is against the backdrop of the Foresight report by the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, which was commissioned by the then Secretary of State, Hilary Benn MP. It is worth reading out the opening words from the preface to Sir John’s report:
“The case for urgent action in the global food system is now compelling. We are at a unique moment in history as diverse factors converge to affect the demand, production and distribution of food over the next 20 to 40 years. The needs of a growing world population will need to be satisfied as critical resources such as water, energy and land become increasingly scarce. The food system must become sustainable, whilst adapting to climate change and substantially contributing to climate change mitigation. There is also a need to redouble efforts to address hunger, which continues to affect so many. Deciding how to balance the competing pressures and demands on the global food system is a major task facing policy makers”.
There is no better summary of the challenge we have been seeking to address in this two-and-a-half-hour debate.
To demonstrate the scale of the challenge, it is also worth reminding the House of some of the statistics: a world population of 7 billion, rising to 9 billion by 2050, with currently around 1 billion going hungry every day; demand for water will increase by 30% by 2030; the amount of arable land per head has almost halved since 1960; agriculture accounts for up to 30% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Consumers in rich countries waste, as we have heard, as much as a quarter of the food that they buy and, in more than half of industrialised countries, 50% or more of the population is overweight—I declare an interest. Some 40% of the US corn crop ends up in gas tanks instead of in stomachs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, reminded us of the fragility of political norms if we ignore this potential perfect storm. This is a crucial subject for ongoing debate in your Lordships’ House. I ask the Minister to use his influence on business managers to see if they would consider an annual debate with more time, as requested by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on this most fundamental of subjects. It is not possible to do complete justice to this in the remaining time that I have available, so I will focus on just three or four points.
The first is the great 21st-century food challenge: how to produce more food sustainably. The issue was addressed well by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. As my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defra, Mary Creagh MP, said at the Oxford Farming conference this year:
“We cannot have food security without sustainability. It’s not either produce more or produce sustainably. It’s both”.
In government, my right honourable friend Hilary Benn published Food 2030 to set the then Government’s vision for food policy over the following 20 years. I do not know if the Minister has read it. I hope so, but I also ask him if the Government endorse it and if not could they not produce their own vision to attempt to draw some of these themes together for us to debate? We hear about sustainable intensification, but we need some flesh on the bones of the soundbite.
The Government need to give certainty to farmers and businesses wanting to invest in renewable energy such as solar and anaerobic digestion. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I would like more action on the separation of food waste by catering outlets and others. We need a comprehensive approach to carbon reduction across agriculture and food manufacturing. The food that is produced needs to be affordable. We need to harness the power of research and development to ensure that food remains widely available and that publicly funded research is publicly available to all who need it. I agree very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said on GM, and say to the noble Lords, Lord Taverne and Lord Curry, that Labour supports the publicly funded GM trials being undertaken at the Rothamsted Research Institute. I hope that those trials are properly protected from damage, especially this weekend.
This brings me to my second point about tackling food poverty. We are, sadly, familiar with the images of people struggling to avoid starvation in Somalia, Kenya, or the Sahel region of Africa. We know the global pressures that we face in competing for food and water supplies. In the recent past, no one in this country has worried too much about food prices or food security. Now, I am afraid, we also need to be alive to the challenge of food poverty here at home. Last year food prices in the UK rose by 6%, more than in any other EU country except Hungary.
When Ed Miliband first used the phrase “the squeezed middle” to describe families feeling the effect of rising food prices, energy bills, pay freezes and job losses there was scorn from our friends in the media. I am happy to see that that phrase has now entered the English language. The consumer prices index estimates that we spend 12% of our income on food, but jobseeker’s allowance for a single adult is currently £71 a week. If the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is right that poor people spend an average 15% on food, that is £10.65 a week. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, talked about living on £1 a day and I pay tribute to her fundraising and what she has done in organising that with noble Lords, but I challenge the rest of us to spend £7 or £10.65 a week on food and to eat healthily and well. I do not think that it is possible. This is why we are seeing the rise of the food banks and FareShare schemes mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
The third point I will make is to ask the Minister the Jamie Oliver question. If we are serious about changing cultures so that we eat more healthily and more sustainably, surely we need to start in schools. Why are we letting academies off the hook on the school nutritional standards? Bringing them in was one of the most important things I was able to do in government, and it is scandalous to see them being eroded away as all secondary school become academies. Turkey Twizzler 2 is just around the corner.
Finally, I want to talk about the threats from commodity speculation facing the global food supply chain. We need a fair market for food. That starts with international action to tackle the commoditisation of food. Increased volatility in commodity prices makes it difficult for UK farm businesses to plan. World commodity prices have risen steadily over the past decade, and some economists and hedge fund managers are now concerned about the impact this could have on the global cost of food and other commodities. Ten years ago, less than $300 million of non-commercial money was invested in commodity markets. In one decade, that has risen 1,000 times, to over $300 billion of financial investment today, more than the entire value of the market 10 years ago.
There is a vicious circle where commercial producers and purchasers pay more to hedge and need to hedge more as financial speculation has increased market volatility. The problem is not so much commercial hedgers—the food producers—but excess speculation caused by Wall Street selling its latest financial products that in turn raises food prices. The UK Government have recognised the impact of world commodity prices, exchange rates and oil prices on food prices, but they failed to support French moves for greater transparency during the French presidency of the G20, so the US has had to act unilaterally.
The answer to many of these multilayered global problems is global co-operation and global leadership. This was one of the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. While, as the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, reminded us, this is not just down to Governments, they have a key role. So my final question is: will the Prime Minister find time between “Fruit Ninja” and football photo opportunities to show the kind of leadership we saw when the previous Government made Africa and climate change their priorities for their presidency of the G8, and that Gordon Brown showed in April 2008 to form the G20 to mitigate the worst of the global financial collapse? That is the sort of leadership we now need to deal with this issue. I hope we will keep returning to this subject, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer for tabling this debate. I also thank noble Lords for making such valuable and insightful contributions. I am delighted to respond on this important issue. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that it is a subject to which this House should return on a regular basis.
Food security is one of the most pressing issues our global population faces, and I assure noble Lords that it is given the utmost importance by this Government. This debate has been called at an important time. As my noble friend said in introducing the debate, the Foresight report, The Future of Food and Farming, published its one-year review yesterday and just last week, as several noble Lords mentioned, the Environmental Audit Committee published its report, Sustainable Food. My noble friend Lord Caithness and other noble Lords pointed to the excellent reports by European Union Sub-Committee D. Many of the conclusions of these reports overlap with issues raised here today on food security.
We are preparing for the Rio+20 summit in June, where the world will debate how to sustain our planet. As my noble friend Lord Selborne and other noble Lords pointed out, this debate has global scope as this is a global topic. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and my noble friend Lord Gardiner reminded us of the moral imperatives that are not only presented to us in addressing this issue on a broad scale but locally, where food security is a matter of life and death. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke graphically of the situation in Africa, and it was valuable to hear from my noble friend Lady Sharp about the situation in Egypt. Food security is an issue for those involved in the G20 and G8 summits. The UK will take on the presidency of the G8 in 2013 and will ensure that this topic is at the top of the pile.
