House of Commons

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 17 July 2012

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What assessment he has made of the effect on patients of clinically led commissioning.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Clinical leadership in the design of services for patients will deliver better outcomes and improve patient experience of care. In the last year, for example, NHS Dorset clinical commissioning group has worked to improve outcomes in cardiology, dermatology and muscular-skeletal services, and NHS Nene CCG has admitted more than 3,000 patients on to a proactive care scheme, which I have had the privilege of seeing for myself, to identify and reduce the risks of people needing an emergency admission. That is one reason why the number of emergency admissions to hospital in the NHS fell by 1%.

[Stephen Mosley]

The Secretary of State will be aware of Chester’s location on the border with Wales and of the issues with cross-border health care commissioning. In order to ensure that there will be no financial shortfall for the West Cheshire CCG in relation to the treatment of patients who are registered with general practitioners in Wales but who receive treatment in England, will he confirm that the cross-border commissioning funding protocol between England and Wales will be fully implemented?

[Mr Lansley]

I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could convey my best wishes to the Countess of Chester hospital, which I visited just before Christmas, and my appreciation of the work of the West Cheshire CCG. I can confirm that discussions between officials in the Welsh Government, my Department and the NHS Commissioning Board are under way to extend and renew the protocol for cross-border commissioning for 2013-14 and beyond.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

If the Secretary of State believes that the reconfiguration of hospitals is clinically rather than finance led, will he ensure that NHS North West London publishes full risk assessments of its decision to close four accident and emergency departments and replace them with urgent care centres?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman will—I hope—be fully aware, the view of Ministers is clear: any reconfiguration of services must be driven not by cost but by a need to improve clinical outcomes for patients; must be in line with the commissioning intentions of the local commissioning group; must be on the basis of strong patient and public engagement; and must protect the choice available to current and prospective patients. To that extent, I hope that all the necessary information to support those four tests is in the public domain.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

GP commissioners in Bromley have opened a consultation on the future of services currently provided at the Orpington hospital site. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the administrator recently appointed to South London Healthcare trust takes account of the consultation’s findings when drawing up his proposals for how best to put SLHT on a sustainable clinical and financial footing?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that my hon. Friend is aware that when I appointed the trust special administrator and set a timetable for his work, I specifically added 30 days on an exceptional basis to the timetable for the production of his first report, one of the exceptional reasons being that an accelerated consultation should take place locally on the future of Orpington hospital.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I shall give the Secretary of State one last chance on rationing.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

Ooh!

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman needs to listen carefully to what I am about to say. Yesterday, he promised action to stop the restricting of cataract operations for financial reasons, if given evidence. How about this example? NHS Sussex has imposed severe restrictions that contradict the Department’s own guidance, “Action on Cataracts”, and this has seen the number of operations in Sussex fall from 5,646 in 2010 to 4,215 in 2011. Does the Secretary of State consider that fair to older people, and will he now take the action his Department has promised?

[Mr Lansley]

I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman many times, as has the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), that it is not acceptable and we will not allow NHS commissioners to impose blanket bans. I will gladly take note of and investigate that example, but I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me with a document that purported to contain a series of examples from across the country, most of which turned out to be fictional. I shall respond in writing about NHS Sussex and put a copy in the Library of the House, but, as I have made clear, we, unlike our predecessors, will not accept any blanket ban on treatment. Any treatment must be clinically determined in the interests of patients.

[Andy Burnham]

Well, the right hon. Gentleman is accepting it, and he continues to dispute my evidence, but what does he say to the president of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, who said yesterday of cataract restrictions:

“They are arbitrary and are a response to financial pressures, not clinical needs”?

The reason for the Government’s denial is that the financial pressures are greater than they care to admit. The figures released by the Treasury yesterday confirmed that he and the Government have now cut the NHS budget for two years running, but they also reveal something else: another real-terms cut planned for 2013-14. Do not their flagship promises on NHS spending now lie in shreds, and will this Prime Minister not be for ever remembered as the man who cut the NHS, not the deficit?

[Mr Lansley]

It is staggering, isn’t it? In 2010-11, the NHS budget was set by the right hon. Gentleman, not by us. The final accounts for 2011-12 will not be published until the autumn. I wish he would just get up at the Dispatch Box and admit that over the course of this Parliament the coalition Government will increase the NHS budget in England by 1.8% in real terms, which is £12.5 billion in cash, whereas the Wales Audit Office has said that a Labour Government in Wales will cut the NHS budget over the same period by 10% in real terms.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to bring forward legislative proposals on the funding of social care.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

15. What steps he is taking to bring forward legislative proposals on the funding of social care.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

The draft Care and Support Bill contains clauses that support our commitment to introduce a universal deferred payments scheme and a national eligibility threshold. We have set out our intention to base a new funding model on the principles of the Dilnot commission model and we will take a decision in the next spending review.

[Mrs Glindon]

Last week the Secretary of State dismissed the concerns of Labour MPs about councils being hard pressed to find funds to implement any of the proposals. The Local Government Association stated that there was no money. Will the Minister now commit to legislation in this Parliament to sort out the funding of social care at local level?

[Paul Burstow]

It does not need legislation to sort out the amount of money that goes into social services; it does need legislation, however, to put in place a universal deferred payments scheme. We have made it clear that we will fully fund the commitment that we have already announced and we will work with the Local Government Association and others on its detailed design and implementation.

[Barbara Keeley]

The verdict of the Care and Support Alliance on the delay in introducing legislation to reform social care funding is this:

“Each day of delay condemns greater numbers of older and disabled people to the risk of isolation and neglect,”

trapping people in hospital and pushing many more carers to “breaking point”. Just when will the Government realise the damage done by delaying the decision to do anything about funding social care?

[Paul Burstow]

In fact, in October 2010 this Government took an important decision about the funding of social care: to invest an extra £7.2 billion. I wish Opposition Members would stop running local authorities down and support the ones that are doing the right thing and ensuring that they spend the money the Government have provided to them on social care, rather than cutting those services. That is what I am doing; I hope that the hon. Lady will as well. I just wish that she had prefaced her comments by apologising for 13 years of Labour failure on social care.

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement today and the announcements last week about the future structure and the commitment to introduce legislation later in this Parliament in line with the draft Bill. Will he confirm that it is the Government’s intention to pursue the cross-party talks on funding options for the Dilnot package, and that if solutions can be found, they can be included in the legislation that is introduced?

[Paul Burstow]

Notwithstanding some of the perhaps intemperate exchanges we have in this place, my colleagues and I are still determined, if those on the Opposition Front Bench are, to engage in talks on how we reform the funding system. Indeed, the debate we had in the Chamber last night confirmed that both sides of the House wish to support the principles of the Dilnot reforms, so I hope that we can have such talks and that they can be reflected in the Bill.

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

I welcome the Government’s commitment to support the provision of free and fully integrated end-of-life care. While the palliative care funding pilots are progressing, can lessons be learnt quickly in my borough of Enfield where, sadly, most people are dying in hospital rather than, as is their choice, at home or with the support of local hospices?

[Paul Burstow]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Just last week we published the world’s first ever survey of bereaved people’s experiences of the end-of-life care received by loved ones. It revealed quite stark variations from one part of the country to another, and will prove a valuable tool in driving up performance of areas that are not doing well by families in end-of-life care. As for the White Paper, we have said clearly that we are committed to doubling funding for the pilots to ensure that we have the data to take decisions about the introduction of free personal care when it comes to end of life.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Opposition Members are genuine in our desire to reach cross-party consensus on the funding of social care. Will the Minister demonstrate his Government’s seriousness by agreeing to include Treasury Ministers directly in the cross-party talks, as Labour has offered to do from the start?

[Paul Burstow]

Talks that start with lots of preconditions are not going to be very good talks to start with. The Government always retain the responsibility for making decisions about taxation and spending priorities. We set out our position last week on the Dilnot Commission, and we now have a clear basis for talks, as those on both sides of the House seem to agree on the principles of Dilnot as the basis for reform.

[Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of the performance of the NHS in 2011-12; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

At the beginning of this month, I laid my first annual report before the House setting out the achievements of the health service in 2011-12. The report showed that the NHS had continued to maintain or improve all the key performance standards while delivering unprecedented efficiency savings and a strong financial out-turn. That is a testament to the achievements of all NHS staff.

[Chris Kelly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the numbers of people waiting over 18 weeks, over 26 weeks and over 52 weeks for treatment are now at their lowest-ever levels—lower than when Labour was in office? Will he also confirm that that gives the lie to Labour’s claims that waiting lists are increasing?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes; I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When we came into office, something like 209,000 people had waited over 18 weeks. We have reduced that figure to 160,000. The number waiting over a year was nearly 19,000, and we have brought that down to below 5,000. I remind Opposition Members that in Wales the target for the number waiting more than 26 weeks has not been met—the figure stands at 6%, whereas in England it is 2.2%.

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

In regard to improving cancer outcomes, will the Secretary of State consider using some of the underspend in the cancer drugs fund to allow improved access to advanced radiotherapy?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, because it allows me to confirm that the annual report states that the NHS has met all the cancer waiting time standards, and that we in England have provided for 12,500 patients to have access, through the cancer drugs fund, to cancer drugs that they would not otherwise have been able to have. It is a matter of regret that a similar cancer drugs fund is not available for exceptional treatments in Wales.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

What part or percentage of the £5.8 billion efficiency savings can be attributed to the salary freeze alone?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend in order to convey the precise figure. From my recollection, I believe that the bulk of the £5.8 billion efficiency savings—£2.8 billion—was in the acute sector. As most of the acute sector’s costs are pay costs, the pay freeze will have contributed a significant part of that.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State accept that some of those so-called efficiency savings are totally counter-productive? Despite Ministers’ claims to be saving money on agency staff, is not the truth that hospitals’ attempts to improve their efficiency have backfired, with jobs being cut and agency staff being hired at rates as high as £1,600 a day?

[Mr Lansley]

No, I will not accept any such thing. We are aiming to reduce agency staffing costs in the NHS under QIPP—the quality, innovation, productivity and prevention programme—by £300 million, and we have already made a reduction of more than £120 million. Since the election, in complete contrast to the situation beforehand, we have reduced the number of administrative staff in the NHS by 15,000, including a reduction of more than 6,000 managers. We have also increased the number of clinical staff by 4,000 since the election.

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

4. What steps he is taking to improve the quality of care provided in residential and nursing homes.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to improve social care services.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

The White Paper introduces new measures to help us to deliver better quality services and to improve the care that people experience, including through greater transparency, with new provider quality profiles and new care audits. It also clarifies what quality in care and support means, by setting out principles, standards, roles and responsibilities for driving up the quality of care. The White Paper makes it clear that we will rule out crude commissioning by the minute, which turns care workers into clock-watchers, and that we will work with commissioners, care providers and people who use services and carers in order to bring to an end commissioning practices that undermine people’s dignity and choice.

[Andrew Selous]

I recently visited Ashton Lodge residential home in Dunstable, and I was delighted to hear from the residents how kind the staff were. Occasionally, however, I get letters from constituents detailing simply unacceptable levels of care for their family in residential homes. How can we involve local communities more so they take a role in ensuring that all residential homes have consistently high standards of care?

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful for that question. Indeed, one of the issues set out in the White Paper is the collaboration by the Department of Health and others with leaders in the care sector to make sure that care homes become much more embedded as part of their local communities and much more genuinely open to their local communities—working with local schools and working with HealthWatch, which will have powers of entry to work with those care homes as well. By turning the spotlight on in a benign way, making sure that all care homes are more open to their public, I think we can significantly improve quality.

[Laura Sandys]

In parallel with the social care budget, do the Government see a strong role for GPs to look at prevention—putting in special monitoring as people get older to ensure that we stay younger and fitter for longer?

[Paul Burstow]

Indeed we do. We identify in the White Paper the fact that there has been a postcode lottery for many years when it comes to access to primary care in our care home sector. The White Paper sets out how to ensure that we begin to eradicate that postcode lottery. By establishing a national commissioning board to commission primary care, we can ensure greater consistency in the future.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

What conversations has the Minister had with his counterpart in Northern Ireland in respect of protecting the high standards of residential and nursing care that already exist for the people in Northern Ireland?

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Indeed, officials in my Department are in close contact with officials in all the devolved Administrations to make sure that we share best practice across the nations so that we drive up the quality of care for all.

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

Only last week, the Secretary of State said about care:

“The…number of delayed discharges is broadly the same as it was last year and, I believe, from memory, the year before—I will correct the record if not.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 322.]

Figures published by his own Department show the number of delayed days is up by 18% in the last year and 29% since August 2010. Are Ministers completely out of touch with reality, or would the Minister now like to correct the record?

[Paul Burstow]

Of course what the hon. Gentleman omits to mention in seeking to give an impression is this: the implication is that social services are not coping with delayed discharges and are the principal cause of them, but the figures do not bear that proposition out. [Interruption.] Indeed, the extra investment the Government are making in reablement services means that discharges in this area are being assisted and improving—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question has been asked, and the Minister is giving his answer. Members may like it or dislike it, but they have a duty to listen to it with courtesy. While I am about it, let me emphasise that there is far too much sedentary noise coming from both Front-Bench teams. I think that the Minister has finished his answer; we are grateful to him.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What assessment he has made of the availability of insulin pumps for young diabetics.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

We are currently undertaking a national audit to give us a clear picture of provision of pump services in England. This will be published shortly. The rapid response survey for 2010-11 suggests that half of all those eligible for a pump in England already have one, or have funding agreed—a significant improvement on the initial survey in 2010.

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure he will be aware that Nicola Sturgeon, the Health Minister in the devolved Administration at Edinburgh, announced earlier this year that all the under-18s requiring an insulin pump would get one. My constituent 13-year-old Fiona Clark has been told by Yorkhill hospital in Glasgow that she will have to wait an unspecified time to receive the pump her doctors say she needs. Given that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence estimates the standard benchmark rate for the uptake of insulin pump therapy for type 1 diabetes in England is 12.4%, will the Minister offer his Department’s assistance to help those in Scotland to get above the current paltry 3.1% uptake?

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but as he will appreciate as a Scottish Member of Parliament, this is a devolved responsibility for the Scottish Government. On the specific issue—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) would shut up, it would be helpful. It would probably be useful if the hon. Gentleman raised the specific issue with the Scottish Government, but on the general principle let me say that we are determined, certainly in England, to do all we can through education, the workings of the NHS and the operating framework to ensure that the number of people receiving pumps increases, as it already has in the last two years.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

6. How many children received milk through the nursery milk scheme in each of the last three years.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

In 2009-10, the number of portions funded was 218 million. In 2010-11 it was 262 million, and in 2011-12 it was 271 million. Of course, children do not necessarily attend nursery five days a week, so the number of portions does not equate to the number of children, so, say, 1 million children attending full- time or 2 million attending 2.5 days a week.

[Diana Johnson]

In Hull the nursery milk scheme has never been more needed, at a time when poverty is increasing and food banks are expanding. Will the Minister guarantee that no child who currently receives nursery school milk will lose out after the results of the consultation have been published?

[Anne Milton]

As the hon. Lady will know, we are consulting on a range of options to modernise the operation of the scheme. The cost rose to £53 million in 2010-11, and is due to rise to about £67 million in 2012-13. Given those massive increases, we need to look at the scheme’s operation to ensure that we are getting good value for money.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

10. Does the Minister accept that the cost may well have risen because more children are receiving free milk? Because the consultation is being launched during the school holidays, it will be extremely difficult for schools to respond. If this is a genuine consultation which aims to ensure that milk reaches the children who need it, will the Minister consider extending the deadline into September and October?

[Anne Milton]

The consultation has been running for some time now, and I should have thought that local authorities in particular would have had plenty of time in which to respond. Given that 8,962 settings are paying more than 90p for a pint, which is an outrageous amount, it is extremely important for us to hear from everyone. If the hon. Lady feels that there has been any problem with responses to the consultation and would like to drop me a line, I shall be happy to respond.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to reduce health inequalities.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 established the first legal duties to reduce health inequalities for national health service commissioners and for the Secretary of State. Both the NHS and public health outcomes frameworks will have a strong focus on reducing inequalities in access to health services, and on inequalities in the health outcomes of the population as a whole.

[Mark Menzies]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the inequalities in diagnoses of dementia around the country. What steps has he taken to reduce that variation in diagnosis rates?

[Mr Lansley]

As I think my hon. Friend will know from recently published data, some of the pilot work involving general practices demonstrated that it was possible to increase substantially the number of patients diagnosed with dementia. I believe that during the pilot period there was an increase of two thirds, more than 60%, in the number diagnosed. As part of the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge, we are using quality incentives in the NHS to identify and refer patients who are admitted to hospital with potential dementia in order to improve their diagnosis and treatment. We hope that that and other measures will identify more of those whose dementia is at an early stage, and will also assist their treatment.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

One of the key elements in the tackling of inequality is funding. The funds allocated to the clinical commissioning groups was set out in the operating framework, which related to GPs’ patient lists. It has now been changed to take account of data from the Office for National Statistics. Will the Secretary of State assure me that deprived areas will not lose out on the funds allocated to CCGs—not the per-head funds, but the funds allocated to CCGs as a result of the change?

[Mr Lansley]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we will publish the allocations for 2013-14 later this year. However, we are ensuring, I think rightly, that the allocations to clinical commissioning groups for NHS services reflect the population, because they have a responsibility for the whole population. Some parts of the country, particularly London, have substantial unregistered populations, which often include the groups who are most at risk.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of his important initiatives that could reduce health inequalities is the development of personal care budgets, which give real power and choices to patients, and also have the potential to reduce hospital admissions and costs?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, since the election we have pushed forward with offering access to a personal care budget to those who are in receipt of care and support. At the time of the last election, about 168,000 people were exercising that right. The figure now is over 432,000, and we are extending the scheme so that, for example, people in receipt of continuing health care through the NHS will not lose the opportunity for personal care when the NHS takes over that responsibility; instead, that will continue as a personal budget under the NHS.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State think any of the steps he set out in his original answer will lead to a repeat of the shock rise in the number of cancelled operations in the local hospitals serving my constituents, the figures for which were recently set out in a written answer to me by his Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns)?

[Mr Lansley]

The number of cancelled operations rises at certain times during the winter, and it did so during last winter. We are clear about the necessity of ensuring that patients do not have cancelled operations if we can avoid that, and, in particular, that those whose operations are cancelled have access to treatment rapidly thereafter. The key is to make sure, as we have done, that patients have timely access to treatment under the referral to treatment times guidelines, and as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the average waiting time for treatment in the NHS has fallen since the election, as has the number of people waiting a long time for treatment. That is the strongest measure for ensuring all patients get timely to access to care.

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

8. How many patients attended the accident and emergency department at Wythenshawe hospital in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

The Department does not collect data on accident and emergency attendances at hospital level. These data are only available at trust level. In the 12 months up to 8 July 2012, there were 108,393 accident and emergency attendances at University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I am sure he will want to join me in thanking the staff at Wythenshawe A and E department, particularly given that that colossal number of 108,000 attendances has taken place in a unit originally designed for 70,000 patients. However, if the A and E department at Trafford general hospital is closed, as is currently proposed, that would lead to a still greater increase in the number of patients at Wythenshawe A and E. Given that, is it not essential that the £11.5 million that will be required for extra facilities at Wythenshawe should be made available?

[Mr Burns]

I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not disappointed, but I cannot add anything to the answer I gave in the debate we had last week when he asked that specific question. I can assure him, however, that local commissioners have assessed the impact of the proposed changes at the Trafford and other hospitals, including Wythenshawe. The plans are still at an early stage and are yet to go to public consultation, and I have been informed that local commissioners will continue to review the impact of these changes on the other hospitals, including Wythenshawe. I urge the right hon. Gentleman, other Members whose constituencies are in the area and their constituents to contribute fully to the consultation process.

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

The Minister knows that the proposal is, first, to reduce services at the Trafford to urgent care provision and then, within not less than two to three years, to a minor injuries unit. What processes will be put in place to ensure that the most stringent criteria are applied in respect of investment in Wythenshawe and the other hospitals, as well as in Trafford community services and improved services to patients, before any such further move is contemplated?

[Mr Burns]

As the hon. Lady will be aware from the debate we had last week, these proposals are subject to the consultation process and to consideration of the results. Commissioners fully recognise the need to minimise the impact the changes will have on neighbouring A and E departments and other services. The Trafford and South Manchester clinical commissioning groups are working on developing further integrated care services, and on developing community care services as an alternative to hospital care, as well as on ensuring that the final decisions meet the needs of the local health economy by providing first-class quality care for the people of that area.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

Of course, it is not just Wythenshawe A and E that is facing difficulties. All Members throughout the House are grateful for the work our medical professionals do in extremely trying circumstances, but the truth is that the Government’s chaotic reorganisation has resulted in longer waits in accident and emergency. The Minister of State said last night that A and E departments were meeting the target, but figures published by his Department last week show that the Government have failed to meet the 95% target across major type 1 A and E units. If he cannot get his own figures right, he cannot expect to command the trust of patients or medical professionals. Will he now take this opportunity to show some respect for this House, for the public and for patients in general, and correct the record?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just explain that the Minister did not widen the parameters of the exchange and therefore they should not be widened, so he is perfectly within his rights, if he wishes, to focus his reply on Wythenshawe. I hope he is not going to be too disappointed. We’ll give it a go.

[Mr Burns]

I am most grateful for your protection, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I thought it might be helpful!

[Mr Burns]

I am most grateful.

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is playing with the figures. As he knows from previous discussions, he is talking about the SITREP—situation report—figures, which do not form the basis of the figures the Government use. [Interruption.] If he will keep quiet for a minute and listen, I will reiterate the point I made last night. Regarding A and E waits of under four hours and the percentile of 95, we are at 96%, which means we are within and above the level set down by the Government’s figures.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

11. What plans he has to review the health allocation formula.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation is reviewing the allocation of resources for the NHS through clinical commissioning groups, and for local authorities in relation to their future public health responsibilities. ACRA’s interim recommendations on the preferred distribution of public health resources were published on 14 June. The NHS formula will be published in due course. The draft mandate for the NHS Commissioning Board makes it clear that it should provide resources to secure equal access for equal need.

[David Mowat]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. It is becoming increasingly clear that ageing is a key driver of health care costs, yet the ACRA formula currently does not properly take that into account, to the detriment of towns such as Warrington. Can he confirm that under the new formula, ageing will be more prominent?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes. As my hon. Friend will know, under the existing formula, age was the single biggest factor, but what is important is that the formula accurately reflects the factors that will give rise to need for health care, so that the allocation of resources can respond directly to that need. Ensuring separately that there is an allocation to local authorities for public health, which will be measured in relation to mortality below the age of 75 in particular, will enable those resources separately to be focused on, for example, areas of greatest deprivation which give rise to the poorest health outcomes.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I am interested to hear the Secretary of State say that he understands there is a link between deprivation and health inequality, in light of the new funding arrangements that seem to indicate that councils in the north-east will receive £17 per head less for public health, whereas councils in wealthier parts of the country will receive £8 per head more.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that I have said many times that deprivation can give rise to inequalities in health outcomes. In particular, we are improving substantially the framework for reducing those health inequalities, because we are giving local authorities specific, dedicated resources. Let me make it clear to her that under the public health allocation formula that I outlined just a few weeks ago, no part of the country will see any reduction in its public health resources from the baseline established.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

12. What assessment he has made of the effect on residential care providers of reductions in local authorities’ budgets.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

Local authorities choose how best to use their funding; however, the levels of residential care provision are not determined solely by local council social care budgets. The supply of care home places is governed principally by demand from both public commissioners, such as local councils and the NHS, and private purchasers of services.

[Julie Hilling]

Nine out of 10 residential home providers say that low council fees are creating a two-tier system, as new investment is directed at wealthier areas where there are more people who can self-fund, and 82% of those providers say that self-funders are being charged more to cross-subsidise local authority-funded residents. This clearly is not fair, so what is the Minister going to do to rectify the situation?

[Paul Burstow]

We know from the most recent survey published by Laing and Buisson that there has been a 1.4% increase in the fees paid this year, compared with no increase last year. We also know that there is a surplus of places, which accounts for about 10% of the total number of bed places available in care homes up and down the country. So there is actually space, and it is entirely appropriate for local authorities to negotiate appropriate prices to provide good-quality care from one locality to another.

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

Following the census announcement yesterday that there are elderly hot spots, including North Yorkshire, will this is be a good opportunity for the Minister and the Government to review health and social care funding to reflect a growing elderly population in sparsely populated, isolated rural areas such as North Yorkshire?

[Paul Burstow]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight those issues and the emerging findings from the survey. It is important to say that data will be a key consideration in how the next spending review is shaped, along with the priorities that the Government will give to different demographic pressures as a result.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

13. What recent representations he has received on the reconfiguration of children's heart services.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

I have received representations about the review of children’s heart services via letters, parliamentary questions and e-mails from hon. Members, via letters and e-mails from organisations and the public, and via meetings. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received two overview scrutiny committee referrals, one from the Yorkshire and Humber joint health and overview scrutiny committee and one from the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

[Mr Sharma]

Is the Secretary of State confident that the committee has properly balanced the clinical decisions with the practical transport issues faced by families of children with heart problems?

[Mr Burns]

The assurance I can give the hon. Gentleman is that we certainly believe so, but these are matters for the joint committee of primary care trusts, which carried out this review. As he will appreciate, it is totally independent from the Department of Health, and rightly so.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns in Yorkshire about the review. Can he confirm to us, for the sake of absolute clarity, with whom this decision will lie finally?

[Mr Burns]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend; this is the hors d’oeuvre before the main meal later today. Ultimately, if any overview and scrutiny committees of relevant local authorities do not agree with the final decisions, they have a right to write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking him to refer the matter, with their concerns, to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. If it is asked to look into the matter, it will then come to a conclusion, of which it will inform my right hon. Friend and he will then take a decision.

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

The Scottish Government have decided that although the Yorkhill unit is currently unsafe, it can be made safe in the context of three surgeons doing 300 operations, whereas the “Safe and Sustainable” review, which is increasingly discredited, is demanding 400 to 500 operations. Why is it one rule for children in Scotland and another for children in Yorkshire?

[Mr Burns]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the decisions that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Health Department might take with regard to Glasgow is a matter for them. The fact is that we recognise what is commonly accepted among the international community: that the safest way of providing that surgery is by carrying out about 400 operations a year.

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

14. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that confidentiality agreements do not discourage NHS whistleblowers from coming forward.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

The Department wrote to the NHS trusts most recently in January 2012 reminding them that compromise agreements should not prevent information from being disclosed in the public interest. It also said that they should satisfy themselves that their organisational policies are in line with previously issued guidance.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. She will be aware of the case of my constituent Mr Gary Walker, the former chief executive of United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, who has been prevented by a confidentiality agreement from raising his concerns about the effect on patient safety of the previous Government’s targets. I want to hear Mr Walker’s concerns and my constituents are entitled to hear them. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look into this matter and give a categorical assurance that the concerns that Mr Walker has told us about will come into the public domain.

[Anne Milton]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his supplementary question. I cannot comment on the individual details of the case, but I appreciate his concern that NHS staff could be prevented from speaking out by confidentiality agreements. Confidentiality and compromise agreements are allowed in contracts, but the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 provides that any clause in that contract or compromise agreement between employer and employee is void in so far as it acts to stop the employee making a protected disclosure.

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

Given the proliferation of new bodies being created to deliver NHS services, including a number of private sector organisations, can the Minister be confident that the NHS constitution protects whistleblowers working for private companies but delivering NHS public services?

[Anne Milton]

I assure the hon. Lady that all must have regard to the NHS constitution. In fact, we issued guidance to NHS organisations that all contracts of employment should cover whistleblowing rights. In September 2010, we amended terms and conditions of service and guidance to the NHS on supporting and taking action on concerns raised by staff. The changes made to the NHS constitution make very clear the rights and responsibilities of NHS staff and their employers in respect of whistleblowing. As I have pointed out, all those providing services on behalf of the NHS must have due regard to the NHS constitution.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

My responsibility is to lead the NHS in delivering improved health outcomes in England, to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities, and to lead the reform of adult social care, which supports and protects vulnerable people.

[Laura Sandys]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Two of my local dentists have been closed as a result of an Office of Fair Trading investigation. Although that is totally understandable and nothing to do with the NHS, will the Secretary of State confirm to my constituents that they will have access to NHS-funded dentists? There happen to be more NHS-funded dentists in this country now than there were under the previous Government.

[Mr Lansley]

I think I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We are committed to increasing access to NHS dentistry, and over 1.1 million more patients have been seen by an NHS dentist since May 2010 than before the election. Nationally, there are more dentists. In 2010-11, there were 22,799 compared with 22,003 in the preceding year, before the election. NHS Kent and Medway has confirmed that it will have six dentists in place from 1 September 2012 who will temporarily provide the treatment that she is looking for, and it has started tendering processes to commission permanent NHS dental services in her area.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

T2. The Minister will be aware of the 500% increase in the use of antidepressants over the past 20 years. I welcome the announcement of the hundreds of millions that will be spent on talking therapies over the next few years, but will the Minister tell us specifically what funding has been allocated for mindfulness, which is the best known treatment for repeat episode depression?

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. He has been a doughty campaigner and pursuer of this issue and I can tell him that a number of improving access to psychological therapies—IAPT—services are developing and using mindfulness-based approaches. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, NICE recommends them for the treatment of recurrent depression. A number of randomised controlled trials are going on to see how it might be applied to other long-term health conditions. There is baseline allocated funding but there is no specific earmarked funding for this particular project other than in the context of the IAPT programme, in which we have invested £400 million.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

T6. Yesterday’s figures showed a 17% increase in the population of Milton Keynes over the past 10 years, the highest outside London or Manchester, and an unexpected increase of some 4,000 over the estimate in the past 12 months. May I seek the Secretary of State’s reassurance that that will be reflected in future health care budgets for the city?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend will, I hope, have understood from previous exchanges, the focus on the delivery of care to the resident population in an area covered by a clinical commissioning group will mean that we try, as far as possible, to align resources with the needs of a whole population rather than with just the practice-registered population.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. The Government often talk about reducing the number of managers in the health service to defend the front line, but following my recent meeting with my local representative from the Royal College of Nursing, can the Secretary of State confirm that under the Government’s definition a ward sister at band 7, who has a hugely important front-line role, is actually considered a manager?

[Mr Lansley]

If a member of staff is professionally qualified, they will be counted against the number of managers part of the overall work force census. It remains true, as we have said, that since the election we have reduced the number of managers in the NHS by more than 6,000 and increased the number of clinical staff by more than 4,000.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T7. Last year’s National Audit Office report highlighted inconsistencies in the care of patients with neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s, which neurology networks could address. When will the Government publish their review, announced last September, of clinical networks in the national health service, and will it offer any hope for Parkinson’s patients?

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. The NHS Commissioning Board is currently conducting a review of the effectiveness of clinical networks, and the scope for expanding them. It includes examining the case for neurological clinical networks, and a report should be published very soon.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T4. In yesterday’s debate, when talking about the south-west consortium, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) emphasised the need for negotiations and agreement with staff. Does the Secretary of State not think it was shocking that staff found out only through a series of freedom of information requests that the consortium existed, and can he tell me when the Department of Health first found out about the consortium?

[Mr Lansley]

I will gladly write to the hon. Lady about when we were first aware of the consortium. I think it was several weeks ago; indeed, the document referred to prominently in the press on Sunday had been on websites for some weeks, so there is nothing new about that. We knew about it. I reiterate the point that I and my right hon. Friend made yesterday: even though under a Labour Government, in the 2006 legislation, powers were given to trusts to take their own decisions on the employment of staff, they must do so in negotiation with the staff side. We would expect that. From my point of view, the South West Pay Consortium is rightly looking to maximise flexibility, but I have made it clear to the pay review body that we believe that the flexibility it needs can be delivered through negotiations and “Agenda for Change”. It will not and should not require the reduction of pay for staff.

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

T9. The clinician-led “Better Services Better Value” review has condemned the accident and emergency unit, and the maternity and children’s wards at St Helier hospital, because it expects out-of-hospital services to be expanded instead. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss local concerns that the £5 million allocated to provide the out-of-hospital services will be totally inadequate to the task?

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question. As he knows, any proposals for service changes will be subject to the Secretary of State’s four tests and a full three-month public consultation across south-west London, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents will take part in. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be more than happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

T8. In the north-east region, there is one neuromuscular care adviser providing dedicated specialist care and support for more than 3,000 people with muscular dystrophy and associated conditions. Will the Minister give assurances that care advisers will continue to be funded and commissioned at specialist NHS Commissioning Board level so that they can carry on supporting community teams across the country?

[Mr Burns]

I give the hon. Lady that assurance. Specialised commissioning will be carried out through the NHS Commissioning Board.

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

T10. I commend the Government for their plans to improve the care and support system, especially for an ageing population. How will the changes make a real difference to carers, particularly those supporting people with Alzheimer’s and dementia? Is there more we can do to support them?

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She is right: we have to do as much as we possibly can to recognise and support family carers. In the White Paper, we have set out a number of steps, not least investment of £400 million to fund more breaks for carers. We are working with the Royal College of General Practitioners to make sure that they are more aware of carers and can identify more carers. We are doing work to make sure we have earlier, quicker diagnosis in more areas of dementia so that people get the support they need. Most important of all, we are making sure that hospitals, as part of the services they provide for people with dementia, actually deliver on NICE guidance on supporting family members. Finally, the Government are legislating, for the first time ever, on support for the needs of carers.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the views of clinicians, and scientists from academia, industry and the third sector, on the impact of change on the development of stratified medicines?

[Mr Lansley]

I have the benefit of a review undertaken by Sir John Bell and his colleagues, which I accepted wholeheartedly. In particular, I immediately agreed with the recommendations, and we are implementing and funding recommendations for the establishment of centres across the NHS for genetic testing to support stratified medicine for cancer patients.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Further to the Secretary of State’s welcome response to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and his comments yesterday on the issue of the south-west consortium in relation to pay reductions, will he apply the same attitude to pay and conditions, particularly backward or downward regradings and other detrimental changes to terms and conditions?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend knows, trusts and NHS employers are responsible for the terms and conditions of their staff, and for ensuring, as “Agenda for Change” intends to, that staff who effectively have the same knowledge and competences have the same pay banding, wherever they happen to be across the country. That is the objective of “Agenda for Change”. As I said yesterday, and will continue to say, “Agenda for Change” can be improved—we made that clear to the pay review body—but we think it is possible, if the staff side works with us, to enhance “Agenda for Change” and increase its flexibilities, so that NHS employers can recruit, retain and motivate their staff, with local flexibility, in a national pay framework.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Given that every year, 1.2 million admissions to accident and emergency units are alcohol-fuelled, when will the Government help the NHS and legislate for a minimum alcohol unit price?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very familiar with the alcohol strategy and has read it in detail. It is one of the things that we need to do. Brief interventions, specialised treatment, the NHS alcohol check and, of course, changes to licensing will all make a difference. As I say, the alcohol strategy, a cross-Government document, is out. We will respond further in due course.

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

Last week, the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust cleared an important milestone towards becoming a foundation trust. An historical debt remains, largely as a result of punitive accounting measures under Gordon Brown. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State do everything that he can to ensure that when the Royal Cornwall becomes a foundation trust, it is debt-free?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Lady was referring to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). For future reference, we do not refer to Members of the House by name.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will, I am sure, know that an application for foundation trust status from the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust is currently being considered by my Department. The trust is being assessed on whether it meets the quality, service, performance, business strategy, finance and governance standards required if a trust is to be an FT. Once the trust has demonstrated that it has met those standards in all other regards, the Department will ensure that any outstanding liquidity issues are resolved in time for the trust to be authorised as an FT. The process of assessing FT applications will ensure that any remaining debt carried by the trust when it becomes a foundation trust is affordable within the trust’s forward plans.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The chair of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust has written to the Secretary of State to correct inaccurate information given out by the Department of Health regarding the trust’s performance. [Interruption.] Instead of barracking me, would the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Instead of shouting at me now, it is a shame that the Secretary of State did not meet the local MPs when he had the opportunity. Will he distance himself from the false information put out by unattributable sources in his Department, which will undermine the performance of the hospital and shows little respect for the health service workers who are working to improve services?

[Mr Burns]

If I can calm the situation down. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will just hush I will give him the answer.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is, frankly, too much noise on both sides of the House. It does not suit the Minister now for the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) to shout from a sedentary position, and I absolutely understand, similarly, that it does not suit Opposition Members when the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues chunter from a sedentary position. Let us have a truce, and the right hon. Gentleman can be a statesman—we look forward to it.

