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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deputy Prime Minister
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Law Commission Review (Unfair Contract Terms)
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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)
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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)
(11 years, 11 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)
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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)
(11 years, 11 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
(11 years, 11 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.