We have had a number of references to the recent prominence of this issue in your Lordships’ House. Perhaps it was the price hike of 2008, but I trace it back to the speech, which has been referred to, of Sir John Beddington at Chatham House, in which he drew the world’s attention to his “perfect storm”. We know that the global population, currently 7 billion and rising to 9 billion by 2050—indeed, rising by 1 billion in the next 13 years—will impose increasing demand for water, land and energy. This, combined with a changing climate, means that food security is one of the world’s greatest challenges.
The noble Lord, Lord Giddens—indeed, many noble Lords—referred to the excellence of the Foresight report. That report on the future of food and farming concluded that Governments across the world must take action now to ensure that a rising global population can be fed. The challenges set out in the Foresight report are of great relevance. This Government will build on the work set out in the one-year review, published yesterday, some of which I can touch on here.
I will respond to a number of questions which my noble friend Lady Miller posed, which I can perhaps then use to address other matters which noble Lords have raised during the course of the debate. My noble friend asked especially about Defra’s assessment of intensive dairy proposals. I assure her that the department is undertaking scientific research to better understand the welfare and other issues associated with the development of so-called “super dairies”. We will continue to consider any evidence that comes to light, which may determine whether action becomes appropriate. However, sustainable intensification is about much more than this. It is about producing more from less. It does not necessarily mean just increasing size of production units. It may be done at any scale.
My noble friend Lady Parminter joined my noble friend Lady Miller in talking about carbon footprinting. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stern, with his direct experience of the effect of carbon in the atmosphere, also mentioned this. I have seen for myself at the Scottish Agricultural College, adjacent to the Roslin Institute, the work that is being done to monitor the effect of diet and genetic lines on carbon emissions from cows and cattle. We are working to encourage businesses to understand and to include carbon impacts in making their business decisions.
Of particular concern to my noble friend Lady Miller was the question of soils. I agree with her that soil lies at the heart of a successful crop production system. We are looking at the forthcoming EU soils framework. We support the idea of protecting Europe’s soils, and agree that there is a need to deal with serious soil degradation in some parts of Europe. However, we have concerns about the current proposals. We are concerned that they might impose additional burdens on government, land managers and businesses at a time when the UK and other countries are actually going in the reverse direction and trying to find lighter regulations. However, I assure my noble friend that I have been to Cranfield and seen the work that they are doing there on soils, which is extremely useful and available for farmers so that they can better understand the conditions of their own farm.
My noble friend Lady Miller also asked about co-operation. I agree that, in many ways, some of the weaknesses that farmers have faced have come about because of the difficulty of marketing their products in an increasingly competitive world. We recognise the value that agricultural co-operatives can bring both in this country and elsewhere in the world. In the autumn, we will consult on the implementation of European legislation in the dairy sector, which will increase the scale on which dairy producers can collaborate and allow them to negotiate as producer organisations on the price of milk. I hope that I have covered most of those questions.
My noble friend asked about bees. I was in a meeting today at which this topic came up. I can assure noble Lords that bees are recognised as being an important element of pollination by insects. On the question of pollinators, Defra has contributed £2.5 million to the Insect Pollinators Initiative and £10 million will be available over five years to look at the decline in all pollinators. Defra and the WAG are implementing the 10-year healthy bees plan, which was launched in 2009 and provides practical support for beekeepers. I hope that helps my noble friend with some of the specific questions that she asked. I am grateful to her for giving me advance notice so that I could give her some prepared answers on the subject.
Several noble Lords talked about the role of international negotiations being at the bottom of solving a global problem on an international scale. In June, the world will meet to plot the path to sustainable development and green economic growth at Rio+20. As we know and as I have already said, the G8 and G20 presidencies have identified food security as a priority issue. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stern, that the action plan agreed at the meeting of G20 Agriculture Ministers in June signals the success of the UK in pushing for transparency in the global food market. We see the great virtue of getting agreement globally if we are to get leverage and have effect.
We want to maintain the momentum on an international scale. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mrs Spelman, has championed the cause of food security, sustainable agriculture, water security and sustainable energy forming the core of the new sustainable development goals. My noble friend will know that the Deputy Prime Minister, who will lead our delegation to Rio, shares a similar enthusiasm. Therefore, I like to think that the Government have in place a position that enables us to drive these issues internationally.
A number of noble Lords have talked about food waste. Tackling waste is crucial to food security. Some £12 billion-worth of food that could have been eaten is thrown away by UK householders every year. The Government are taking action through the Courtauld agreement and providing advice through WRAP’s “Love Food Hate Waste” campaign. Since 2006, annual household food waste has fallen from 8.3 million tonnes to 7.2 million tonnes, but that is still far too much. I think all noble Lords would agree with that.
My noble friend Lady Parminter mentioned the consumer’s role. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, perhaps stretching the point a little far by trying to bring education policy into a food debate, talked about healthy eating in schools. I can assure him that that is still government policy and I am sure it is the policy of all schools.
On food waste, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich gave us the figures and we should be grateful for the way in which he pointed out how this issue accounts for a considerable element of the wasted household budget in every household. My noble friend Lady Jenkin gave us her practical experience and we should be grateful for the way in which she has brought this issue to the fore. She has used this House to raise this matter and our consciousness of it.
I, too, applaud the work being done by Fare Share and FoodCycle, which act in a private capacity. I have tried to encourage a number of people in the food industry to support these projects, which have enormous benefits in their support for communities and families less able to afford food. They also have benefits for reducing food waste, which is a positive scandal.
In addition to the contribution to global food security expressed by my noble friend Lord Gardiner, the UK farming and food sector is very important to the UK economy. It is the largest single business sector in the economy. The whole food chain contributes £87 billion per annum and 3.6 million jobs. As a sector, it contributes to the delivery of the Government’s long-term economic objectives on trade, green jobs, growth and development. This Government are acting across the food chain to stimulate growth, to facilitate international trade and to drive fair competition.
It would be remiss of me if I did not comment on the work done by Jim Pace in his recent tour of China where he has managed to secure a market for British pig meat, which could be extremely valuable and important for the pig production industry in this country. Last week, I received a delegation from Hong Kong. I was handed a letter saying that the delegation was happy that the animal health provisions in this country now permit the importation of British beef to Hong Kong. These are important developments for our industry and for the global reach of British agriculture. A thriving, competitive economy where our products are freely traded on the international market will deliver resilient, stable and affordable supplies to consumers.
My noble friend Lord Selsdon is always an interesting contributor to any debate. He pointed to the decline in self-sufficiency here at home, what we can do about it and what we can do to stimulate the capacity of other countries to produce more. In a way, my noble friend Lady Sharp gave us the answer; namely, to use the knowledge that we have on our farms. The point was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, as regards the importance of the science budget in addressing this issue.
Noble Lords will expect me to mention the Taylor review—although I do so not out of any vanity—which sought to bring this issue to the table. Since being in office, I have been working to make sure that the principles espoused by the Taylor review are effectively delivered. I have been working closely with David Willetts, the Minister with responsibility for science, on this project. Today, he has announced grants from the BBSRC worth £250 million to research institutes. This includes specifically £14.5 million for a genome analysis centre in Norwich.