[Mr Burns]

As ever. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the interpretation of what has happened with regard to the trust’s performance. There has been an historic problem with its performance, but I pay tribute to the staff, who have made tremendous efforts to improve performance, and have achieved some improvement. The trouble is that it is not sustainable not to put the trust on a sustainable financial footing. The hon. Gentleman said that he would like a meeting with me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] As he will know, if he keeps quiet for a minute, I have written to him offering a meeting with my right hon. Friend, on 24 July; I hope that the hon. Gentleman can attend.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Cases of blood poisoning from E. coli have increased by nearly 400% in the past 20 years, and E. coli resistance to antibiotics is almost certainly linked to record levels of antibiotic usage on factory farms. By over-using antibiotics we risk ruining for future generations one of the great discoveries of our species. Will the Department put pressure on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs finally to take that issue seriously?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the issues. Indeed, I was interested to see analysis some years ago of the extent of antibiotic resistance in hospitals in the Netherlands. Resistance was clearly much more prevalent in parts of Friesland where there was much greater antibiotic usage in farming. I therefore completely understand, and my colleagues in DEFRA understand this too. Just as we are looking for the responsible and appropriate prescribing of antibiotics in the health service, my colleagues feel strongly about the proper use of antibiotics in farming.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

When the national advisory council of the Thalidomide Trust recently met Government representatives, no funding undertakings were available on the replacement of the health support grant for sufferers. When can we expect a meaningful commitment in that regard, and is the Department liaising with its devolved counterparts?

[Paul Burstow]

Yes, we are liaising with the devolved Administrations. Yes, we had a productive meeting with the trust and the council, which confirmed that they will shortly submit to us the second-year evaluation of the pilot programme. I undertook to look at that carefully and enter into further discussions with a view to reaching a conclusion and making further announcements this autumn.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Ministers may recall the concern of patients and carers in the New Forest area about the decision to close a third of acute adult mental health beds in Hampshire. Are Ministers aware of a similar trend in other parts of the country, and if they are, as they should be, what do they think about it?

[Mr Burns]

My hon. Friend has raised that issue in different forms on many occasions, and feels strongly about it. The decision to reconfigure services in his constituency was made locally, and the Hampshire overview and scrutiny committee decided not to write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking him to refer it to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, because it presumably believes that it is the right way forward to continue to provide first-class quality care for patients.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that commissioners in Cumbria must bear their share of responsibility for the deep-seated problems in the Morecambe Bay health trust, which have taken far too long to address. Will he join me in urging those commissioners to protect services such as Barrow’s maternity unit in their forthcoming review?

[Mr Lansley]

As we have seen in a number of instances over the years in the NHS, all those responsible should always be aware that, although the responsibility for quality may be, in the first instance, for the board of a trust, it is also the responsibility of those who commission the services. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, one of the key considerations for the future in the development of services is for the NHS to respond to the commissioning intentions of local commissioners. Clearly, the matter that he raised will be determined locally as regards what commissioners require in terms of services from Morecambe Bay trust.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to Ministers and all colleagues, but as usual, demand has exceeded supply. I am sorry to disappoint some colleagues but we must now move on.

Access to Homeopathic Medicines

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

Homeopathic medicines deliver a health care option to many people, including in my constituency. For many of them, the issue relates to freedom and personal choice.

The petition I present is from people in my constituency who are concerned that section 10 of the consolidated Human Medicines Regulations 2012 should remain unchanged. I believe the Government are not willing at this stage to agree a change, but a marker needs to be put down. A small but well co-ordinated group with an anti-homeopathy agenda must be resisted by MPs and by Government. Choice on access to homeopathic medicines is paramount, and it must be retained and enshrined by Government. The petition requests that the status quo continue.

The petition states:

The Humble Petition of the citizens of the UK.

Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about proposed changes to the Medicines Act that may restrict access to homeopathic medicine.

Wherefore your Petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that any changes to the Medicine Act allow greater freedom to homeopathic practitioners to dispense remedies.

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

[P001112]

Defence Equipment and Support

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call Alison Seabeck to ask the urgent question, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make it clear from the outset that I intend to conclude supplementary questioning no later than half an hour after the start of the UQ. Brevity by all concerned should enable all those who wish to contribute to do so.

12:35

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the future of Defence Equipment and Support.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

A key element in the transformation process under way in the Ministry of Defence is that of its equipment and support activities through the matériel strategy. Reforming the acquisition system to drive better value from the defence budget is a core element of the process. This will require changes to Defence Equipment and Support to ensure that the organisation has the structures, management and skills it needs to provide the right equipment to our armed forces at the right time and at the right cost. Change is essential to tackle the legacy problems in defence acquisition that have historically led to cost and schedule overruns and have resisted previous attempts at reform.

The current system does not help or support DE&S properly, and it is not delivering value for money for the taxpayer. Bernard Gray’s analysis reveals the following root causes: first, an historically overheated equipment programme in which far more projects were planned than could be paid for; secondly, a weak interface between DE&S and the wider Ministry of Defence, with poor discipline and change control between those setting requirements for equipment and those delivering the programmes; and, thirdly, insufficient levels of business capability at DE&S for the scale and complexity of the portfolio it is asked to deliver. The result of these combined issues has been significant additional costs in the defence budget in the order of hundreds of millions of pounds each year.

Earlier this year, MOD officials were asked to focus their efforts on considering the comparative benefits that could be derived from changing DE&S into an Executive non-departmental public body with a strategic partner from the private sector or a Government-owned, contractor-operated entity. The work done to date suggests that the strategic case for the GOCO option is stronger than that for the ENDPB option. Further value-for-money work is under way to confirm this assessment. In the meantime, as resources and commercial appetite constrain our ability to pursue these two options simultaneously to the next stage, we have decided that the Department should focus its effort on further developing and testing the GOCO option.

The work to determine value for money between the options will take place over the next few months. In parallel, we will begin to develop a commercial strategy, engaging with industry to hone our requirement. This work will support decisions later this year on whether to proceed with the GOCO option and whether to launch a competition for a private sector management company to run the organisation. Provided that the further work demonstrates that the value-for-money case for GOCO over ENDPB is conclusive, this will be followed by an investment appraisal that will test the GOCO against a public sector comparator. Ultimately, this would be followed by a decision on whether to proceed.

[Alison Seabeck]

Let me be clear that there is massive consensus across this House that defence procurement must be tackled to ensure that some of the issues that plagued successive Governments are not repeated. We understand the budgetary challenges faced by the MOD and agree that procurement reform is essential to ensure financial sustainability.

It was therefore a huge surprise when yesterday the Secretary of State revealed in Defence questions that a decision had been made on the future of DE&S, but that no oral statement was planned and, indeed, that it was to be slipped out on the last day of Parliament. It was a bigger surprise, therefore, to read in the written statement that in their third year of government, no decision has yet been made by Ministers. The delay is as worrying as it is inexplicable. With the Gray review, the previous Government began the process of reform. It is now unclear when it will be completed. Will the Minister comment on the timing and confirm that primary legislation will be required for a GOCO?

The Government prefer the Government-owned, contractor-operated model, but it is unclear why. Will the Minister explain precisely why a GOCO is preferable to an NDPB? Are his Treasury colleagues content that the GOCO model offers value for money? Will he make a commitment to publish the full reasoning for the rejection of other models?

We fear that privatisation could weaken the public accountability and transparency of multi-billion-pound defence decision making. How would a GOCO be held publicly accountable? Who would be responsible for ensuring that contracts were delivered to time and to cost? We have seen recently with G4S that outsourcing does not guarantee efficiency or effectiveness, and can increase risk. Indeed, even with the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games model, problems have arisen because Ministers have been distanced from the decision-making process and the lines of responsibility have been blurred. Such issues would be unacceptable when dealing with our armed forces.

Will the Minister say what will happen to existing contracts under the GOCO model? Crucially, those include the nuclear deterrent. Finally, what will the military’s role be in procurement under these plans? What guarantee can he give to the 20,000 people who are employed by DE&S that their jobs are not under threat?

The future of DE&S is not only about tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs in our defence industry, but, crucially, about the security of our nation. Getting it wrong would put lives at risk. It is vital that Parliament has a full opportunity to scrutinise these decisions.

[Nick Harvey]

May I correct the hon. Lady’s first proposition? It is clear that no decision has been made. A study is being carried out, which involves value-for-money work. If, when that appraisal is completed, we take this option forward, that is the point at which the decision will be made. Only when the model had been worked up and thoroughly tested would we finally take the decision to go ahead. Of course, we would come back to the House at that point.

The hon. Lady suggested that we had slipped this announcement out. I would say that the contrary is true. If the House had not been about to go into several weeks of recess, we would not necessarily have made a statement yet. We have done so to give the House the greatest possible transparency about what is going on and to send the clearest possible signal to the potential commercial partners that we are serious about this matter and are taking it forward. I stress that the decision about timings will be taken towards the end of this year. The commercial partner would be sought in a competition during the course of next year and a decision on whether to go ahead would be taken early in 2014.

The hon. Lady asked whether this model would include the nuclear component of defence. I remind her that the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston is a Government-owned, contractor-operated organisation, and that it works extremely well. The last Labour Government and previous Governments have made extensive use of the private sector in providing critical elements of our defence and other public services. I see no reason to believe that it would be any less capable of doing so in this area.

The GOCO option has looked better in the early explorations because if we stuck with an ENDPB, the work force and the management would remain in the public sector, and the greatest possible private sector involvement would be the use of a consultant. If we go for the GOCO option, the entity will have all the freedoms of a private sector operator: it will recruit people on private sector terms and conditions, and will have an incentive to make the thing work in a way that an ENDPB would not.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a matter of such crucial importance that it is important that it should not become a party political plaything, and if it can be done in such a way as to attract the support of all sides of the House, the benefits that will flow from these changes will come sooner and they will flow much more copiously, and we will reach the sunlit uplands of wonderful defence procurement?

[Nick Harvey]

I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. It is worth recalling that the previous Government asked Bernard Gray, a former Labour special adviser at the Ministry of Defence, to conduct his study of defence procurement. He came forward with a compelling and, to some extent, damning report. Central among his recommendations was the proposition that there should be a GOCO to run DE&S in the future.

We have now recruited Bernard Gray to be the Chief of Defence Matériel and given him the opportunity to go into further depth, and it has become increasingly clear that he was absolutely right. Of course these issues will have to be debated, and I have explained that the timelines are still quite long. No decisions have yet been taken, and proper value-for-money studies will continue.

To answer a question that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) asked, those studies will be made available for everybody to have a look at. This does not need to be a political football, and I hope it does not become one.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Where will these proposals leave the complex weapons contract, which has delivered such effective outcomes in Libya and provided top-class jobs and technology throughout the country, particularly in north-west England?

[Nick Harvey]

As far as I am concerned, the proposals will have no impact on that. The specific contracts to provide particular services and products will be unaffected by the changes. They will enable us to secure better value for money in future when we make further contracts on a variety of defence procurement issues.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Urgent operational requirement contracts have played an important part in recent years, but unlike with planned procurement the through-life costs are often not included in the initial costs. How will the through-life costs be accommodated in an overheated defence budget?

[Nick Harvey]

Decisions on whether any of the procurements that we made under the UOR process should be brought into the core defence programme will have to be taken individually in respect of each procurement. Some will be brought into the core programme, and at that point a full analysis of through-life costs will have to be made. Others, despite having performed well in theatre, will not be brought into the long-term defence programme. The type of scrutiny that my hon. Friend seeks will take place at that point.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

How will this decision, or lack of decision, affect existing contracts such as that for the A400M, on which many UK aerospace jobs rely?

[Nick Harvey]

It will have no impact on existing contracts. It is the means by which we will secure better value for money in forming future contracts.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Can the Minister explain in a practical way how a complex and expensive equipment programme such as the future carriers would have been better carried out under the new arrangements? For example, somewhere along the line the idea that the carriers should be easily convertible to take catapults was left out of the design. Would that situation be improved by the new arrangements?

[Nick Harvey]

It is probably common ground throughout the House that defence procurement has not been an exemplar of success for a good many years. One reason for that is that despite the good work of good people working for DE&S, they do not have available to them the full range of skill sets that they need to negotiate on equal terms with some of the more complex providers. Granting DE&S the private sector freedoms I have described will enable it to take on board the necessary skill sets to ensure that in future negotiations and future project management there is a better match between those securing value for the taxpayer and good products for the armed forces and the private sector providers of complex programmes. That will be a marked improvement on how things have been in the past.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the study that the Minister mentioned consider the procurement and purchasing of equipment alongside our allies and other countries, which could reduce costs?

[Nick Harvey]

It is certainly true that a lot of our procurement is done in a cohort with our allies, and as time goes forward I expect that to be increasingly the case. Having a Government defence equipment and support body with the freedom to operate in a quasi-private sector model will give us the best possible latitude to deal with a variety of allies that have differing models of defence arrangements.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

One of our allies is Australia. I urge the Minister to look to that country, where a Government-owned contractor-operated organisation seems to work successfully. Will he give me a guarantee that this Government, unlike the previous one, who gave away submarine engine orders to Germany, will ensure that contracts are let to British industry?

[Nick Harvey]

Of course, competition laws dictate the ability of any Government to grant contracts to onshore suppliers. Our first and foremost consideration is to equip the armed forces with what they need. Our second consideration is to ensure value for the taxpayer. If, having ticked both those boxes, it is possible to ensure a healthy and thriving defence industry in the UK, so much the better. We like to give contracts to British suppliers when possible, but there are competition laws and our hands are tied.

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

The Minister proposes a procurement model that allows the Government to buy off the shelf from any company, whether or not it is British. He will be aware that BAE lost the Typhoon contract and that a French company has preferred-bidder status. If we are not prepared to give preferred-bidder status to British companies, why should other countries do so?

[Nick Harvey]

Clearly, it would be foolish not to consider buying things off the shelf that meet the requirements of the British armed forces. However, I repeat that clear competition laws determine the circumstances in which we can award preferred-bidder status. In many cases, we are unable to do so.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Can the Minister career-plan specialist officers who go into defence procurement, so that they can spend longer than two years—three or four years, perhaps—doing the job to improve the efficiency of the product?

[Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Even under the proposed model, we will continue to have quite a lot of military personnel inside DE&S, which it needs to give it insight into the user requirement. I agree with my hon. Friend that short rotations have not served DE&S well. It would be to the benefit of both the individuals and the organisation if postings were for longer periods.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Thousands of jobs in Edinburgh rely on companies such as SELEX Galileo. What relationship will the new body have with such private sector companies?

[Nick Harvey]

The new body will have the same relationship as the existing one with suppliers of such products. The new body will contain a greater degree of private sector expertise, so it might be able to drive a harder bargain.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

We need to make the best use of the defence budget and give our armed forces the tools they need to do the job, but we must also protect sovereign capability and have a strategy on where we invest our research and development budgets. Does the Minister agree that deciding how we organise those two things is too important to be left to dogma?

[Nick Harvey]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to maintain sovereign capabilities. I referred a moment ago to competition law, but when there are specific exemptions that enable us to protect national sovereignty for reasons of national security, we will take them. She is right on the research and technology budgets. They will remain an important part of our work. We cannot leave it entirely to the private sector to undertake primary research. It is necessary for the state to stimulate it.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

The Minister may know that I was present on 2 July at the royal opening of the new £75 million BAE System munitions factory in my constituency. It was built thanks to the innovative, 15-year munitions acquisition supply solution contract signed by the MOD back in 2008, and sustains more than 200 jobs. What will happen with such long-term contracts, which are so important to my constituency?

[Nick Harvey]

Nobody would suggest that everything that occurred under previous systems was not good. Clearly, there are exemplars—some contracts worked well. I am sure the facility in the hon. Lady’s constituency will be a great success and that it will support employment for many years to come, but the fact that we will have a more private sector-rooted procurement body will not have any negative impact on such contracts.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

The shadow Minister spoke of the budgetary challenges facing all Governments, but was quick to gloss over her legacy—the budget was taken away from the MOD by Labour and given to the Treasury. Does the Minister share my surprise at Labour Members questioning the new avenues of efficiency when, if they looked at the National Audit Office major projects report 2010, they would see that the majority of major projects overran, including the A400M, the Astute and the Typhoon?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question was simply far too long. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is smirking about it—

[Mr Ellwood]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. He has abused his privilege and ought to learn from it.

[Nick Harvey]

There have undoubtedly been serious problems with the procurement side of the defence business for a very long time. The deficit in defence from two years ago was in very substantial part caused by the overheating of the procurement budget, but we have taken dramatic steps in the past couple of years to get the defence budget back into balance. The Treasury can see the progress we have made, but the steps we are proposing today will not be taken unless it is satisfied by the work on value for money that is currently taking place.

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

As the Minister has acknowledged, there have been long-standing problems in defence procurement. The Public Accounts Committee has taken a keen interest in the matter. Will he outline exactly what steps he is taking to ensure that the establishment of the GOCO model is well worked up, so that we do not have some of the problems that we have had with other procurement bodies in the past?

[Nick Harvey]

The hon. Lady makes a good point—that is why I was at pains to spell out at the outset that the process has some considerable way to go. Only when the work on value for money is completed will a decision be taken on whether we are going ahead in principle. At that stage, we will work the model up in detail and look for a competition with private sector partners. At the end of all of that, there will be a final testing, which must satisfy the Treasury, among others. That will be the point at which a decision to go forward will be taken. There is a long route to go.

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

Does the Minister agree that a key indicator of the success of either of the two models that he has described will be the attitude towards small and medium-sized enterprises in defence tendering in instruments such as pre-qualification questionnaires, which are generally unhelpful to SMEs?

[Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend makes good points on the difficulties that SMEs believe they currently have in some of our big procurement projects. Since the move to the MOD contracting directly with prime contractors, which then handle subsidiary contracting, it would be true to say that the MOD has rather lost the skill set of managing SMEs. By the time the reforms are complete, I hope that a GOCO of the sort I have described will reinvest in those skill sets and that we will be better able to manage SMEs directly.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the light of what the Minister has said on sovereign capabilities, and the fact that Aldermaston is already a GOCO, how will the successor deterrent programme be different if it is transferred into a GOCO?

[Nick Harvey]

There will be very little difference. The fact of the matter, however, is that the project management undertaken on behalf of the MOD by DE&S will—I say this with considerable confidence—be better, because there will be a higher level of skills in DE&S. It will bring in a variety of new commercial skill sets of which it is currently short. That will secure better value for money and more efficient delivery of the contract.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his openness with the House at this early stage in his considerations. Will he commit to write to Members of the House who represent the DE&S work force as the project progresses, particularly in relation to the protections available to them under TUPE regulations?

[Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I have been at pains to stress that despite DE&S lacking some of the skills it needs going forward the work done by those who work for it is of a high quality and is much appreciated by the MOD. We are consulting the work force and the trade unions as we take these steps forward, and as part of the ongoing consultation we will be happy to talk to Members representing constituencies where the majority of DE&S staff are based.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

For clarity, who in the future do the Government intend to be accountable for failures to deliver contracts on time and on budget?

[Nick Harvey]

The MOD will be the customer of the organisation and is responsible to Parliament for everything it does. If there is a failure, the buck will stop with the MOD.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Is the Minister saying that under this proposal British small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence industry will benefit?

[Nick Harvey]

I sincerely believe that SMEs in Britain will benefit because, at the moment, they get all their work through prime contractors, and it is a common complaint of SMEs that they do badly out of prime contractors. If we rebuild the skills inside DE&S so that it can manage the supply contracts from SMEs directly—in some instances—they will benefit. That is certainly what SMEs are telling us.

Points of Order

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

13:01

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, and again this morning, Health Ministers made a series of inaccurate statements. What powers exist under Standing Orders for you to ask them to return to the House and correct inaccurate figures on NHS budgets, delayed discharges and accident and emergency waiting times?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s attempted point of order is that answers to questions are the responsibility of Ministers. Similarly, in the event of an inaccuracy known to the Minister, it is the Minister’s responsibility to correct the record. The hon. Gentleman is a determined and persistent chap, and I feel sure that he will pursue the path of righteousness to his satisfaction. If he remains dissatisfied, no doubt we shall hear from him again.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to a question on 11 July, the Health Secretary told me that local government was being given sufficient funding to cope with provisions in the new social care White Paper, but on the same day the Local Government Association released a statement saying:

“there won’t be enough money to provide these services to anyone other than the most needy, or those who can afford to pay for all of their own care.”

In the interests of accuracy, will the Secretary of State correct the record?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but in material terms my reply does not differ in content from that which I just offered the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed). It is, at least in part, a matter of interpretation. I said that the hon. Gentleman was a persistent chap, but she is a persistent woman, and I feel sure that she will pursue this matter in a way she judges fit.

I shall now call the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The hon. Gentleman has three minutes in which to make such an application.

Wellingborough Prison

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24 )

13:03

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter that I believe should have urgent consideration—the loss of up to 600 jobs in my constituency owing to the announcement today of the closure of Her Majesty’s Prison Wellingborough.

It is with great regret that I move this motion at all. At 9.30 today, I was doing a live broadcast on BBC Radio 5 Live when it was announced as breaking news that Wellingborough prison was to be closed. I was not told in advance and have only just received an e-mail from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), who has responsibility for prisons, outlining the plans to shut the prison. I hasten to add that this came after I learned about it through the media first.

That is in total contrast to how the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) handled the situation when Wellingborough prison was put into the market testing programme. On that occasion, the then Justice Secretary rang me at 6 am on the day of the announcement to ensure that I was fully briefed before the public statement. Clearly, the coalition Government believe in making announcements to the media before telling the local constituency MP.

What is most disturbing about the matter is the number of jobs that will be lost in my constituency. Up to 600 people might lose their employment, whether they are employed directly through the prison or indirectly through local businesses. The independent monitoring board annual report states that the prison improved from a level 2 to a level 3 prison. Wellingborough prison has moved from 123rd out of 130 in the prison rankings to 93 owing to the hard work and commitment of its governor and staff. It has also become far more cost effective, with 5% efficiency savings in 2011-12 and further planned efficiency savings of 3% projected for 2012-13.

This is a good, improving prison that is now being closed without any consultation or appeal process. Closure would have significant ramifications for my constituents. The prison management and officers have done everything they were asked to do and more. The reason given for its closure is that we have too much space in our prisons. This comes after years and years of being told that they are overcrowded and that we need more spaces—the previous Government allowed prisoners out early because there were not enough spaces.

There seems to be no consistency within the Ministry of Justice. With Britain’s increasing population, surely to have spaces left in prisons would be a sensible precaution, not least in case we have a repeat of last year’s riots. Hundreds of people losing their jobs in my constituency for a short-term, dubious economic saving is plain wrong. This is the wrong prison being closed for the wrong reasons at the wrong time.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his application under Standing Order No. 24. I understand his extreme disappointment at the decision and the alleged handling of the matter and of him. That said, having listened carefully to his application, I must nevertheless conclude that the matter does not, on this occasion, meet the criteria under Standing Order No. 24. Agreeing to the application would, of course, cause the subsequent debates to be significantly delayed. I recognise that my decision will disappoint him, but knowing him, as I do, to be an extraordinarily assiduous parliamentarian, I feel sure that it will not be long before he returns to the matter. I suspect that Justice Ministers are also keenly aware of that fact.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2012

Finance Act 2012

Cosmetic Surgery (Minimum Standards)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

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

13:08

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish minimum standards for the practice of cosmetic surgery, including non-surgical procedures; and for connected purposes.

The Bill would establish the regulation of cosmetic surgery. I, too, am persistent, Mr Speaker. I first introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on the regulation of cosmetic surgery in 1994. Unfortunately, despite calls from a wide range of organisations, not much has changed since. As a result, thousands of women have continued to face the horrific consequences of unregulated cosmetic surgery. That ten-minute rule Bill generated huge publicity and hundreds of letters, and the issue of breast implants has received even more attention of late following the PIP implant scandal in 2010.

At some time in our lives, most of us have wanted to change something about ourselves. Huge pressure is put on women in particular, but increasingly on men too, to change their looks. Private sector clinics offer a multitude of cosmetic procedures to achieve the perfect shape or a wrinkle-free face. Too thin, too fat, never just right—that is the message. Cosmetic surgery, including breast implants, continues to be a growing industry. In 2011, members of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons conducted almost 45,000 surgical procedures, more than 10,000 of which were breast enlargements for women. Between 2002 and 2011, the number of boob jobs rose by 324%, and it continues to rise, as do the numbers of facelifts, tummy tucks and nose jobs.

Members of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons also operated on more than 4,000 men, with nose jobs and man-boob jobs the two most popular procedures. That represents a 219% increase in cosmetic surgery for men since 2002, and does not include procedures carried out by people who are not members of the association, those undertaken abroad or those not yet classified as cosmetic procedures. Many people face exploitation by private sector clinics and even cowboy surgeons if they are unable to receive treatment through the NHS. Most cases of botched surgery or mistakes are then rectified by the NHS, as we have seen with the removal of PIP implants.

Regulation is needed in a number of areas to reduce the risks to patients. In 1998, the then Government accepted the recommendation of an independent review body on silicone breast implants to establish a national breast implant registry. I was part of that process and took part in several meetings at the Department of Health, but the register was abandoned in 2006. I propose that we now need a register for all types of implants used in all areas of the body, including breasts, cheeks, pecs and buttocks. That would allow better monitoring of outcomes and problems as they occur, which would have been useful in the recent PIP cases.

Many clinics gain much of their business from advertising in national newspapers and women’s magazines. They ask, “Is cosmetic surgery only for the rich and famous?” The answer they give is: “Not any more—it’s a lifestyle choice!” Some offer significant discounts, and there are even special deals on websites. Private clinics are now advertising on Twitter. One even suggested that women add a boob job to their Christmas present list. Misleading images and claims are used, despite tighter guidelines from the Advertising Standards Authority. Therefore, a ban on cosmetic surgery advertising should be introduced, as happened in France in 2005 and as the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons has called for. If cosmetic surgery is considered a form of medical procedure—which it undoubtedly is—it should not be advertised, as is the case with prescription medicines.

A further concern is non-surgical cosmetic procedures. Injected fillers such as Botox currently need only a CE mark—as do fridges—and are therefore heavily marketed in the UK, while the Food and Drug Administration in the USA categorises them as medical device implants requiring approval. [Interruption.] I would be grateful if those on the Government Front Bench listened to the point I am making, because it is a scandal that Ministers have done nothing about the situation.

The medical profession has always been controlled and regulated by strict ethics, but the voluntary codes of practice have been breached by some operators to make quick, easy money. An independent review found that 70% of clinics in the private cosmetic sector are effectively unregulated and that fewer than half of all operating theatres were properly equipped in 2010. We also need compulsory registration of all those who practise aesthetic medicine and use lasers. Facilities should be licensed and regulated by an independent body, such as the Care Quality Commission. Similarly, only doctors or nurses qualified to do so should be able to advise patients about cosmetic surgery. At the moment, initial consultations can be undertaken by a hard-sell receptionist, and doctors in private practice who lack specific experience can offer treatment which they are simply not qualified to give.

Somebody wrote to me about her experience of liposculpture in a ground-floor office in Harley street. She said:

“I think the operating table was a dental chair. They asked me to turn over on to my stomach, but the chair was the wrong shape and it was very difficult. At some stage during the operation I woke up. I was in tremendous pain and began screaming. They were still taking fat from my legs. The doctor told me afterwards that he had to continue with me awake or my legs would have been uneven.”

It turned out subsequently that the “cosmetic surgeon” was a general practitioner. He had performed a surgical operation without any surgical training and had administered a general anaesthetic without an anaesthetist. Such incidents are far too common. I read last week about a children’s writer. She has been left with blurred vision from botched laser eye surgery at a private clinic. After a five-year battle, she has finally received £250,000 in compensation, but has permanent scarring. In the Daily Mail only last week there was a piece headed, “Plastic surgeons offer buy one get one free on breast enlargements and nose jobs”.

Given all the issues and the lack of regulation in cosmetic surgery, it seems imperative to establish an official regulator of cosmetic surgery—OfCos, as proposed by the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons—to ensure registration and regulation of all cosmetic surgeons and practitioners in the UK. Or perhaps we should consider a cosmetic surgery licensing body that has a different type of structure and operates as a financial guarantee system, like ATOL—air travel organisers licensing—which provides financial protection for flights and air holiday packages.

The problem has been swept under the carpet for far too long. It is now almost 20 years since I first stood here and called for greater regulation of private cosmetic surgery. The current system of self-regulation by the private surgeons and clinics is clearly not working. As the previous president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons said in 2009:

“In no other area of medicine is there such an unregulated mess…Imagine a ‘2-for-1’ advert for general surgery? That way lies madness!”

This is a complex subject, but too many people are suffering and being disfigured at the hands of cowboys who have been given free rein to abuse the British public’s trust in the voluntary system of medical ethics. The responsibility clearly lies with the Government to take action as soon as possible to stop any more innocent people being subjected to butchery at the hands of some greedy, unscrupulous, and incompetent people, and to introduce the kind of regulation for cosmetic surgery that is long overdue.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Ann Clwyd, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Fiona Mactaggart, Valerie Vaz, Dr Daniel Poulter, Barbara Keeley and Sheila Gilmore present the Bill.

Ann Clwyd accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 November 2012, and to be printed (Bill 60).

Backbench Business

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ Interests

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) to move the motion, I should explain to the House that this is not a vehicle for the utterance of ad hominem attacks on individual right hon. or hon. Members. For the purpose of such attacks or criticism, a substantive motion relating to an individual right hon. or hon. Member would be necessary. The issue here is the principle and the proposal that the hon. Gentleman wishes to put before the House.

13:20

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to implement the recommendation made by the Public Administration Select Committee in paragraph 44 of its Twenty-second Report of Session 2010-12, The Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ Interests: independent or not?, that the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests ‘should be empowered to instigate his own investigations’; and notes that this motion has been agreed by the Public Administration Select Committee.

I am extremely grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House this brief opportunity to express an opinion on this question today. The Public Administration Select Committee motion is supported by no less than 18 Select Committee Chairmen. The issue turns on a simple question of principle, which is whether or not the Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests should be able to decide for him or herself to investigate a potential breach of the ministerial code. All the credible advice that we have received suggests that such a decision should be a matter for the adviser and not for the Prime Minister.

The Public Administration Select Committee—PASC—has advocated that course of action since the first adviser, Sir John Bourn, was appointed by Tony Blair in March 2006. The ministerial code sets out the circumstances in which the adviser—always referred to as the “independent adviser”—is requested to investigate alleged breaches of the code. Under the present arrangements, the question of whether or not to investigate is therefore in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day, on the advice of the Cabinet Secretary.

In 2006, in paragraph 17 of PASC’s report entitled “The Ministerial Code: the case for independent investigation”, the Committee warned:

“It is hard to see how the Independent Adviser can command public confidence if the Prime Minister can decide that prima facie breaches of the Code will not be investigated. Put simply, there is no point in having an investigator in post if he is not given discretion to investigate very public allegations that the Code has been breached.”

Paragraph 20 of the report points out:

“The decision to instigate an investigation still lies with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is clearly not an impartial figure when it comes to deciding whether or not to instigate an investigation. If the regulatory system is to have credibility, that decision must be taken out of political hands.”

In paragraph 34 of the report, the Committee therefore concluded:

“Until the changes we outline have taken place, it is inappropriate to refer to the new investigator as an Independent Adviser.”

The previous Government refused to accept PASC’s recommendation because they believed that

“it must ultimately be for the Prime Minister to account to Parliament for his decisions and actions in relation to the appointment of his Ministers”.

I have to say that that rather missed the point. The Committee was not suggesting that the Prime Minister should cease to make decisions about who to appoint or to dismiss as Ministers, or that he should cease to account to Parliament for those decisions. It merely suggested that he should be supported by truly independent advice.

PASC’s most recent report on the subject, entitled “The Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests: independent or not?” was published this year. In it, we concluded that, because our previous recommendations had not been implemented,

“the title of ‘independent adviser’ is a misnomer.”

Paragraph 44 of that report also reiterated PASC’s central recommendation

“that the independent adviser should be empowered to instigate his own investigations. The Prime Minister could do this on his own initiative, without any need for legislation, but placing the post on a statutory footing would be preferable.”

The disadvantages of the present arrangements have been manifest in recent months. Sir Philip Mawer, the previous incumbent, expressed his frustration to the Committee that he was given no role in the investigation of the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) in respect of Adam Werritty, and suggested that there needed to be a willingness to engage the adviser earlier in the process of investigating potential breaches of the ministerial code. In that case, the Cabinet Secretary conducted the investigation instead of the adviser. Why? We were told that the adviser would have taken too long. However, PASC has established that Sir Philip’s successor, Sir Alex Allan, will conduct swift preliminary inquiries if asked to do so, so that he can play his proper role. The problem of public perception was all the more acute in the case of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and the conduct of his special adviser, Adam Smith.

The problem with the present system is that as soon as the question of a serious potential breach of the code and a possible referral to the Prime Minister’s adviser arises, the Prime Minister is damned if he does, and damned if he does not. Referral is seen either as condemnation of the Minister’s conduct or as an attempt to protect the Minister from a full investigation. The same damage is done to the reputation of the Minister in question who, if innocent, would doubtless prefer the clean bill of health given by an independent investigation. In the more recent case, we finished up with one of the most unpleasant and acrimonious debates in the House of Commons that I have ever witnessed. The office of the independent adviser was set up to improve public confidence in the conduct of Government, but that episode does not vindicate it as a success.

Changing the procedure would avoid all that. It would make the adviser more genuinely independent, and it would help to remove the public suspicion that ministerial conduct can be protected from proper investigation. Short preliminary investigations, unimpeded by political considerations, would speed up the whole process.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his chairing of the Committee and for the contribution that he is making today. I strongly support what he is saying. Can he offer the House any guidance on how we can best protect against potential witch hunts by those in the media who simply want to make life difficult for a Minister and get an investigation under way?

[Mr Jenkin]

I submit that that would be a question of the robustness of the adviser. The process would operate in a similar way to that of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, in that if the adviser felt that there was a serious case to answer, he would pursue it. If he thought that it was based on hearsay or tittle-tattle, he would dismiss it. Obviously, the moment at which he announced an investigation would be a threshold moment, but we have experience of that with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who operates in that manner.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. In response to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), I think that media witch hunts would be less likely if the new arrangements were to be adopted, because the media would be less suspicious that anything untoward was happening.

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman also serves on the Committee, and I am grateful to him for his participation. He makes his point extremely well. Witch hunts start when there is a suspicion that the Prime Minister is seeking to protect a Minister from an investigation. That is when the media—and, indeed, Her Majesty’s official Opposition—tend to jump on the bandwagon.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I want to express my full support for the motion and for the Committee’s report. There are certain questions that many people will ask, and they need to be put on public record. To whom should the independent adviser be directly accountable, and who should appoint him if we are to ensure the maximum degree of genuine independence?

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman raises a salient point. The manner of the adviser’s appointment was mentioned in the report, although I am not going to address it directly today. In 2003, before the post was established, the Committee on Standards in Public Life originally recommended that the appointment should be made through the public appointments process and overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. That has not happened. It did not happen with the appointment of Sir Alex Allan, and we have been highly critical of that fact. We believe that there should be an open public appointments process for this role, as there is for any other significant public appointment.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend seems to be making an unanswerable case. Will he explain to the House the present position if a Minister chooses to refer him or herself to the independent adviser? Would that position change if his proposals were adopted?

[Mr Jenkin]

I imagine that any Minister who pressed the Prime Minister for referral should be granted one; however, it might be granted or it might not be—it is a matter for the Prime Minister. That is that. I do not know what a Minister who wanted to be referred would do if the Prime Minister refused that; I think he would just have to lump it.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under my hon. Friend’s chairmanship on the Public Administration Select Committee. Will he confirm that, although the report recommends that the Prime Minister’s adviser should be independent in making the decision, he will nevertheless operate under a clear set of guidelines to help him make that decision?

[Mr Jenkin]

I think the guidelines are the ministerial code, and it should be for the adviser to determine his own process, but it is perfectly reasonable for the Government and the Prime Minister to insist that the adviser has a quick process to establish prima facie cases and decide whether they are worthy of further investigation rather than go into the full process straight away. I can understand the Prime Minister being reluctant to refer cases to Sir Philip Mawer, who had established a very long, tortuous and indisputably fair process, but not one that could be quick under the pressure of political events as required.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend given any thought to his own Committee’s involvement in pre-appointment scrutiny in the light of the comments and thoughts of the Liaison Committee on such questions?

[Mr Jenkin]

We held a hearing with the new adviser on Minister’s interests, but we were anxious—at least, I was anxious—to make it clear that it was not a pre-appointment hearing. Personally, I have absolutely no doubt of Sir Alex Allan’s bona fides and integrity. Unfortunately, we expressed the view that the manner of his appointment undermined the idea that he is actually an independent adviser, although he is certainly an adviser. He has a day job, too, in that he advises Ministers on their respective private interests and potential conflicts of interests, and ensures that there is a register of Ministers’ interests. That is his main job, and I have no doubt that he does it extremely efficiently. As I say, however, the manner of his appointment does not lead the public to believe that he is truly independent.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman have any plans to persuade his Committee to do further work in this area, perhaps in line with Sir Philip Mawer’s suggestions for trying to establish ground rules for assessing whether Ministers should be suspended as and when an investigation is taking place—a suggestion made in answer to an earlier question from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns)?