We are working across the board. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, asked about nanotechnology. We have set up a joint strategy forum on nanotechnology, which he and I co-chair, and we are seeking to cover a number of other issues.
There is a whole question arising from R&D skills, which of course are extremely important if we are going to be able to deliver these matters. We managed to get through the debate without talking very much about the CAP. But of course when it comes to agricultural policy, making sure that we get a successful outcome from the CAP negotiations will be very important for this country and for this issue.
I conclude by saying that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that we should make sure that the usual channels take up this issue so that we have regular debates and we can see the progress that we are making. A lot is going to go on in the next few weeks, specifically on sustainable world development—and at the bottom of that lies food security. My noble friend Lady Sharp exhorted the Government to provide leadership here and overseas. I assure her and indeed all noble Lords that that is precisely my purpose and that of my colleagues at Defra.
I join all other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Miller for giving me the opportunity to say just that.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
I warmly thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for his very detailed and thoughtful reply. In doing so, I congratulate him on securing that £250 million for the science budget. It cannot have been easy, and the interview today on “Farming Today” with the director of the BBSRC was a good one, because it showed how the budget would be distributed very generally. We will be glad to see that, and to know that it will not be over-focused on one thing.
I am grateful to noble Lords for focusing on the issue of waste. As so many contributors said, it is ridiculous that we are worrying about feeding more people when we have almost enough food in the world to feed the 9 billion that will be. It is just that we waste it by throwing it away here or it failing in storage in the developing world.
This was an incredibly useful debate. I would very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, about commodity speculation. That probably merits a whole other debate in itself. I hope that we can look forward to a more regular debate on food security and think that this afternoon will have proved the worth of having one.
Small and Micro-Business Borrowing
Baroness Kramer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to facilitate alternatives to high street banks for small and micro-business borrowing.
Baroness Kramer
I very much thank the House for giving me the opportunity to bring forward a debate on small business and credit and the failure of high street banks to offer that credit and therefore the alternatives that we must look at. I warn the House beforehand that I am going to focus in the time that I have on two areas of particular interest to me, so I thank the other noble Lords who are going to participate in this debate in advance, because they will expand the conversation way beyond the range which I am capable of introducing.
There is very little dispute today that small and micro-businesses especially are struggling to access credit from the five high street banks that dominate banking in the UK, and that has been going on since the crash of 2008—and there were underlying problems before them. The Breedon report was very good; it quoted recent data that showed that 33% of SMEs applying for a loan were rejected and that the decrease in the supply of loans to SMEs in the UK has been much sharper than in other countries. We have a piece today in the FT that says that small businesses lament the shrinking pool of credit. If we needed a real illustration, the entry of Wonga into this field with potentially 2% of interest per week says in every way that there is a very serious vacuum. The truth is that the view of high street banks in this country is that “bankable” credit is a very narrow term indeed. Most lending for SMEs over past years has effectively been a form of real estate; it has not been an assessment of the business plan. It is not just that the high street banks will not do this lending—they cannot. They no longer have local knowledge; they do not have trained credit staff; they are now into a form of centralised tick-box commodity-type lending activity. The contrast is sharp with the German savings banks, the Swiss cantonal banks and the US community development banks, which are a backbone to SMEs in Germany, Switzerland and the United States. In those countries, lending has increased since the crash.
The banks that I just mentioned have a common characteristic: a social obligation as part of their mission, as well as profit—so not just a sole profit-maximisation obligation. Those banks are tied to a specific geography, so they are forced to make a success out of local businesses and to take a long-term view; they cannot diverge into other ways of earning money. Dr Thomas Keidel, who is very senior in the German savings bank association, talked to some in this House, making it clear that that local knowledge gives an intimate assessment of risk in a way that even a regional bank cannot accomplish. He said that many of the best credits in the German system are risks that would have been turned down had it not been for knowing management, understanding the order book and really being sensitive to the local issue. That is crucially different from the savings banks in Spain—they are in great trouble—which do not have that geographic link.
I argue that, frankly, this is a tier of banking that we do not have in the UK. We have some valuable community development financial institutions, credit unions, funds and banks. I have visited many, including a brilliant business enterprise fund in Bradford, but they are small and fragmented, and their geographic coverage is fairly random. I know that the Government will say that there is now an agreement with the British Bankers’ Association that high street banks that turn down a credit will then refer that small business to a local CDFI. However, that is relatively meaningless unless CDFIs are coherent and comprehensive as a sector and have sufficient funding to meet demand. At present, the CDFI sector in this country is swamped. One of the banks calculated that if they were really going to meet need, they needed something like £125 million of potential lending a week, but they are nowhere near that. The irony is that plenty of investors would like to get engaged with the sector, especially social enterprises, charities and philanthropic individuals, as well as commercial players. With the additional growing capacity to raise funds through the new sector of social impact bonds, there is huge potential to support an equivalent to the local and community banking sector.
We have to remove the regulatory barriers to new entrants into the banking system in the UK, which prevents social entrepreneurs and others getting new banks started. The FSA would say that nobody applies, but look at the experience of Metro Bank, the only bank in recent history with a new banking licence. We all know the numbers—something like £25 million to get regulatory approval, in two and a half years. Consultants in the banking arena all say to anybody interested, “Don’t even try. See if you can buy a banking licence, but otherwise forget it in the current climate”.
Baroness Kramer
If I take interventions I will not get through my speech, so I am going to carry on.
I refer anybody questioning the barriers that come through the regulator to a very good piece called Street Cred by Civitas. It is a bit melodramatic, but it underscores all the difficulties that people face. I have talked with people in the US, and they reckon that it takes roughly six months and costs $2 million to get a new bank started. That is a very different situation.
The Government must develop a specialised bank licence and an appropriate set of capital requirements for small local-community banks undertaking the social impact obligation. We need off-the-shelf packages for small bank start-ups to provide economies of scale, including basic regulatory approval, working software and other forms of support. The US does it—it is called “bank-in-the-box”. We need a regime to enable banks that fail to be dealt with quickly as that gives confidence, especially to the regulator, to lower entry barriers. The Banking Act 2009 failed to do that. The FDIC in the States does a far more effective job. We have to introduce such a regime. I do not see signs of it but I hope that it will come. We should also deal with the VocaLink payments system, which is owned by a cartel. There are many regulatory barriers and failures in the system. Their removal could make a fundamental difference to what we do.
I wish to make two suggestions. First, RBS is, frankly, an albatross around the Government’s neck. If RBS’s branch network were used to create a community banking network, we could see a massive and rapid step change in this area. Secondly, we should examine what kind of lending high street banks undertake, see where the gaps are, and whether they are genuine gaps. It seems to me that there is an argument for saying to those banks, “We are not going to make you undertake this lending but we will have you fund someone else who can through capitalising a local community bank”.
In the time I have left I wish to say a few words about the innovative online lending platforms. I am not talking about companies such as Wonga but about the platforms that have investors on the one side and borrowers on the other and offer non-exploitative lending rates. They are new in the field and have grown up in the past two years—for example, companies which offer crowd financing and peer-to-peer financing. I am sure that noble Lords find that term hilarious. This industry has significant potential but is begging for stronger regulation. There is an enormous fear in the industry that a couple of cowboys might come in and create havoc, resulting in terrible headlines, investors fleeing and the regulator intervening in an incredibly heavy-handed way. It is crucial that the Government provide a more constructive regulatory framework which is proportionate and does not stifle the industry’s growth but which engenders confidence in the industry so that it can move forward.
I do not want to pretend that the Government have done nothing in this area. I am sure that the Minister will list what they have done. I acknowledge that things have been done but not on the scale that is necessary to support our SME sector. It is vital that the Government understand the limitations of the high street banks instead of constantly telling them that they should lend to these companies. They will not and cannot do that. The Government must have a coherent plan to fill this vacuum and must enhance the opportunities for local banks and quality online lenders. One of the problems is that there is no one in the structure of government at the moment who leads on this issue. It is split between BIS and the Treasury, and within the Treasury there must be five Ministers covering different parts of it. The Government should identify a champion to try to resolve this problem and take it forward. If they do not, we will not sustain our small businesses which are the backbone of our economy and we will give all the space to our competitors.
Lord Popat
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for bringing such an important and timely topic before the House. She made some important suggestions and comments, on which I would like to expand. For many years I worked as a business and corporate finance specialist, financing small and medium-sized businesses and helping them to secure bank finance either to start or to expand their businesses. We used to process their applications within the day, and many of those firms have gone on to be huge employers that contribute to our communities and our country.
The idea of small businesses securing finance in 24 hours is one that will probably amaze younger entrepreneurs. It is unfortunate that securing finance for micro-businesses in today’s market is at best time-consuming and uncertain, and at worst impossible. The business-friendly climate that I encountered in Britain in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s has unfortunately given way to uncertainty, bureaucracy and great difficulty. Nowadays, many small businesses find that it takes at least a month just to set up a bank account in the first place, let alone to get finance.
While I entirely believe and support the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the economy and boosting the private sector, the climate for small and micro-businesses, particularly in regard to funding, will have to change considerably before we can make the Government’s vision a reality.
I wish to muse briefly on bank borrowing. The coalition agreement makes it clear that ensuring that credit is available to SMEs is essential for supporting growth, and should be a key priority for the Government. They have announced a number of policies to support this aim, including, of course, Project Merlin, as well as the enterprise finance guarantee scheme. The intentions behind these policies are undoubtedly good, but with Project Merlin the often optimistic statistics regarding bank lending do not seem to match the experiences being felt by small businesses.
I hear every day from friends and associates in the business world that lending from banks is very difficult. With the uncertainty generated by what is happening across the eurozone, I do not anticipate that this situation will change for a considerable time. In addition, many of the schemes offered by the Government—in particular, the business department—often experience very low levels of participation. Perhaps worse, many of these schemes are unknown to many of the small businesses that could most benefit from them. As a brief aside, I wonder whether the communications strategy at BIS could be better targeted so that these schemes are heard about beyond Westminster.
We must look beyond these measures and, as this Question urges, at the alternatives. The financial avenues available to small businesses are still plentiful but require some creative thinking and a culture change. One of the difficulties we are experiencing is that FTSE 100 companies are currently holding approximately £130 billion in their bank accounts. At the same time, many small businesses and entrepreneurs are sitting at home with a fantastic idea or product, but cannot make them commercially available without significant investment. There must be a way further to encourage our largest businesses to invest in and support these micro-businesses to make their products financially viable.
We could also encourage the establishment of alternative providers of capital. In the 1970s, a large number of finance companies were licensed under the Consumer Credit Act and provided business finance to small and micro-businesses. Companies such as Forward Trust, Lombard North Central and First National Securities provided an invaluable service, particularly to leasehold corner-shop owners, as I was at the time. When I first went into business in 1977, I lent from Forward Trust, and while it was expensive it was a specialist company that was willing to take risks. Unfortunately these firms were victims of their own success, and were taken over by the banks. There is, in my opinion, a clear gap in the market for firms of this nature if we can encourage them back. In addition, I meet many high net-worth individuals who are keen to invest in small new ventures but are concerned about doing so. I would like to see the Government explore ways in which wealthy individuals can be encouraged to support start-up businesses in which they are not directly involved.
A related point is that we should encourage smaller businesses to explore new equity financing arrangements. This can help to bring in the capital needed to allow companies to grow and, if coupled with expertise or guidance, may well increase the chances of a small business succeeding, particularly if it is in the early stages.
In the UK, we are fortunate to have significant venture capital funding options for businesses. However, these are often restricted to specific geographical areas, certain specialised industries or businesses of a certain size. I should be interested to know whether the Government have any plans or incentives to help to expand the venture capital industry so that many SMEs that currently miss out can benefit from this very useful industry.
It is worth taking a moment to consider two other points. This Question is clear about looking for alternatives to high-street banks. It is my personal view that, if we were to reduce the barriers to entry for the banking industry and encourage competition, our SMEs would benefit most. By encouraging new banks—particularly local, regional and community banks—new sources of capital will become available to SMEs. In addition, by granting full banking licences to other international banks, such as those from India and China which do not currently do large amounts of business in the UK, or by supporting the creation of new banks, small businesses across the country will feel the benefits and have access to new sources of credit.
My final point is that, while I fully support the need to find new sources of capital for micro-businesses and SMEs, we should not decouple this from ways in which we can reduce the costs that these businesses incur. I know that this week’s publication of the Beecroft report has created some debate about the best way forward, but the Government have a duty to do all they can to reduce the considerable regulatory and fiscal burden on small businesses.
We need a radical new approach to small businesses generally, not just to how they find alternative sources of finance. I would appreciate my noble friend’s comments, especially on the areas that I have suggested: the speed at which we can raise finance; the need for BIS’s communication strategy for small businesses to be well targeted; whether we can make effective use of the £130 billion of deposits held by the FTSE 100 companies to help small businesses; whether we can do something about high net-worth individuals; and whether we can do more about our venture capital funding. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, there are many barriers to starting a new bank. How about issuing a full banking licence to some of the foreign banks that have cash liquidity?
Lord Myners
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Popat, who brings a great deal of relevant business experience to our debate. I also look forward to hearing the reply from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who also has a very impressive career record in banking and financial services. Although the number of speakers in the debate may be small, with the single exception of me the quality of contribution will no doubt be exceedingly high.
It may be helpful to set some context for this issue. First, lending by UK banks to corporate borrowers, excluding financial institutions and real estate, represents less than 5% of the assets of the UK banking sector. Secondly, small businesses, and in particular the smallest of small businesses, tend on average to be net lenders to banks rather than net borrowers: that is, they run working capital cash surpluses and do not rely on debt from any source to support their business. They do of course rely on the banks for services, particularly for payment processing.