[Mr Jenkin]

We are certainly minded to conduct a further inquiry into the ministerial code at some stage. At the moment, we are waiting for the Government to respond to our latest report on the Prime Minister’s adviser.

To reiterate, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has the power to instigate his own investigations. Who would suggest now that he should not? His office would command little public support and therefore provide little protection for the reputation of this House and its Members. Other systems in countries such as Canada allow political ethics regulators to instigate their own inquiries into ministerial conduct. How can the Prime Minister—any Prime Minister—be objective or, perhaps more importantly, be seen to be objective when he has to make judgments about close colleagues that could have far-reaching political consequences? I appreciate the fact that Government insiders, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, see this as a potentially huge change, but those who are outside government and not imbued by being in government see this as a very obvious change to make.

Today, on the last day of term, not many colleagues are here, but I nevertheless intend to press this matter to a vote. I challenge Ministers not to resist, and I challenge Labour Members, too, to show how they now embrace what they resisted when they were in office. I have no doubt where public sentiment lies, so let us not delay any longer to bring about what should have been implemented years ago, for this issue will return again and again. PASC will return to it, too, until this recommendation is accepted.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. If hon. Members will resume their seats, let me announce that this debate is time limited to 2.20 pm. I intend to call Gareth Thomas at 1.58 pm for 10 minutes, Nick Hurd at 2.08 pm for 10 minutes, and finally Mr Jenkin to sum up in the last two minutes. Six Members wish to contribute, so I ask them to take account of the time constraints in order to be fair to others.

13:29

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Before making a few substantive points, I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for prioritising this debate, ensuring that we have time for it on the last sitting day before the recess. The Backbench Business Committee has earned our respect and admiration for ensuring that such vital matters are the focus of attention—and what could be more important than propriety and integrity in public life?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the Chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, on his powerful speech, which set out a clear rationale for the independence of the adviser on the ministerial code of conduct. I commend the hon. Gentleman’s tenacity and his determination to succeed in pursuing this vital issue. It is a matter that has the support of all PASC members, and indeed the independent Chairs of other Select Committees.

I, too, start from a premise—one that it is absolutely fundamental to effective government that it must abide by underpinning principles of integrity, fairness, openness and transparency. I have no doubt whatever that it was in that spirit that the office of the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests was established. It was, I believe, set up in good faith, with the Prime Minister having the power of decision on whether or not to instigate investigations. However, based on experience over the last four years, that notion is well past its sell-by date. Since that time, we have seen a dramatic turn of events, including the expenses scandal, which has called the integrity of Parliament into question. To put it bluntly and specifically in relation to the ministerial code, experience over the last few years underscores the need for outright independence.

When in opposition in 2010, the Prime Minister promised to strengthen the ministerial code. He said:

“we must remember that we are not masters but servants. Though the British people have been disappointed in their politicians, they still expect the highest standards of conduct. We must not let them down.”

When questioned in a recent interview about six significant changes in Government policy, he said:

“When you’ve got something wrong, there are two things you can do in government: you can plough on regardless, or you can say, ‘No, we’re going to listen, we’re going to change it, we’re going to get it right.’”

My challenge to the Prime Minister is to say, “Stop ploughing a lone furrow, and take this opportunity to ‘get it right’”. The strength of feeling in this House and in the wider public domain sends a clear message—that the application of scrutiny of the ministerial code lies not just with the Prime Minister, but indeed with the whole House. The overwhelming view is that the independent adviser must be given the power to instigate his own investigations on our behalf.

The retirement of Sir Philip Mawer provided a timely opportunity for the Prime Minister to change the status of, and relationship with, the independent adviser. However, not only was that golden opportunity missed but, to add insult to injury, the new appointment was made through a closed recruitment process. This added fuel to allegations that the independent adviser was merely a pawn of the Prime Minister. So let me make my position very clear: no longer can the Prime Minister act as team captain, goalkeeper and referee at the same time; no longer can the Prime Minister alone dictate the interpretation of the rules that might merit invoking an independent investigation; no longer should we need to devote part of an Opposition day to debating robust and fair application of the codes, and neither should we have the highly charged and intensely heated exchanges, to which our Chairman referred earlier, within this Chamber that characterised the most recent debate.

In these volatile political times, the concentration of such power in the hands of the Prime Minister leaves him open to charges of partisan treatment and bias. Because ours is a largely unwritten constitution, we must be particularly careful that institutions and political offices retain their integrity and credibility. An independent adviser must have the authority to speak truth unto power. In addition, there are weighty matters of state that demand the Prime Minister’s full attention, both at home and abroad. With such a heavy and important political agenda, the argument that application of the “Ministerial Code” must be vested in the adviser is all the more cogent.

I entirely endorse the summary by the Public Administration Committee, which states:

“The reform of ethical regulation in British public life must be undertaken openly, consensually and on the basis of sound principle.”

Whatever the reality, there is a public perception of ad-hockery surrounding the appointment of the independent adviser by the Prime Minister, and the current situation creates further attention to bring our political process into disrepute. I urge everyone to support the motion so that we can ensure that there is a real separation of powers when we are dealing with the propriety and integrity of Members of this august House.

13:41

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Paragraph 1.5 of the

“Ministerial Code” states:

“Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public. However, Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. He is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected”.

The passing of this motion would change that. Rather than decisions being made by Ministers and the Prime Minister, an independent adviser would, at his own instigation, pass judgments on Ministers. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister because he commands a majority in the House, and under our constitution it is the Prime Minister who appoints Ministers who are accountable to him and to the House, but passing the motion would change that.

What worries me is that a huge constitutional weight would be placed on the “Ministerial Code” for which it is entirely ill-suited. This document has not been approved by the House; it has not even been approved by the Cabinet. John Major’s Cabinet agreed to publish it, but there was a strong view that it should not be published because it would lead to inappropriate weight being placed on it. At best it is a prime ministerial document, but in reality it was only under Attlee that that was the case.

According to what I believe is the only history of the development of the “Ministerial Code”, by a lady called Amy Baker,

“Attlee had tailored the document very much to his own style and the needs of his own Labour administration—and succeeding Prime Ministers may have followed suit, had the Cabinet Office not intervened.”

However, the original Cabinet Secretary, Hankey,

“had drafted the very first guidelines in order to establish some continuity of procedure which would enable the Cabinet Office to organise business without being disrupted too much on a change of government.”

We know what has happened as the code has developed. Winston Churchill took no interest in it and Eden refused to issue a code, but it was used by Macmillan. Home and then Wilson took over in 1963 and 1964, and the Cabinet Secretary claimed that the document bore the great imprimatur of various Prime Ministers when that was in fact not the case. What had happened in 1963 and 1964 was used to push through paragraph 4.7, which puts junior Ministers under the thumb of the permanent secretary and says that they cannot tell the permanent secretary what to do even if the Secretary of State is happy for them to do so. According to Amy Baker’s book, at the time that

“may have seemed quite convenient”

to the drafters of what was then “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” ,

“who knew that their amendments would now be ‘automatically’ approved by the new Prime Minister”.

Similar circumstances arose when Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979 and the rules governing the roles of parliamentary private secretaries changed. According to the book,

“amongst those directives which senior officials selected for incorporation into QPM, were instructions prohibiting dissent in the Commons from parliamentary private secretaries.”

Again, we see a system whereby the House is denuded of its rights and civil servants decide what happens to the “Ministerial Code”.

According to a former Cabinet Secretary,

“This process meant that on a change of government, senior officials in the Cabinet Office had a wider discretion to initiate amendments, as the incoming Prime Minister would be unaware of recent issues and would generally approve the draft handed to them on appointment.”

That is how we arrived at the reference to an overarching duty to obey international law. There is no basis for it in this Parliament or in our courts, but if the motion is passed, the position will become even worse. Not only will the code be a constitutional document, but a retired civil servant will decide how it applies to each individual Minister, and I think that that is wrong.

13:45

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

We have seen the degradation of a very valuable reform that was made when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. I was a member of the Public Administration Committee at the time, and we were not happy with everything that the last Government did. We wanted to go further: we wanted a pre-appointment hearing. However, if we look at the history of the code, we see that it was used once by the last Government on an occasion involving Shahid Malik and has not been used by the present Government in three serious cases, although it was used in a minor case.

We should heed what was said about lobbying by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition, and in last week’s report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. When in opposition, the Prime Minister said, quite rightly, that lobbying was the greatest scandal facing us, and that money was buying power and power was fishing for money. Sadly, that is exactly what has happened under this Government, and to an even greater extent. We must look to our reputation. We must recognise the fact that we are not winning back the trust and the confidence of the people, which is our prime task after the expenses scandal, but are losing that trust and that confidence and providing even greater cause for scandal.

The first of the three cases that should have been investigated by the independent adviser, as he says himself, was the case of the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). We now have a new doctrine of absolution by resignation: those who resign will not be subject to a full investigation of their conduct by the only legal enforcer of the “Ministerial Code”. An investigation was carried out virtually over the weekend for party political reasons, in order to get it over with rapidly.

The second case involved a Minister who argued that he did not have to declare a meal with which he had been provided by a lobbyist because on the day in question he was digesting with his private rather than his ministerial stomach. That was accepted, and no investigation was carried out.

Thirdly, there was the case of the Culture Secretary, on which we had a debate the other day. I believe that we must look to the conduct of the adviser on that. In extraordinary circumstances, following receipt of a letter from the Prime Minister dated the day of the debate, an answer came back before 12 pm virtually absolving the Minister involved of the charge that he and his staff had been approached by a lobbyist 500 times, because it had been deemed not to be a legitimate area for investigation. All those cases should have been investigated under the “Ministerial Code”.

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, which is behaving as it should. There is unanimity on the Committee about the reform that is necessary. When the new independent adviser appeared before the Committee, I asked him what he would do if we expressed our unhappiness about his appointment. We suggested that he had a reputation for being a poodle—for having followed Ministers around for years, obeying them with “Yes sir” and “No sir”. That had long been his role. He was not the Rottweiler that we needed. He said that if we expressed our unhappiness he would consider relinquishing his post, and we did express our unhappiness. I believe that before appointing such a person we must decide by means of a pre-appointment hearing whether he possesses the necessary robust independence.

[Robert Halfon]

Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the ratifying of the “Ministerial Code” by Parliament would deal with some of the objections raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless)?

[Paul Flynn]

No, it would not, because, under this Government, in the three serious cases I have mentioned, the code has not been used, when it should have been. The only time it has been called upon was in a case of some triviality, where the person involved admitted her guilt, and that went through. These other serious potential abuses have not even been investigated, and we must question the impartiality of the adviser because of his conduct on the day of the debate in question. All the misgivings we had were justified.

We, as an institution, are in grave danger of deepening public cynicism against us. We have had new cases of allegations, backed up with films showing a lobbyist trying to get access to the Prime Minister or boasting of access—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Time is up. I call Sir Alan Beith.

13:50

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

The Public Administration Committee has been consistent on this matter, and it has been right on this matter. It is not about the choosing of Ministers; it is not even about the dismissal of Ministers. It is about ensuring that, if there is the possibility of impropriety in ministerial conduct, that can be investigated. It is too much to expect the Prime Minister not to be influenced by other factors in deciding whether to refer such a matter. To lose one Minister is bad enough; to lose several is careless. The Prime Minister will always have an anxiety that an adverse report by the investigator could lead to his needing to dismiss a Minister. It is simply naive to suppose that no Prime Minister will be affected by such considerations. Therefore, the adviser should be free to initiate investigations. Indeed, they would often do so in circumstances where it is to the advantage of the Minister concerned that there be a straightforward, clear and swift way of vindicating him, if he is innocent.

13:51

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I rise to speak briefly in support of the comments of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the Chair of the Select Committee. He put the case very well. We do not need to use extreme language, as the proposal is common sense, particularly given recent events. We want an investigator who has the capacity to conduct proper investigations and offer advice. The constitutional relationship between the Prime Minister and this House would not be changed by that. He could accept or reject the advice, but at least investigations could be made independently, without having to ask the permission of the Prime Minister first. That would be a significant change.

[Mark Reckless]

Regardless of the formal situation, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the political reality will be that if this independent investigator decides to conduct an investigation off his own bat and then gives a withering condemnation of the Minister concerned, it would be very difficult for the Prime Minister to keep that Minister in office, and de facto control would pass to the adviser?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I trust that the investigator would make a withering condemnation only if that were justified. The recent events surrounding the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and his amanuensis, Adam Werritty, deserved to be thoroughly investigated, but in my view they were not properly investigated.

Such a situation would not arise in future. I hope the Chairman of the Select Committee will not mind my mentioning that we will undertake a report on special advisers. I hope we will recommend putting their relationship with Ministers on a better footing in future, so that situations such as the Adam Werritty case do not arise again.

This proposal is timely. Recently, Prime Ministers have operated in an extremely powerful, individualistic way, and in a secretive way. They have often not trusted full Cabinets to discuss important matters. We are now moving towards a situation where the Prime Minister will be a little more open and accountable, without damaging our constitution in any way—in fact, this proposal will improve it.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It seems to me that the Prime Minister will be assisted by this appointment of an independent investigator, as he will not have to make these tricky decisions.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. A situation might arise in which a Minister who has not behaved very well is a personal friend of the Prime Minister of the day. The Prime Minister could then say to the Minister, “Well, the investigation wasn’t instigated by me. It was instigated independently, and I have to accept the advice of the report. It is not me who is causing you difficulty; it’s the investigation by the independent adviser.”

In every way, therefore, this proposal is a progressive advance that is in keeping with the spirit of the times. I hope that in future more of the Prime Minister’s current powers will be devolved.

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

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will not put the clock on you, Mr Mulholland, but I ask you to resume your seat at 1.58 pm.

13:55

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

I am a member of the Public Administration Committee, and I am very proud that we have come up with this sensible and important proposal. It is hugely important for Parliament, as it addresses the holding of Ministers to account, which is one of our key roles. We must remember that it is important outside this place, too; it is important to ordinary people, who saw the unseemly events of the past few months and have therefore come to regard the current system of accountability as wholly inadequate. Recent episodes have also left a nasty taste in the mouths of Members on both sides of the House, who agree that the current situation is wholly unacceptable.

When Sir Alex Allan appeared before our Committee, we had what can only be described as a wholly unsatisfactory discussion with him in respect of both the realities of the role and, I am afraid, our confidence in his ability to perform it as it should be performed, rather than as it is, sadly, currently performed.

We must remember that this proposal was introduced by the previous Government. In response to the predecessor Committee’s previous report on the issue, they made it clear that the appointment would be a personal one by the Prime Minister and that he would need to have confidence that the person appointed would be able to provide independent and impartial advice.

We want the Minister to say that the Government will accept our sensible proposal, and we also want the Opposition to agree to it; they must accept the original principles of this new office as set out under the last Government. I have asked the same of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I believe that he is happy to do so on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

The full title of this post is “the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests” but the simple reality is that it is the Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests. The current title is fraudulent and misleading to Parliament and the public. If these reforms are not accepted and implemented, the Government should at least have the decency to change the title to “the Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests.”

Sir Alex Allan was appointed to the post with no open competition. We do not believe anyone else was even in the frame for the job, and there was no detail whatever on the process he went through. That is simply unacceptable.

Our proposal is based on an extremely simple idea. If—free from political interference and regardless of any media witch hunt—the independent adviser believes there is sufficient genuine evidence for an investigation, he should intervene. That is all we are asking for.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Time is up. I call Gareth Thomas.

13:49

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

This has been a brief but interesting debate. I commend the work of the Public Administration Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). He has rightly received praise for the tenacious way in which he and his Committee have pursued these issues. I hope he will forgive me if I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), too, for he has also pursued these issues with considerable vigour and tenacity.

I studied the contributions of all Select Committee members. I carefully read the questions they put to Sir Philip Mawer and Sir Alex Allan, and noted in particular the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is also a consistent campaigner on these issues, my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy), and the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). They all made good contributions to this debate, too.

This debate would not have the resonance it currently has outside the House if it were not for the Prime Minister’s mishandling of key questions about possible violations of the ministerial code—a point that was implicit in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes.

The Opposition remain determined to take the steps necessary to continue the process of restoring trust in the political process. When we were in government, we took steps to reform Parliament, passing new laws to protect our democracy. We acted to increase transparency and strengthen public accountability for Members of the House of Commons. On ministerial accountability, we also introduced further reforms. The then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), introduced the publication of an annual report and a list of Ministers’ interests, again to increase transparency and Ministers’ accountability to this House. He also appointed Sir Philip Mawer as the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, calling on him, as a number of Members have mentioned, to investigate the then Member for Dewsbury in May 2009, against whom a particular allegation—it was unfounded, as it turned out—had been made. Sir Philip investigated and the Minister was cleared and returned to his ministerial duties.

I have a number of questions for the Minister and, if I may, the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, but the context of our debate is worth touching on. It is the Prime Minister’s refusal, using the Leveson inquiry as his reason, to ask Sir Philip’s successor, Sir Alex Allan, to investigate the conduct of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Prime Minister’s failure to call in the independent adviser in the case of the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), that form the backdrop to our debate. The fact that so many Members wanted this debate is in no small part due to the Prime Minister’s refusal to use consistently a system which the last Prime Minister established and used, but which the current Prime Minister now appears unwilling to use—except when he is sure of the outcome.

In short, the motion before the House today is the direct result of the belief of too many Members, on both sides of the House, that the Prime Minister has mishandled his responsibility for the ministerial code.

[Mr Jenkin]

I resent the hon. Gentleman making that implication, because I do not think that it does reflect why all the signatures are on the motion. What it does reflect, however, is the fact that the previous Labour Government did not accept this recommendation from the predecessor Committee. It is incumbent on him to explain whether the Labour party has now changed its mind and will support this motion, or whether he is just going to use this opportunity to make political points in this debate.

[Mr Thomas]

I will come to the position that Opposition Front Benchers are taking, but the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee is wrong not to recognise the considerable concern on the Opposition Benches—and the Government Benches—at the Prime Minister’s decision not to refer the case of the right hon. Member for North Somerset to the independent adviser, which I understand prompted the Committee’s original inquiry into this issue in this Parliament. The Prime Minister’s more recent decision to refer the case of the noble Baroness Warsi and not that of the Culture Secretary has galvanised interest in the Committee’s work in this area.

The shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), set out in her speech on 13 June some detailed concerns, which I do not intend to dwell on now, about the Prime Minister’s failure to uphold the code and to ensure that an appropriate investigation took place.

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the Opposition’s concern about this issue, but does he not accept that their remarks would have far greater traction if they said that they now supported the motion and regretted not having taken action when in government?

[Mr Thomas]

As I think I set out earlier, we did take action when we were in government, and the House is better for it. However, I want to come to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made not only in this debate but in the Public Administration Committee’s hearings.

There is a particular outstanding question that the Prime Minister still needs to answer, and perhaps the Minister can give us some clarity on it. Why is it appropriate for the independent adviser to be used in the case of the noble Baroness Warsi and not that of the Culture Secretary? I also have a series of questions on which I would welcome the views of the Chair of the Public Administration Committee in his concluding remarks. As I hope I made clear, I think some further work by his Committee in this area would be useful for the whole House, not least in questioning the current ministerial adviser on his lack of consultation in the case of the Culture Secretary.

The new independent adviser told the Committee when giving evidence that he had made the point to the new Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, that

“there are advantages to him in bringing the Adviser in early and whenever major issues arise.”

That appears at odds with the comment in a letter from Sir Alex that was deposited in the Library, accepting the Prime Minister’s decision not to refer the case and noting the work of the Leveson inquiry, and with the clear view of Sir Brian Leveson that his inquiry was not an appropriate place for the Secretary of State’s conduct to be investigated. I raise this question not in any way to express doubt about Sir Alex’s capacity or commitment, but to inquire whether the Committee will continue to explore the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the ministerial adviser to be brought in, and to suggest—in a spirit of helpfulness, I hope—that Sir Alex’s evidence may well be helpful in that context.

Will the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee be summoning the Cabinet Secretary to explore the extent to which there was consultation with Sir Alex over the Culture Secretary’s case? In my intervention on the Chairman, I raised the possibility of further work by his Committee in this area, highlighting two issues that Sir Philip Mawer raised, in part in answer to some questions from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns): whether suspension of a Minister is really possible during a code investigation in practical political terms; and the possibility of the Committee helping to establish a set of “ground rules”—his words—for a situation where an investigation is under way and the media is in full pursuit of that Minister.

The Opposition will listen carefully to the position and argument that the Minister, and indeed the Public Administration Committee Chairman, develop. We will want to consider the Government’s response to the Committee’s report, which it is a pity was not available for today’s debate. I have genuinely an open mind on this issue. The Opposition’s instinct is that further work is required.

This debate is born out of frustration with the Prime Minister’s handling of his responsibility for the ministerial code.

[Greg Mulholland]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Thomas]

I am winding up.

The failure to use the independent adviser in the case of the right hon. Member for North Somerset, compounded by the failure to contemplate using him in the case of the Culture Secretary, provides the context for this debate. Sadly, it is yet another debate called in this great House because of the errors of judgment of the current Prime Minister.

14:08

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for clarifying the Labour party’s position on this issue—or not. I would like to begin by registering my personal respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and the other members of his Committee for their persistence on this matter. I note carefully his comment that that persistence is not going away. I also note, on the Government’s behalf, that the motion has cross-party support and has been signed by a number of distinguished Chairmen of Select Committees. This short debate is therefore one the Government must listen to, and I believe are listening to, carefully, and we will consider carefully what has come out of it.

I think it would be helpful if I restated an important principle that the Labour party also clung to in its 13 years in power: when it comes to the ministerial code, the Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) pointed out. The bottom line is that Ministers remain in office only for as long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. He or she decides, and is accountable to Parliament for those decisions.

The advent of an independent adviser is clearly welcome—although the Labour party seemed to fight it for many years—and he or she clearly has an important role. It is worth clarifying that there are two aspects to the role, both of which are important. One part of the role is, at the request of the Prime Minister, to look into allegations of breaches of the ministerial code, if the Prime Minister thinks that is necessary, and to advise the Prime Minister. But it is for the Prime Minister to take this decision and be accountable for it. In some cases, the Prime Minister will have no need to ask for advice, as the issues will be clear. In other cases, there may be the need for further investigation before the Prime Minister can take a decision. In those instances, he will refer to the independent adviser.

It is to misunderstand the intended role of the independent adviser to suggest that he or she should be able to instigate his or her own investigations. The adviser is there, personally appointed by the Prime Minister, to advise the Prime Minister on allegations of breaches of the code, if the Prime Minister thinks it is necessary. I shall now read out an important quote from the Prime Minister’s evidence to the Liaison Committee on 3 July:

“The ministerial adviser on interests is there to advise the Prime Minister; he gives the advice and the Prime Minister has to make the decision.”

There has been no change in approach; this is the same practice that existed under the previous Government.

[Greg Mulholland]

I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend, as he is actually dealing with the issue, unlike the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) in his extraordinary and pathetic contribution. Does my hon. Friend not accept that if the independent adviser had the powers we are talking about, he himself would say that there is not the evidence to proceed with an inquiry? The proposed approach would do that job and give the public confidence that there was no need for an inquiry in the first place.

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I can see the passion with which he makes his argument, but the important principle is who is ultimately responsible, and that is the Prime Minister.

[Paul Flynn]

The Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Sir Christopher Kelly, said in evidence to the Public Administration Committee that in his view the Prime Minister had broken the ministerial code in one of these instances. As the Prime Minister is unlikely to refer himself to the adviser, is it not crucial that we have someone of independence who can take on the Prime Minister when he is suspected of breaking the ministerial code?

[Mr Hurd]

I have not seen Sir Christopher Kelly’s evidence on that, but there is no shortage of opportunities to hold the Prime Minister to account on anything.

Providing advice to the Prime Minister on allegations about a breach of the ministerial code is one aspect of the independent adviser’s role. I also wish to explain the other important aspect of the role, as it has been ignored in the debate: the adviser provides an independent check and source of advice to Ministers on the handling of their private interests in order to avoid any conflict between those interests and their ministerial responsibilities, as set out in section 7 of the ministerial code. This is very much behind-the-scenes work; it is about sorting out issues before they arise. However, it does result in the publication by the Cabinet Office of the list of Ministers’ interests, which puts into the public domain a list of all the relevant interests of all Ministers and enables external scrutiny of possible conflicts of interest. Obviously, this is an ongoing process as issues arise, not a one-off. It is important to put on record that second dimension to the independent adviser’s work.

Some questions were raised about particular cases this afternoon, although I think that the hon. Member for Harrow West struck the wrong tone, not for the first time, by seizing the opportunity to try to make a political attack on the Prime Minister. Rather than rehearse some arguments about why one particular case was referred or otherwise, I simply say that in each case—those of the former Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary and Baroness Warsi—there were no shortages of opportunities for the House or for the media to hold the Prime Minister to account for the decisions he took.

[Mark Reckless]

Did not the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) go beyond that by suggesting that the code, rather than being a prime ministerial document for Ministers, actually applies to the Prime Minister, too, and that the independent investigator should investigate whether the Prime Minister has breached it? If that were the case, should we not all just pack up, go home and let the independent advisers decide everything?

[Mr Hurd]

I share my hon. Friend’s reservations about placing too much weight and responsibility on someone who is ultimately an adviser, and this will not be the first time that the hon. Member for Newport West has overstated his case. The point that I was trying to make about the political attacks on the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Harrow West was that the reasons in each particular case that he cited were made public and the Prime Minister, as we are extremely well aware, was held very accountable for all those decisions.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the Minister not recognise that history shows that the ministerial code has been invoked more as a shield against public and parliamentary accountability than as a tool for enabling those things? For as long as the code remains the personal app of the Prime Minister and the independent adviser does not have independence, surely all we are looking at is a feeble cross between a figment and a fig leaf.

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to discuss the issue of whether Sir Alex is independent enough, which featured in the thrust of the argument from many hon. Members.

[Robert Halfon]

Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), does my hon. Friend agree that to solve this problem the ministerial code should be ratified by Parliament?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his suit, which has enlivened proceedings today.

In the time available to me, I wish to make a comment about the issue of the independence of Sir Alex Allan, because it has been suggested that he is not independent enough or even that he is perhaps not up to the job, having only just retired from a senior role at the heart of government before taking up the role. As I have said, this is a personal appointment by the Prime Minister of the day. A number of qualities are required for the job. In particular, the independent adviser needs to be somebody whose expertise and experience enable them to provide confidential and trusted advice to Ministers and their permanent secretaries. It is our judgment, and the judgment of the Prime Minister, that Sir Alex Allan has that experience, as well as the necessary skills and judgment to make him ideally suited for the role.

In conclusion, today’s debate has shown the range of views on the issue. I hope that we have made it clear that the Government treat issues of ministerial conduct with the utmost seriousness. The Government will reflect carefully on the points made in this debate, and will reflect on them in our response, overdue as it is, to the Public Administration Committee report. That response will be published shortly.

14:17

[Mr Jenkin]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to reply to this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is custom and practice in this place to say what an interesting debate we have had, but we really have had an interesting exchange on this occasion. I am very grateful for, and indeed touched by, the warm remarks of members of the Public Administration Committee who have made comments about how much they enjoy working on that Committee—that goes for me, too. I very much appreciate their participation and support for our activity.

Many of those hon. Members spoke in this debate, but by far the most interesting contribution was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who raised a number of interesting things about the ministerial code. We are not debating its content; we are debating how the code should be enforced. He should somehow take part in our inquiry into the ministerial code, when we get to it, because he has a lot of important and interesting contributions to make, but I submit to him that the code should be owned by Parliament and controlled by Parliament in order that it can become a mechanism that can be used by Parliament to hold Ministers to account.

Let us remember that the code was secret until quite recently. It was published only recently and it was only very recently that it started being referred to in statute. The point has been made that a change has been smuggled in whereby Ministers have to obey international law even if there is no statute that requires them to obey that law. That is an extraordinary constitutional innovation and it is one of the things that we would want to look at.

I want to complete my remarks by referring to the two Front Benchers. They are both erudite and intelligent people who have done their best to avoid addressing the crunch issue. I understand why the Government are reluctant to make the change, but I am prepared to press this to a vote because otherwise we will be back again having exactly the same debate as we always do. I put it to the Opposition spokesman: if we finish up with another debate moved by the Opposition on why somebody has not been referred—

14:20

One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Order, 11 July).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls on the Government to implement the recommendation made by the Public Administration Select Committee in paragraph 44 of its Twenty-second Report of Session 2010-12, The Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ Interests: independent or not?, that the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests ‘should be empowered to instigate his own investigations’; and notes that this motion has been agreed by the Public Administration Select Committee.

Summer Adjournment

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.—(Bob Blackman.)

Health

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

14:20

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

I rise to take the opportunity to discuss the Safe and Sustainable review into children’s heart surgery in England and Wales and the concerns about the process that led to the closure of the excellent Leeds unit. The decision was taken on 4 July. Families from up and down the country were asked to be present to give their views and the joint committee of primary care trusts—the JCPCT—deliberated in public all day. The decision was due, but it was delayed, delayed and delayed again, until it was finally announced that Leeds would close. What left a particularly nasty taste in the mouth was that it was abundantly clear when documentation was produced that the decision had already been taken and that that day, including asking the families of children who had needed to use the surgery unit, was a charade. I am afraid that that was all too typical of the way in which this process has been handled.

There are serious questions about how the JCPCT reached that decision. It ignored clear evidence and, I am afraid to say, there has been a clear and obvious bias all along towards Newcastle. Leslie Hamilton was on the committee despite being based at Newcastle, but there was no one from Leeds. No one in Leeds or, I am sure, up and down the country was at all surprised at the decision, because we expected it. We could see that the JCPCT was simply not considering the evidence.

In the brief time I have available I shall raise a few points and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) will raise a few more. I am sure that other hon. Members will also seek to do so and I shall look forward to having a full debate in the autumn, when we can place on the record the myriad serious concerns on this point.

First, 600,000 people signed a petition in support of the retention of the unit at Leeds, yet that was counted as only one response by the committee. At the same time, 22,000 text messages from unknown sources supporting Birmingham were counted as 22,000 submissions. So, how can the JCPCT say that it does not “count heads” when it is ignoring 600,000 people, counting them as one submission, yet counting 22,000 text messages as 22,000 separate responses?

Why has the JCPCT watered down expert advice on the gold standard of collocation? It has adopted a watered-down version on the advice of fewer than 10 clinicians in the steering group and on the recommendation of Sir Ian Kennedy, who is not a clinician. How can the panel justify following that advice rather than that of the country’s most respected gatherings of experts in this field? How can it be right, if this closure happens in Leeds, for the Yorkshire and Humber region to go from enjoying the highest standards of collocation in the country to having the lowest?

The Safe and Sustainable model of children’s heart surgery is also dependent on networks of care, but whereas the Leeds network was recognised as “excellent”, Newcastle’s was regarded as “poor”. Why is the Yorkshire and Humber moving from a centre that delivers an excellent network to one with a record of delivering a poor one?

The JCPCT accepted the advice that 90% of doctors in the relevant areas of option B would be happy to refer to Newcastle, yet the referring doctors in Yorkshire and Humber have never been asked about that. That is simply outrageous.

I am aware that there has been a referral from the joint overview and scrutiny committee in Yorkshire, which we fully support and insist is properly investigated. We must also consider the very worrying situation in Glasgow. The Yorkhill unit is currently failing and a separate report by Sir Ian Kennedy stated:

“The panel had significant concerns about important aspects of the service in the surgical unit and in the broader congenital heart network. Of most concern was a lack of leadership and coherent team working. Also of concern was a sense that the provision of paediatric intensive care may be unsafe if critical staffing problems are not addressed.”

That has not been part of the review, however, and extraordinarily the Scottish Government have now decided that three surgeons performing 300 operations is safe in Scotland. However, that is not considered to be safe in Yorkshire. That is simply unacceptable. Today we are saying that we have no confidence in the review and that we want the whole process to be reconsidered.

14:25

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

In south-west London, the NHS has just proposed to close the A and E, maternity unit and various other services at my local hospital, St Helier. It will take 200,000 people longer to get to hospital in an emergency. On its website, outlining why it is doing this, NHS South West London states that providers

“will have to deliver £370 million savings each year…a reduction of around 24% in their costs.”

Yet thanks to birth rates, an ageing population and poor health due to poverty, A and E visits will go up 20% in five years and births will increase by 10%. The area’s four hospitals are overcrowded now, so let us try cramming the same number of patients into just three.

What is worse is that there is no extra funding for the hospitals that remain. In no way do I support the hospital closures in north London, but at least that area gets an extra £138 million for “out of hospital” care to cope with the closures. Down in south-west London, we will get nothing. If St Helier loses its A and E, visits to the remaining three hospitals will rise by a third. Many will have to be admitted, but, with no extra funding, where can they go? Will they go on to the corridors, as in the 1990s?

It is claimed that 50% of A and E patients will go to GPs or community services instead, but even the report by the watchdog, the national clinical advisory team, does not believe that they could cope. That is a key paper and no cuts should take place without the public knowing what the watchdog thinks, so it should be published immediately. NCAT is right to be sceptical about whether GPs can halve the numbers going to A and E. Clinical commissioning obviously makes that very attractive for GPs, but for most people in my constituency it is easier to go to a walk-in centre or A and E than to a GP, so A and E visits have continued to rise year after year. The fact that GPs, who are making all the financial decisions, will get more funding if there are fewer A and E visits, does not mean that people will stop going. Apparently, some GPs now realise that those plans are looking very dodgy. A poll of Sutton’s GPs has shown a majority against the closure and a similar poll is taking place of Merton’s GPs that will, I am sure, show the same.

It is not just St Helier’s A and E that is under threat—so is its maternity unit. However, of the four hospitals, St Helier has the only maternity unit that meets clinical standards. If we lose St Helier, the other three hospitals will need to deliver a third more babies than they do now. It is widely accepted that maternity units delivering more than 6,000 births a year are a bad thing. It is far better, and far safer, to have slightly smaller units with good midwife cover, but not in south-west London, it seems.

We will lose our children’s unit and other services, such as intensive care. The “Better Services Better Value” review states that, to compensate, GPs will force patients from all around south-west London to go to St Helier for minor, planned treatments, but who would want an operation, even a routine one, in a hospital as depleted as St Helier? What is more, making people in St Helier drive across the suburbs for A and E and maternity and making people drive to St Helier for routine operations will add literally millions of miles of journeys to our already congested roads. No, the impact of that is not considered.

The other obvious questions have not been asked. Why would a patient from Kingston want to drive the best part of an hour to St Helier for a treatment they can currently get in Kingston? The other three hospitals do not like the idea either, as they cannot afford to lose the income from those planned treatments.

These plans are all over the place; they are a total shambles. Next Thursday, NHS South West London was due to rubber-stamp St Helier’s closures. It booked a big theatre in Croydon in readiness, but now it has put the decision off. Good, but this is obviously not the end. St Helier has been under threat before, but now it is under threat again from a combination of cuts and GP commissioning. The demands on our four hospitals are growing, not shrinking. I hope the Minister will reassure me, and my constituents, that that disaster will not happen on his watch.

00:00

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I, too, rise to speak about the Safe and Sustainable review of children’s heart surgery. The joint committee of primary care trusts—the decision-making body comprising local commissioners—was tasked with considering the pattern of children’s heart surgery services. On 4 July, it announced its decisions, which included the news that Leeds general infirmary will not provide children’s heart surgery in future.

The two-hour radius around the Leeds heart surgery unit reaches 14.5 million people. Including check-up appointments, the unit sees 10,000 children annually and performs about 350 operations.

I acknowledge that the decision was independent of the Government. Local council overview and scrutiny committees are free to refer decisions to the Secretary of State, via the independent panel. I heard this morning that our OSC has just done so; I welcome that move. Our Yorkshire body was due to meet on 24 July. Now that the committee has referred the decision to the Health Secretary, I hope he will revisit it based on the four tests stipulated for the redesign of services.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

If my hon. Friend is correct—and I am sure he is—in saying that his local authority OSC has referred the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the process is that the OSC explains why it does not agree with the decision and asks my right hon. Friend to refer it to the independent reconfiguration panel for consideration. The panel will then respond to my right hon. Friend and state whether it thinks the decision is right or wrong.

[Jason McCartney]

I thank the Minister. I said earlier that the decision would go to the Secretary of State via the independent panel. I look forward to its going through that process.

The first test for redesigning services is that there should be clear clinical benefit. The health impact assessment was that option G—to keep Leeds open—had fewer negative impacts than the chosen option. The second test is clinician support. There is no evidence that the decision has the support of clinicians; in fact, most have given their support to the Leeds unit.