Chart B on page 7 of the Bank of England’s Trends in Lending, published in April 2012, shows that net lending to SMEs continues to contract at a rate of about 5% per annum. In fact, this has been the case since 2009 and it is not limited to the UK alone; it is a global phenomenon. It is observable in the United States and in the euro countries that lending to small companies is contracting.
Despite the fact that lending is contracting, terms are widening. An economist might say that that suggests prima facie evidence that if banks can charge more in a market of contracting demand, there must be inadequate supply so that the banks can charge more generous—some would say penal—terms. I am not at all persuaded of that. As a Treasury Minister I wrestled with the issue of whether declining commercial lending was a function of banks not lending or of borrowers not wanting to borrow. I certainly did not find a convincing answer to that question and I do not think that the current Government have either. I suspect that we will never be able to find the answer. I remind noble Lords that this is not a distinctly UK phenomenon. It appears to be happening elsewhere in the world.
I think that the widening of terms is a consequence of effective competition among market leaders. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, referred to the dominance of our five major lenders. Indeed, the report of the Independent Commission on Banking highlighted on page 167 that the concentration and absence of effective competition was at its most acute in the SME sector. Personally, I think that the Royal Bank of Scotland should never have been allowed to acquire NatWest. I declare an interest. I was a director of NatWest at that time and have no doubt that it needed remedial treatment, but the economic consequences of the concentration in SME lending was damaging to the economy.
We must, of course, await the White Paper, due to be published on 14 June, detailing the bank’s proposals on ring-fencing. I sincerely hope that the Government will show real determination to implement the recommendations of the Vickers report, and in particular take urgent action to reduce the extent to which the taxpayer continues to be at significant risk of failure as a consequence of the investment banking operations of a number of UK banks—not, I hasten to add, limited to those that are owned by the taxpayer in a significant part.
The noble Lord, Lord Popat, referred to Project Merlin. It did not deliver the gross lending target that was set for it, but it was not the right target. Again, I wrestled with this in government. Mr Vince Cable was very clear. In an interview in the Daily Mail before Merlin, he said that the introduction of a gross lending target as opposed to a net lending target would,
“be completely letting the banks off the hook. It’s perfectly possible for banks to achieve a gross lending target while withdrawing capital from small to medium-sized businesses”.
I think that the right honourable Vince Cable was correct and that the Treasury’s approach to defining the objectives of Project Merlin were right. Indeed, it is to the Government’s credit that they did not renew Project Merlin because the banks were quite frankly running circles around them in achieving those gross lending objectives.
We shall see how the new programme of credit easing operates. It does not involve direct lending to small businesses; it involves reducing the funding costs paid by the banks. We have heard very little about credit easing and have seen very few cases of small businesses claiming that they have been rescued or significantly supported by credit easing. I am very sceptical about whether it will work in practice. I hear that one of the major banks is offering cashbacks to SMEs through credit easing—in other words, not reducing the level of debt at all. The Government need to look very carefully at whether that initiative will work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, referred to the case for new banks, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Popat, did as well. We have seen two banks sold recently—at least one, Northern Rock, was sold; and Lloyds Banking Group is still trying to sell the business under the code name Project Verde, which has to be disposed of under the state-aid remediations. It was interesting that these banks sold not at book value but well below it. That is quite telling when we consider the attractiveness of being involved in banking. Mr Stephen Hester, the chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, said in a recent interview that many people thought that one had to be dumb to invest in banking at the moment. I suspect that those who hope for the creation of new banks will find themselves waiting a long time. At the moment, if you put £1 of capital into a new bank, its de facto value will rapidly fall to 70p or 80p because—I do not wish to be too technical—the ROE generated with an appropriate leverage ratio is simply not capable of matching the cost of capital. In other words, the banks are not producing a return that is consistent with the risk, as the equity provider would expect.
We heard comments about alternatives such as pay-day and peer-to-peer lending. We need to keep them in perspective; they are very marginal and will not have a transformational impact on the UK economy. They might be of some benefit to individual borrowers but they are not the solution to the problem of generating economic recovery. Similarly, the proposals from Mr Tim Breedon—worthy, well argued and thoughtful as they are—must again be seen as marginal, at least in the short term. Reducing the dependence on banks as a source of credit and encouraging bond markets, as one sees for instance in America, is a good and laudable objective, but it will not help us out of the current mire of the double-dip recession. For that, we need to see fundamental economic adjustments.
The core issue is not that our banks are not willing to lend, or that they are constrained by capital, but that people do not want to borrow any more than they need in a climate where the business and economic outlook is highly uncertain. The absence of confidence, to which the Government’s economic policies have been a contributory factor, is leading to a lack of appetite for borrowing, investing and growing businesses. While we may look for fault on the banking and credit availability side, the real issue is whether we can articulate coherent and credible strategies that will get the economy moving again. To date, the Government have not shown evidence that they can do that. They and the Bank of England seem to be following policies of financial repression. However, I am hopeful that circumstances are changing and that there will be a greater appetite on the part of the Government for taking positive measures to stimulate and promote economic growth without going back to aggressive deficit-growth strategies.
Lord Smith of Clifton
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Kramer for securing this very timely debate. It is humbling to follow such a great expert as the noble Lord, Lord Myners. I cannot begin to compete with him but I, too, will attempt to put the issue in context.
It looks likely that some of the institutional giants in the world of banking may go the way of the dinosaurs. Nothing lasts for ever, and they resemble nothing so much as the cruise liner “Costa Concordia”, wallowing in the shallows of the Mediterranean and waiting to hit the rocks. Mindful of that, we must read the runes and suggest alternatives. It is a banal truism to say that financial services are vital to the health of the nation’s economy—and equally vital, as my noble friend suggested, to the prosperity of both community and region.
Project Merlin, which was referred to, was meant to increase the flow of bank loans to businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. Although the banks agreed to this, in practice little was achieved; there was no magic. Project Merlin would have been named more aptly, Project Tommy Cooper. The failure was symptomatic of how the banks are not serving the needs of the economy. We need to raise our sights and contemplate alternatives.
As the noble Lords, Lord Myners and Lord Popat, said, much of the western world, including the UK, are in for a protracted period of zero growth at best, or negative growth at worst. The UK will experience a society and economy similar—although, I hope, not with the same magnitudes—to that of the 19th century. The Victorian age, Dickensian and ghastly though it was for so many, nevertheless inspired the creation of a whole range of remedial initiatives. These included the rise of the co-operative movement, the formation of building societies, credit unions, mechanics institutes and the like. Self-help and mutuality constituted the operating principles of the time, with the main emphasis being on the local and communal. As my noble friend Lady Kramer said, the banks in those times were much more focused on serving the local and regional areas and were by no means all centred on London.
Globalisation has, of course, brought many economic benefits but also costs, including the recent disasters within the financial services industry. We need to recreate the local to offset the worst excesses of globalisation. We should learn from our Victorian predecessors. The Victorians, of course, inhabited an era of increasing economic growth, whereas for us it will be the reverse. That makes it all the more important. It would be sheer folly to think that existing arrangements and institutions will be able to adapt themselves. Already commentators are adding to the “too big to fail” character of banks a “too big to manage” dimension. It is interesting that in today’s FT there is a report which states that,
“pressure mounts for the break-up of US banks”.
This is why other options must be explored.
If history may be a guide, so, too, can comparative experience. I refer to the extraordinary example of Mondragon in Spain. Starting in 1956, a range of industrial co-operatives have developed. Central to their growth has been their own bank, to which they subscribe and from which they borrow capital. As co-ops, they are owned and controlled by their employees. They are also restrained in the size of their labour force, and above a defined limit the individual co-op has to split up and divide into two. There are now over 250 constituent co-ops in the Mondragon federation, employing nearly 84,000 people. It is the seventh largest enterprise in Spain.
Co-ownership, of course, has long been a much cherished Liberal Party and Liberal Democrat party policy. The late Lady Seear was an ardent advocate of co-ownership on these Benches. In the mid-19th century there was a good deal of cross-party support for wider share ownership. Now there has been a revival of interest, with talk of enterprises being created on the lines of the John Lewis Partnership model. It has been mooted, for example, for the re-organised Post Office.
The ground is becoming more fertile for the planting of the seeds of a new thinking. Some fruitful new signs have emerged. For example, there is the issuing of local currencies in Lewes, Brixton, Totnes and elsewhere; and the facilitating by Mr Ivan Massow’s “Business Angels”, whose peer-to-peer lending encourages companies with more than adequate cash reserves to make loans to credit-strapped companies. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Myners, thinks this is small beer. I hope it will become catching and grow.
However, much more needs to be done. We need a champion along the lines of the late Lord Young of Dartington. Michael Young pioneered the rise of the consumer movement in the last half of the 20th century that unleashed a social and economic revolution. That is what we need here. Someone with that kind of vision, lateral thinking and organising flair is sorely needed now to address the pressing problems we face, none more so than in the area of the local provision of banking credit. There are, alas, too few Michael Youngs, which is why I suggest a co-operative of intelligent, like-minded pioneers to think up and bring about the radical changes that must be wrought.
We must not drift or sleep-walk into the future. As a response to the continuing crisis, mass protest, though wholly understandable, is not the answer. That answer will come only from radical and new ideas. The focus must be on the small scale and communal. If the Prime Minister’s advocacy of the big society is to have any chance of becoming a big deal, small and communal enterprises will form its essential components.
I have one question for the Minister: what evidence can he adduce that the necessary thinking and effort is being applied by the coalition to address this issue?
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate and the success of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in achieving it. It has been a very interesting debate so far and I would like to discuss, if you like, the other end of the telescope: the needs of small businesses that have contracts with large companies.
Due to the way that the large companies have set their terms, these SMEs seem to need more and more finance in order to create enough working capital to keep going. It is very sad that some of these major companies are taking action to make it more difficult for SMEs to continue. They do not seem to realise that if they do not have the SMEs, their own businesses are not going to succeed. I will describe two case studies—one good, one bad—and I certainly am not blaming banks for the situation, I am blaming the companies. It is an issue that needs some action.
First, the good company is Network Rail—it may surprise your Lordships to hear me cite Network Rail as a good company, but actually in the past five years, from being a pretty bad customer, it has turned out to be a very good one. In November, it launched a fair payment charter for its suppliers, which it signed with 30 of the biggest construction and engineering companies. Network Rail says that the charter helps to,
“increase liquidity through the supply chain”,
and there is about £7 billion a year of expenditure at stake. I believe that some 80% of its suppliers are in the SME category, so it is quite important.
The key thing is that Network Rail has taken a decision,
“to shorten the time it takes to pay suppliers from 56 days to 21 days”.
Equally importantly, the fair payment charter also,
“commits Network Rail’s suppliers to make payment to their first-tier subcontractors within seven days of receiving payment. This means that the time from the submission of a main contractor’s application to receipt of payment by the first-tier supplier is now 28 days”,
which really helps to,
“increase the liquidity of the supply chain and provide greater certainty for suppliers in terms of business planning”.
The other thing Network Rail has done is to,
“phase out the practice of retention in contracts—where a portion of payment is withheld until after completion of work”.
This is very common in the civil engineering industry as well. The charter also requires suppliers,
“to mirror the retention regime agreed with Network Rail for the … subcontractors. So, where the main contract retention is zero, this will be replicated down the supply chain”.
This is a major achievement.
In March, Network Rail signed up to British Standard 11000—Collaborative Business Relationship Management Systems—with its five major suppliers through the Institute for Collaborative Working. I declare an interest in that I am on the board of the institute. It really is a major step forward. I talk to a lot of contractors and suppliers of Network Rail and they welcome it. It is not often that suppliers to any big organisation welcome the payment terms, and this is really a positive step forward. Let us hope that it continues—I have every reason to believe that it will—as it will help getting value for money on a £7 billion programme.
Now for the bad case, and it is pretty bad. I refer to National Grid, which is a company that is probably of a similar size to Network Rail. It is a pretty strong company. It made a profit of £644 million in the year to 31 March 2011, and the credit agencies indicate that it can be provided with over £46 million in credit by its creditors. One could reflect in passing why, with this kind of financial result, its regulator, Ofgem, does not require it to cut some of its charges to customers, although that is a slight aside. My question really is: what is the company doing? I would call it screwing its suppliers so that they have to go to banks, which sometimes find it difficult to lend to them.
National Grid pays an average of 24 days beyond the terms in its contract. It also has very tough procurement processes for small suppliers, which it forces to accept these non-standard terms. It has 42 days as a standard for payment of invoices and is actually paying suppliers, on average, 66 days after it receives the invoice for the work done. This hides the fact that over 34% of the suppliers have to wait 91 days to be paid by National Grid. According to Dun & Bradstreet, this company has one of the worst payment records in the UK. Only 7% of all UK businesses have a worse delinquency score, as I would call it. Of every 10,000 National Grid payments, 5,683 are significantly late. At one time last year its payment terms were 60 days over standard, which means that it is taking over 100 days to pay its suppliers. I suggest that the company is using its monopoly position to force suppliers into lending it millions of pounds—which then forces the banks into lending to the smaller suppliers, through what are probably expensive overdraft facilities, to keep them solvent.
Network Rail and National Grid are both regulated monopolies, as the House will know, but Network Rail has this code of practice while National Grid sits on what I believe is a pretty fat profit and thinks that it is reasonable to delay payment to SMEs for over 100 days, thereby putting some of those businesses into financial difficulties. My question to the Minister is: what is Ofgem doing about it? Has it got any teeth, or has National Grid achieved what I call regulatory capture? The Government want to encourage SMEs and investment, as do we all. They also want to encourage growth—as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said in winding up the last debate. Will the Minister therefore ask Ofgem to require National Grid and the other companies in this sector to adopt a fair code of practice on the lines that Network Rail has so successfully operated in the rail infrastructure industry?
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for providing the opportunity for what might be a micro-debate in terms of numbers but a macro-debate in terms of the issue. I start with what my noble friend Lord Myners referred to as the core issue—if we do not get some growth and confidence back into the economy, we face a situation where potential borrowers and small businesses see borrowing as the very last resort because they do not have confidence in the current financial situation.