The third test involves the views of the public. Surely nothing can be clearer than the views of the 600,000 people who signed the petition to keep the Leeds unit open, and the admirable cross-party support for the campaign. The fourth and final test is that there should be support for patient choice. A survey in west and south Yorkshire clearly shows that patients would not travel up to Newcastle.

Many constituents with experience of the Leeds unit have been in touch since the announcement on 4 July.

[Greg Mulholland]

The evidence clearly shows that Newcastle will not hit the magic number of 400, making the point of the process farcical. As we now know that Glasgow will continue, but will perform only 300 operations a year, there will be two underperforming units, and we will have lost Leeds, which could easily reach those numbers. Does that not make the whole thing a farce?

[Jason McCartney]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is an assumption that all the patients who have been going to the Leeds unit will automatically migrate to Newcastle. That is a big flaw in the assessment, and I look forward to further exploration of that matter.

Constituents who have been in touch with me include teenager Seb, who recently did work experience with me. He had three heart operations and a pacemaker fitted at Leeds. He wants the Yorkshire unit to stay open; he stresses the fact that there are good transport links to the Leeds unit.

Paul told me about his 10-year-old stepson who suffered a cardiac arrest last August. His stepson had a defibrillator fitted internally, which he will have for the rest of his life. Paul said the Leeds location was key for their family.

Ruth told me about her six-month-old daughter Eleanor who was born with a heart defect caused by Down’s syndrome. Ruth fears for the emotional and financial stress families will be put under by the longer travelling distances, as parents try to hold down their jobs, care for other children and fulfil other responsibilities.

I was also contacted by the grandparents and, separately, the parents and siblings of four-year-old Lily Rose, who had surgery in the Yorkshire unit. They asked how a four-year-old was expected to cope at such a traumatic time without being able to see her mummy each day. The emotional impact on the rest of the family would be enormous. They stressed that distance from the centre is extremely important. They reiterated the population figures: 14.5 million people are within two hours of Leeds, whereas only 3 million are within two hours of Newcastle.

Those cases are real; the families were in touch with me over the past two weeks. In the past year, I have spoken in the Chamber about George Sutcliffe, Ben Pogson and Joel Bearder who, with their families, have been campaigning locally for the Leeds unit to stay open. I compliment them and all the families who have worked so hard on the campaign, and will continue to do so.

It is clear that the plans do not meet the four tests, which are factual; they are not about emotion. I look forward to the flawed decision eventually being referred by the independent panel to the Secretary of State so that the tests can be looked at again. I firmly believe the JCPCT decision clearly fails all the four tests for redesigning services, and I look forward to its being reconsidered.

14:36

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On 4 July, a committee of primary care trust chief executives made the extraordinary decision to end children’s heart surgery and intensive care at one of the best performing and largest centres in England: Royal Brompton hospital, a specialist heart and lung hospital that treats children and adults from all over the country who have some of the most severe forms of heart and lung disease. It was quite a surprise for the doctors and other staff at Royal Brompton to find out last year that they were earmarked for closure. The national review panel that made the recommendation, in February 2011, had previously specified that for children’s heart surgery centres to be viable they must have four surgeons each doing at least 100 operations every year, and they must offer round-the-clock care.

Royal Brompton has four surgeons, each undertaking more than 100 operations every year and it offers round-the-clock care. It also has a safety and outcome record of which any centre would be proud. Rates of patient satisfaction at the hospital are exceptionally high.

The national review of paediatric heart surgery set out to reduce the number of hospitals offering children’s heart surgery, because it was felt that in some areas surgeons did not have enough cases to maintain their skills in the longer term. London has three centres, although two of them, Royal Brompton and Great Ormond Street, are recognised national specialist centres and treat patients from all over the country. The decision was made to close a London centre, and divert its patients to the remaining two, once their facilities are improved and extended, at significant cost to the taxpayer. A proposed solution to develop a network in London that would mean closer collaboration between the three existing centres, but no closures, was ignored.

Time prevents me from going into detail about why Royal Brompton drew the short straw of closure; it came down to a complicated scoring mechanism that eventually ended up in the High Court. I must stress, because it is of utmost importance, that there was never any suggestion that Royal Brompton’s clinical services for children are anything other than first rate. A better insight may be provided by the comments of a civil servant at a meeting of the London specialised commissioning group on 26 April:

“It is likely that the rest of the country will take the view that London should take its share of the pain of closures and will seek to make one closure in the capital in order to make closures elsewhere more palatable.”

Removing children’s surgery and intensive care from Royal Brompton will have devastating consequences, and not just for the young patients who value the hospital’s cardiac care so highly. Losing its children’s intensive care unit will destroy Royal Brompton’s world-class paediatric respiratory service, which specialises in the treatment of children with cystic fibrosis, severe asthma and a number of severe and complex respiratory conditions. Without the back-up of intensive care and on-site anaesthesia, doctors will not be able to undertake the more complex specialist treatments they do now, because they will consider it unsafe to do so.

Royal Brompton’s respiratory teams also undertake groundbreaking research into important areas such as cystic fibrosis, severe asthma, lung disease, inflammation of the airways and neuromuscular conditions. That research can be carried out only at a specialist hospital, where the combination of clinical expertise and the type and number of patients seen provides the necessary conditions. Without an intensive care unit and provision for anaesthesia, research will simply not be possible.

[Greg Mulholland]

The hon. Gentleman makes a passionate case for the Royal Brompton unit. The chief executive of Little Hearts Matter says that, in the Glasgow case, a unit that does 300 operations can be made perfectly safe by other means, without closing units. Does the hon. Gentleman share my frustration at the fact that in the Royal Brompton, Leeds and other places, those involved are not prepared to do that? It does not make sense.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful for that intervention, because, in case my comments are seen as special pleading from the hospital, I was just coming on to mention some independent recommendations and sources that support the argument that, if there is no opportunity for research, and if experts—in Leeds, as well as the Royal Brompton—are prevented from working to the level of their abilities, many are likely to seek work elsewhere, possibly outside the UK.

Dr Neil Gibson, a consultant in paediatric respiratory medicine at Glasgow’s royal hospital for sick children, wrote to the chair of the review as follows:

“The unit at the Royal Brompton Hospital from a paediatric respiratory point of view is truly one of the world’s leading centres with an already impressive track record…There is a significant potential for irreparable damage to be made to the only world class Paediatric Respiratory Research Unit in the United Kingdom.”

Professor J. Stuart Elborn, president of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society, wrote that

“high quality research is a key determinant of the ability of a centre such as the Royal Brompton to retain and recruit the world leading clinical and academic staff on whom its respiratory services depend. Adverse impact upon the ability of the clinical staff to carry out cutting-edge research will undermine the sustainability of the clinical services, to the detriment of its patients.”

Asthma UK, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, and the Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Family Support Group wrote a joint letter to the chair of the committee, saying:

“We have explicitly mentioned respiratory research because it is an issue of fundamental importance to each of our charities because of the excellence of the Royal Brompton’s paediatric respiratory research and clinical trials programmes and the importance of that work for improving patient outcomes in the future.”

Patients and staff at Royal Brompton are understandably deeply distressed at the prospect of losing their high-performing children’s heart unit, soon to be followed by their specialist respiratory services. They do not understand how such a decision can be made by bureaucrats who have never visited the hospital and have no specialist knowledge of the care provided there. They have written to their MPs and to the Secretary of State. Indeed, one resourceful mother brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister in Downing street last Thursday.

The Secretary of State for Health assures the parents of these seriously poorly children, and the dedicated teams that treat them, that this is a matter not for him, but for the NHS. For the sake of the thousands of children whose care will be damaged by the decision of Sir Neil McKay’s committee, the sake of the research programmes that will be destroyed, and the sake of common sense, I hope that the Minister of State will realise that the time has come for him to meet clinicians from the Royal Brompton and at least hear what they have to say. Perhaps he will be able to persuade them that destroying NHS services and research programmes that are viewed by international peers as among the best in the world is a good idea. I wish him luck in doing so.

14:42

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

I am very fortunate never to have been in a situation where I have continuously required alcohol to blot out misery or pain. I am fortunate enough to have never been so drunk in a public place that my safety or personal dignity was compromised. In fact, I abhor drunkenness, public or otherwise. It upsets and frightens me that some people become so inebriated that they are incapable of standing, speaking or securing their safety.

Although I do go to the pub, like hundreds of thousands of professional women up and down the country, I do most of my drinking at home. I probably do not think I am doing anything wrong because, every day, women go home after work and pour themselves a large glass of wine—and then another. How can it be wrong? I do not get drunk, throw up in the street, or wake up with a hangover. Yet could that be why alcohol consumption among women is becoming a problem, albeit one that may not present itself for decades?

Alcohol consumption by women has been rising steadily since the 1960s. Since 2002 alone, the number of alcohol-related admissions accounted for by women has more than doubled, from just below 200,000 to more than 400,000 in 2010. Although I accept that there is some debate about those sets of figures, the trend is undeniably upward, not downward. Alcohol consumption by women remains at a historic high, but it is interesting to note that it is falling at a faster rate among 16 to 24-year-olds. However, a significant number of middle-aged and older women, usually on higher incomes, prefer to drink at home to dangerous levels. It is the silent majority of drinkers we should be looking to prevent from becoming risky, harmed or dependent drinkers.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

This is a very serious issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that the silent majority are very much the problem, because they simply do not seek help?

[Tracey Crouch]

I agree entirely. We should remember that a significant number of people in this country do not drink at all; it is those who drink to excessive levels whom we need to be concerned about.

Since the 1960s, many more women have entered the work force. Some have put off raising families and the associated responsibilities in favour of pursuing their career. As a result, they have much more money and time to spend drinking. That is statistically demonstrated by the fact that women in managerial or professional roles admit to drinking almost double the amount drunk by women on lower incomes.

Where the drinking takes place, and not just the quantity, is a cause for concern. While men still account for the majority of regular pub goers, women are more likely to drink at home, drinking cheaper supermarket wine that is aggressively marketed and probably bought in bulk.

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that providing calorific information, as opposed to just the unit content of alcohol, on a bottle might have a significant impact on a large number of women who care a lot about the calories that they consume? If that was set out on alcohol packaging, it might help to alleviate the problems that she mentions.

[Tracey Crouch]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Labelling of alcohol has improved significantly over the past few years, particularly in relation to pregnant women.

In many ways, drinking at home poses a real issue. It is difficult to assess the true extent of the problem of home drinking because the only data we have to go on are results from surveys, and many respondents are likely to under-report their consumption. However, recent studies have shown a clear link between harm and home drinking. An overwhelming 93% of recent interviewees who had all suffered alcohol-related harms bought the majority of their alcohol from off-licences and supermarkets. With alcohol now part of most people’s weekly shop, and women less likely to buy alcohol in pubs, it is no surprise that the impact of home drinking on a person’s health is likely to be more pronounced among women. Little stigma attaches to home drinking, and it is perhaps only later in life that women realise that there was any drawback to what they have been doing. Liver damage is an obvious related condition, but breast cancer and dementia are also often cited as conditions with a link to alcohol.

Given that what somebody does in their own home is a matter for them, what role is there for the Government in tackling the issue? The introduction of a minimum unit price for alcohol is a welcome development and will tackle many alcohol-related problems, but I doubt very much that it will tackle the high level of drinking among well-off and professional women. It may dissuade somebody who is doing the weekly shop from taking advantage of deep discounting, and prevent the pre-loading that goes on among some younger drinkers, but more needs to be done on education and awareness.

For professional women drinking at home who do not come into contact with the traditional services that offer alcohol-based education and interventions, the workplace could prove particularly important. Alcohol Concern is championing the need for businesses to take a responsible approach to alcohol, calling for the inclusion of an alcohol policy in the corporate governance code. In principle, workplace interventions should definitely be encouraged, and I hope that the Government will support that campaign.

Undoubtedly, home drinking is extremely difficult to quantify. The only indication we have of the scale of the harm done is the level of alcohol-related admissions. It is therefore a concern that the official measurements used to calculate alcohol-related hospital admissions could be altered in the near future to reflect only those admissions where alcohol is a primary diagnosis. That could potentially exclude the reporting of conditions for which excessive alcohol consumption were partly responsible, such as a broken leg as a result of falling at home, or even domestic violence. I urge the Government to reconsider carefully the changes to the measurements. If they do not, we may never truly understand the scale of the problem, and the idea that we could achieve the targets set out by the Prime Minister for reducing alcohol dependency could be simply farcical.

A vast number of women, especially in professional roles, are steadily drinking at home to the detriment of their health. That is an issue on which it is difficult to provide direct intervention, but not one that we should simply ignore. I hope that this Government, who are responsibly trying to tackle alcohol misuse, will recognise the problem and do whatever they can to ensure that it is not simply left to fester behind the closed doors of homes up and down the country.

00:00

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Like many other Members, I should like to say a few words about the outcome of the Safe and Sustainable review. Children’s heart surgery services in Glenfield, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), have been earmarked for closure—a decision that came as shattering news when we heard it the other week to many of the staff who work there and many families of patients who have been treated there.

Many of my constituents have got in touch with me, and I have also been contacted by people across Leicester and the country. I do not have time to go through everything that they said, but Stacey Whiteley from Lincoln has contacted me. People have contacted me from Corby, Coalville and Northampton to express deep concern and opposition to the decision. Many of them said that there were a number of questions that they wanted answered and, as I think that they are legitimate concerns, I want to put them on the record.

My constituents have asked me, for example, why the extra options I to L were not presented for public consultation. Other constituents have pointed out that option A was the most popular, but was apparently ignored. Some constituents have questioned the impartiality of some advisers to the panel and others have pointed out that, in the consultation document, option A was described as being consistently the highest scoring option. Why was there a U-turn and option B chosen? It is right that those decisions should be made by clinicians, but these are legitimate questions from people concerned about the decision.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but the decision was made not by clinicians but by commissioners, who have left the eastern side of England between Newcastle and England without a heart unit. Many of my constituents would have gone to Leicester in preference to Newcastle. Now they will probably travel to London or Liverpool.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

Indeed. Many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents would have been welcome in Leicester. He is quite right: where do our constituents in the east of the country, between Newcastle and London, go? That is something else that many of my constituents have raised with me.

I wish to concentrate on the biggest deficiency of the decision, which is the impact on our world-class ECMO—extracorporeal membrane oxygenation—service. On Friday, the Secretary of State announced that he would accept the recommendation to shift our ECMO service from Leicester to Birmingham. In Leicester, we have had a brilliant, world-renowned ECMO service for 20 years.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for accepting my intervention, as I cannot speak in the debate because I am a Front-Bench spokesperson on health. Is he aware of the international evidence that shows that Glenfield’s ECMO survival rates for children are 50% to 75% higher than other centres? Those very good survival rates, and the benefits that they bring for children, must be taken into consideration as part of the review.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

My hon. Friend is right, and she makes the point with her usual eloquence and insight. I pay tribute to the work that she has done and, indeed, the work of other Leicestershire Members—I see that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) is in the Chamber—on the ECMO service. I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet a delegation of east midlands MPs, as we had a useful discussion.

Giles Peek, a consultant paediatric heart surgeon, said last year of the ECMO service:

“We use it not just after surgery but also to stabilise children and to stop them dying before surgery. We are always full and often take children from other hospitals…Our role at Glenfield as a national reference centre for this treatment is important and underestimated.”

I fear that Giles Peek’s concerns have come true and that our ECMO service has been underestimated.

I was grateful that the Minister said in the meeting that the Secretary of State’s decision was based on the Agnes review, but there are other ECMO experts who disagree with that review, so I hope that he will consider publishing the Agnes report. In the few minutes I have left, I shall run through the points that various ECMO experts have made. For example, Glenfield has a world-class facility with more than 20 years’ worth of service. There are deep concerns that by uprooting it from Leicester to Birmingham expertise will be lost along the way. Mr Kenneth Palmer, an ECMO expert, gave a stark warning on Radio Leicester today that, as a result of shifting the children’s ECMO service from Leicester to Birmingham, lives would be lost, saying:

“They could never have the same survival rate in another unit if you move it like this. Leicester has one of the highest survival rates in the world, 10%-20% higher than the normal survival rate in the world. To come up to the same skill it will take 5 years at least.”

He has been joined by other experts who have warned about the impact of shifting the unit from Leicester. Jim Fortenberry, the chair of the ECMO leadership council in Atlanta, when asked whether he agreed that lives would be lost, said:

“I do agree with that unfortunately. I think the risk is great that by attempting to move and start over that you’d really start the learning curve all over again and the improved outcomes take time and experience to develop, and so by effect starting over on the learning curve you certainly would potentially put lives at stake and it could be very significant.”

I accept that the Minister takes advice from experts, but given that there is one set of experts making one argument, presumably he receives advice from a different set. If he published his evidence, those of us who are laymen on health policy can try to make our own judgments as those experts scrutinise one another’s work.

Concerns have been raised about the Birmingham facility and whether it can deal with the new ECMO service. Dr Andrew Coe, a paediatrician from Coventry, said on Radio Leicester this morning that he was

“not convinced that Birmingham will cope with increased demand following closure”

of Glenfield. It was suggested to me that if the 80 ECMO nurses at Leicester are not prepared to leave Glenfield, it will take up to eight years for nurses in Birmingham to be trained to the appropriate level of expertise.

I conclude by mentioning the family from South Cambridgeshire, which the Secretary of State represents, who appeared on Radio Leicester this morning. They said clearly and movingly that the service they received for their little girl was the best they could receive and went beyond what staff needed to do. I hope that the Minister will give us guidance on what is next for Leicester’s ECMO service. I hope that he will consider publishing his evidence, and that we can have some sort of review of, or at least look again at, the shift of Leicester’s ECMO service to Birmingham.

14:57

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

I wish to raise the issue of neuroblastoma. I do so as someone who is proud of this Government’s record on the health service and who strongly supports their introduction of the cancer drugs fund.

Neuroblastoma is an aggressive childhood cancer affecting about 100 new children in the UK each year. It is the most common cancer diagnosed in infancy and is responsible for 15% of cancer deaths in children. There are very few treatments available in the United Kingdom for children with high-risk neuroblastoma, particularly those who have relapsed, and they have to travel abroad for treatment, generally to Germany or the USA.

I had never heard of neuroblastoma before my constituent, Mr John Macglashan of Dunstable, came to see me in March this year. His two-year-old daughter Lilly has stage 4 neuroblastoma. The Neuroblastoma Alliance, along with the people of Dunstable and the surrounding area with the help of The Dunstable Gazette, have helped to raise funds to send Lilly for treatment in America. The whole family is going through an enormous ordeal, and I want to relay their experiences to the House, and make four suggestions to the Minister as to how the UK can improve the provision of treatment for children with neuroblastoma.

First, I know that the Government want high-quality treatment for children with neuroblastoma to be available in the United Kingdom, and I strongly support that. To that end, the Government are participating in a European collaborative research network on neuroblastoma through the Société Internationale d’Oncologie Pédiatrique en Europe. That European trial does not appear to adhere to UK ethical standards of offering the best treatment available as a baseline for all children meeting the eligibility criteria. I urge the Minister to make sure that the best treatment available is offered as a baseline for all children in the United Kingdom.

My second concern is that clinical trials in the UK are taking far too long to begin. In March 2010, the Department of Health agreed to commence a new trial to give monoclonal antibody therapy to all children who might benefit from it, but according to the Neuroblastoma Alliance, that has not yet begun. The Government should ensure that this trial commences as quickly as possible.

Thirdly, it is important that the Government ensure that there is a standard procedure for allocating funds for treatment abroad across all primary care trust areas. That is particularly important as there are currently no NICE guidelines on the subject, which remains important while there is no viable treatment available in the UK. My constituent Mr Macglashan has taken his daughter Lilly to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering cancer centre in New York at considerable personal expense and with huge funds raised by the Neuroblastoma Alliance, a charity that campaigns for children with the condition. Mr Macglashan tells me that in the same hospital there are children from Norway, France, Spain, Italy and Greece, all of whom are being funded by their national health services while his family has had to rely on charity.

Fourthly, it is important that the best treatment options from abroad, whether from Germany or the USA, should be examined and, where the clinical evidence supports the case, introduced into the United Kingdom as quickly as possible. At the moment, there are too few options available for high-risk neuroblastoma children who fail to achieve a lasting remission after front-line treatment. In the UK, parents see a system that gives up on their children too soon while there should still be hope. Much higher numbers of children are surviving for much longer with the American treatment, and some are achieving permanent remission following treatment at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering cancer centre in New York. We need to make sure that that level of expertise is available here in the United Kingdom.

This is not simply a call for even greater NHS spending than the Government are currently budgeting for, as the costs of prolonged chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the UK are not cheap and have been shown to have less success than the treatments provided in America. It appears that the UK is not spending its health budget as effectively as it could in this regard, and I ask the Government to look again at the issue. The NHS already sends children suffering from cancer for treatment in America—for proton radiation treatment, for example—so no precedent would be set by sending more children for treatment in America and Germany.

Finally, I ask the Government to look at the training of consultants in neuroblastoma, as there are too few who specialise in this area.

15:02

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and particularly to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) about children’s heart surgery at Glenfield hospital in Leicester. In view of the time limit, I will not repeat the issues to do with the Safe and Sustainable review, because those have been well rehearsed by other Members.

It is no great surprise that all Members, as well as all patients, all staff, all parents and all families, want the best services when dealing with children’s heart surgery. We are talking about very sick young babies and children, and there is no doubt that high-quality services are wanted across the country. At the same time, we have to recognise that in the 21st-century national health service there are bound to be reconfigurations. The reconfiguration that has been worked on by the Safe and Sustainable review arises out of what happened in Bristol, and there is a very good reason for what it proposes. As we have heard, there are some serious questions still to be answered about the process and the way in which decisions have been made.

In the debate in this Chamber in June 2011, I talked about the ECMO—extracorporeal membrane oxygenation —service offered in Leicester, which the hon. Member for Leicester South discussed. It is a world-class, excellent service, and the question is what will happen to it if the children’s heart surgery unit is moved from Leicester to Birmingham. Like the hon. Gentleman, I thank the Minister very much for meeting a delegation of east midlands MPs this afternoon to talk about this. ECMO is a nationally commissioned service and the Secretary of State is therefore required to sign off the move. I understand that he accepted the recommendations of the panel last Friday.

Those of us who are most interested in this and have been listening to constituents and to consultants and staff at the Glenfield unit have a number of questions to raise with the Minister. I would like to be sure of three things before I can be happy with how the decision has been taken. First, before the Secretary of State signed off the move, was he aware of the misgivings of experts that have been described by the hon. Member for Leicester South? Letters are still arriving from international experts. Indeed, since I have been sitting in the debate I have seen a letter that has arrived from the medical director of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. I should like to read out a couple of quotes. The first is from Stephen Conrad, who is chairman of the steering committee of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organisation and who says that

“moving an ECMO program is non-trivial and amounts to much more than moving equipment and some key personnel. Excellent outcomes that are now characteristic of the Leicester group, whose work was instrumental in the worldwide adoption of pediatric and adult ECMO, would not be maintained following such a move.”

[Liz Kendall]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her work on, and support for, this important issue. Does she agree that this is not simply a matter of moving the machines but also about the expertise and skills of the staff, which would not be easy to move? Leading international experts on ECMO say that it could take between five and 20 years for the excellent level of service that is available in Glenfield to be made available anywhere else in the country.

[Nicky Morgan]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; she is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Leicester South referred to Kenneth Palmer, who was retained to give his expert advice to the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts on the move. Since the decision was made on 4 July, he has said:

“You will take over 20 years of experience from one of the world’s absolute best ECMO units and throw it away and then to rebuild it in another place and probably it will take at least 5 years to have some kind of quality and probably 20 years to come back to top quality, if it’s ever possible.”

As the hon. Lady said, it is about the staff. Of course the machinery is important, but what has been built up in Leicester, and what it is most renowned for, is the expertise of its consultants, nursing staff, and all the other staff. That is what people particularly rely on. In addition, Leicester has the only paediatric mobile ECMO unit, which is often called out to fly by helicopter to other parts of the country to retrieve patients and take them back to Leicester. I hope that the Secretary of State and the JCPCT were aware of that when they made their decision.

My constituent, Mrs Edith Felstead, who wrote to me and talked about the risk of moving the service, says that survival rates at Glenfield are 20% better than in the rest of the world. The point that I made last year and still want to make is that we have an excellent, internationally renowned service, and if we move it, we must be sure that we are doing so to obtain better outcomes. Will the Minister tell me what advice was given to the JCPCT about the likely outcomes if the move were made?

The rather hefty tome that was published to help the JCPCT to make its decision on 4 July, refers to the secretariat being able to provide “reasonable assurance” that paediatric respiratory ECMO could be transferred safely to Birmingham. I am concerned about that phrase. What assurances have been given? In particular, if the move goes ahead and has to be implemented, what will happen if it then becomes clear in the course of preparing for the move that the service cannot be safely moved and we need to undo some of what has happened as a result of the review?

As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, two narrow questions could be independently reviewed in relation to the Leicester move. I very much hope that following the meeting that we have just had and this debate, the Minister will agree to such a review. I would like to know what advice was available to the Secretary of State and to the JCPCT and the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services before they made their decision.

15:08

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I offer you my congratulations on the honorary degree that you received yesterday from Swansea university?

I recognise that I may repeat many of the things that have been said, but this is such an important issue for constituents in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire that I make no apology for doing so. I am going to talk about the Safe and Sustainable review as well. We have received a number of e-mails from charities yesterday, one of which said:

“As some MPs look to reignite”

the debate about changes to children’s heart units

“we urge MPs to think about the children.”

Frankly, I found that rather offensive, because throughout the whole campaign I have only ever thought about the children.

When I worked at Martin House children’s hospice, I saw the effect on families when they were driven apart because the poorly child had to be a long distance away. On my visit a week or so ago to the unit in Leeds, I met a family who live in Sheffield. They brought their baby who was a few days old into the unit when the baby suddenly went very blue. Thankfully, because of the excellent work at the unit, that baby’s life was saved. That child was described as “marginal” in the review meeting on 4 July. That is not my description, but that of the decision makers. That is a shocking statement in my opinion. I also met another family who live in Sheffield. The father is making three trips a day between Leeds and Sheffield because there are other siblings at home. How on earth are such people expected to travel three times a day up to Newcastle?

I recognise that the review has been independent of Government, but I have grave concerns over the way in which it has been run. I support a review, because I want the best services for our children. I was grateful for the Minister’s comments earlier, when he said that the call-in process means that the matter will go to an independent panel. I would be grateful for clarification of whether that panel is independent of the JCPCT.

[Mr Simon Burns]

May I reassure my hon. Friend that the Independent Reconfiguration Panel is nothing to do with the JCPCT, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or me? It is an independent organisation that is there to look at reconfigurations across the country that are referred to it by my right hon. Friend following an oversight and scrutiny committee writing to him.

[Stuart Andrew]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. I hope that the independent review body will look at the issues that I raise.

Logical health planning clearly dictates that services should be based on where the population live. Doctors should travel to where the patients are, rather than the other way around. Even the British Congenital Cardiac Association has said that:

“Where possible, the location of units providing paediatric cardiac surgery should reflect the distribution of the population to minimise disruption and strain on families.”

After all, it is not buildings that perform operations, but the doctors and surgeons within them. That definition seemed okay in the case of Birmingham. The review stated:

“The Birmingham centre should remain in all options due to the high level of referrals from the large population in its immediate catchment area.”

Why on earth does the argument about the large immediate population not apply equally to Leeds?

The independent analysis of patient flows states that many of the people in west and south Yorkshire and in Lincolnshire will probably go to Birmingham, Liverpool or even London instead. The JCPCT reaches the figure of 403 surgical procedures for Newcastle on the basis of only 25% of the patients going there. Even that is doubtful. How was the figure of 25% arrived at?

[Andrew Percy]

It is very convenient that the 25% figure gets Newcastle just over the 400 mark. However, my constituents in east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire will not travel to Newcastle at a rate of 25%. They will go straight up the M62 to Liverpool or head south to Birmingham or even London, which are much easier to get to.

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that that is the case for constituents across Yorkshire and the Humber.

[Greg Mulholland]

I am happy to be working so closely with my hon. Friend on this matter. When all the evidence is considered, is not the reality that Leeds is being sacrificed simply to allow Newcastle to achieve a level of operations that it might not even achieve? That is no reason to close a good unit.

[Stuart Andrew]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more.

The decision flies in the face of a fundamental aspect of the NHS constitution: patient choice. The JCPCT asserts that Newcastle could reach the minimum number of procedures if parents are “properly managed” to go to there. That is simply unacceptable. The whole point of patient choice is that people decide where they want to go.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) said, the review ignored a petition of 600,000 people, counting it as only one response, when 22,000 text messages in support of the Birmingham unit were counted as 22,000 separate responses. Why was that?

The scores in the review were allocated to four bands. Each of the points from one to four were multiplied by the weighting. That gave 286 points to Newcastle and 239 points to Leeds. However, there was no clarification of how the figures had been arrived at. Also the figures were not definite, but were rounded up or down, which may have made a huge difference to the outcome.

As has been mentioned, clinical experts at the BCCA, the Bristol inquiry, the Paediatric Intensive Care Society and the Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists all say that surgical centres should be chosen on the basis of their having paediatric services all on one site. That is something that we enjoy in Leeds, which has a wonderful children’s hospital with all the services that are needed. On meeting such children, it is clear that they need the support not just of heart surgeons, but of other experts. In Newcastle, the extra support will be some 3 miles away. There will therefore be a worse service for people who live in and around Yorkshire, not the world-class service that we all want.

There is much more detail that I would like to go into. I sincerely hope that we will have a Back-Bench debate on this issue when we come back in the autumn, because it is of grave concern to hundreds of thousands of people in the Yorkshire region. We will not give up our fight to save our unit.

15:16

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I wish to raise the issue of wet age-related macular degeneration and the treatments that are available.

The condition usually affects the sight of people from the age of 60, although it can affect people at an earlier age. AMD is the most common cause of sight loss in the western world. In the UK, more than 500,000 people have the condition and about 250,000 people are registered as visually impaired. Because people are living longer, the number of people who are affected by AMD is increasing.

Although the condition causes central vision loss and can have a devastating impact, it does not lead to complete blindness as sufferers retain their peripheral vision. Unfortunately, there is no known cure, but drugs are available that can slow the growth of blood vessels in the eye. Such anti-vascular endothelial growth factor medicines prevent blood vessels from forming or growing. Three drugs have been used in the treatment of wet AMD: Macugen, Lucentis and Avastin. It is the latter two drugs with which my speech is concerned.

Fundamentally, what is the difference between the two drugs? At first glance, the answer is the cost. Lucentis costs about £700 an injection, while Avastin costs £60. The bigger answer is that Avastin is not officially approved for eye treatments. Lucentis gained its European Medicines Agency approval in 2007. It is officially approved for use in eyes and is the treatment recommended in England and Wales by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The certification is based on extensive trials that show that is safe and effective for all lesion types in wet AMD. The trials have shown that it stabilises sight in more than 90% of cases and improves sight in 40% of cases.

The cheaper Avastin has not been approved by the EMA for use in treatments of the eye because it has not gone through the proper clinical trials. It has been approved as a treatment for colorectal cancers, and is therefore readily available. When used for colorectal cancers, the drug is injected into a vein in the arm. When it is used for the treatment of wet AMD, it is given into the eye.

The findings of two trials comparing Avastin and Lucentis have been published recently. Those are the comparison of age-related macular degeneration treatments trial, known as CATT, which was carried out in the United States, and the inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularisation trial, known as IVAN, which was carried out in the UK and was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. The IVAN trial, which was NHS funded, involved 610 patients in 23 hospitals. It was one of the largest research projects studying eye diseases in the UK. The one-year results were presented at an international conference in May this year and have been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed journal, Ophthalmology.

The greatest debate about the differences between the two drugs is likely to be over their safety when used to treat wet AMD. Academics say that, overall, both drugs are extremely safe. My contention is that it is likely that cost pressures on the NHS will lead to increased use of Avastin. The IVAN researchers estimated that if the NHS were to substitute Lucentis for Avastin across the UK, it would save £84.5 million each year if 17,295 eyes were treated.

However, I am aware of the financial environment in which pharmaceutical companies operate. Like other industries, they manufacture products that must be sold at a profit, but in contrast to manufacturers in other industries their research and development costs are prohibitive. That means that they must make money on their investment. I recognise that they must not only regain their expenditure through profit but achieve profits to cover all the drugs that fail to get on to the market.

There has been criticism of NICE’s failure to recognise and adopt innovative new medicines. The UK is a world leader in medicines research, development and manufacture, but it is one of the slowest countries to enable patients to have access to innovative treatments. Avastin fits into that classification. I do not seek the Department’s licensing it immediately, but I call for the Government to establish an independent appraisal of it for use in ophthalmology. Clinicians are already using it off-label, so that would not be a leap in the dark. The savings that there would be for the NHS if the drug did work have already been quantified. However, if it is not safe, we must act to ensure the public’s health. I therefore ask the Minister to consider my request.

15:20

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

My comments will focus on the treatment of one GP in my constituency and his patients in Kelvedon, and on the state of health services in Witham town.

With the Government rightly empowering patients and medical practitioners, it is deeply alarming to see how one GP in my constituency is being treated. Dr Conor Macnamara has served the people of Kelvedon for a quarter of a century and is currently a salaried GP at the Brimpton House surgery in Kelvedon. He has been a stalwart of our local community, and whole families throughout the locality respect and trust him. He has upheld the values of the NHS on the front line and enthusiastically supported local residents.

Despite Dr Macnamara’s strong record, the primary care trust, which is now called NHS Mid Essex, and the GP principal at Brimpton House surgery, Dr Alsayed, have decided to end his employment and stop him treating local patients. They did so at the end of last year without consulting his patients, and they issued a statement informing his patients of the decision before Dr Macnamara himself was formally notified of it.

The decision to remove Dr Macnamara, and the way in which it was carried out, have caused considerable consternation among local residents. They are up in arms, and they have signed a petition objecting to any attempt to remove this long-standing family doctor from Brimpton House surgery. Yesterday, alongside the patient action group, they handed in a petition and delivered a letter to Dr Alsayed, reiterating their wish to see Dr Macnamara reinstated. I pay tribute to them for their campaign and remain extremely disappointed by the lack of engagement by the PCT and Dr Alsayed in addressing local concerns, and by their failure to address Dr Macnamara’s concerns. In my view, that is a classic example of NHS bureaucracy overriding patient choice. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will look into the matter and help us find a good resolution that will lead to Dr Macnamara’s reinstatement.

As well as ignoring patient choice in Kelvedon, NHS bureaucrats have neglected health provision in Witham town. It is a growing town, and the local community is being overlooked in the provision of health services. We have a growing population, and the demand for new health service provision is reaching breaking point. Our population is increasing and more and more new homes are being built, so the provision of good-quality local health services is vital. Instead of investing in local services, the PCT has shamelessly spent hard-pressed taxpayers’ money on more managers and administrators.

The number of patients registered at the four GP practices covering the town and surrounding villages has reached almost 30,000. Those patients are covered by just 13.5 whole-time equivalent GPs, which makes more than 2,000 patients per GP. That is 40% higher than the 2011 national average of about 1,600. Local people need more GPs instead of managers, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can offer us some advice as local health campaigners. We want to press the new clinical commissioning groups to increase local GP provision. Progress must be made, and my constituents in Witham would welcome any intervention and encouragement that he can provide to nudge the process along, particularly given the Government’s reforms.

The Government have rightly prioritised the NHS, and their reforms will help save it in a time of financial uncertainty. I hope they will now do everything possible to ensure that their commitment to support patient choice and invest in front-line health services can be delivered in Witham, to avoid a health crisis and bring much-needed and long-overdue benefits to my constituents.

15:24

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

This has been an interesting and diverse debate, giving hon. Members an opportunity to raise a range of different subjects affecting their local communities and the health and well-being of their constituents. If there has been a main theme, it has been the Safe and Sustainable review of paediatric heart surgery. I fully recognise the strength of feeling and emotion on that difficult and sensitive subject, which is why so many Members have talked about it. They have included the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland); the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who mentioned the Brompton hospital in London, which is part and parcel of that review; the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), who took interventions from the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall); and my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan).

I fully accept that the reorganisation of children’s cardiac services is a matter of real concern for the families involved, as indicated by the strength of feeling shown in the contributions of all the Members who have taken part in the debate. I know that some families have been disappointed by the outcome of the JCPCT’s recent decision. As hon. Members will know, children’s heart surgery has been a subject of concern for more than 15 years. Clinical experts and national parents groups have repeatedly called for change, and there is an overwhelming feeling that change is long overdue.

As passionately as people want to defend their local hospitals, it is far more important to ensure safety and quality of care for all children with congenital heart disease. We must ensure that those children continue to receive the very best care that the NHS can deliver, and I know that no Member would disagree with that overarching principle. That was what the NHS Safe and Sustainable review was aimed at, and as I have told many Members over the past 22 months, it was wholly independent of Government.

The review was led by clinicians and had the support of the Royal Colleges and national charities. Its conclusions were clear: for children with congenital heart disease to receive the very best care, specialist surgical expertise needs to be concentrated in a smaller number of centres. That will mean that surgeons have sufficient clinical work to maintain and develop their skills; that they can provide those services around the clock; and that they can train and develop the next generation of surgeons. I must stress that the JCPCT’s decision is not about closing or cutting back on children’s heart services—quite the opposite. It is about ensuring that the whole range of children’s heart services can deliver the very best care now and in future.

I thank in passing my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and the hon. Member for Leicester South for meeting me earlier this afternoon to discuss the important issue of ECMO and how it directly affects Glenfield hospital in Leicester.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am afraid other duties in the House prevented me from being at the meeting. Had I been there, I would have supported what the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said.

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Not only am I sure he would agree with every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and the hon. Member for Leicester South said, but I have considerable sympathy with him, as he was unable to attend the meeting owing to other pressing parliamentary duties in his role as Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. To be even fairer to the right hon. Gentleman, the meeting was originally planned for 3 pm or 3.15 pm, but unfortunately, neither my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman nor I would have been able to attend because we were at that moment in the Chamber.

I understand from the nature of our discussions, as they will, that this is a difficult issue, because there are a number of complicated parts to the problem. I hear what they and other hon. Members have said about the Safe and Sustainable review, but I stick to my original position. The review is independent and is carried out not by the Government, but by the JCPCT. It would be inappropriate for me to become directly involved, to take sides or to pass comment because it would be felt that I was interfering. If hon. Members’ local authorities disagree with the decisions or recommendations of the JCPCT, their overview and scrutiny committees can write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to express their disagreement with the decision as it affects their local community or local hospital, and to request that the matter be referred to the independent reconfiguration panel, so that it can consider it independently and come up with a decision.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley said, his local authority has today done just that. It may be helpful to him if I explain the procedure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives the representations and communication from the local authority overview and scrutiny committee specifying that it believes that the decision and recommendation as they affect the local hospital—Leeds, in my hon. Friend’s case—are wrong. The overview and scrutiny committee then asks my right hon. Friend whether he will refer the matter to the independent reconfiguration panel. I do not want to prejudge, but it is almost certain that my right hon. Friend will refer the matter. It will be then be up to the IRP, which is independent, to look at the recommendation and the criticisms made by the overview and scrutiny committee, and to reach a conclusion, which will be an independent conclusion, on whether it agrees with the recommendation or the criticisms of it and perhaps of the procedures involved. The IRP will then make my right hon. Friend aware of its independent view of the complaint.

[Jason McCartney]

Will the Minister clarify the time scale of the procedure he has described and also tell us who has the final say?

[Mr Burns]

It is difficult to give a time scale for this reason: as soon as my right hon. Friend receives representations from the overview and scrutiny committee, he will consider as quickly as he can whether to make a referral. As I have said, in the life of the IRP, every request for a referral has been granted—that is certainly true of my right hon. Friend’s time in office, but I believe it is also true of previous Secretaries of State under the previous Government. It is up to the IRP. I know of one example of my right hon. Friend requesting that the IRP respond within a certain time frame, but that was on a single issue. It is possible, with regard to the Safe and Sustainable review, that a number of referrals could be made by different OSCs in relation to the recommendations—I do not know but it is a possibility.

[Stuart Andrew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Burns]

I will give way once more, but then I will have to make progress, because I only have 10 minutes to respond to the whole debate.

[Stuart Andrew]

Will the independent panel have the power to request all the documentation that the Safe and Sustainable review and the JCPCT have been looking at? Will everything be released so that it can look at the evidence in detail?

[Mr Burns]

The IRP?

[Stuart Andrew]

Yes.

[Mr Burns]

I think I can assure my hon. Friend that the IRP will have available to it all the evidence, in all shapes and forms, to help it to form its final opinion of the complaint referred to it. I hope that that reassures him. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and the hon. Member for Leicester South that the same can apply with regard to the decision about ECMO. I have no doubt that Leicester city council will give consideration to that.

I shall briefly respond to the remaining issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made several extremely interesting suggestions. Some of them might not be in line with current Government thinking, but I shall certainly refer her ideas and views to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who deals with our alcohol strategy. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) raised an important issue, and again I will refer it to the Under-Secretary of State.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned the potential reconfiguration at St Helier hospital. As she will know, the proposals are still being worked on. There has not yet been a consultation process, but the decisions have been taken locally by the local NHS. I trust that, if and when there is a consultation process, she will get involved.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Absolutely.

[Mr Burns]

I thought she would say that. That is very good. After the consultation, the due processes of reconfiguration can move forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) asked about Avastin. A study is being done into its effects. We are following that closely, and when we find out more we will consider the matter and potentially reach a judgment, but I cannot give him any commitments at the moment.

Finally, I turn to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I am sorry to hear about the problems that she highlighted on behalf of her constituents. I do not want to disappoint her, because she is my neighbour and I have to live with her on a weekly basis, but given the background to the case, I think it is a matter for the GP practice as the employer of the GP whom she mentioned. I encourage her to engage with Mid Essex PCT, even though it has no direct powers or role in this matter, and the clinical commissioning group in the mid-Essex area, because they are best placed to address the concerns about the provision of services for her constituents, which I know she is fearless in defending, protecting and promoting.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister. I wish him and those Members not staying for the other debates a happy and productive recess. We now move to a short debate on foreign and commonwealth affairs, after which we will proceed to a debate on the environment, food and rural affairs. Members listed under other topics will then be taken in the general debate. We still have the five-minute limit on speeches.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

15:39

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Once again I wish to raise the issue of human rights and the death penalty in India. I pay tribute to four organisations—Kesri Lehar, Liberation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch—that have continued to expose the Indian Government’s failure to address human rights abuses effectively. Kesri Lehar launched the “Wave for Justice” campaign, along with a petition, which has now been signed by more than 100,000 people, to seek a full debate in Parliament on the issue, which I hope we can secure later in the year.

I want to raise three issues of concern. The first issue is the historic failure of the Indian Government to bring to justice those who perpetrated the massacre of the Sikhs in Operation Blue Star in 1984, which started with the attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar and resulted in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Sikhs in the following decade, and was described as Indian’s hidden genocide. Despite various commissions of inquiry into abductions, disappearances, extra-judicial executions and secret cremations, Amnesty’s latest report confirms that the Indian Government have failed to hold the perpetrators to account. In 2004, on the 20th anniversary of the massacre, I launched a report in this House called “1984: Sikhs’ Kristallnacht”. We called for an independent commission of truth and justice, under the auspices of the United Nations, to investigate the slaughter. Since then there has been no progress and the Sikhs still await justice.

What is even more galling, however, is that two individuals—Jagdish Tytler and KPS Gill, who are both accused of playing leading roles in the human rights violations in 1984 to 1995—may well seek to visit Britain for the Olympics in their capacity as Olympic officials for India. It would be a travesty of justice and cause deep offence to the whole of the Sikh community in the United Kingdom if these brutes were allowed to enjoy this country’s hospitality.

The human rights abuses go on. Human rights NGOs have confirmed that human rights violations against minorities continue today, including against the Sikhs. Human Rights Watch’s latest report dealt with custodial killings and police abuses, including torture. On average, 1,500 people a year are dying in custody in Indian prisons and police stations, while rape is used as a form or torture. For 18 years the Indian Government have denied the UN rapporteur on torture access to India. Amnesty now reports that over the past two years 30 human rights defenders have been targeted for abuse by state and non-state organisations, with eight people being killed as a result. Meanwhile, the Indian Government have failed to repeal the laws that afford state impunity to human rights abusers. Indeed, impunity seems to be common for the perpetrators of human rights abuses in India. That is not acceptable by any standards.

The ultimate violation of human rights, however, is to take a person’s life. That is why there was such shock and anger at the Indian Government’s threat—made only months ago, after an eight-year hiatus—to implement the death penalty against people such as Professor Davinder Singh Bhullar and Balwant Singh Rajoana. Professor Bhullar was convicted only on a confession that was obtained by torture and later retracted. Balwant Singh Rajoana has already served 17 years on death row and has suffered enough. The threat of capital punishment for those individuals has been lifted for the time being, but now two thirds of the world has renounced the death penalty. I say as a friend of India that it is time India did so too.

I appreciate what both the last Government and this Government have done in making representations to the Indian Government over the years. I also pay tribute to the work that the Minister has done in pressing the Indian Government on these issues. However, I once again urge the Government to use our bilateral talks, and the EU-India human rights dialogue, to call on India to take decisive action to protect human rights and, in particular, to abolish the death penalty. It is time India addressed this issue. India is the largest democracy on the globe, yet it stands alone in the developing world in still supporting the death penalty. India should adhere to human rights and, at the same time, ensure that capital punishment is no longer a stain on the country.

15:44

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The professionalism, valour and courage of our soldiers who have served in Afghanistan and those serving there now are as distinguished as any in our long military history. Some of our allies have already decided to withdraw their troops. They are not the nations that were not enthusiastic about the war, but those that have paid huge costs in blood and treasure. Canada withdrew its combat troops after a debate in its Parliament that was supported by every party. The Netherlands has also done so, and we now know that Australia and France intend to bring their troops home early.

The United Kingdom has lost 422 troops, and we have spent £20 billion, but that is only part of the cost. We must also take into account the number of troops who return from Afghanistan broken in body and in mind. Figures from America show that more of its veterans from Afghanistan take their lives after combat than die in combat. The same applied to our figures from the Falklands war. We know that the dying will continue.

A case in Pembrokeshire involved a soldier who had suffered grievously in Afghanistan. His death is not counted among the 422 casualties, however. In Afghanistan, he was shot twice and involved in two separate incidents involving improvised explosive devices, but his loved ones explained that the experience that haunted him was holding his best friend, who had lost a number of limbs in an explosion, and watching as the life retreated from his eyes. It was that experience that drove him to take his own life.

There are powerful reasons for saying that we are continuing to order soldiers to risk their lives for the cause in Afghanistan, but I do not believe that a case can be made for doing so any more. A recent briefing said that we needed to get all our equipment out of Afghanistan at enormous cost, because we did not want to see the Taliban riding round in British tanks in five years’ time. However, having gone into Afghanistan when it was ruled by the Taliban and engaged in a civil war, the likelihood is that, by the time we leave, there will be another civil war and that it will be ruled by the Taliban once again.

For 10 years, we have heard optimism being expressed by all Governments, along with exaggerations of success and dismissals of the failures that mounted up, year after year. It was not necessarily a mistake to go there, although no British interests were threatened in 2001. It was, however, a terrible mistake to go into Helmand province. In our first five years in Afghanistan, only two of our soldiers died. Then, we provocatively stirred up the hornets’ nest in Helmand, in the foolish and mistaken belief that not a shot would be fired. Our operations in Helmand were described in the House at the time as being as futile as the charge of the Light Brigade, but we have now lost three times as many troops in Helmand as were lost in that charge.

It is a dereliction of duty for the House not to debate the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. We know that the people of this country are strongly in favour of such a withdrawal. In a recent by-election, a candidate from a minority party with only one policy—withdrawal from Afghanistan—gained 56% of the votes and humiliated all the other parties. We also know that 80% of the public want our troops to withdraw now, yet we are being distracted by the bread and circuses of all the events taking place this year, and we cannot find a moment in our parliamentary diary to discuss whether we should bring our troops home before we reach the point that Senator Kerry described when he was an officer in Vietnam in the final days of that war. He spoke of asking the agonising question: who will be the last soldier that I will order to die for a politician’s mistake?

15:49

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I had hoped that, after the election of President Hadi in Yemen, I would no longer need to raise the situation in that country. Sadly, however, the situation has deteriorated even further since the election. Only last week, 22 people died in a suicide bomb attack in Sana’a. That attack followed a number of others perpetrated by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. I remain deeply concerned that, even though the old regime has gone and President Hadi has been elected, there is still a major security problem in this beautiful but troubled country.

As the House knows, I was born in Yemen, and I spent the first nine years of my life there. I have the pleasure and privilege of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen. I have not been able to visit the country over the past two years because of the security situation; so if it is bad for someone such as me and other Members, it is very bad for people in Yemen.

I am delighted to see at the Dispatch Box the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and I want to pay tribute both to the Foreign Secretary and to him for all the good work they have done in ensuring they keep a dialogue going with the Yemeni Government and the Yemeni authorities. The Minister met last Thursday, as did I, Dr Abu Bakr al-Kurbi, the long-standing Foreign Minister of Yemen, and I know that useful discussions were held about the situation.

I am very pleased that Nicholas Hopton has taken over as our ambassador in Sana’a, although the difficulty of having an embassy there is recognised by the fact that this is truly a hardship post, and it is time limited, which is something we do not do to many of our embassies all over the world. The first issue, then, is security. What does the Minister have to say about the security situation in Yemen? What can we do to help the new Government? What can we do to ensure that they have the equipment and support they need?

A few years ago, I spoke of the need for one scanner at Sana’a airport, and I recently tabled a question asking whether the scanner had arrived, two years later, and was told that the information could not be released because it was not in the public interest to do so. I then put in a freedom of information request. I do not think it is a big deal to tell an MP whether a scanner that was promised two years ago has arrived at Sana’a airport. I hope that the Minister can provide that information in his reply.

The second limb of any discussion about Yemen is the humanitarian situation, and I want to pay tribute to my near constituency neighbour the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) for all the work he has done. He has attended a number of the Friends of Yemen conferences, and £2.5 billion has been pledged over the last few years. I know that our Government have given £31.7 million in humanitarian aid. It remains the case that 500,000 people are displaced as a result of the situation in Yemen, and it remains the case that 50% of the Yemeni population do not have access to clean water and sanitation. It remains the case, too, that the vast majority of Yemenis live on less than £1.29 a day. This situation can only help to feed the ambitions of al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula.

All I ask from the Minister—as I said, Ministers have continued the good work of Ministers under the last Government—is that we continue our strategy and our plan to help the Government of Yemen, and that we give them whatever support they need. We must be cautious about one aspect: when we have international conferences, many countries—the Saudis, for example—pledge a lot of money, but I do not know whether it is actually paid. We must ensure that, having made a pledge, the donors ensure that the money reaches the people who matter—the people of Yemen.

15:53

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

I thank the three colleagues who have spoken briefly and succinctly, but equally powerfully, in each set of comments. I am not time limited, but I will do my best to be as brief as possible, fair in responding to what colleagues have said and fair to those who are waiting to speak. I shall deal with colleagues’ contributions in order.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the issue of the death penalty in India and some particular cases. One of the advantages of having a deep and wide-ranging bilateral relationship with India is that it allows us to have frank and open conversations about all areas of interest and concern. Where we have concerns about human rights issues, we have made them clear to the Government of India. I know that the death penalty is of particular concern to Members and their constituents, as the hon. Gentleman made clear. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who has responsibility for matters relating to India, receive a significant amount of correspondence on the subject.

We have made our opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances clear to the Government of India on many occasions, urging them to formalise the now eight-year de facto moratorium with a view to eventual abolition. The decision earlier this year to proceed with the execution of Balwant Singh Rajoana was therefore deeply concerning. We took every opportunity to express that concern to the Government of India, and I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about our efforts. According to the note I have here, the issue of the death penalty and particular cases have been raised deliberately on 11 occasions in the past 12 months. We are obviously pleased that a stay of execution for Balwant Singh Rajoana was announced on 28 March so that the President could consider an appeal for clemency.

Much of the correspondence received by my ministerial colleagues refers specifically to that and a number of other cases relating to Sikhs, and to events in the state of Punjab in recent decades. Our principled opposition to the death penalty is of course separate from the specifics of cases in which we must be careful to avoid interference in India’s judicial process, just as we would wish other Governments to respect our own. However, the UK is active in encouraging an improvement in the treatment of minority communities in India. The British high commission in New Delhi has discussed minority community issues with the Indian National Commission for Minorities and with various other state-level authorities, and I assure Members that those discussions will continue.

In addition to such bilateral exchanges, the main forum for discussing concerns such as those raised by the hon. Gentleman is the annual EU-India human rights dialogue, the next round of which will take place soon. It allows a frank exchange of views, and, crucially, it is a two-way process. The matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised today will certainly be raised again in the course of that dialogue.

During the United Nations Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review of India in May, we urged it to maintain its de facto moratorium on the death penalty. We asked about the Indian Government’s response to concern about India’s security legislation, and also noted concern about reports of a significant number of cases of torture by police and security authorities. We recommended that India expedite the ratification of the convention against torture and its optional protocol, and adopt robust domestic legislation to that effect.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the Olympic games, and asked specifically about accreditation. We do not routinely comment on individual cases, but our policy is clear: accreditation will be refused to any individual who may present a safety or security risk or whose presence at the games or in the UK would not be conducive to the public good, and it will be refused if there is independent, reliable and credible evidence that an individual has committed human rights abuses.

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) made a familiar but none the less passionate and heartfelt plea in relation to those who are serving in Afghanistan, repeating concerns that he has raised regularly about what he believes to be their overlong presence there. There is no doubt that when he speaks about the circumstances affecting individual soldiers and what they have experienced, either personally or through what they have observed with others, he speaks movingly and with heartfelt compassion, and no one could deny the force of what he says. He constantly raises the questions “What has it been worth?” and “Is it ever worth it?” It would be wrong for me to stand at the Dispatch Box and not give a positive answer to those questions, or rebut, as gently as I can, some of the hon. Gentleman’s worst fears.

As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, I believe that there are genuine signs of progress. We know that there are still difficult days to come, but let me offer an answer to those who feel that absolutely nothing has been achieved. The number of district governors has risen from five in 2008 to 12. Eight of Helmand’s 13 districts, and the municipality of Lashkar Gah, are now either in transition or about to embark on it. That means that their security will be no longer the responsibility of UK or international forces but that of Afghan forces, which are gradually taking more and more responsibility for their own areas. Tranche 3 of the transition will see some 75% of the population of Afghanistan covered by their own forces, which have been trained by the international forces in order to meet the security needs of the people in the future. That will allow the UK and international forces to retreat from their international obligations in 2014, as has long been planned. I also say to the hon. Gentleman that we have no sense that we are not going to stick to that timetable, which truly matters for the future security of those in Afghanistan.

Some 145 schools are open, an increase of 79% since 2008. There are 89,000 male students in Helmand province and 29,000 female students. There are women teachers, too. All these things did not happen before, which is why the people of Afghanistan are so concerned that the progress must be maintained. We can ensure that only by sticking to the timetable.

The series of international conferences in the past year or so—Bonn, Chicago, Tokyo, Istanbul—have all been designed to demonstrate that, although combat troops will be leaving in 2014, the international community’s commitment to Afghanistan will continue. Chicago was about how the future security will be guaranteed. Tokyo was about international development support; we are committing to give the same level of support as now until 2017, after which time the situation will be reviewed. All these assurances are absolutely essential for Afghanistan’s people as they take more responsibility for their own future.

That future will have been bought by the sacrifices of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred so movingly. I disagree with his view that it has not been worth it, however. Each individual life lost, and each individual life ruined by wounding or pain, is a tragedy, but it has not been for nothing, and there are plenty of people in Afghanistan who recognise that and know that what they will have in the future will have been dearly bought for them by others. They are determined to make something of that.

No one pretends there will not be difficult days to come, but if we consider the protection of women, and their situation, their human rights and their opportunities for the future, we can see that they are better now than they would have been had international forces not been involved, and had UK forces not made the sacrifices they have made.

Finally, let me turn to the comments on Yemen of my friend, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I would have begun by painting a slightly brighter picture. The security situation is not easy, but since the election of President Hadi there have been positive signs in a number of areas. The national dialogue—the essential political process that needs to go forward—is being engaged upon, and the President has been adept in handling the armed forces, who have sometimes been at odds with authority and each other.

Although the security situation is difficult, there are positive signs on where Yemen is going, and the degree of confidence displayed in President Hadi, not least by the Friends of Yemen, has been striking. I would therefore maintain that things are better than they were—and the right hon. Gentleman would certainly find that the ambassador would say that, too.

Let me briefly run through the major areas the right hon. Gentleman discussed. A clear priority for the President has been removing the malign threat posed by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and re-establishing security throughout the country. In his inauguration speech, the President was clear about his determination to address the instability. Since then, we have witnessed great achievements by his security forces in the south, with the retaking of towns across Abyan province from AQAP, but those successes have not come without sacrifices, including those resulting from the appalling attack in Sana’a on 21 May, the assassination of the southern military commander on 18 June, and, only last week, an attack on young police cadets at the police academy in Sana’a.

AQAP is on the back foot, but it retains the capability to conduct attacks both inside and outside Yemen. Restoring security and tackling the threat of violent extremism emanating from Yemen is a top priority for this Government, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are committed to the stability of Yemen. That commitment is undiminished, and we will continue to work with the Yemeni Government in their fight against AQAP.

I am aware of the issues to do with the scanning equipment at Sana’a airport. It is in place, but because of the security situation it has not been easy to get the people there to connect it and fix it up. That is a priority for us, however. As the situation eases, it will be an important thing for us to do.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to my colleague, the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan), who is doing an excellent job, such as in addressing humanitarian issues and in respect of the Friends of Yemen donor conference to come. He takes a particular interest in how the money is spent, and in reassuring those who have promised to be donors that the money will get where it needs to go. That addresses one reason why in the past donors have been hesitant to deliver on their commitments. So, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is a matter of importance for us that we will continue to deliver on. We think there will be further meetings in New York later on in the summer, and possibly one in Riyadh. However, the Friends of Yemen have recognised the President’s abilities. He was not particularly well known before he took the position, but he is delivering in many different ways in Yemen. Although the security situation is difficult and will remain so, there are some good signs in a difficult area, and I hope to be able to report on those more often in the next 12 to 18 months.

department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

16:05

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, on a subject—the British dairy industry—hugely important to my constituency and, I contend, to our nation. I want to speak in particular about the crisis currently engulfing it.

I have always appreciated the importance of dairying. My first job, for the first 10 years after I joined the family business, was milking cows. I do not suppose I am unique among Members in that regard, although I might be the only existing MP who has actually milked cows by hand. I often stayed with my grandparents when I was young; they had eight cows which they milked by hand, and they produced butter that was circulated in the village. Therefore, I feel a considerable attachment to the industry—and we really did use three-legged stools, for those who are wondering.

Dairy farming has shaped and maintained the countryside of Britain as we know it for a century. It is an industry we should value and support. Today, dairy farming is in deep trouble—an important primary production industry torn apart by the corporate greed and ruthlessness of processors and retailers. Dairy farming is being reduced to an unsustainable position. Dairy farmers will be forced out of business and inevitably, more dairy products will be imported unless there is change. We should do our utmost to prevent this from happening.

It is not possible to calculate precisely the cost of milk production because circumstances vary, but it is generally accepted to be 29p to 31p per litre. Some of our major retailers acknowledge this. Waitrose and Marks and Spencer contract with farmers and allow for the production costs to be covered. Sainsbury’s and Tesco, too, contract with farmers for some of their milk, and they too allow the costs to be covered. However, others do not and they should be named and publicly shamed: Asda, Morrisons, and Co-op are huge businesses that show a shocking disregard for their suppliers. The processors—the in-between businesses that buy from farmers and sell to the retailers—should also be named and shamed: Arla, Robert Wiseman and Dairy Crest are happy to watch suppliers go out of business, in order that they can maintain their large profits.

The dairy products marketplace, as we know, is deregulated and unbalanced. The contracts under which milk is traded are incredibly one-sided. Buyers have discretion to impose price cuts almost without warning, while sellers are tied to long-term notice periods.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising what is a vital issue to the dairy industry. I recently met Roberta Parsons of Manor House farm in Brogden, in my constituency, which is a small farm with only 140 cows. Does he agree that it is the smallest farmers who are hardest hit by the reduction in milk prices and the abuse of power by the larger milk companies?

[Glyn Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is undoubtedly true that it is the average-sized businesses that are likely to survive and that can carry a period of loss, while the traditional farmers are likely to go out of business unless there is change.

A few weeks ago, the processors reduced the price by 2p a litre—just like that: a 6% to 7% reduction. Now they have told farmers that on 1 August there will be another 6% or 7% cut, which reduces the price they are paying to the farmers to way below the cost of production. Last week, unsurprisingly, there was a huge reaction: 2,500 dairy farmers came to a dairy summit here in Westminster and many of my hon. Friends attended. The purpose was to highlight this unacceptable position, and to demand that these cuts do not go ahead in August and that those that took place in July and July be reversed.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, which is dear to both our hearts. Does he agree that this crisis enveloping the dairy industry, whereby on 1 August dairy farmers will face going bust, means that if we cannot find a voluntary code between the producers and the supermarkets, we should look to impose some sort of mandatory regulatory regime to save our dairy industry?

[Glyn Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, as he makes a point that I was intending to deal with. I was going to raise it with the Minister to seek his opinion and perhaps his assurance on that very matter.

Processors in this deregulated, unbalanced market are behaving as though they are a cartel; they are imposing across-the-board cuts and there seems to be some agreement between them. That is outrageous behaviour. We know that across the world dairying is a volatile market—prices fluctuate. We all understand that; it is why there must be some order, which is why we have contracts. However, the current order is for the processors and the retailers, with catastrophic chaos for the producers. I shall now deal with the point that my hon. Friend raised. We need a code, preferably a voluntary one, and more balanced contracts. We had hoped that there would have been an announcement of a voluntary code already, and I know that the Minister had, too. Unless we can have an agreement on a voluntary code, the Government and the Minister have to consider going forward with a statutory code. Only with that hanging over people’s heads are we likely to achieve the voluntary code we want.

In the longer term, the Government need to encourage progress on lots of other issues. We need to encourage farmers to come together to form producer organisations. The big problem we have with individual farm businesses and micro-businesses is that they are incredibly small and do not carry any power. We know that there is now an agreement from the European Union in the dairy package that we can encourage up to 30% of farm producers to deliver producer organisations. I am hoping that the Minister will reassure us that he wants to do that.

We also need to move forward on the grocery adjudicator, although that might well have a limited impact on this particular problem, as for markets to operate we have to have a degree of fairness. When there is bullying and unfairness, the Government have to deal with it. That is why we have a Competition Commission, the Office of Fair Trading and other such organisations. The Government have to step in when the market is not working, and all of us know that this market is currently simply not working. It is working in favour of big bullying retailers and processors, and it is causing huge damage and driving into bankruptcy the dairy farmers that have sustained our countryside for so long.

16:13

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I support the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) in his request to the Minister today. The hon. Gentleman represents mid Wales and I represent north Wales, and a number of my constituents from the National Farmers Union and from the Farmers Union of Wales have echoed very much the concerns that he has raised. They simply cannot plan their businesses on the basis of a 2p cut in the price of milk already, with the potential for further cuts before 1 August. As he has mentioned, dairies such as Robert Wiseman Dairies are squeezing the dairy farmers of north Wales hard on the price of milk. A number of farmers in my constituency have raised the concern that they have potentially lost, because of the cut to their businesses, between £40,000 and £60,000 per business. No business could take a mid-year hit of that proportion with so little notice without it potentially having an impact on their viability. Farmers in my constituency came to London last week to raise the issue and are seeking the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and agree with much of his speech. Does he share my concern that the contracts that dairy farmers have to put up with mean that they have to live with cuts of 2p, then another 2p, then further erosion, but if they want to get out of them they have to give six months’ notice? Does he not agree that that is unacceptable?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and the key is to have a code of conduct for the contracts. I know that the Minister had discussions last week about a potential voluntary code and look forward to his updating the House today on his progress. If a definitive decision has not yet been made, I would welcome hearing from the Minister what plans he has to ensure that during the period between now and when the House returns in September he will be able to update Members who have an interest in the dairy industry, as well as Members in general, on this matter. I share the wish of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to see a voluntary code at first, but I know that my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench would certainly support regulation through a statutory version of that code if the voluntary form was not successful.

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

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can help me. Was it not a previous Conservative Government who did away with the milk marketing boards? The whole question of their being able to maintain prices meant that the farmers could maintain their businesses.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend and I have both been in the House since 1992 and I vividly remember the Milk Marque being abolished in the early 1990s, which led to a free-for-all that caused some difficulties. Let us put those issues to one side, however, as I am concerned about how we can make progress today.

The Minister has an opportunity to explain to the House how he is progressing on the voluntary code. If a voluntary code does not succeed, he will certainly have my support and that of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I think, for a statutory code in due course. The key issue, however, is how to ensure that those who produce get a fair price for their produce. At the moment, the big businesses mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire in his opening remarks, such as Robert Wiseman, can squeeze my constituents to the extent that they cannot make a living out of the production of milk.

Much of the milk produced in my constituency does not go to retail in supermarkets; it goes into the production of butter, yoghurts, cheese and other produce. The code needs to encompass not just supermarkets but all outlets for milk.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman feel the same concern as many of us about the large investments that farmers have had to make because of the new regulations on slurry and its disposal? That investment, on top of a worse price for milk, makes it more difficult for them to survive.

[Mr Hanson]

The key point is that whatever challenges farmers face in their investment and their businesses, no business can take the type of change that has been imposed now with a 2p cut some months ago followed by a further 2p cut by August. That is being imposed by businesses that are choosing to do so to enable supermarkets to have loss leaders. Customers can have cheaper milk, which must be welcomed in some ways, but ultimately we need a fair deal for all. We need a fair deal for producers, for supermarkets and for those people who buy and transport milk and make it into other products. At the moment, that is not happening because, as the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) said, the inflexibility of contracts means that farmers cannot get out of them.

We need an update from the Minister on the review of the contracts and an examination of how we can ensure long-term stability for milk production. We need the voluntary examination of contracting and, if that fails, we need the Government to take regulatory action to ensure that the interests of all parties in this important industry, not just in my area of north Wales but throughout the United Kingdom, are defended.

Finally, will the Minister update us on his discussions with my colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales? They have a devolved responsibility for some aspects of dairy production but contracting legislation must be dealt with on a UK-wide basis to ensure that markets are not further distorted between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I support what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire wants to see, which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) will no doubt comment on in a moment.

16:19

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

I, too, value the opportunity to bring the issue before the House. I attended the meeting of 3,500 farmers in the Methodist central hall. They were very angry and unhappy. The Minister handled the situation well, but it was a real demonstration of our dairy farmers’ frustration about their treatment.

At a time when British agriculture is doing relatively well, milk prices have fallen dramatically. A year ago, the average price of milk was about 35p a litre; now, it is less than 25p a litre and, as we have been told, the cost of milk production for the average farmer is about 30p a litre. When people have to sell below the cost of production, we will undoubtedly see farmers leave the industry.

In September 2002, there were 3,100 dairy farmers in Wales, but by May 2012 the number had fallen to 1,900. Across the whole of my constituency, there are fewer than 10 milk producers, which is a huge fall in numbers. There has been a downward trend in the production of milk. In 2003, 14.5 billion litres of milk were produced, but today the figure is around 13.5 billion. If those trends continue, the implications are bad not only for farmers but also for consumers. In the medium and long term, they are bad news for retailers and processors.

What can be done to avert a crisis? There is no single bullet, but we need action at every stage of the supply chain, from farmers, processors, retailers, consumers and the Government. As has been said, farmers need to work together. The voice of one farmer carries little weight in the marketplace, but when they join together, their negotiating power is much stronger.

Processors and retailers need to start paying a fair price for milk. Robert Wiseman Dairies, Arla Foods and Dairy Crest must scrap the scandalous price cuts they have imposed on farmers.

Consumers can reward retailers that are doing the right thing. Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose and Marks and Spencer have a price formula based on cost. I commend them for that. Consumers should show their appreciation by voting with their feet, and indeed their purses, and punish the Co-op, Asda and Morrisons, which do not have a similar scheme.

We need to start adding value to liquid milk. Our European friends are far better than we are at increasing profits from milk by processing it into cheese, yogurt and the like, which means it can be exported around the world.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In my County Durham constituency, many milk producers are suffering. I also agree that milk producers need to sell to wider markets, but does he agree that is no excuse for the behaviour of the wholesalers and the supermarkets?

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. People who are powerful in the marketplace, such as the processors, use their muscle to bear down on the prices paid to producers, who are suffering.

Finally, I turn to the Government. At the summit, the Minister said that a voluntary code between farmers and processors was close to agreement. Will he update the House on the latest progress?

I commend the Government on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which is making its way through the other place. Let us ensure that the legislation passes quickly, with the teeth it needs to do its job.

I welcome the work the Minister has already done on lightening the load of regulation on British farmers, but more can be done. I know he will continue to implement recommendations from the Macdonald report as and when he can.

The dairy industry is in crisis, but the crisis can be averted. Let us work together, so that our dairy industry will have a brighter future.

16:24

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I should like to raise the subject of dangerous dogs, as I was unable to participate in the recent Westminster Hall debate on the topic. Although I have publicly supported changing the dangerous dogs legislation for some time, and support the Government’s proposals, the issue took on personal significance for me in May. My mother, Ann, had her finger bitten by a dog while she was delivering local election leaflets in Colne. She was initially treated in Burnley general hospital and then transferred to a specialist unit in Wythenshawe hospital. I put on record my thanks, and my mother’s, to the doctors and nurses who treated her, and to the volunteers from Age UK who made her time in Burnley general more comfortable.

The dog bit my mother’s finger so hard that it broke the bone, and it also bit off the nail and the end of the finger. She was kept in hospital for several days. It is worth noting that my mother is not alone: two local Liberal Democrat councillors in Pendle were also bitten in separate incidents in the same week. I have on a number of occasions been critical of the law relating to dangerous dogs, which fails to protect the public; indeed, in February, I wrote an article in the local press calling for changes to it.

[Justin Tomlinson]

(North Swindon) (Con): This is a very important subject. Does my hon. Friend agree with my wife, who has studied animal behaviour, that the actions of a dog are almost always linked to the way the owner brings them up and handles them, and from where they purchase the dog?

[Andrew Stephenson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I know that he is acutely aware of the subject, given the recent high-profile case in his constituency, in which a two-year-old was attacked by a dog.

Something must be done to protect postal workers, volunteers and the public from dangerous dogs, and to remind owners of their responsibilities. As we are all aware, postal workers are especially at risk; there are an estimated 6,000 dog attacks on them every year. Of course, the issue of irresponsible dog owners goes wider than that. Dog fouling, status dogs and noise nuisances are all raised with me and other hon. Members time and again. The local press regularly cover horrific incidents. Last October, I read about a Staffordshire bull terrier attacking a 10-year-old in Pendle after the dog had been given lager to drink. Of course, because of the way the current law works, no one was punished. Under the Government’s proposals, that would change, and I especially welcome the proposal to provide funds to train expert dog legislation officers in each force.

There is widespread agreement that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is one of the worst pieces of legislation in history. It is probably the best example of how knee-jerk reactions from politicians can sometimes make a bad situation worse. A key respect in which the legislation got it wrong was in focusing on breeds of dog, when the real problem, as my hon. Friend says, was and is irresponsible dog owners. However, surely one of the other biggest mistakes was that the law did not cover attacks that happen on private property. That is one of the most important issues for the Government to address, and the one that would have the biggest impact.

To be clear, owning a dog is a great thing to do, and the vast majority of dog owners in Pendle and around the country are considerate and take responsibility for making sure that their dogs are safe. I congratulate the Government on engaging with the many groups that have come together to sort out the laws on dog ownership, many of which, including the Kennel Club and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, e-mailed me before today’s debate. By getting the legislation right, we can make communities safer and more pleasant to live in, and protect the reputation of those dog owners who make sure that their pets are safe to the public.

Thankfully, my mother is doing well, although the damage to her finger is permanent. She passes on her thanks to those colleagues of mine who have wished her well, but what she would value most is us at last introducing a law on dangerous dogs that works and protects the public.

16:29

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I return to an issue that colleagues raised a little earlier: the dairy sector, its critical importance to the economy, and the crisis that it faces. Last week, there was a gathering of 2,500 milk producers in central London; 300 of them were Welsh dairy farmers. There is understandably enormous strength of feeling on the part of the farming industry, following the latest round of cuts. We have heard from other hon. Members, and it is not an overstatement to say that the price cuts threaten the very future of many of the family farms that we represent, not just in Wales but across the United Kingdom as a whole. Indeed, the shortfall from that round of cuts will cost the Welsh dairy industry alone an estimated £80 million per annum—a huge sum of money that will put many dairy farmers out of business. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) discussed the hit that businesses would suffer—£40,000, £50,000, or £60,000—and that would drive many struggling family farms out of business.

Although the price cuts have been set by milk processing companies, there are things that Government can do to assist our dairy farmers. The Government have commendably introduced the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which is going through the other place, and I share the farming industry’s eagerness to put that law in place as quickly as possible. I am relieved that, after so long, legislation is coming our way, as it will restore some confidence in the industry and enable consumers to make real choices between the practices of different supermarkets, allowing them to choose which ones they shop from. It will provide, I hope, an adjudicator with real teeth, but it will not guarantee farm incomes.