I am also glad that we are having a debate on an issue which something like 28% of SMEs said was one of the key issues that they face. I am afraid I did not agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Popat, said except when he got on to the Beecroft report. I do not think that that is going to encourage small businesses to take on more employees. Confidence and the ability to borrow if they feel confident are much higher up their agenda. If we had to give a message on how they should treat their employees, it would not be on the ability to fire them without giving them a reason for dismissal. It might be on recognising the need to invest in their employees and have decent HR policies. They might find that they would get a much better return in productivity and retention. That has been my experience over the years.
I must admit that, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I found myself in agreement with much of what she said. She talked about the different developments in the US, Switzerland and Germany and the social obligation and local nature of their banking. That is a view about which the Federation of Small Businesses, if one looks at its report, was asking the Government. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, commenting on whether the Government intend to pick up on any of the recommendations of that report from the Federation of Small Businesses.
There seems to be some disagreement, as some have suggested, including, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in relation to innovative, online peer-to-peer lending. I do not feel confident about saying who is right. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, referred to that as something that would be of value, although my noble friend Lord Myners did not necessarily agree with that. I must admit that I was fascinated to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, about Mondragon—I do not know whether I have pronounced that right—and the expansion of Co-ops. That was an interesting point.
Whatever Merlin did, it certainly was not a magic bullet. It did not deliver. My noble friend Lord Myners delivered a far more comprehensive analysis of the failure of Merlin. What is the Government’s strategy, given that Merlin has failed and credit easing does not yet seem to have emerged to solve the serious problems that we face? The plain fact of the matter is that the Government are failing to get the banks lending to SMEs and that is one of the contributory factors to holding back growth and job creation. Credit easing has failed to get banks lending to more small businesses. If we were in government, we would have established a British investment bank to support SMEs—an infrastructure that was backed by the British Chambers of Commerce and by Adam Posen from the Bank of England.
In relation to other measures that the Government could take that might assist small firms to take on extra workers, a national insurance tax break might well provide some relief and encourage companies to consider taking on extra workers. In our view, it would reverse the Government’s damaging VAT rise. Interestingly, the Bank of England’s lending report of April 2012 said:
“The stock of lending to businesses decreased by around £9 billion in the three months to February … The net monthly flow of lending in February was at its lowest in almost two years”.
It went on to say:
“Spreads over reference rates on lending to small and medium-sized businesses widened in 2012”.
That is not a good picture at all of the Government’s attempts to get banks to lend to small businesses.
Interestingly, in the Queen’s Speech debate on Monday 14 May in the other place, Vince Cable said:
“Nobody ever argued that the credit easing scheme would solve the problem of small business lending. We argued that it would cheapen the cost, and that will happen. All the major banks are now engaged in arranging packages to enable those lower costs to be passed through”.
He said that we were going to be,
“pleasantly surprised by the take-up within a few months”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/5/12; col. 289.]
That sounds different from what the Chancellor told us in October in his description of the credit-easing scheme. I would welcome the Minister’s opinion on whether the Government feel that that scheme is having any effect.
In the other place, Labour’s shadow Small Business Minister, Toby Perkins, said that the Bank of England survey showed that many businesses are seeing the cost of finance rise and that small and medium-size businesses are finding it hard to get finance at all. He said that we are looking to the private sector to grow our economy, but 50 businesses are going under every day and too many are struggling to get the finance that they need to grow and take on extra employees. He said that Ministers promised that the credit-easing scheme would help firms unable to get finance, but the report shows that the scheme is failing to make a difference. He went on to say that the Government continue to let down small firms under pressure because of the recession made in Downing Street. Labour is planning a British investment bank to help small businesses get the finance that they need to grow. Our five-point plan for jobs and growth will provide real help, including a one-year national insurance tax break for small firms hiring extra workers.
I was interested in the comments made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley when he gave us the idea of the good guy and the bad guy. This is a serious problem for SMEs. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about what he described as a fair payment charter. It seems a worthwhile proposal for industries which are regulated.
I conclude by coming back to small and medium-size businesses. When I speak to them, they tell me that they see this as an issue of high importance. They do not tell me that the ability to hire and fire is their number one concern. Given that Project Merlin has failed, what positive steps are the Government intending to take? Are they going to pick up recommendations made by the Federation of Small Businesses? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Kramer for initiating this debate, and all noble Lords who have participated. This is a vital issue and has been for a long time; it is not a recent phenomenon, although it is even more acute in the current environment.
The Government are committed to rebalancing the economy, encouraging private sector investment and creating the conditions for confidence to return, small companies to thrive and growth to revive. Ensuring that small businesses and micro-businesses can access the finance most appropriate for them is a core priority. While we want to ensure that there are alternatives to high-street banks for businesses, the majority will remain reliant on banks. It is vital that SMEs are able to access bank finance. I will explain what we are doing in that area before dealing with alternatives.
First, the Government provide guarantees to viable SMEs lacking sufficient collateral to secure commercial finance. The enterprise finance guarantee scheme plays an important role in facilitating credit to viable small businesses and micro-businesses. Over 12,800 businesses with a turnover of under £1 million have been offered EFG loans. That equates to 70% of all the loan offers under the scheme. The enterprise finance guarantee is delivered by lenders directly. They include banks, and alternative finance providers such as community development finance institutions.
Secondly, in the Budget the Government launched the national loan guarantee scheme, which reduces the cost of bank lending to smaller businesses by up to 1%. This is achieved by the Government providing guarantees on unsecured borrowing by participating banks to enable them to borrow at a cheaper rate, and therefore to pass on the entire benefit they receive to small businesses through cheaper loans. The Government will provide up to £20 billion of such guarantees. Thousands of businesses have already benefited from LGS loans and the scheme is proving popular. Ulster Bank formally launched the scheme in Northern Ireland last Monday.
Thirdly, to improve relationships between banks and small businesses, we are working with the BBA on the delivery of a range of bank commitments. As a result—and this is very significant—the banks have put in place: first, an independent appeals process to deal with situations where businesses have been declined loans; secondly, an online mentoring portal for SMEs to find sources of advice; and, thirdly, a lending code that makes it clear what standards businesses should expect from their banks.
It is also important that we do what we can to encourage the development of diverse sources of finance for SMEs beyond just the banks, which is the gist of my noble friend’s Question. Increased competition not only between banks but between forms of finance will improve outcomes for businesses. The Business Secretary recently commissioned a report, which has been referred to in this debate, from Tim Breedon that explored alternative finance options such as supply chain finance, mezzanine finance, peer-to-peer lending, retail bonds and so on. All these should be fostered and encouraged, to create a more resilient business finance environment. The Government have a role to play but so do financial institutions and, crucially, businesses themselves.
To diversify the sources of finance available to smaller businesses further, BIS has received £100 million from the business finance partnership. This funding will focus on alternative lending channels which aim to lend specifically to smaller businesses. The key aims of this scheme are to stimulate the development of non-bank lending channels and to increase the supply of capital to smaller businesses. In support of these objectives, we are considering investing business finance partnership money through peer-to-peer lending platforms, mezzanine loans and supply chain finance products.
For businesses seeking other forms of debt finance, community development finance institutions offer an alternative to the banks. They provide microfinance and small loans to enterprises that banks consider too costly or too risky to serve. Such businesses can nevertheless be viable and tend to have a positive impact on their local community. The Government support the CDFI sector in a number of ways. A key aspect of this community investment is tax relief. This encourages investment in CDFIs by providing a tax relief worth up to 25% of the value of the investment over five years. The funds so invested are then on-lent by the CDFIs to small businesses and social enterprises. We are currently looking at ways to simplify the rules to encourage more usage and make it more effective. This is because public investment of this type has been shown to be an effective method of generating and protecting economic output. Our evaluation has demonstrated that every £1 of tax incentives generates an additional £1.89 of net gross value added. We also support CDFIs through the regional growth fund by contributing £30 million to the sector to facilitate £77 million of lending through small loans—around 4,500 loans—to small and micro-businesses.
In addition, we are about to launch a pilot scheme at the end of this month to help young entrepreneurs set up their business and access finance when doing so. Aimed at 18 to 24 year-olds, the start-up loans scheme will provide microfinance and mentoring support to enable young people to start and grow a business.
I have focused so far on debt finance. The Government are also committed to supporting equity funding. We have committed £200 million over four years to the enterprise capital funds programme, bringing our investment to more than £300 million for SMEs with the highest growth potential. We are also working to stimulate business angel investment through the establishment of a £50 million business angel co-investment fund. This partly addresses my noble friend Lord Popat’s point. Through this, we co-invest with business angels in high-growth-potential early-stage SMEs, particularly in areas most affected by public spending cuts. My colleague Mark Prisk announced the first deals under this scheme earlier this month.
However, we are not limiting our support to finance itself. To help businesses navigate the various support programmes, we have launched the “Business in You” website to help businesses access support and mentoring and determine which financial support package suits them best. The growth accelerator programme will also provide intensive management and training support to high-growth-potential SMEs.
Noble Lords asked a number of questions. I will address as many of them as I can. My noble friend Lady Kramer compared the German, US and Swiss local banks and their emphasis on localness favourably against our branch networks; my noble friend Lord Smith made a similar point. We recognise the value of the bank branch network and relationship banking for SMEs, where the manager knows the area and understands the business. Indeed, these values are still present in the UK banking sector. In particular, some of our smaller banks have chosen to adopt more traditional banking models, with an emphasis on good customer service, personal relationships with customers and local focus to operations. The larger banks, too, recognise the importance of having managers with a clear understanding of businesses and the local area.
However, my noble friend makes an important point, and the Government remain committed to ensuring that viable businesses can access the finance that they need at an affordable rate. My noble friend suggested that RBS’s network should be used as the basis of a regional banking network. The Government’s shareholding in the Royal Bank of Scotland is managed on a commercial and arm’s-length basis by UKFI, whose overarching objective is to protect and create value for the taxpayer as shareholder, with due regard to financial stability and acting in a way that promotes competition. Splitting it up into a regional banking network might be a considerable undertaking and would take a fair while. It is uncertain whether it would improve lending conditions for small and micro-businesses. However, UKFI continues to work closely with the bank’s management to assure itself of the bank’s approach to strategy and to hold it rigorously to account for performance.
My noble friend suggested that credit unions and CDFIs are too fragmented and small. That chimes with something that the noble Lord, Lord Myners, said; he was basically sceptical of alternative forms of finance in general. The Government recognise the important role that CDFIs play, but are aware that the sector needs to operate on a greater scale to widen their coverage across the United Kingdom. The Government’s regional growth fund award of £30 million will help to address this issue, as it will facilitate £77 million of lending. It will also allow the Community Development Finance Association, which developed the fund, to build its capacity and capability to act as a wholesaler to the sector. This will allow it to look to private sector funders and European institutions. This, combined with the community investment tax relief and enterprise finance guarantee scheme, will enhance the sector’s capacity to grow.
My noble friend was critical of the barriers to entry to the banking industry; a number of noble Lords referred to that. All prospective new banks must apply for and receive a banking licence from the FSA. This is an essential step to ensure that all banks in the UK operate to the required standard and that consumers are protected. It is right that standards are robust. The FSA has, however, recently implemented a number of improvements to the banking licence process which will make it easier for potential new entrants to navigate. These include holding pre-application meetings with the applicants and the introduction of a modular approach to assessing deposit-taking applications.
My noble friend suggests a less onerous licence for small, local banks with a community obligation. We are clear that prudential standards for capital and liquidity should not act to dampen the effective competition and that new banks should not be treated disproportionately subject to the level of risk. That is why we have supported the Independent Commission on Banking’s recommendation that the OFT should work closely with the Prudential Regulation Authority to review the application of prudential standards, to ensure that they do not pose excessive barriers to entry and expansion from new entrants.
My noble friend was concerned that the new online lenders should be regulated under the Consumer Credit Act and by the OFT, and about the feeling that the responsible players are bracketed with the cowboys. The Government have noted the online peer-to-peer lenders’ concerns and are keeping the case for further regulation under review. Any decision to regulate would need to balance the needs of borrowers and lenders and the possible impact on new market entrants.
I am afraid that I am running out of time, so I will write to noble Lords whose questions I am unable to address. My noble friend Lord Popat had several. He was concerned about low participation in government lending schemes and the poor publicising of schemes available. We recognise the lack of awareness of government schemes and, following the Breedon review earlier this year, we have already committed to consider how best to improve awareness of such schemes. We are working to raise understanding of the support available to SMEs, including through a new online finance finder tool at www.businesslink.gov.uk.
The noble Lord, Lord Myners, referred to the Vickers report. I enjoyed his thought-provoking speech. Let me just answer his point. The Government welcome the work of Vickers and further analysis is ongoing to confirm the detail. As the noble Lord said, a White Paper and formal consultation will be launched next month.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised a very important point. May I say, rather rudely, that most of it was slightly outside the scope of this debate? However, I can see exactly where he is coming from. He addresses the finance that is available to suppliers—for example, to National Grid. The Government acknowledge that this is an important issue. Many SMEs report that working capital and late payment are obstacles as great as access to external finance. Mark Prisk has convened a working group with business representative bodies to explore how to tackle this issue, which also relies on SMEs agreeing payment terms in advance.
Several noble Lords referred to Project Merlin, through which the banks have lent £215 billion to businesses in the United Kingdom, including £75 billion to SMEs against a target of £76 billion. I acknowledge that they have not hit the target by £1 billion in £76 billion, but this none the less represents a 13% increase in gross lending on 2010 and Project Merlin has clearly focused the minds of senior bank officials on SME lending.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am sorry—I am out of time and I cannot allow interventions. I have to conclude.
As I hope noble Lords can see, we have a large menu of measures to support the provision of diverse sources of finance. We will carefully assess the impact of these policies to ensure that businesses of all types are able to access the finance that they need.