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

Asda has said today that it will put its prices up by 3p for direct sales for farmers, but in 2010, it dropped the price of milk for four pints from £1.50 to £1. Does my hon. Friend agree that that brought about the drop in milk prices across the piece?

[Mr Williams]

My hon. Friend graphically illustrates the inconsistent role of some supermarkets. Along with the groceries code adjudicator, we need to look at how we can bring about fair contracts, to which everyone who has spoken has alluded, to stop the exploitation—an emotive word, yes, but that is the perception on the farms that I represent, as well as that of the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales. The contracts that farmers are required to enter are simply unfair, as they are required to give 12 months’ notice or more to pull out of them whereas, as we have heard, processors can change the price they pay for milk at a few days’ notice, or quite literally overnight.

The Government are right to move towards a voluntary code. Like other Members, I look forward to an update from the Minister but I hope that if necessary, the Government will proceed with regulation. As Lord Plumb said in another place, rule books without referees generally have limitations. We all agree in the House that farmers deserve to receive the production cost for their milk, but Robert Wiseman Dairies has announced that from 1 August it will pay 24.73p per litre for milk. Arla Foods milk price will fall to 25p a litre, and the First Milk price to 24.35p a litre—5p less than the cost of production. Any situation in which farmers have to accept less than the cost of production is unsustainable. I commend Waitrose, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, and Marks and Spencer on the positive work that they have undertaken, but we need to ensure that those agreements are made across the board, from retailers to processors, with all major buyers of milk and dairy products agreeing to commit to a sustainable purchasing strategy.

[Helen Goodman]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a problem with milk imports from countries with lower animal welfare standards and costs, and that those imports are not labelled in the UK?

[Mr Williams]

The hon. Lady served in the previous Parliament when, to be fair, the issue of labelling rose to prominence. It is critical, because it enables consumers to make informed decisions.

Given the feelings in the farming community about the recent price cuts, compounded by difficult weather conditions and rising input costs on-farm, the Government need to make it clear to processors and supermarkets that their failure to deliver fair prices may lead to severe disruption to the supply chain with dire implications not just to farmers but ultimately to us as consumers.

It is always worth remembering that the losses in the dairy sector will have a huge—I do not use that word lightly—impact on the broader rural economy. Welsh Assembly Government statistics indicate that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) said, the number of dairy farms has reduced by 800 over the five years from 2006 to 2011. The number of dairy farmers in Wales alone halved in the past 13 years. This figure will rise if we do not take action over the current price slash and unfair contractual obligations, because they will mean many job losses across the industry among suppliers.

Next week the Welsh farming community, in its widest sense, will gather for the Royal Welsh show in Builth Wells in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). We will see there the breadth of the farming community. The supermarkets, the farming unions and the Young Farmers will be there, as will the machinery contractors, the feedstuff merchants and the farming families from Wales and beyond. I make this prediction: whatever the weather, the sheer number of people there will illustrate how important the industry is to rural Wales. The stakes are high.

It is election time in Ceredigion, when we have hustings with the farming unions—the FUW and the NFU. Before elections, I am always asked this question: “Would you encourage a young farmer, the son of a farming family, to go into the industry and continue with the family farm to earn a living and contribute to the broader rural community?” With hand on heart, if things do not improve and we do not have action, I would hesitate about whether I could say yes to that question.

16:36

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

I was expecting at least one further subject to be brought up during the debate. [Interruption.] That, like many other wonderful speeches, will be consigned to the filing cabinet of those never to be delivered in this Chamber.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I devote most of my response to dairying, which was the subject of most Members’ speeches. First, though, I will reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson). I am very sorry to hear about the dog attack on his mother. I am pleased to hear that she is recovering, even if she will bear the scars for the rest of her life. He was absolutely right to refer not only to the measures that we have announced but to the importance of dealing with dog owners. As he said, often the problems with dogs are in fact a problem with the owner, either because they do not understand how to control the dog or have the desire to use it as a form of weapon for intimidation or worse. That is why the Home Office proposals on antisocial behaviour will include measures on the use of a dog as a weapon, which will rightly be seen as an antisocial activity and dealt with in that way.

My hon. Friend referred to the measures that I announced on 23 April. The consultation that stemmed from that closed on 15 June. We have begun to analyse the responses and will announce our conclusions as soon as we can. To recap, the most important element was to extend the criminal offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control on private property, which addresses his point about postmen and the many other people who have a legitimate right to come on to one’s property. We are consulting on the compulsory microchipping of dogs—in particular, precisely on how early to do that and whether it should be at the puppy stage. We are increasing the fee for placing a dog on the index of exempted dogs. We are removing the need to seize and kennel all dogs where court proceedings are pending. We are also, as my hon. Friend said, making a grant to the Association of Chief Police Officers for the training of dog legislation officers. I hope that he agrees that we are endeavouring to address an issue that is long overdue.

Dairying and the crisis in the British dairy sector were referred to by at least four Members in their speeches and by others in interventions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), I had milk cows earlier in my life. I fully recognise the huge crisis that is affecting many people in the sector. As a number of Members have said, some supermarkets that have aligned groups of producers have not cut their prices. However, the processors for many producers cut their prices in May or June and have announced further cuts for 1 August. The cut will total some 3.5p to 4p per litre over the two periods. We now seem to have an industry of haves and have-nots—those who have a supermarket deal and those who do not.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, there has been some good news today. Asda has announced that it will increase the premium that it pays its processor, Arla Foods, by 2p a litre, thereby nullifying the cut that Arla has announced. In other words, the producers affected will not face a cut on 1 August. From memory, that is about 227 producers. Dairy Crest has announced today that, in future, it will require only three months’ notice when producers leave their contracts, and it has guaranteed that it will give four weeks’ notice of any price cut.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have been listening to the debate and, although I do not know much about this subject, it seems to me that we should somehow ensure that price cuts are not passed on to the dairy farmer. The big supermarkets should take whatever they wish, but they should not pass it on to the milk farmers.

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend’s point is properly made and is an important one.

I will concentrate on the issues that need to be addressed. I fully recognise that what matters to the dairy farmer is the price that they are paid. However, as several hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have said, it is not simply a matter of reversing the price cuts, although that is what the producers want. We need something more substantial and more permanent than that.

As I say frequently outside this place, we have an obsession in this country with the liquid market and with the desire of our processors to gain bottling contracts for supermarkets. They keep undercutting each other to keep their bottling plants at full capacity. When, as has happened on this occasion, cream prices collapse and they face major problems, the only way in which they can recoup any income is by cutting the price for their producers to below the cost of production. That is a direct consequence of the obsession with bottling for supermarkets.

As several hon. Members have said, and as is abundantly clear, there are ample other opportunities for investment. Some 20% of our total dairy consumption is imported. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) talked about imports. We do not import liquid milk. All the imports are dairy products, but they nevertheless make up a significant part of our total consumption.

What are our processors doing to combat that? One or two are trying to do something. Dairy Crest has gained back some of the cheese market with one of its products and it should be congratulated on that, but there is still much to do. Where do the supermarkets with aligned dairy groups, which pay a premium for their liquid milk, get their own-label brands? Where are their other dairy products, such as their yoghurt, produced? Do they use British milk? In many cases, they do not. There is therefore a great opportunity for import substitution.

There is an even greater opportunity for exports. The world is crying out for increased dairy products. Yes, global prices have fallen back and that is part of the immediate problem that we face. However, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) that if I was asked whether I would encourage a young person to go into dairy farming, my unequivocal answer would be yes, because I am convinced that there is a long-term future beyond today’s crisis.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Paice]

No, I am sorry, I need to press on.

Hon. Members also raised the issue of supermarket power. As has been said, we are introducing the groceries code adjudicator. I have always tried to be honest with farmers and say that on its own it will not increase the price of milk, but that it should increase fairness and transparency.

The big problem that we face, which has been mentioned this afternoon, is what I view as the absurd level of price cutting by some retailers, particularly those in what is known as the middle ground. One retailer is openly selling milk at 99p for four pints.

[Helen Goodman]

Name them.

[Mr Donohoe]

Iceland.

[Mr Paice]

It is on the record, and I did not move my lips.

The reality is that such a price is completely unsustainable. Such retailers need to understand that if they go on like that, there will be no milk. There is a limit to cost cutting. Maybe some producers can cut their costs, but not to that level. It is completely impossible. There is no country in the world that can sell bottled milk at the equivalent of 25p a pint by the time it has been through the whole processing chain. That is absurd, and such retailers are biting off their nose to spite their face.

The final issue that several hon. Members raised was the lack of producer power and the need to promote producer organisations. That brings me to the dairy package and the voluntary code. I am grateful to Members of all parties for the support that they have expressed this afternoon for my work in trying to get a voluntary code. I genuinely believe that that offers a far better prospect than legislation, and I shall explain why.

A voluntary code can, if agreed by both sides—the processors and the producers—cover such issues as price, notice periods, contract lengths, volume and exclusivity. A raft of other points could be included if both sides wanted them to be. Conversely, the dairy package and the legislation that would be permissible under it are about a contract, not a code. We could legislate to make contracts compulsory, but the permitted legislation would limit greatly what could be put into those contracts.

For example, as we understand it, no notice period would be permitted. A length of contract would be specified, and it would probably be a year or more. The idea of a short notice period to get out of a contract would not exist. That is just one of many examples showing that the regulatory route, which I fully accept appeals to some people, is not as good as a code, which could accommodate a range of measures.

I agree with farmers and others who said last week that we cannot go on like this, because the discussions on a code have now taken 14 months and we cannot continue simply hoping it will happen. I had a meeting with both sides last week before the public meeting to which reference has been made. We got very close to an agreement, but both sides still had what I considered to be very minor issues to resolve. Those issues were obviously important to them, and they were not resolved. There have been further, private discussions with my officials and others over the past few days, and I intend to precipitate a final decision. I do not want to give the House more information than I have given the industry, because that would not be right, but I intend to say that enough is enough, that the negotiations have been going on long enough and that it is time for both sides of the industry to show some maturity and demonstrate that they can agree a voluntary code of practice.

I would be foolish to pretend that it is a certainty that we will get a code. There are still some stumbling blocks on both sides, coming both from those representing producers and from at least one major processor. However, I have every intention of driving the process forward and getting a result. We have got to the point at which knowing it was not going to happen would be better than living in the never-never land that we have been in for some time. However, I emphasise that I do not believe that the regulatory approach recommended by some hon. Members would give either side of the industry anything like the beneficial future that is there for the taking.

I hope I have answered the points raised by hon. Members in the debate. I entirely share their concerns. I can assure the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that we are in discussions with colleagues in the devolved Administrations. We are getting together prior to the Royal Welsh show this weekend. We were going to discuss the common agricultural policy, but we will also discuss the situation in the dairy sector. I can only hope that, before the cuts take place on 1 August, we can get a voluntary code at least. I hope others agree that that is the best way forward.

General Matters

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We now come to the debate on general matters. I will start off with a six-minute limit on speeches, but if there are too many interventions, I will have to drop the time. I am trying to get everybody six minutes. I am sure it will be a good debate as we go into recess.

16:50

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

There is a strong and growing sense of anger in Salford and across Greater Manchester about the Government’s decision to axe the 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. A strong campaign in the Manchester Evening News is asking the Government to rethink their plans.

The 2nd Battalion has a long and distinguished service history dating back to the Lancashire Fusiliers. Nineteen heroes from the Lancashire Fusiliers, which became the 2nd Battalion, were awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery. The battalion has served this country in every major conflict since 1674. Many of its soldiers gave their lives fighting for this country.

In 2009, the 2nd Battalion of Fusiliers completed a tour of Afghanistan in which it lost seven men killed in action. Others were wounded, some very seriously. Three of the seven died together in an explosion while on patrol near Sangin in Helmand province on 16 August 2009, including Fusilier Simon Annis from Salford. Simon and fellow Fusilier Louis Carter were trying to drag their injured comrade, Lance Corporal James Fullarton, to safety after a roadside bomb blast, but as the pair lifted Lance Corporal Fullarton on to a stretcher, they triggered a second device, causing an explosion that killed all three soldiers, who died at the scene. Simon was on his first operational tour. He was described by a senior Army officer as a “shining example” to the nation. Simon Annis had been married for just a month before he deployed to Afghanistan.

When the 2nd Battalion had its homecoming parade from Afghanistan later in 2009, Salford people lined the streets to give the returning soldiers a warm welcome. I was proud to be at the parade and to meet my constituents, Ann and Peter Annis, the parents of Fusilier Simon Annis. The pride his parents feel is replaced by anger at the Government’s decision to axe the battalion their son served so valiantly. Simon’s mother Ann has said:

“Simon was so proud to serve in the battalion and now this feels like a smack in the face. He died with his mates in that battalion and now it will be gone…Lads are still in Afghanistan and dying out in Afghanistan and the Army are talking about cuts and job losses. Morale must be at rock bottom.”

[Bob Stewart]

(Beckenham) (Con): My uncle served in the Lancashire Fusiliers and I am very proud of that fact. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be a good idea if the Government could rethink their policy on cuts to infantry battalions—the three in England, one in Wales and one in Scotland—at least until we are out of Afghanistan?

[Barbara Keeley]

I very much agree with hon. Gentleman. I am today asking for such a rethink.

The decision to axe the battalion feels like a betrayal to the memory of Simon Annis and the other soldiers who have given their lives. I agree with Mrs Annis that the decision is bad for morale—it must be. There is a deep attachment in Salford and across Greater Manchester to this battalion, the Lancashire Fusiliers, which has such a long and proud history of service to this country, as I have mentioned. The 2nd Battalion is linked to Salford and other places in Greater Manchester. At this difficult time for employment, its loss will significantly reduce the opportunities for local people who want to enter a career serving their country. Furthermore, the decision will put 600 soldiers and officers at risk of being made redundant.

Brigadier David Paterson, the honorary colonel of the 2nd Battalion, wrote in a letter to General Sir Peter Wall that the decision would not best serve the armed forces. In the letter, he tells of his bitter disappointment at the decision to cut the battalion, which he describes as

“the strongest in raw manning and deployable strength”,

and he writes of the difficulty he will have in telling his fusiliers, in an almost fully staffed battalion, why they are now likely to be posted to battalions that cannot recruit as well as the 2nd battalion, which has 523 trained soldiers out of a maximum strength of 532. He has questioned the criteria being used to single out the unit, which actually has a strong record in recruiting new soldiers and is the only regiment set to grow over the next six months.

The Secretary of State said yesterday that the recruiting ability of regiments over a period of 10 years had been taken into account when deciding these cuts, but it seems wrong, given the different employment situation today and the battalion’s strong record in recruiting, to take what must have been a few leaner years of recruitment as the reason for axing this historic battalion. I urge Ministers to reconsider the decision and instead respect the proud history and valour of the 2nd Battalion, of which I and the people of Salford are so proud.

16:56

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

A good education is the best start that a child can be given, so I am pleased that the Isle of Wight further education college provides a great education and now has the added benefit of a sixth-form department. Before the current principal, Debbie Lavin, took over, results were poor, but under her leadership it has become a flagship college. I am also confident that Christ the King sixth form, which will open in September, will be of a high standard and give its students a similar excellent start in life. I wish the principal, Pat Goodhead, the chairman of governors, David Lisseter, and all those involved with Christ the King college well in their endeavours.

Unemployment on the Isle of Wight has fallen in recent months, which is welcome news, but the news is not so good for young people. I know that Ministers are working hard to reduce youth unemployment, but one way of doing that is to increase the number of apprenticeships. To that end, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), has agreed to visit the island in December to help us boost local apprenticeships.

[Mr Donohoe]

Apprenticeships are dear to my heart, but not enough is being done. Is the college that the hon. Gentleman mentioned going to increase the number of apprenticeships it provides?

[Mr Turner]

It is necessary that apprenticeships be expanded at all levels, which is why I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is visiting. I look forward to it.

One positive way of gaining experience while looking for employment is voluntary work, and there are many excellent causes on the island. For example, the Isle of Wight food bank, which has been doing a sterling job since its launch a year ago, has helped more than 2,000 people in dire straits by providing food donated by other islanders. I pay tribute to Hannah King, who runs the food bank, and all her volunteers for the sterling work they do.

Finally, I want to touch on events that brought parts of the island to a standstill for more than 24 hours last month. Many hon. Members will have seen the headlines about the Isle of Wight festival chaos. The festival has been held in its present location since 2002, but owing to atrocious weather and a clear lack of contingency planning, some island roads were gridlocked on 28 and 29 June. The impact on some islanders’ lives was very serious. Vehicles were at a standstill for hours, blocking roads and preventing islanders from getting to work, school, hospital appointments and the ferry terminals, while ferries sat in the Solent for up to five hours, unable to unload cars; there was nowhere for them to go. School children missed important exams, and others walked home when there were no buses. Some families were unable to get to the funerals of relatives, and other funerals were cancelled.

It is not for me to apportion blame, but a bad situation was certainly made much worse by a lack of communication with the island’s media. For example, Michael Coombes and Paul Topping, along with Heather McCallum, Glyn Taylor and Lucy Morgan of Isle of Wight Radio, worked tirelessly to try to keep islanders abreast of events. However, their efforts were largely thwarted, because nobody would tell them what was going on. Thankfully, the situation was finally brought under control on the Friday morning, when alternative car parks were opened. Many islanders showed amazing community spirit, offering food, shelter and other help to stranded festival goers. That included the Vectis 4x4 responders. Without their help, vehicles would have been stuck in the mud bath that was the festival car park for many more hours.

In order to ensure that such problems do not arise again, we need to know what went wrong this year. The organisers, Solo, are not covering themselves in glory. First it was announced that refunds would be given; then Solo said that they would not. I know that VentnorBlog has asked Solo a number of times for a copy of the emergency safety plan, but those requests have been ignored. Solo may not feel accountable to local people or our local media, but without local good will the festival will be harder to stage. I want the festival to continue—so do many others on the island and, of course, off it—but Solo must ensure that local people are able to go about their lives around it. Then we will all benefit again.

17:01

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I want to use this afternoon’s debate to put down a marker of my concern about the changes in Government policy towards further education and the introduction of further education loans, and also about the possible impact of changes to higher education funding on social mobility. I am particularly concerned that the introduction of further education loans will discourage people from disadvantaged backgrounds from taking up access courses to university or, if they are over 24, from entering FE to undertake level 3 study.

A couple of years ago I visited a school in my constituency which some years previously had had poor attainment levels. Because of the investment by the last Labour Government, it had massively increased its levels of success at GCSE and A-level; hence, for the first time ever, a lot of the young people there were considering going to university. However, I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago with a group of young people from the same school who were just not so sure that going to university was a possible way forward for them. That should be a matter of great concern to this House.

Last month I attended, as I do every year, the New College Durham graduation ceremony in my constituency. The students at New College range from 16-year-old school leavers to adults with families who have gone back into education, often after losing their jobs. I congratulated them on doing the right thing—on getting a good education and working hard—and I wished them all the best for the future. However, I am concerned that introducing further education loans may reduce the number of such people in colleges across the country who are getting the education they deserve, gaining the skills for a new career or accessing higher education. In 2010-11, more than 370,000 people aged over 24 were studying at this level, so the change will not affect just a small number. The people in FE want to reskill, but they also want to get promotion or enter employment for the first time. We are risking our economy and our future economic growth by not encouraging that group of people to reskill.

[Mr Donohoe]

Does my hon. Friend agree that much more emphasis should be placed on apprenticeships, which I mentioned earlier in the debate, by the colleges themselves?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes a useful point. We need apprenticeships, but it is important that people—especially those aged over 24—are able to take up those apprenticeships. We also need to support the 16 to 24-year-olds in apprenticeships, as that is yet another route by which they can gain skills and get into the labour market.

Projections predict that, by 2020, 56% of jobs will need to be graduate level jobs in order to meet the demands of a knowledge-based economy. It is vital that people from all backgrounds are able to get the necessary education to get those graduate level jobs. The Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Sharp of Guildford has recognised that the introduction of further education loans threatens social mobility, saying that she cannot understand why the Government are pushing forward with loans for level 3 study while they claim to be concerned about social mobility. I ask the Minister to comment on that point today.

In my constituency in Durham, there has been a 355% increase between May 2011 and May 2012 in the number of people who have been claiming jobseeker’s allowance for 12 months. If those people want to get an education, start a new career and get out of the trap of unemployment, we need to ensure that they have access to the necessary education. A survey conducted by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has found that the proportion of people surveyed who were willing to take out a loan for further education has dropped dramatically for higher age cohorts. Worryingly, that suggests that the policy could do real damage to the lifelong learning sector and to the ability of people to retrain and reskill in their 40s and 50s, which could block their chances of regaining employment.

The importance of further education can really be seen at the moment, with so many people unemployed right across the country, but even in the good times we need people to be able to gain skills in certain industries to maintain our global competitiveness. In 2006, the Leitch report called for the continued upskilling of Britain’s population, but the Government are failing to implement those proposals.

I also want to consider what is happening in the higher education sector. About 70% of those enrolling in higher education access courses are women. I know from a recent letter from the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning that people who undertake access courses and get into university will have the money that they spend on those courses refunded, but we must also take into account the deterrent effect that having to take out a loan could have on people enrolling in access courses in the first place. I am also worried that the number of applications to universities for courses starting in 2012 has reduced dramatically. That might not follow through to a reduction in the number of students going to university, but we should be worried by the fall in applications.

Finally, I want to make a plea to the Government to keep supporting the widening of access to our universities. We know that they have allocated £140 million this year for widening participation, but it is essential that those funds should be not only maintained but increased so that education can fulfil its role as a route to social mobility.

17:08

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my near namesake, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods). I want to talk about three issues: the general position of policing and criminal activity in London; the excellent work being done by Harrow police; and the scandalous proposal to close the custody suite in Harrow.

On the general position in London, some 300,000 people were arrested last year for alleged crimes, of whom 100,000 were foreign nationals. Of the 100,000 foreign nationals arrested, 86,000 were convicted of a criminal offence. I am one of those who welcomes tourists who come to this country on holiday, spend their money here and enjoy our wonderful heritage. I also welcome those who come here as students and who learn about this country and go back to their own countries enriched by their experience of the United Kingdom. I welcome those who come here to work and pay their taxes, and the families that choose to live here and integrate into society, becoming part of our great British society overall. However, those who come as guests and then commit criminal offences, and who are responsible for a third of London’s crime, are a danger to everyone else who comes here to make this country their home.

That is a key concern. The worst aspect is that, as I understand it, of those 86,000 people convicted of criminal offences, none were deported. Worse still, none were barred from returning to the UK if they chose to leave of their own volition. That, of course, creates community tensions and concerns for all the law-abiding people who have come here either to live here or on a visit. This requires prompt and immediate Government action.

Let me turn to the issues in Harrow. I recently had the pleasure and honour to attend a commendation service for 22 policemen and women who were commended by the borough commander for courage and for work above and beyond the call of duty. These brave individuals do an excellent job in ensuring that Harrow is London’s second safest borough. They cannot be praised highly enough. I believe it is right and proper to pay tribute to all those brave men and women who lay their lives on the line almost daily so that we can go about our business in a carefree manner, as we would all wish.

Finally, the third issue I want to deal with is the scandalous proposal to close the custody suite in Harrow police station. Everyone knows that when people are arrested, they are often violent, they are sometimes intoxicated and they can give the police a very hard time. Such people need to be transported to a custody suite, and processed and looked after in the prison cells, if required, in the most expeditious manner possible. The last thing that is needed is to transport people arrested in Harrow to Wembley or even to Kilburn when they may be violent, intoxicated on drink or drugs and causing many problems for police officers.

Another key concern is that if this proposal were to go ahead, police officers would be dragged away from Harrow to go to Wembley, Kilburn or beyond to process these individuals, and criminal investigation department officers would have to attend at one of those police stations to interview them and make sure that they were safe and secure overnight, if necessary. That, to me, is dragging away police officers who should be patrolling Harrow streets and unnecessarily tying them up in work that they should not need to do. Equally, there is a concern that people who have been arrested and put in police cells need to be inspected by police inspectors on a regular basis to make sure that they are safe and secure, and thus in a position to be interviewed. What is being proposed suggests that there will be an attempt to move the CID officers from Harrow to Wembley or Kilburn in order to facilitate all this investigation work and the necessary work of policing.

I therefore ask responsible Ministers to step in and make sure that this proposal bites the dust very quickly so that we do not see a drag-down of police officers and a drag on police time and resources in Harrow, and so that we do not cease to be London’s second safest borough.

[Bob Stewart]

Briefly, was this a police decision or a decision by someone else?

[Bob Blackman]

It is currently a proposal across London to close certain custody suites. I am obviously concentrating on my own constituency, but my hon. Friend should be clear that a similar proposal might well come forward for his own constituency, which will impact on his own borough of Bromley. We have to be careful about this across London.

I am particularly concerned because I know that when people are arrested in Harrow, at certain times of day it can take almost an hour to get to Wembley or Kilburn police station. Members can imagine a scenario involving violent criminals kicking off in the back of a police van that is dragging policemen or policewomen to another station where they will be tied up for several hours. Resources in Harrow will be severely stretched, and I suspect that there will be proposals for other custody suites to be closed throughout London, which I think would be wrong. We need to make it clear that custody suites should be in the most locally appropriate area, so that criminals can be processed in a humane and orderly fashion rather than transported for huge distances, tying up police resources unnecessarily.

I am sure that a Minister will respond to me in writing, but I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will take the issue on board as well, so that we can be given an answer. I know that all three Harrow Members are very concerned about this, as are the Harrow public.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is too late.

17:15

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

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to participate in the debate.

The Northern Ireland Executive have designated 2012 the “our time, our place” year, because of the number of significant anniversaries and major events taking place in the Province. Given that we are nearly halfway through 2012, I think it would be useful to take stock of what has happened in Northern Ireland so far this year,

We have had some enormous successes. The Irish open golf championship was the first European tour event ever to sell out completely—in this instance, for all four days of the competition. It was a fantastic occasion, despite the weather, which did its best to dampen spirits. We have also experienced the build-up to the Olympics. I am pleased that Northern Ireland is providing training venues for the Chinese male and female gymnastics teams and the Cuban boxers, among others. A few years ago it would have been unthinkable for those teams to stay in Northern Ireland to train, so that is a sign of the great progress the Province has made.

This year was also the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic, which was marked by the opening of the iconic Titanic Experience building in Belfast, which is already attracting visitors whose number massively exceeds that predicted. The great news is that two thirds of the visitors are “out of state”—an encouraging sign for the sustainability of this major new tourist project. Belfast has again stamped its mark on the Titanic name, which is important given the association of that great ship with the city where it was built.

Her Majesty’s visit to Northern Ireland on 26 and 27 June was an enormous success. A great deal of attention was paid to the famous handshake between the Deputy First Minister and Her Majesty. I for one was delighted that Her Majesty was able to come to Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, and that the Deputy First Minister was presented to her as part of the jubilee tour. That too is a sign of the enormous progress we have made. Her Majesty has been to Northern Ireland 20 times during her reign, but the fact that on this occasion she was able to proceed through part of Belfast in an open-top vehicle in the presence of 20,000 members of the public shows just how far the Province has come.

Later this year, we shall mark the centenary of the signing of the Ulster covenant on 28 September. Back in 1912, 500,000 people signed the covenant enabling Ulster to remain part of the United Kingdom, in opposition to the third Home Rule Bill. It is often forgotten that, two years later, more than 2 million people in Britain signed a similar covenant. We look forward to those events later in the year.

Next year, we shall celebrate Londonderry’s becoming the UK City of Culture, and the world police and fire games will come to Belfast. We have very good things to look forward to as we continue to make progress with the political stability that now exists at Stormont. However, we must also confront challenges and difficulties, one of which is facing up to the events of the past. This Saturday, 21 July, marks the 40th anniversary of the Bloody Friday bombings in Belfast. We have heard a lot this year about the Bloody Sunday 40th anniversary, but it is often forgotten that just a few months later some of the worst atrocities ever carried out by the IRA took place, when 22 bombs were set off in Belfast city centre in an 18-minute period, killing nine people and injuring 130, including 77 women and children. Many of those victims and their families still bear the mental and physical scars to this day. We must never forget to honour the memory of those victims, and, indeed, all the victims in Northern Ireland. Justice demands that those who know about what happened in those events—we know, for instance, that Gerry Adams was commanding officer of the IRA in Belfast at that time—should come forward even now and tell the victims and society at large what they know, in order to provide closure and truth for the victims.

In recent days, the Orangefest took place on and around 12 July. There were many Orange parades throughout the Province. Almost all of them passed off entirely peacefully, but there was orchestrated violence aimed at the police—include gunshots—by republican dissidents in Ardoyne in my constituency. Some people simply do not want peace; they do not want a resolution to any of the problems we face. There have been attacks on Orange halls at Greencastle and Clifton street in my constituency and at Glenavy in County Antrim. The fact is, however, that the people of Northern Ireland want to move forward. They do not want to be held back by this tiny minority of dissidents who are opposed to the peace process and political stability.

[Jim Shannon]

(Strangford) (DUP): On the violence in north Belfast, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Parades Commission has a job to do, which it has not yet done?

[Mr Dodds]

Yes, and I will come on to that point soon.

In the months and weeks leading up to this year’s parading season, community representatives, clergy and political leaders did a lot of hard work on the ground on many different topics. There were talks, supported and encouraged by local politicians, on parades and protests involving the North and West Belfast Parades Forum and the Crumlin and Ardoyne Residents Association. The Democratic Unionist party, Sinn Fein and others in north Belfast sat down and worked on investment and regeneration plans, and sought resolution to long-standing issues. By making progress across a range of issues, we can create the environment for the resolution of the most difficult problems. I am determined that that should continue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just referred to the recent situation having been made worse by the gross mistakes of the Parades Commission. That was the case.

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

This point applies not only to north Belfast, but to my constituency of South Antrim, where, once again, the Parades Commission bungled things—but, thankfully, sense prevailed and the Orangemen and women did their best to ensure a very happy day for all.

[Mr Dodds]

I am glad there was such a happy outcome in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and he is right to pay tribute to the people on all sides who worked to bring that about.

There has been a notable lack of support, or even understanding, in both communities in Northern Ireland for the Parades Commission’s mad and bad decision to give a boost to a dissident republican mob intent on violence in the Ardoyne area of my constituency. The chairman is now trying to divert blame by passing the buck to others, which only serves to illustrate how out of touch he and his colleagues are.

We will remain committed to working through these problems. They are isolated and small in number, but they cause great difficulties for my constituents on both sides of the community. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Government must recognise that the tremendous progress that has been made in Northern Ireland must not give a veto, or allow dissidents who are against everybody who is for peace and political progress in Northern Ireland to hold the rest of society to ransom.

17:23

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

As the Minister with responsibility for culture, communications and creative industries, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) is set to review the future provision of e-books in libraries, now is a very apt time to highlight the options, challenges and opportunities of e-book lending for libraries, and by default for the publishers and the authors, who control the rights to e-books, focusing in particular on how we can make e-book provision widely available in a manner that supports and sustains our excellent community library network and credits the creative industries.

My research has brought to light some interesting statistics. E-book sales in 2011 were up a staggering 366%, making up some 8% of the market and worth £92 million. Physical book sales in the first half of 2011 fell to a 10-year low, and e-book production overtook hardback output for the first time ever. In researching this issue and preparing this speech, I have been very grateful for the feedback from and views of various library campaign groups, experts, publishers, booksellers and professional librarians. I can tell the House that not everybody agreed with my initial thoughts, which I am about to set out, but it is important that we put those on the table as part of this review and try to make some progress.

My view is that, in principle, e-books should be widely available throughout the library network. Currently, 94 local authorities offer some form of e-book provision, but the available stock is at best poor, predominantly because the big six publishers are not willing to release their stock. They will not do so, first, because the private label rights arrangement whereby publishers and authors get 6p every time a physical book is lent out does not apply to e-books. In the business world, authors and publishers need some form of incentive. There is also a worry that the balance between physical sales and library usage would be altered, resulting in fewer physical sales.

At the moment, the balance between paperback and hardback book sales, and library usage, works. It is often more convenient physically to buy a book than to borrow one from a library: for example, some supermarkets that offer books open 24 hours a day, whereas libraries have limited opening times. Some people choose not to use a library because they do not like the idea of a second-hand book that somebody may have spilt their tea and biscuits on. A significant number of people who purchase books do so to display them on their shelves. I do not envisage people being told on visiting someone’s house in the future, “Please browse my hard drive to look at what I have been purchasing.”

It is therefore clear that for publishers to release their e-books, they will have to be paid for, and there are two options. First, a Government—of whichever colour—will have to write a very large cheque, probably considerably bigger than the one they already write for the PLR arrangement, to release those books. Presuming that we do not have a Government of a particular colour who wish to dash to the rescue, I propose a second option that is worth considering: a small charge for e-books. As somebody who inherently does not like paying for things, that does not come easy to me; however, because we are currently not prepared to pay the publishers, the books are simply not being released.

I propose that the money generated from such a charge be ring-fenced and shared between the publishers and authors, and the physical community library, with the money generated for the latter being spent on enhancing provision and service, be that events, book stock—staggeringly, that accounts for only 7% of library expenditure—extending opening hours, outreach work and so on. The publishers, in return for getting financial compensation for their books being borrowed, would be encouraged to release some of their stock for free access. I have met a number of publishers, and they see that as an opportunity to promote upcoming authors and educational books.

I also propose—again, this is controversial—that e-books be borrowed through a physical visit to the library, thus protecting footfall. That seems like madness in a digital world, but my fear is that if we make things too easy—I go back to the point about convenience—why would anybody buy an e-book or visit a library? Local authorities across the country would soon start cutting huge swathes of community libraries, which are very important, particularly for people getting their first opportunity to enjoy reading, such as younger people, and those who cannot afford e-readers.

I also advise the Government to look to provide a uniform e-book service. Lots of local authorities have been signing up to the models currently available—at great expense—from the book stock fund. I fear that a number of authorities, through no fault of their own, will end up investing heavily in a “Betamax” option. Underlining all this, we should keep traditional books: paperbacks and hardbacks should always remain free, because they are the cornerstones of libraries.

If we do nothing and do not convince the publishers to release their stock, library usage will continue to fall as people drift to e-readers and e-book provision in libraries remains insufficient. Local authorities will continue to invest in the wrong forms of technology, and we will miss out on the potential of e-books to attract new generations of readers.

These are just ideas to start the debate, and I am delighted the Minister has agreed to carry out a review. I hope to secure a 30-minute debate in Westminster Hall, which will provide a great opportunity to discuss some of the points that have been made to me.

17:29

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who made a very interesting speech, to which I listened intently.

I wish to speak about reform of the civil service. A well-functioning civil service is exceptionally important to the effectiveness of any Government, and we must get it right. I was therefore interested to see the Government’s White Paper on reform of the civil service. Ministers must be able to rely on civil servants and to be able to drive their work forward. I was a civil servant for 16 years, between 1980 and 1997, in the Treasury. Some 10 years later I returned as a Minister, serving briefly in the Cabinet Office and the Department for Work and Pensions. So I have experience of fighting on both sides of the barricades, as it were.

I found that some aspects of the culture were unchanged in the 10 years that I was out of Whitehall, with some seemingly unchanged for 400 years. Coriolanus is told by Shakespeare to proceed by the procedure, and I think that the culture of process over delivery is a long-lasting one in Whitehall. For example, in 2006 an official who was working on the forecasting of the number of immigrants who would come from eastern Europe said, “We went through all the right processes. What more could we have done?” That forecast was out 30-fold.

The good news is that we have a professional civil service that is largely free of corruption. I say “largely” because although we were all looking for more exchanges between the public and the private sector, those have sometimes engendered rather unfortunate behaviour. Our civil servants are also, by and large, intelligent and committed. The problems, however, are well rehearsed and some are mentioned in the Government’s White Paper. They include the fact that the civil service has a stronger capacity on policy than on delivery, which has been recognised as a problem in the British civil service since the Fulton report of 1968. In this White Paper, the Government say that only a third of projects are delivered on time and to budget. One point that they do not raise, but it is an issue, is the narrow social base and experience of civil servants, particularly senior officials. That leads to ignorance and naivety in areas of social policy. I noticed when I was a DWP Minister that I sometimes knew far more than my officials.

Other problems include: the lack of specialist expertise in project management, in contracting and commercial work, and in finance and in human resources—those are all key management delivery skills—a culture of irresponsibility; weakness in long-term and strategic thinking; poor oral and communication skills; a focus on managing inwards and upwards, rather than downwards and outwards; and, I am sorry to say, a loss of administrative skills and honesty. For example, when I was a Minister I had my electronic signature put on documents that I had not seen.

Does the Government’s White Paper address those issues? The answer is: up to a point. I notice that it is a document that calls for less bureaucracy, despite having three forewords. The proposal to have stronger management—the measure for pushing out the bottom 10% and boosting up the top 25%—is rather crude. I would have thought that a well-managed organisation would not need to use such crude management techniques. However, the Government note the importance of strengthening capabilities and of shared services, and they want to strengthen ministerial influence over senior appointments. I agree with what they are doing there, but I do not think that they are going far enough.

The approach of “open” policy making is extremely complex. Obviously, Ministers want to be able to source ideas from people other than Whitehall officials, but the neutrality of officials is also very important and we need to hold on to it. The Government are going wrong in cutting too far, there are too many new-fangled financial mechanisms, such as payment by results, which will be more expensive than gilts, and they have not addressed the narrow social base and the experience situation.

The crucial issue is accountability. Three basic types of accountability are possible in an organisation: hierarchical, market or democratic. In Whitehall, the most important of those is the democratic element. That means that Ministers can be responsible for policy and, if they are warned, for delivering failures, but that otherwise officials must be responsible for delivery. I totally support the work that the Public Accounts Committee has been doing in that regard.

The negative needs a proactive solution. The Secretary of State should be able to appoint the permanent secretary from a shortlist that has been put together by the Appointments Commission. I had always thought that that was a good idea, but when I heard Lord O’Donnell, the previous Cabinet Secretary, say on Radio 4 that that was the one thing he did not want to happen, I knew that it was the lever that we must pull.

17:35

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I want to raise the question of leasehold valuation tribunals. I declare that my parents had to leave their home in the 1950s after leasehold reform. I also declare that I have an interest in a leasehold flat in Worthing, where the landlord is good, the managing agents are good and we are all happy. That is not true of all. There are about 1.8 million leaseholders in this country and the figure will grow. They pay about £3 billion a year in service changes, and that figure will grow, too. Not all landlords create problems, but some do; not all of those landlords are in the private sector. Some are in the public sector and I have come across a case in which a major London council was found to have been overcharging leaseholders enormously.

I have taken up this issue because there was a long-running problem, which is now being resolved, in Oakland court in my constituency. I pay tribute to those on both sides who are helping to resolve it, but until it reached a resolution I described what was happening to people who, in the majority, are frail and elderly people in their 80s and 90s—those who are still alive since the case began—as, in effect, legal torture, to which they were subjected as they tried to get into the leasehold valuation tribunal proceedings. Appeals, delays and applications from the other side blocked them from being heard.

Leasehold valuation tribunals are part of the residential property system that might properly be described as a non-departmental body. They replace the rent panels and I suspect that it falls between the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Ministry of Justice. They are probably more the responsibility of the former, but I stand to be corrected on that.

I do not expect my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to respond to what I am saying today as I would much prefer to get a letter later. My request to him is that if in September it is possible to have a ministerial statement from the appropriate Minister or Ministers, saying that their officials have met together, taken advice from those who staff and sit on the leasehold valuation tribunals and listened to some of the organisations that have considered the issues, as well as stating how the Government assess the situation and intend to approach it in the future, I shall be grateful.

Let me pay tribute to a liberal think-tank, CentreForum. I anticipate that it will bring out a guide to the issues in leasehold valuation tribunals and the reforms that are needed. Although it is not necessarily a true blue think tank, I welcome its proposals and look forward to reading its full report with great interest.

When my constituents, ably led by John Fenwick, to whom I pay tribute, applied to the Bar Council pro bono unit to get representation, they made the point that when the leaseholders applied to challenge invoices for services that were not being provided, they were confronted by demands from solicitors and a barrister to the tribunal

“to decline jurisdiction and…to dismiss the whole of the application as being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, having no prospect of success.”

If it takes two or three goes to get in front of a tribunal and the application costs, say, £350, there is a major problem that needs dealing with.

The tribunals can be very useful for one group of leaseholders who are trying to get a recalcitrant fellow leaseholder to pay up when they are not paying their charges. A very good example appears in an article from 2007 by Liz Hodgkinson in The Daily Telegraph, talking about how they managed to get an order to make one leaseholder pay up thousands of pounds-worth of costs that they had not paid.

My issue is about the inequality of arms that leads to oppressive behaviour by managing agents or freeholders. If leaseholders are faced with a freeholder or managing agent who has associated companies in which they do not declare their interest, we end up with the situations disclosed in leasehold valuation tribunal judgments, whereby each leaseholder may be asked to pay insurance costs of £6,000 or £7,000 when the appropriate cost is about £2,000. There are scandals that need exposing. We need publicity and better adoption of rules and guidance and, if necessary, the law—although I suspect that the registration of managing agents would do far more —so that many vulnerable and elderly people do not suffer.

I am grateful to Martin Boyd of the Charter Quay residents association in Kingston. He points out that neither leasehold valuation tribunals nor the Department for Communities and Local Government

“keep data on the effectiveness or otherwise of the legislation in terms of outcomes.”

He notes that FOI disclosures show Ministers and their advisers what is going on.

The DCLG and the Ministry of Justice probably have very few resources. There may be only one or two officials trying to look after those things, so the Minister has to accept the advice that not much is known and not much needs to be done. The Government’s policy, rightly, is for more leasehold flats, with greater enfranchisement for leaseholders to challenge oppressive costs. We need change, and I look to the Government to review whether staffing is appropriate and whether more people can be brought in to advise Ministers so that there is a better outcome.

17:41

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is a personal friend. We have campaigned together on many things over the years.

I am saddened by the issue I have to raise this afternoon. As a Member with reasonably long service, I have been very disturbed over recent months about the low morale among the people who make this place work. For the information of the House, over the past few days I have talked to chefs, kitchen staff, cleaning staff, visitor assistants, maintenance men and women, Library researchers, Doorkeepers, Committee staff, procedural Clerks, finance and legal workers, human resources staff, drivers, porters, attendants, curatorial staff, Hansard reporters, members of the media and events teams, accommodation staff and so on. I have done my homework, and I have never met a group of people so demoralised by what they have to put up with as employees of Parliament.

We all rely on the staff in this place; we cannot provide a good service to our constituents without their support. This Parliament should be an exemplar of the best kind of employer, but I am afraid we are not the best employer. As I talked to members of staff, they constantly said, “It isn’t what is happening, it’s not knowing what’s happening.” There is poor communication.

I am keen on management and I chair the all-party management group. I know a little about good management. If managers do not keep in touch with their stakeholders—all the people who make this place a success, and make it amenable to good working for Members of Parliament—and if they do not keep communication open and tell people what is happening, staff become disillusioned and unhappy in their role.

Over recent months—perhaps longer—there is every sign that certain people who are influential in the management of this place believe that it is a business. It is a funny old business where people do not know quite when the House will be sitting. In 2007, we sat for 151 days, and in 2008 it was 150 days. In 2009, we sat for 134 days, in 2010—election year—128 days, and in 2011, 149 days. This is a hard-working House, but it works funny hours, because a lot of our job is done out in the constituency, where we look after our constituents and find out the information that we need to be effective parliamentarians. We cannot run this place as though it were a commercial undertaking; indeed, the House voted by a majority for changes in the sitting hours, which will make it even more difficult to run this place.

We speak to members of staff who say, “All of us in this department, after 20 years of service, have been asked to reapply for our jobs”, and to people in catering who say, “We all hear that they will privatise this, and we will all be out of employment.” That is either true or false, but whatever is happening should be communicated to our members of staff, so that they have some assurance.

[Helen Goodman]

I am appalled and amazed by what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he have any sense of which departments are involved, and how many staff are being treated in this way?

[Mr Sheerman]

The research is quite difficult, but there are 78 senior managers involved in one way or another in the management of this place, and a range of interesting people are involved. We have in the House a business change manager, a director general of human resources and change, an assistant corporate risk management facilitator, and an implementation manager. We have an awful lot of managers—and I am sure that, according to their lights, they are doing a good job. What I am saying to the House is that we should take the welfare of the people who make this place work very seriously indeed.

There is another really worrying thing, apart from the welfare of the people who work here and have, over the years, put so much into their work. I am not talking about well-paid people, or people who have the most comfortable life in this country, in terms of their pay and conditions. I am also talking about the people in the Palace involved in security, who believe that security is threatened by the lack of morale here. They are trying to do the job with staff cuts, and with a declining number of people involved. I had a hand in improving the education offering in this place. It is so nice to see many more people visiting, and lots of children on educational visits. Interestingly enough, as was pointed out to me when I tried to do my research, the downside—if there is a downside—is that this becomes a busier place to manage, in terms of numbers and security. It cannot be all one way.

The reason I asked to speak in this debate is that there are very grave concerns about security, if some of the voices that I have listened to are right. Is it not about time that the management of this place got better, so that we can communicate with people in all the jobs that I enumerated? We serve our constituents best if we are served well by those people. We now have time to reflect on what we are doing to the people in all these departments, and to communicate and manage better. We Members of Parliament are the ones who will benefit from that change.

17:48

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

Civil liberties are defined as

“the rights guaranteed to citizens or residents of a country or territory as a matter of fundamental law”,

and are often human rights. One of my concerns on the subject is how workable the UK’s system is for many people in this country, or for those who leave this country to get away from things here. Mental capacity is one of the areas of concern; often, if a person wishes to challenge a judgment that says that they are too stupid to instruct a solicitor, they will not find a solicitor who is willing to take an instruction. Also, they will not be able to get papers accepted by the law. I have cited a number of cases, and I am very concerned about the continuing lack of scrutiny of mental capacity law.

My early-day motion 334, which I will not read out, as everyone knows it so well, looks at the issue of court judgments. Obviously, a legal system needs court judgments, but we have a serious problem with delays in getting court judgments. If one cannot get the court judgment, one cannot explain to the appellate court what is wrong with the process.

The Republic of Ireland’s Refugee Act 1996—this is relevant—defines a refugee as

“a person who, owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality”.

If people have a well-founded fear of persecution as a result of their political views, they are refugees. There are five or six people in the Republic of Ireland and one person in Namur in Belgium who have left the UK because of the way in which they were going to be treated by the judicial system and what was proposed by the family division. I have cited the case of Toni McLeod. I reported on her child protection conference papers and the fact that there were concerns that she had been involved with the English Defence League. The judgment stated:

“The first concern…related to the mother’s association with the English Defence League.”

The second concern was that

“the mother is someone who reacts adversely to criticism and advice from professionals.”

The third concern was that

“the mother demonstrated a lack of insight into her children’s emotional and social needs”,

partly because she had drawn her child’s attention

“to her campaign against the family justice system and her belief that social workers tell lies.”

We have a serious problem if the system proposes to take a new-born baby from someone because of that person’s political views. That is clearly a form of persecution: it has been done in the past and it is still going on today. There is a second case in Ireland—not in Cavan; oddly enough, four of these cases are in Cavan, which surprised me—in which someone was deemed a threat to his children because he expressed concern about the integrity of the system. Professor Jane Ireland, who undertook research on psychologists’ reports, showed that in the family courts—not the court of protection—of 124 reports, two thirds were either poor or very poor.

That raises concern in relation to the issue of mental capacity. People’s legal existence is removed because a psychologist says that they are too stupid to instruct a solicitor, or do not have the mental capacity to do so. There are many other things that need to be said about that.

I am lucky to have the opportunity to introduce a private Member’s Bill. Second Reading will take place on 26 October, and I shall explain why it is such a good Bill and can fix some of the problems in the system. Everyone knows about the process for such Bills: I need to consult the Government and see to what extent they respond to my concerns. Having discussed the matter quite widely, I hope to publish a draft of the Bill this week. The measure may be significantly different on Second Reading, because the Government may say that under no circumstances will they allow the measure through. There are difficulties, even though the legislature has secured greater independence from the Executive, in getting things through against strong Government opposition. I intend to send the measure to the Opposition, too, as well as other political parties to seek their views on these issues.

It may surprise Members that some parts of the measure are necessary, but it deals, first, with the right to report wrongdoing. The Health Professions Council still refuses to investigate allegations against psychologists —and we must remember that those psychologists can paint people as non-persons and make them into secret prisoners—so we must do something about that. Secondly, we should have academic scrutiny of the proceedings, so that we can check that they have intellectual integrity. At the moment, things operate in a vacuum without being peer reviewed and so on. There is not even a Daubert process.

Thirdly, and importantly, children in care do not have a voice. They are not listened to, and there is no proper remedy for them. When they leave care, they are often subject to discrimination, so I hope to propose in the Bill to improve the situation for children in care and after they have left care. I have only a few more seconds, so I shall not go into much more detail about the Bill, but I hope to publish it later this week. There are serious problems that need to be dealt with, and I hope to have hon. Members’ support in doing something about that on 26 October.

17:53

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

I am grateful to have this opportunity to call on the Government urgently to investigate how a land value tax might be introduced to replace, first, business rates, and then council tax. I call for this because it would be more progressive and fair, it would help to prevent property speculation and it is a potential means of redistributing wealth. I am also encouraged by the fact that land value taxation has long been a key policy of one of the coalition Government partners. I hope that the robust reports on LVT from the likes of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as debates such as this, might help to persuade the other partner.

As hon. Members know, LVT is a tax or levy on the value of land that takes account of any planning permission associated with it but not of any improvements made to the site such as buildings. For domestic property, for example, the house price includes both land and building values, but LVT would apply only to the land that the house stands on. LVT encourages efficient and sustainable use of land, as owners of derelict land or properties that they have deliberately allowed to become run down pay the same as those who take care of their properties. It therefore has the potential to bring more brownfield sites into use and to ease pressure on green belt. Building in towns and cities would become more efficient, urban sprawl could be reduced, and speculative land banking—for example, by big supermarkets—could be discouraged.

[Jonathan Lord]

The hon. Lady cites all sorts of terrible, egregious cases, but what about the widow who wants to carry on living in the family home but does not have much income or spare capital? Would she force her to move home because of these taxes?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, not least because it gives me the opportunity to reassure him that I certainly would not be asking that widow to leave her home. What I am asking the Government to do—I have drafted a private Member’s Bill to this effect—is to research how we would implement a land value tax. Among the provisions that we would need to consider is how to protect the widow in the case to which he alludes. For example, one could give her the option of continuing to pay council tax until she dies or moves house, and if she moved house one could think about how to introduce the land value taxation at that point. I assure him that I certainly do not envisage a scenario where this measure would force people to leave their homes. It would have to be brought in gradually. I stress that my private Member’s Bill asks the Government to research this and look into the modalities of introducing it, transition periods, and so on.

One of the great advantages of a land value tax is that it would be very hard to dodge, avoid or evade. It would encourage more efficient and sustainable use of land and avoid distorting business behaviour, as our current business rates do. Business rates are levied as a percentage of the estimated rental value of the property, and the effect of that is to skew economic activity away from property-intensive production and to create a perverse incentive not to use or properly develop brownfield land first. Crucially, an LVT could discourage boom and bust in property, giving incentives against disproportionate amounts of capital being tied up in property and unsustainable accumulation of debt.

Support for this idea comes from interesting quarters both historically and today. For example, in February this year, Samuel Brittan said in the Financial Times that

“the case for a land tax is one of the oldest and least disputed propositions in economic thought.”

He went on to explain:

“Many chancellors have said that they would jump at a tax that had no disincentive effects on work or enterprise but had a strong redistributive element.”

Samuel Brittan is in very good company. Winston Churchill, speaking in 1909, put the argument in favour of LVT rather eloquently:

“Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains—all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced.”

In addition to that, last year we had the heavyweight report from the IFS that was commissioned from the Nobel prize winner, Sir James Mirlees; it is known as the Mirlees review. It clearly recommends that the Treasury take LVT seriously. It says:

“This is such a powerful idea, and one that has been so comprehensively ignored by governments, that the case for a thorough official effort to design a workable system seems to us to be overwhelming.”

In responding to the questions that I have put to the Government so far on LVT, they have always fallen back on the work done by Sir Michael Lyons in his 2007 inquiry into the role, function and funding of local government. There are many criticisms of the Lyons report and there have been dramatic economic changes since it was released, the most obvious of which is the 2008 crash, which make Lyons’ analysis of land value taxation out of date.

We need a study into the practicalities that looks at how we would bring in an LVT, who would be the winners and losers, and what transitional measures would be needed. The evidence suggests that such a measure would be broadly progressive. In other words, those who can afford it would pay the most and those who can least afford it would pay the least. I hope that the Government will use the response to this debate to reply positively to the broad cross section of people who are saying that this idea has potential. We now need research into how it would be implemented.

The practicalities of land valuation at the necessary level of disaggregation might seem daunting, but that does not mean that it is not possible. There is already a substantial apparatus designed specifically to record land and property values for business rates. Rating lists are compiled by the Valuation Office Agency, which in 2009-10 employed approximately 4,000 staff. New lists are compiled every five years. The infrastructure is therefore already there and could be used.

As I said, I have introduced a private Member’s Bill which, if we are lucky, will be discussed in November. It calls on the Treasury to do a serious piece of work that looks into how land value taxation might replace business rates and, subsequently, council tax, and that takes account of transitional arrangements as necessary. I hope that the Government will take that proposal seriously. The economic case is strong. If we took the wider view to see how such a transition could be made, I think we would find that such a tax would be sensible, efficient, effective and progressive.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have to reduce the time limit to five minutes. I hope not to reduce it again, so short interventions are critical when people give way.

18:01

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I want to make just one point about the transparency of petrol and diesel prices.

The Government have stepped up to the plate in cutting fuel duty. Ministers have done more to cut fuel duty in two years than many Governments have managed. However, fuel duty is still a stealth tax. As the FairFuelUK campaign has pointed out, we are not straight with the public about how much tax they pay. I pay tribute to FairFuelUK, which is one of the most effective campaigning groups in our country.

When I fill up my car, my receipt says, “Fuel: £50. VAT: £10.” That is wrong. If it was accurate, my receipt would say something like, “Fuel: £25. Duty: £25. VAT: £10.” There should be some mention of how much of that tax is spent on our roads. I want to make three brief points. First, I will explain that it was never meant to be like this. Secondly, I will say what I am proposing. Thirdly, I will say why transparency works.

The history of car taxation is a textbook case of how a tax becomes entrenched. First, it is temporary and is hypothecated for a specific purpose. It is then expanded. Finally, it is folded out into general taxation. That is exactly what happened to fuel duty between 1909 and 1937. In the early 20th century, funding for roads was drawn mainly from local ratepayers. The so-called people’s Budget in 1909, which came from the Liberal party, put a new duty on motor spirit, or petrol, in the days before our European Economic Community membership forced us to introduce VAT. The duty was ring-fenced for a road improvement fund. The explicit promise of Lloyd George in his Budget speech on 29 April 1909 was

“that the funds so raised will not merely be devoted exclusively to the improvement of the roads, but that they will be well and wisely spent for that end.”—[Official Report, 29 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 497.]

By the 1920s, the road fund was repeatedly raided to prop up the Treasury. At the same time, fuel duty was compounded by licence fees, vehicle taxes and so forth. Eventually, from 1937 motoring duty was treated as general taxation. By 1966, just 33% of the revenue was spent on roads, and by 2008, the proportion was just 20%. Over the years, a series of “temporary” increases have been brought in. The fuel duty escalator began, in a sense, with the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Temporary Increase) Act 1956, back when duty was fluctuating between 5p and 6p a litre, and VAT did not exist. The temporary increase was a mirage. Fuel duty is now 58p a litre, with 20% VAT on top—an increase of more than 1,000%.

I argue that the tax burden should be clear and transparent on every receipt and every fuel bill. There should be also be some indication of how much is being spent on our roads. My receipt would therefore say, “Fuel: £25. Duty: £25. VAT: £10. Amount spent on roads: £7.” My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) made such a proposal for income tax, which the Chancellor welcomed. Let us do the same for petrol and diesel.

Why is that necessary? First, because we should be honest with motorists. The average family in Harlow spend a tenth of their income on fuel, which is more than they spend on the weekly shop. In essence, they face fuel poverty and they have a moral right to know why their bills are so high. Tax transparency would also act as a deterrent to any Government hiking fuel duty without good reason, because people would see the increase on their receipts.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a compelling case on this issue. Does he agree that it is important not only that the ordinary motorist knows that information, but that the road haulage industry knows it? It has been crippled by heavy taxes.

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I know that when he goes back to Cleethorpes, his constituents will thank him in the streets for the work that he has done with me to try to cut fuel duty.

Tax transparency would also make it easier to hold the big oil companies to account. The Government say that their actions have a low impact compared with the huge swings in the oil price, and my proposal would give people hard evidence on a weekly basis of whether falls in the price of oil were being passed on to consumers. as recommended by the website with which I am involved, www.petrolpromise.com.

My proposal does what it says on the tin. We need basic transparency about how much fuel duty people pay and where the money goes. That would be more honest, it would be a deterrent against tax rises and it would put pressure on the oil companies to be fair. I hope, if the House is willing, to introduce a private Member’s Bill on the subject later this year. In the meantime, I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to consider the proposal for the autumn statement.

18:07

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I rise to bring to the House’s attention an issue of great importance to my constituency—fishing. We have debated that critical issue on many occasions in the House, and many Members have a particular interest in it. I wish to underline the need the EU Fisheries Ministers to give full consideration to how best to move forward in a positive fashion. We hear much negativity about fishing, but there are also a lot of positives.

I represent the second-largest fishing village in Northern Ireland, Portavogie, a port that has borne the brunt of European legislation. There are days at sea restrictions, quotas on fishing catches and levels of bureaucracy that, to use a colloquialism, would choke a donkey. The number of fishing boats in Portavogie has reduced from a high of 110 to a low of approximately 60 today, and a high proportion of those are 10 metres or under. I can honestly recall being able to walk from one side of Portavogie harbour to the other without getting my feet wet, because there were so many boats in the harbour. It is very different today.

Many people are annoyed by the situation, because there are enough fish to make the fishing industry sustainable. Scientific evidence shows that in the Irish sea, many fish stocks are regenerating. Cod, in particular, are starting to come back there.

In June, EU Fisheries Ministers agreed to a phased discard ban, to be completed by 2018. The industry supports that ban on the wasteful practice of throwing dead fish back into the sea, but we need to know just when the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), and his Department will have discussions with the fishing industry on how the rules and regulations will be implemented.

There is a clamour for meaningful regionalisation and for power to be put back into the community. The EU has indicated that it intends to do that through the common fisheries policy, but there is growing concern about the approach agreed by EU Fisheries Ministers, which many feel will not deliver the regionalisation that we all want. Brussels will retain a veto over much of fisheries policy, so the fishing industry seeks reassurance that regionalisation will be meaningful and will help the lives of ordinary people. In particular, it should help the villagers of Portavogie to regenerate the industry and do better.

There has been much talk about the maximum sustainable yield and the long-term management plans. In 2002, the world summit in Johannesburg stated, in loose terminology, that the maximum sustainable yield would be achieved “where possible”. How does the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs see that fitting in with regard to the Irish sea? The Irish sea has mixed fisheries. As such, the impact on it will be different from that in other places.

The long-term management plan has built up a backlog in the EU fisheries system. The next case to be reviewed is the cod industry, which is vital for the section of the fishing industry that has experienced most of the changes over the last period of time. There is scientific evidence that the cod are coming back to the Irish sea in numbers, but we need to know exactly what is happening.

Finally, the ongoing dispute between the EU and Norway on the one hand, and Iceland and the Faroes on the other, has dragged on for three years. I understand that a meeting will be held on 3 September, when the EU, Norway and Iceland will discuss the disputes. What is the recent UK input to the EU on the issue? What is our position on the talks? We need reassurance that UK mackerel fishermen, including those from Northern Ireland, will be given an update on this matter.

In conclusion, given the reduction of days at sea, often without due consideration of, or consultation with, the fishing sector, especially when current scientific information shows that the Irish sea is regenerating, and given that the fishing fleet is sustainable, that more jobs can be created, that more opportunity can be given, and that more economic advantage can be gained, I suggest, at this very late stage, that the fishing industry needs help, including from the Government.

18:12

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

The provision of rural broadband and the broadband delivery plan for the two counties I represent—the East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire—are of great importance to my constituents. It is good that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is in the Chamber—he has been working in support of our plans in northern Lincolnshire.

This is a massive issue in Brigg and Goole, where we enjoy particularly poor internet speeds. For example, Adlingfleet in my constituency has absolutely no broadband access. Large parts of the constituency suffer speeds to which urban areas had access a decade ago. There is clearly demand for improved broadband access in my constituency, as is evidenced by the demand surveys that my local team and I have delivered—the response rate is between 10% and 15% in a number of wards. That figure continues to grow.

I am concerned about the growing digital divide in this country, with residents in rural areas missing out, which is why I welcome the Government’s broadband pledge and the broadband delivery roll-out. However, I shall talk about the specific plans for North Lincolnshire and the East Riding. My constituents are missing out on developments in health care, such as telehealth services, which will become increasingly important, and on educational opportunities, particularly continuing learning and adult education through distance learning.

Around 25% of East Riding households are likely to be non-users of the internet. The problem is compounded by poor broadband speeds. In North Lincolnshire, 52% of children under the age of 15 are unable to use the same online tools at home as they use at school because of poor access, or because they have no access at home. I visited a school in Pollington, which is in the East Riding part of my constituency because pupils had written to me to ask me to see the poor broadband speeds for myself. The situation was fairly appalling—the children are unable to access basic education websites.

We know the value of increased broadband speeds, so I will not go into them in too great a detail, but I want to speak briefly about the two delivery plans. I shall give an example of the cost savings that can be achieved with good broadband access. The average cost of residential care in North Lincolnshire is £18,000 a year. Telehealth care services can help an individual who wants to live at home retain their independence, and can produce savings of £11,000 a year, but poor access to broadband, which is necessary to support those services, obviously makes that much more difficult in our areas.

In North Lincolnshire, the broadband bid is for £12 million, of which £2.62 million is being provided by Broadband Delivery UK. Both BT and Fujitsu have said that North Lincolnshire is one of their top six priorities out of 40 bids, but the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has ranked it only 23rd. I would like Ministers—I am happy for them to respond by letter—to look at the ranking that DCMS has given to the North Lincolnshire bid, particularly in the light of the priority that BT and Fujitsu have given to it, and to take into account the developments along the Humber to support the renewable energy and enterprise zones that we have and that will require much better broadband access. I also ask them to consider the funding from the European regional development fund. Our proposal involves using ERDF funding, but there is the concern that the Yorkshire and the Humber ERDF team might not have the capacity to deliver the project on time.

I have two simple requests for the East Riding. We understand that a national contract has been let, but a lot of our broadband and internet access in the East Riding is provided by Kingston Communications. Will Ministers consider whether the unique situation, with KC as the dominant local supplier, will enable the council to go into a separate arrangement outside the national structures and procurement framework with BDUK? I would also appreciate it if Ministers could clarify the exact funding available to the East Riding, because there seems to be some concern about that. Broadly speaking, I welcome what the Government are doing, but I would appreciate it if Ministers could look at these requests.

18:16

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I wish to draw to the House’s attention the huge problems facing people living in the private rented sector in this country. This has to be seen in the context of the overall problems of housing supply and need in Britain. In 2010, 102,000 new properties were provided in this country, but every year approximately 230,000 new households are created. There are 2.8 million people on the waiting list for council housing in the whole country and 3 million people living in the private rented sector.

I want to talk about the private rented sector because it has been the fastest-growing sector. Even if all the council housing I would like built was built quickly, an enormous number of people would still be living in the private rented sector. Private rents have risen at double the rate of wages over the past 10 years, while people living in the private rented sector are 10 times more likely to move than owner-occupiers. Furthermore, rents are rising fast despite the low level of wage rises at the moment and the relatively low levels of inflation. In other words, it costs more to live in private rented accommodation.

Nationally, the number of people living in private rented accommodation has risen from 9% to 17% over the past 20 years and continues to rise fast. In my own borough, the number of people living in private rented accommodation is more than double the national average—about one third of my constituents live in private rented accommodation. Less than 30% are owner-occupiers, whereas the national figure is about 68%, although that figure is falling somewhat.

The terms of tenancies and conditions for people living in private rented accommodation tell a very sorry story indeed. From the first world war to the 1950s, there was quite rigorous rent control in the private rented sector, and the sector was subsequently built out as slum clearance took place and council housing and owner-occupation developed. We have had a long period with very little council housing being built—although thankfully that is now beginning to change—but Britain also has the most lax system of rent control and tenancy control of any country in Europe. We have a system of assured shorthold tenancies—which give tenants a guaranteed tenancy of only six months and, after that, a two-month notice period—along with very high rents. In my constituency it is quite normal to find people living in private rented accommodation who are paying half their take-home pay—if they are in work—on their rent.

We also have a housing benefit system that militates strongly against people in the private rented sector. The Government have introduced the rent cap, which has limited the levels of housing benefit being paid. I am now facing the trauma—and it is a trauma—of seeing large numbers of tenants in my constituency who were or are in receipt of housing benefit being forced to move out, because their housing benefit has been cut and their rents have gone up, and because they cannot afford to meet the difference from other benefits, if they are on them, or their wages. There is, in effect, a social cleansing of inner London going on because of the imposition of the housing benefit cap. I stress the point that a large number of people in receipt of housing benefit are working—albeit on low wages, but they are in work.

The current situation is an utter disaster, but it does not have to be like this, and I hope that things can change. Germany, for example, has 60% of its housing provided by the private rented sector. Germany has permanent tenancies and rent controls provided, and a tax regime that encourages good rather than bad management. Germany has a much more stable community and society as a result.

I hope that the House will be able to return to this issue. I hope to introduce a private Member’s Bill to bring about regulation, rent controls, decency and, above all, security in good quality homes for those living in private rented accommodation. This is a serious issue that must be faced for a large number of people in this country.

18:21

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

There are a number of points I want to raise before the House adjourns for the summer recess.

London’s air ambulance service—for which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) recently organised a reception—continues to do an amazing job. It helped a huge number of people in the London bombing, along with more than 2,000 patients last year, using a helicopter and rapid-response cars to deliver emergency medical care. However, the service is in need of a second helicopter, so I support its calls to raise £10 million over the next three years.

Police and crime commissioner elections will be held in November. I would have thought that the last people we need standing are retired police officers, who will presumably have some sort of axe to grind. I would therefore like to know who exactly the PCCs will be accountable to, other than through the ballot box. What will their relationship with Members of Parliament be? These are important issues, particularly as police authorities have proved to be so ineffective.

A constituent, Miss Tina Cannadine, suffers from a range of medical conditions, including myalgic encephalomyelitis, yet she has been refused disability living allowance after an appeal. I have concerns about the assessment system, which has denied Miss Cannadine her entitlements. It is clear that the required forms are too rigid, with no great leeway. They should be designed to help someone such as my constituent, not hinder them.

BBC executives are still paid too much money. Despite a series of fiascos, culminating in the shoddy coverage of the diamond jubilee, the executive team and its stars earn hundreds of thousands of pounds each year. As licence tax payers, we pay their wages and we should be entitled to better services, and if they are not delivered, they should face a pay cut. However, I think that Lord Patten does a fantastic job, and I am still available as a TV presenter.

The Government need to publish a robust liver strategy soon. Liver disease is a huge problem, but it is largely preventable. Urgent action is also needed on hepatitis C. Deaths from liver disease caused by hepatitis C are increasing rapidly, even though it is a preventable and usually curable virus. We can reduce deaths from liver disease by diagnosing and treating people living with this silent killer.

Obstructive sleep apnoea is a little known but serious condition, where throat muscles relax and block the airways—sometimes one has only to look round the Chamber to see what a serious condition it is. I support the calls by the British Lung Foundation to have everyone with symptoms of OSA diagnosed quickly and accurately, and to ensure that they receive the highest standard of care for the treatment of their OSA. That would help to reduce NHS costs and improve patients’ quality of life.

Maldivian students wanting to study in the UK face a challenge owing to the fiasco caused by having to get their visas via Sri Lanka. Their flights are also very expensive. As the Maldives were a British protectorate until 1965, I ask Her Majesty’s Government to do something to help those students.

The lives of 3,400 members of the Iranian opposition are at stake in Iraq. The promises made to the residents of Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty must be honoured, and we have to take a stand against the human rights violations occurring there.

Unfortunately, I am concerned about a number of election practices in Southend. On polling day, people seem to be displaying their names and pictures right outside the polling stations. The policemen go round to the polling stations, but I wonder what they are looking for. The Electoral Commission needs to look into those issues.

The highlight of the Olympic torch relay has already happened. It took place on 6 July when the torch came to Southend. It was greeted by a choir of 6,000 on the Esplanade singing the anthem “Let your light shine”, composed by Tolga Khashif. I congratulate Southend Metal and the council on doing a superb job of organising the event. An official who had been with the torch throughout its journey said that the Southend event was the best by a mile.

Southend-on-Sea borough council was named local authority of the year 2012 at the Local Government Chronicle awards in March. I congratulate the mayor of Southend, Sally Carr, the chief executive, Rob Tinlin, and his hard-working officers, the leader of the council, Nigel Holdcroft and Councillor John Lamb, along with everyone at the civic centre on their fantastic achievements. I also hope to host a centenarians’ tea party this September, at which we hope to break the record in “Guinness World Records” again. My mother is now eligible to attend. It is for all those reasons that it is an absolute disgrace that Southend has not been designated a city.

I wish everyone in the House a very happy summer recess.

18:26

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

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) and to have listened to all his suggestions.

On this, the House’s final sitting day before the biggest event that this country will probably ever host, it is only right and proper that we should mention the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. It is now about 10 days until they start, and the M4 and A4, which go through my constituency, are starting to bustle as the athletes and officials arrive, along with the visitors who will be attending the games. The whole United Kingdom is looking forward to an excellent summer of sports and, of course, to lots of British medals.

I would like to focus today on the legacy of the games and on what can be done to maximise it. In fact, I shall pick up on one of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West made. London’s bid for the games always included a comprehensive plan for a legacy, to make the most of the event for the whole UK. Among the priorities was the need to harness the UK’s passion for sport in order to increase grass-roots participation by young people and to encourage the whole population to become more physically active. These are the first Olympics to have a school games—that is likely to be copied by Rio in 2016, and further into the future—to which 14,000 schools across the country have signed up. The school games recently had their first finals at the Olympic park.

An extra £500 million will go into sport in the next five years, and much has been done right across the country. Locally, 180 coaches have been trained, and today I have heard that St Mary’s tennis club in Isleworth has secured Olympic legacy funding of just under £50,000 to upgrade its clay court facilities. Many other programmes are being supported, including the Hitz rugby programme, the Dame Kelly Holmes Legacy Trust, and the Kickz football programme delivered by Brentford football club community sports trust and the Met police. There is lots going on.

Another priority for the legacy plans is to exploit the economic growth opportunities offered by our hosting the games. The Prime Minister recently said that we expect the games to bring more than £13 billion of benefit to the UK. On the back of the games, VisitBritain has launched its biggest ever global tourism campaign, supported by the GREAT campaign, which is expected to result in 4.6 million extra visitors.

A further aspect of the legacy will involve developing the Olympic park for regeneration, which is already happening, along with promoting community engagement and achieving participation among all groups in society through the games. I recently attended the Olympic torch relay in Osterley, which brought together primary schools from across the borough. I am now looking forward to my Olympic torch relay, which will take place on 24 July. It will come over Kew bridge before heading through Brentford and on to Hounslow.

My key point today is how we build on that legacy. I would want to build on it by using part of that Olympic funding to support London Air Ambulance. There is a great link, because London Air Ambulance is supporting the Olympics, and sport is, in essence, about health. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West mentioned, we have one helicopter in London that covers the entire area within the M25. It supports over 10 million people over 600 square miles. Elsewhere in the country, there is one helicopter for 1.5 million people. If we make comparisons internationally, London looks way behind. We have one air ambulance and no back-up. Last week, maintenance was necessary, and no support was available.

What the air ambulance does is give world-class trauma care, reducing death in cases involving such injuries by 30% to 40%. I am sure that if any Members or their families were involved in a serious accident and were in need of an air ambulance, we would want London Air Ambulance to be available. On 7 July 2005, London’s air ambulance flew 26 missions to the various bomb sites and treated more than 700 people. Demand is increasing across London, and we have to remember that London Air Ambulance is a charity—it is supported by the NHS, but it is a charity—and that it needs additional funding.

I call on the Government and those responsible for legacy development to consider proposals to provide sponsorship support through the London Legacy Development Corporation, with agreement to use the Olympic logo, and help fund another helicopter with the Olympic logo on it that would be part of the long-term legacy and would help to continue to save Londoners’ lives.

I conclude by wishing every success to team GB and everyone involved in the games. I look forward to the London 2012 games and the opportunities they will provide to demonstrate to the world that London is truly the greatest city in the world.

18:31

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

It is a great pleasure to speak in this pre-recess debate. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod): we wish team GB the greatest success in the world. May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who mentioned the “Guinness Book of Records”, that he should appear in it for the amount of stuff he can get into a five-minute speech about his constituency and events all across the world? He most certainly should be given such an award.

To be serious, on 7 July, 4½ inches of rain fell in one day on part of my constituency—Axminster, Seaton and Uplyme. There was a great deal of flooding in Axminster, particularly in Willhayes park, where many bungalows were flooded. Several elderly residents were confined to their beds and literally had to be rescued while the water was rising in those bungalows. I have toured the area this last week with the mayor of Axminster, Councillor Andrew Moulding, who has set up a local fund to help residents. It is great to see how the local community has pulled together in Axminster; I was amazed at how stoic the residents whom I went to see were, considering that their houses had been flooded. Anyone who has been into houses that have been flooded will be aware of the smell and contamination that people have to go through.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is touching on an important point about the flooding that has affected many of us in the south-west. Will he join me in congratulating the Environment Agency on its sterling work, particularly in keeping residents fully informed of what was happening, including Members of Parliament?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend must be a mind reader, because I was just about to mention the fact that the Environment Agency has been so good, especially in warning people and getting the warnings through early so that people could take action, where possible, to secure their properties with sandbags. A large flood happened in Axminster where there was a blockage across a railway under a large culvert. The water backed up and there was immediately a huge amount of flooding. In the long run, we need not only to get good flood warnings in place, but to make sure that the culverts are clear and the rivers properly dredged so that we can get rid of the water when it comes.

I accept that when 4½ inches of rainfall comes down in less than 24 hours it is very difficult to handle, but we have to realise that the drainage channels and those rivers are all there for a purpose. That purpose is to drain. Yes, they are very pretty when the water level is kept high and they are allowed to silt up. Indeed, it all looks lovely until the rain starts to come down and we cannot drain the water away fast enough. I hope that Ministers and the Environment Agency will think seriously about that.

We also experienced floods in Uplyme. Down by the village hall, culverts were blocked and, again, there was a great deal of flooding. Fewer properties were involved, but one was badly flooded when a stream came down from the hill. Again the rocks came out and blocked the pipe, and water cascaded through the building. As I have said, it is not possible to solve all the problems, but I think that we need proper drainage channels with proper grilles.

Because I do not possess the ability of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West to raise numerous matters during a short speech and am capable of raising only two or three, I shall now confine myself to raising the serious issue of the price of milk and the problems faced by dairy farmers in my constituency. The constituency contains a great deal of grassland, much of which is dairy farming land in the Blackdown hills and on the edge of Exmoor. The dairy farmers are not receiving the cost of production, and we need to do something about it, because they are experiencing a real problem. When 2,500 dairy farmers from all over the country come to a meeting in London—at Methodist central hall—the strength of feeling is clear. We cannot stand by while supermarkets drive the price of milk down by using it as a loss leader, as a result of which processors and farmers are squeezed.

Members have asked what future young dairy farmers have. I think that they have a good future, but we must ensure that there are more co-operatives. Farmers must come together if they are to have more power in the marketplace. We must also think about future markets. The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), has told us that when he went to China he saw many milk products from France, Germany and the Netherlands, but none from Britain. I think that when we have an expanding market in China, it is essential for us to send our milk and milk products over there.

If we do not export enough dairy products and create a demand throughout the country, and if too much liquid milk is flooding the market, it is very difficult to keep the price up for farmers. Farmers in my constituency need a future. They spend a great deal of money themselves throughout the community, and they need to be supported. I hope that the Minister will do something about that, and will establish contracts so that farmers can make a decent living.

[Mr Speaker]

I intend to call the Deputy Leader of the House at 6.40 pm. I now call Mr Martin Vickers.

18:38

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), I want to raise a matter that is particularly important to northern Lincolnshire. It involves a number of rail issues.

Although yesterday’s announcement of investment in the east coast main line is valuable and welcome, towns such as Cleethorpes, which lie off the main line, also need serious consideration. It is essential for the increased capacity created by the forthcoming investment to allow either the main franchise holder or an open access operator to provide the much-needed direct passenger service from Cleethorpes to London.

Twenty-five years ago, there were four direct trains from Cleethorpes to King’s Cross. They ran via Lincoln and Newark, although I think it more likely that the Scunthorpe-Doncaster route will be used in future. If the potential for economic growth is to gather pace—and the Government’s creation of enterprise zones constitutes recognition of that potential—we must improve connectivity with the capital. That will also boost the tourism economy. As Members will know, Cleethorpes is the jewel in the crown of the east coast resorts.

I was encouraged by what the Secretary of State said yesterday about ensuring that UK-based producers benefit from the construction phase. I hope that everything possible will be done to ensure that, for instance, Tata Steel—which is based in Scunthorpe, where many of my constituents work, and whose most profitable line is the rail track that it produces—benefits from the contracts. We should think not just of those travelling on business, but of commuters and holiday travellers. Tourism is a vital source of revenue for struggling coastal communities. A seminar at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last week highlighted the need for connectivity to these resorts.

In the Cleethorpes constituency, we have Immingham dock, which on Sunday will celebrate its centenary. About 23% of rail freight as measured by tonnes starts or finishes in Immingham. That highlights the importance of improved rail access. The local council estimates that by 2020 50% of containers arriving in the UK will be what the industry refers to as high-cube containers. We must therefore upgrade the gauge from the existing W8 to W10 and W12.

Finally, may I mention the inquiry currently being conducted by the Office of Rail Regulation into higher access charges for freight? This could be detrimental not only to the port of Immingham, but environmentally. If we push more freight traffic on to the roads, that will increase CO₂ emissions and be more damaging to our infrastructure, but, more importantly, it will reduce the quality of life of local residents.

I shall conclude my remarks there, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I call the Deputy Leader of the House.

18:41

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

First, may I pay tribute to our former colleague, Marsha Singh, the former Member for Bradford West, who, sadly, passed away today in untimely fashion? He will be much missed, and I am sure the whole House will wish to send its condolences to his family and friends. May I also say that I, or the relevant Department, will write to any Member who has raised issues that I am unable to cover in the relatively short period of time now available to me?

As always in such debates, we have had an excellent discussion. Some 19 Members contributed. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) mentioned 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, and I perfectly well understand why she might wish to represent her constituents in the Salford area who are rightly proud of the record of service through the years of that battalion of the former Lancashire Fusiliers, including in the Peninsula war and Gallipoli. We have debated these matters before in the House, however. Every Member will wish to place on record their appreciation of Army units in their own areas, but we must have a modern, efficient and effective armed forces and the Secretary of State for Defence has made clear his intentions. I shall pass on to him the hon. Lady’s reservations in respect of the future of 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, however.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) mentioned matters to do with colleges in his constituency. He mentioned apprenticeships, and it is crucial that we build on our great success in increasing the number of apprenticeships. There were 457,200 apprenticeship starts in 2010-11. That is an increase of 63.5%, which is a terrific achievement, but I want to see it replicated in every constituency, including the hon. Gentleman’s.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about the problems in respect of the Isle of Wight festival. I have some fellow feeling in that regard, as the Glastonbury festival site is on the border of my constituency, and we have on occasions had difficulties with rain and muddy conditions there as well. It is important that the promoters of festivals work very closely with local people. We have had a very good relationship over the years with the Glastonbury festival, and I am sure that he has good relations, too, with the Isle of Wight festival, but it is crucial that promoters and local people work together to the benefit of everybody.

The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) talked about further and higher education. I understand the points she made, of course, but I would just say to her that this year the proportion of school leavers in England applying to university is the second highest on record. That is extremely encouraging. The Government have also introduced the national scholarship programme, which will greatly help those who come from modest-income backgrounds. It is important that we maintain the principle that higher and further education is open to all and that we maintain social mobility. That is a thrust of the Government’s policy.

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about the importance of bearing down on crime in the context of those who enter our country, and he is absolutely right: there is a need for a high level of co-operation between the UK Border Agency and the police, and I believe that is happening. In fact, there is evidence of that in his own constituency, with Operation Coffeeville. Encouragingly, not only were arrests made and successful prosecutions mounted; hopefully, the proceeds of the crime are being retrieved and at the end of the sentence served those people will be deported. That is the way the law should apply. The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the police and he is absolutely right to do so. We sometimes forget how much we owe to our excellent police forces. He also discussed the closure of custody suites, and as he knows, I share his concern about that issue. It is a local, operational matter; nevertheless, he rightly mentioned it in this debate.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) talked about the huge changes in Northern Ireland over recent years, and the successes. I share in his celebration—so much is going on in the Province that, a few years ago, would have been unimaginable. If I were to feature one thing, it would be Her Majesty the Queen’s going to a Roman Catholic church in Enniskillen in County Fermanagh.

[Mr Dodds]

indicated assent.

[Mr Heath]

A few years ago, it would have been very hard for anyone to give credit to that idea. The right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that there are continuing concerns, but rather than looking always at the concerns, let us celebrate the success and the way the process has moved forward.

The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) made some incredibly interesting points about e-books. He knows that the Government are trying to achieve fair remuneration for publishers and authors, and provide reassurance against the illegal use of copyrighted material. I think the Minister with responsibility for such matters intends to make a detailed announcement shortly, and what the hon. Gentleman had to say ought to feed into that process.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) made a very interesting speech, given that she has served as a civil servant, a Minister and a Member of this House. She talked about the culture of process over delivery within the civil service, and I agree with her that that is the risk. Not all civil servants take that view, but we need to focus on outcomes, and to be more innovative and less hierarchical. She criticised the White Paper for having three forewords; well, better forewords than backwards. Nevertheless, the Government are trying to achieve a better, more effective civil service, and she clearly shares that aspiration. She also mentioned the accountability of Ministers. Of course, that is precisely what we were getting at with the Public Bodies Act 2011. Too often, bodies were remote from Ministers and not accountable to this House. They have now been brought back in-house, where Ministers can account for their actions, and that is absolutely right.

The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) kindly said that I did not need to respond to the detailed issues that he raised. He rightly divined that I was probably in a state of complete ignorance about leasehold valuation tribunals and their precise workings, but I will make sure that the Ministry of Justice writes to him on that subject.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) talked about low morale among the staff of this House. I hope that that is not the case. Of course, I should stress that it is not a matter for Government but for you, Mr Speaker, and the House of Commons Commission. However, it would be a matter of great concern if the staff did not feel valued by Members of this House, because they do an admirable job that we consider to be of huge importance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) continued his campaign on the family justice system. I draw his attention to the Crime and Courts Bill and, later, to the children and families Bill, which will give him opportunities to raise some of these issues. I think he wanted really to trail his private Member’s Bill, which he did very successfully in his speech. The same can be said of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who was trailing her private Member’s Bill on the subject of land value taxation. She correctly said that the Liberal Democrats, and previously the Liberal party, have a very long-standing attachment to this subject; in fact some of our members are hugely attached to it. What she described is not the policy of Her Majesty’s Government at the moment, and there are issues to address, one of which was raised in intervention on her, for those who are asset-rich and cash poor. She recognised that, and we shall see what develops.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), again, was trailing a private Member’s Bill that he intends to introduce on petrol and diesel taxation. He spoke warmly of the 1909 people’s Budget, that great achievement of David Lloyd George—it has been downhill ever since then, until the past couple of years. The hon. Gentleman talked about tax transparency and the need for people to understand just how much goes in duty as part of their petrol bill.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about fishing and represented very well the people of Portavogie in his constituency. He drew attention to the movement we have had in the right direction in recent weeks on the reform of fishing policies and the need, nevertheless, to be sensitive to the industry, and to the people in his constituency, in particular. I am grateful to him for raising that with us.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) talked about rural high-speed broadband, which is very dear to my heart. I could wax lyrical about the need for rural high-speed broadband in my constituency and even in my own village; I have often said that a man with a stick would be quicker than our so-called “high-speed broadband”. However, we are looking forward to the sort of change that is going to happen as a result of the Government’s programme on this matter. I do not know whether he was in the House for a previous debate of this kind when an Opposition Member gave his opinion that rural high-speed broadband was simply for “millionaires” to do their “internet shopping”. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole and I recognise that that is not the case and that rural high-speed broadband is essential for communities up and down the country, be they in cities or rural areas, so that they can take a proper part in the modern world. I look forward to that happening. He raised a specific point, which I shall arrange for the Department to write to him about, on the position of Kingston Communications. I will pass that on to the relevant Minister.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) talked about the private rented sector, which I know is a big feature in his constituency, although it is important right the way across the country. The most recent figures—this may not apply in Islington but it certainly applies across the country—show that the level of private rent is rising slightly less than general inflation at the moment, so private rental is becoming slightly cheaper. I appreciate that that has not been the case over an extended period. He will know about Sir Adrian Montague’s imminent report on institutional investment, and the key part of that is the overall strategy to increase the supply of new homes. I have to say that this is the key thing for housing policy: simply having more homes. If we have more homes, people will have opportunities to live in them and the price will be more achievable.

The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) put in a bid to be hired as a TV presenter on the BBC. I have to say that if he became one, the likelihood would be that an entire week’s productions would be concentrated within a half-hour TV slot—blink and you would miss it. People would miss something crucial because he covers so many areas. He covered the London Air Ambulance, which was a subject also raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod). The air ambulances across this country, both in London and outside it, provide an essential service. I applaud what they do, as I think it is terrific that they provide that level of service to people who otherwise would be in dire danger from the results of acute trauma. We need to find ways to ensure that it is funded. There has been a debate on this subject recently and I will not reiterate the points raised by the Minister then, but its importance is clear.

The hon. Gentleman raised police and crime commissioners; his constituent Tina Cannadine and her difficulties with DLA; BBC executives; hepatology; sleep apnoea; the problems of students from the Maldives in getting their visas; Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty; election fraud; and the Olympic torch. I am sure that Southend did a very good job with the torch, but I was told by officials that the performance in Somerton was the best that they had seen in the country. Surely they are not saying to us all that we are providing the best coverage of the Olympic torch.

I congratulate Southend borough council on being council of the year. The hon. Gentleman has every reason to look forward to his centenarian’s tea party with his mother, Maud. I feel like I know his family as well as I know that of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), they are mentioned in debates so often. We congratulate her and look forward to that happy occasion.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth talked about the Olympic legacy, which is so important. We are looking forward to that great event, which will be good for sport, for business and for regeneration in this country, but we must ensure that every bit of it leaves a lasting legacy. It should not be something that simply passes, goes and is seen no more. We should benefit from it in the long term and the hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to maximise that benefit, not just in the east end of London, which will clearly benefit, but across London and across the wider country.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) talked about the flooding in his area, particularly in the Axminster area. I do not think that there is anything more distressing than flooding. We have experienced it—I found myself in a car that I had to abandon through the windows a few years ago, because it was caught in flood water—and it is frightening, distressing and, for those whose homes are wrecked, it can be a long time before things are back in order. I am grateful to him for raising the issue today, as well as the work that is done by so many of the agencies involved, including the Environment Agency, which takes a lot of trouble to give proper warning. I am also grateful to him for stressing the need for drain and culvert clearance, which are a contributing factor. Nothing will stop flooding when we have torrential rainfall, but if we ensure that drains and culverts are properly cleared we can at least contribute towards mitigating the consequences.

Last but not least, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who is another Member whose constituency I feel I have got to know better over the past couple of years, talked about rail improvements. I think he was probably in his place yesterday when we heard the announcement from the Secretary of State of the £9.4 billion package, which is excellent news.

I wish all staff of the House well over the recess, as well as all Members of the House and you, Mr Speaker. Let us look forward to a very enjoyable recess and a wonderfully successful Olympics.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Sittings in Westminster Hall (e-Petitions)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have selected amendment (a).

18:59

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

I beg to move,

That the following changes be made to Standing Order No.10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall) until the end of the next session of Parliament:

(1) In Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall):

(a) in line 3, at the end, add the following new sub-paragraph—

‘(za) on Mondays beginning at half-past four o’clock and continuing for up to three hours, if the Backbench Business Committee has reported its determination that a sitting in Westminster Hall to consider an e-petition or e-petitions should take place on that day;’.

(b) in line 28, at the end, add the following new paragraph—

‘(3B) (a) The business taken at a Monday sitting in Westminster Hall shall be the e-petition or e-petitions which the Backbench Business Committee has determined should be debated, and each such e-petition shall be debated on the motion, That this House has considered the e-petition from [petitioners] relating to [subject of petition].

(b) Paragraph (10) of this Order shall not apply to proceedings under sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph; no dilatory motion may be made in relation to proceedings under that sub-paragraph except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such dilatory motion shall be put forthwith.’

(2) In Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), line 50, at the end, add:

‘(3AA) In addition to those days allotted under paragraph (3A) of this order, the Backbench Business Committee may determine that a sitting in Westminster Hall may be held on a Monday in accordance with paragraph (3) (za) of Standing Order No. 10 to consider e-petitions.’

(3) In Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee), leave out from ‘with’ in line 39 to ‘of’ in line 40 and insert ‘paragraphs (3A) and (3B)’.—(Mr Knight.)

If the signatories to the amendment do not delay matters further, I am happy to accept it.

Amendment made, in line 2, to leave out ‘the next’ and insert ‘this’.—(Mr Bone.)

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Ordered, That the following changes be made to standing orders, until the end of this session of Parliament—

(1) In Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall):

(a) in line 3, at the end, add the following new sub-paragraph—

‘(za) on Mondays beginning at half-past four o’clock and continuing for up to three hours, if the Backbench Business Committee has reported its determination that a sitting in Westminster Hall to consider an e-petition or e-petitions should take place on that day;’.

(b) in line 28, at the end, add the following new paragraph—

‘(3B) (a) The business taken at a Monday sitting in Westminster Hall shall be the e-petition or e-petitions which the Backbench Business Committee has determined should be debated, and each such e-petition shall be debated on the motion, That this House has considered the e-petition from [petitioners] relating to [subject of petition].

(b) Paragraph (10) of this Order shall not apply to proceedings under sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph; no dilatory motion may be made in relation to proceedings under that sub-paragraph except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such dilatory motion shall be put forthwith.’

(2) In Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), line 50, at the end, add:

‘(3AA) In addition to those days allotted under paragraph (3A) of this order, the Backbench Business Committee may determine that a sitting in Westminster Hall may be held on a Monday in accordance with paragraph (3) (za) of Standing Order No. 10 to consider e-petitions.’

(3) In Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee), leave out from ‘with’ in line 39 to ‘of’ in line 40 and insert ‘paragraphs (3A) and (3B)’.

[Mr Speaker]

May I reciprocate the great courtesy shown by the Deputy Leader of the House? I wish him and all Members of the House an extremely relaxing and restorative summer recess.

petition

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

18:59

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Homeopathic medicines deliver a health care option to many people, including in my constituency. For many of them, the issue relates to freedom and personal choice.

The petition I present is from people in my constituency who are concerned that section 10 of the consolidated Human Medicines Regulations 2012 should remain unchanged. I believe the Government are not willing at this stage to agree a change, but a marker needs to be put down. A small but well co-ordinated group with an anti-homeopathy agenda must be resisted by MPs and by Government. Choice on access to homeopathic medicines is paramount, and it must be retained and enshrined by Government. The petition requests that the status quo continue.

The petition states:

The Humble Petition of the citizens of the UK.

Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about proposed changes to the Medicines Act that may restrict access to homeopathic medicine.

Wherefore your Petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that any changes to the Medicine Act allow greater freedom to homeopathic practitioners to dispense remedies.

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

[P001112]

Bail (Dangerous Drivers)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Vara.)

19:01

Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): On new year’s eve, 31 December 2010, as people in Otley and all over the country were celebrating, my constituent James Peter Still, known as Jamie to his family and friends, was doing what 16-year-olds were doing up and down the country. He was out enjoying the evening with friends. Tragically, at around 9 pm, Jamie was hit by a drunk and speeding motorist, who lost control of his vehicle and veered on to the pavement.

Jamie was assisted by people at the scene, including regulars from the White Swan and Manor House pubs. He was rushed to hospital but died soon afterwards. His mother, who had rushed to the scene, was at his bedside. No other members of the family were able to get there in time to see him. His death left a family devastated and a community and town in shock.

The driver had been out drinking. His blood-alcohol content was estimated at about twice the drink-drive limit. He had been travelling at speeds estimated at 50 mph in a 30 mph zone in the middle of the town. Shortly before the accident he was reportedly performing handbrake turns in the car park of a nearby garden centre. In addition, he had been using his mobile phone, and in the half hour before the crash had received no fewer than 12 calls from his girlfriend. She was pleading with him to stop driving. It was not until 24 May 2011 that the driver was charged with causing death by careless driving while under the influence of alcohol, and pleaded guilty to those charges. He was finally convicted at Leeds Crown court on 8 September 2011. He was sent to jail for four years and disqualified from driving for five years.

The point of my debate and the campaign is that the driver who killed Jamie Still on new year’s eve was allowed to—and indeed did—carry on driving until his sentence, eight months later in September. The man who had killed someone by driving dangerously was allowed on the roads for a further eight months. Usually, an individual’s licence is suspended soon after a drink-driving offence, because prosecution is swift, but unfortunately, in this case, as the driver had actually killed someone, the prosecution took much longer, and the licence is not suspended until conviction. That is, in effect, a loophole that allows many people charged with death by dangerous or careless driving to continue to drive, long after they are arrested, and even charged, up until their conviction and sentencing; that can, as this case has shown, be many months later.

I was pleased to meet the Minister, along with Jamie’s mother, Karen, his sister, Rebecca and his grandfather, Peter. I thank the Minister for meeting the family to hear their concerns, and I appreciate that he is looking into the matter. I was also very pleased to receive a response on the issue from the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions. He said:

“He raises a very important point about what happens in cases such as these and what one can and cannot do with bail conditions. I will certainly go away and look at that. It may well be that this is something that we can consider alongside the recommendations that we are considering about drug-related driving. There is more work for the Government to do in this area, and I will certainly listen to my hon. Friend’s and his constituents’ concerns.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 822.]

That was very welcome news.

Let me make it clear that this is not an isolated case. The campaign group, RoadPeace, in its guide for bereaved families in precisely this situation, says:

“Bail can be conditional or unconditional…Drivers charged with causing a death are not immediately banned from driving. Driving bans are imposed only if the defendant is believed to be at risk of reoffending, but this is rarely the case. If a driver has a driving ban as part of his bail condition and they are caught driving, they can be put in jail”,

but

“Insufficient priority is given to keeping dangerous drivers off the road. Driving bans are short and can overlap with custodial sentences. It is a sad indictment of our society that we will imprison drivers before we will confiscate their vehicles and that we will crush vehicles for being driven without insurance but not for being driven”

in these cases.

It is true that a driving ban can be handed out following a guilty plea, or prior to sentencing reports, but that is at the discretion of the trial judge, and is simply not being applied in many cases. If someone is accused of drink-driving but has caused no harm, they will lose their licence quickly, yet if a drink-driver has killed another human being, they can, and often do, hold on to their licence and continue to drive. We can only imagine the distress that Jamie’s mother, Karen, and his sister, Rebecca, had to face as a result of this man continuing to drive in the weapon with which he killed their loved one. Indeed, Karen says:

“why does the law allow offenders such as McRae to continue performing the activities that led to someone’s death?”

Recently, Humberside police banned two drivers who were caught being too drunk to drive following a night of watching Euro 2012. Those two men had their licences suspended immediately, yet in the case that I am raising, that is not happening, although there is a charge of death by careless or dangerous driving.

The family and I are calling on the Government to look into making the suspension of driving licences in such fatal cases no longer discretionary, but mandatory. Currently, driving bans are imposed only if the defendant is believed to be at risk of reoffending, or a risk to the public, but that is rarely believed to be the case, and it misses the point about the distress that Jamie’s family had to endure as a result of the driver continuing to drive. It is surely possible to make a driving ban a condition of bail in all cases where an offender is charged with death by dangerous or careless driving.

At the heart of the campaign is Jamie’s sister, Rebecca. Unbeknown even to her own mother, she decided, off her own bat, even though she was grieving, to start an e-petition calling for those who kill as a result of dangerous driving to have their licences suspended as a condition of bail. It has now received more than 12,000 signatures. We believe that that is possible, and I hope sincerely that the Minister will look into it.

It is possible to apply the measure to people who have been drink-driving and have tested more than twice over the legal limit. The Institute of Alcohol Studies has suggested that

“those at least twice over the limit or…have previous convictions should have their licence withdrawn as a condition of bail. The Government should be prepared to effect this by primary legislation and treat the bail condition as an interim disqualification.”

To make the position clear, we are talking about suspension from the moment of charge until trial. If someone is found to be innocent, as applies to any bail condition, their driving licence would be reinstated immediately, so there would be no implication that this is in any way a suggestion of guilt.

Jamie’s family believe that driving bans for such crimes are far too short and should not overlap custodial sentences. I urge the Minister to look at that because, as he knows, driving bans do overlap custodial sentences, which in many cases nullifies the driving ban. In this awful case, the driving ban was set at five years, but the custodial sentence was four years in jail, which means that if the driver served his full sentence—in reality he will not do so—his driving ban would last only a year after release. It is simply not acceptable that someone who has caused a death as a result of dangerous or careless driving and has behaved recklessly and criminally should be allowed back on the road after being out in society for just one year. The family feel aggrieved, as they have told the Minister, and believe that the five-year sentence handed down to the perpetrator is not enough, given that he knowingly took to the wheel of his car twice over the drink-drive limit.

I am pleased that this is on the agenda. The family are grateful, and they feel that Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, have listened to their campaign on what appears to be a loophole that could be closed fairly easily. I hope that my hon. Friend will take this forward, echoing the Prime Minister’s comment that he will look at that alongside tightening the drug-driving laws—something else that I support. I have pledged to the family that I will carry on campaigning alongside Rebecca, Karen and Peter, Jamie’s grandfather. It is astonishing that, despite their devastating loss, which can never be rectified—a hole that can never be filled—they still want to do something at least to prevent some of the pain and trauma from affecting other families. I will carry on campaigning with them until we have secured changes to achieve that. I thank the Minister for his interest, and I hope that he will work with me and the family to see what we can do to address some of these issues.

00:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) for his tenacity on behalf of his constituents and for securing this debate on an issue that he has already raised with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions. I would like to begin by expressing once again our sympathy to the family of Jamie Still, who was taken so early from them and in such tragic circumstances. As my hon. Friend reminded us, in April, he and I met Karen Strong, Jamie’s mother, as well as Jamie’s grandfather, Peter Strong, and his sister, Rebecca. We were able to discuss their concerns about the case in some detail. The Prime Minister has continued to take a personal interest in the case.

Something that contributed in no small measure to the family’s distress in this case is the time that elapsed between the incident and the suspect being charged, which was no less than five months. Although it is essential in any case, let alone one with such tragic circumstances, that the right charge is brought against the suspect, it is right that we should seek to do better, and we are. We have just published our proposals to reform the criminal justice system to deliver swift and sure justice. A swifter outcome in this case would have been preferable for all parties.

To explain the time taken in this case, I should point out that it is a fundamental tenet of the criminal justice system that due process is followed, so even when some evidence appears to be very strong, charging decisions cannot be made under the full code test in the code for Crown prosecutors until all the relevant circumstances have been investigated by the police and all relevant evidence has been reviewed by a prosecutor. The investigation and gathering of evidence can sometimes be a lengthy process, and it can take a considerable time from when an offence is committed to when a charging decision is made. The importance attached to such serious cases is reflected by the fact that the final decision on the most appropriate charge in this case was taken at one of the highest levels of the Crown Prosecution Service.

However, after the decision to charge was made, it took another three months before the defendant was convicted and sentenced after he pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. This offence is an indictable-only one; in other words, it must be tried in the Crown court. In such cases, defendants cannot plead until they reach the Crown court. Until very recently, there was no formal opportunity for a defendant in such a case who wished to plead guilty to let the magistrates know. The criminal procedure rules have now been changed, with the result that an early appearance can be arranged in the Crown court when a defendant has signalled that he intends to plead guilty. Even when the defendant has not done so, it may be that the case could be identified by the CPS as one in which a guilty plea is likely and thus listed for an early Crown court hearing. Arrangements enabling this to happen—the so-called early guilty plea system—have been piloted in Liverpool, Bristol, Winchester and Reading, and are now being adopted in many more Crown court centres. Such initiatives complement the principles of swift and sure justice that underlie the recent White Paper on criminal justice system reform. However, my hon. Friend has made clear the pain of the eight months of seeing Max McRae, the guilty drunken driver, still driving, and I hope that the change that I have outlined might address that to some degree.

The offender in this case pleaded guilty and expressed remorse to the court. A guilty plea is welcome, not only because it enables cases to be resolved more quickly but because it may indicate willingness on the part of offenders to face up to what they have done. Restorative justice can go further in helping offenders to confront the consequences of their actions and their impact on others. I am convinced that in the right circumstances a restorative process can be highly beneficial, but it can only meaningfully take place when offenders admit responsibility and they and the victims have been assessed as fully able and willing to engage in it.

The important thing about restorative justice is that it makes the victims central to the justice process. Jamie’s relatives expressed understandable upset to me that McRae offered remorse to the court but not to them. It is not clear what advice he received about whether such an expression would have been welcome or whether Jamie’s relatives had been counselled as to what they could expect in a proper restorative justice process. The only observation that I would make is that in over two years of meeting prisoners, this group of offenders tends to stand out as the most remorseful and the most conscious of the appalling and irreparable hurt they have caused. This case further convinces me of the need to improve our capacity for victims to have access to properly mediated restorative justice, and we are actively considering this in our policy development on victims and witnesses.

The central issue for my hon. Friend is that the offender was permitted to continue driving while he was under investigation and awaiting trial. He will know that it is open to the police and the courts to require as a condition of bail, alongside any other conditions that are considered necessary, that a suspect or defendant must not drive while on bail. While a person is being investigated for an offence, the question of bail is an operational matter for the police. Once a suspect has been charged with an offence and appears in court, the question of bail becomes one for the court. If there are substantial grounds for believing that a suspect, if released on bail, will commit further offences, fail to surrender to bail, or interfere with witnesses, the police or the court may grant bail with one or more conditions attached. A condition that would prohibit a suspect from driving is an option if it is thought necessary and appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.

The police and the courts have to make difficult decisions, balancing the need to protect the rights of individuals who are suspected of a crime against the need to protect victims of crime and all other members of the public. It cannot be the purpose of any bail condition to anticipate the punishment that a defendant might receive if he were convicted of the offence with which he has been charged, or that a suspect might receive if he were charged and convicted. The purpose of bail conditions is simply to protect the public from the consequences of further offending, or to secure the smooth running of justice by ensuring that the defendant turns up at a police station or in court.

That is why, although it may be likely or even inevitable that a person who has been charged with certain motoring offences will be banned from driving if he or she is convicted, it does not follow that a driving ban should be imposed as a condition of bail. It is a question of risk. The difficult task facing the court, with the assistance of the Crown Prosecution Service, is to assess that risk.

I recognise that there are cases where the nature of the offence suggests that a risk exists. It is arguable—and I have some sympathy with this view—that the incident in which Jamie Still was killed on that new year’s eve is such an example. An innocent young man died as a result of an incident that combined alleged careless driving and driving with significantly more than the permitted level of alcohol. It is arguable that a no-drive condition is, on the face of it, suitable in such circumstances. However, it is the duty of the court to carry out the risk assessment. The Crown Prosecution Service has a vital role to play in the process, because the prosecutor may make representations in relation to the grant of bail following Jamie’s case.

Earlier this year, all prosecutors were reminded of the need for a careful approach on the question of whether to oppose bail in cases of bad driving that has resulted in death. The Director of Public Prosecutions is in the process of reviewing the Crown Prosecution Service’s policy on bad driving cases in general. That includes a review of the approach taken by prosecutors on the question of bail in such cases, especially where the incident results in the death of a victim. I anticipate that, with regard to fatal collisions, the guidance will emphasise the appropriateness of a no-drive bail condition when the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that if the defendant is released on bail, he will present a danger to other road users by committing further driving offences.

There will be a public consultation on the review later in the year. That will be an opportunity for the public in general, Jamie Still’s family, my hon. Friend and any other family who have suffered a similar tragedy to make their views known. I will keep my hon. Friend informed about the progress on this matter.

Essentially, it has to remain the position that every case will be treated on its merits. It is right that, where necessary, Parliament will provide statutory requirements for courts to follow and that organisations will provide guidelines on how to approach cases to make sure that there is consistency in standards. We ensure that legislation upholds the rights and needs of everyone who is affected by the criminal justice system in this country and we allow the professionals to apply the requirements correctly in each and every case.

I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing this debate and on raising this tragic case. I commend him for the tenacious way in which he campaigns on behalf of his constituents. I know that he will await the outcome of the review by the Director of Public Prosecutions, as we all will. Changes have already been made in the light of the tragedy that overtook Jamie Still and I anticipate that there will be further changes following the review.

I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all the officials of the House an enjoyable and agreeable recess as we enjoy the success of our Olympic athletes.

Question put and agreed to.

19:23

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 17 July 2012

Council Tax Benefit Localisation

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the closing speech given by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), during the Westminster Hall debate on Council Tax Benefit Localisation on 27 June 2012.

[Andrew Stunell]

That brings me to the contributions of hon. Members representing constituencies in Wales and Scotland. In both those nations, the allocation of the reduction is strictly in accordance with the Barnett formula, and that reduction is no more ring-fenced in its decrease than any increase under the formula. It is entirely a matter for the Welsh and Scottish Administrations to decide how to proceed on the schemes in their respective countries. It is important to make that point.

[Official Report, 27 June 2012, Vol. 547, c. 97WH.]

Letter of correction from Andrew Stunell:

An error has been identified in the closing speech given during the Westminster Hall debate on 27 June 2012. The error relates to the method by which the funding for localised council tax support to be allocated to the Scottish and Welsh Government for council tax support will be calculated.

The correct version is as follows:

[Andrew Stunell]

That brings me to the contributions of hon. Members representing constituencies in Wales and Scotland. In both those nations, it is intended that the allocation of the reduction will be in accordance with shares of current expenditure on council tax benefit, and that reduction is no more ring-fenced in its decrease than any increase in shares of expenditure. It is entirely a matter for the Welsh and Scottish Administrations to decide how to proceed on the schemes in their respective countries. It is important to make that point.

Petition

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Petitions

Tuesday 17 July 2012

Cyber bullying

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Petitions

Declares that on 06/08/2010 Schillings Lawyers, acting for Amy Lynn Lee Hartzler of the American Rock Band Evanescence and her manager Andrew Lurie sent a letter of claim to the Petitioner, which the Petitioner claims was demanding that Mr Smith give undertakings not to report alleged criminal offences to the authorities; further declares the Petitioner believes that Schillings, on behalf of their clients, admitted that a teenage user of their website EvThreads.com had engaged in a course of conduct of “mean-spirited” remarks towards a Californian girl, Crystal Dawson, and that the Petitioner believes that despite having described the alleged perpetrator in writing through her lawyers as “mean-spirited” and deserving of being prohibited from the website, Amy Lee later appointed the perpetrator concerned, Amanda DeMarzi, to a supervisory role with authority over other users including minors.

Declares that the Petitioner believes that Schillings compelled the Petitioner to sign a contract that requires him not to report a number of alleged offences in relation to their website EvThreads.com, including drugs offences that have been expressly admitted by the alleged perpetrators and that the Petitioner believes that the contract also acknowledges the existence of three witnesses as to the culpability of Amy Lee and Andrew Lurie of 110 Management in attempts to procure the suicide of a teenage girl, and further requires that the Petitioner interfere with those witnesses by discouraging them from pursuing the matter.

Declares that subsequently the Petitioner became aware that some of Amy Lee’s former employees had published online on a site other than EvThreads.com paedophile material including a story about sexual offences against a physically disabled male minor and cartoons with pre-teens in lawful poses but with sexualised captions, including sexual activity with animals and one caption regarding a toddler consuming human faeces, and that the Petitioner believes that this material unfortunately falls through a loophole in the law and is not illegal in the UK; and further that the Petitioner also has grounds to reasonably suspect the persons concerned of also circulating illegal child pornography including photographs.

Declares that on 03/11/2011 the Petitioner wrote to Schillings asking their clients to allow him to report the alleged paedophile activities to the authorities in the relevant countries. On 08/11/2011 three members of Parliament placed before the House an Early Day Motion requesting that Amy Lee and Andrew Lurie allow the Petitioner to report the alleged criminal activity. On 25/11/2011 the Petitioner wrote again to Schillings repeating and clarifying the request. To date Schillings have not acquiesced and the Petitioner believes that their clients have knowingly allowed the publishers of the alleged paedophile material to have access to EvThreads.com where they can interact with thousands of minors.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons passes the Family Justice (Transparency, Accountability and Cost of Living) Bill, and asks the Government to urge Amy Lee and Andrew Lurie to take appropriate steps to resolve matters.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by John Hemming .]

[P001113]

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 17 July 2012

[Mr Dai Havard in the Chair]

Zimbabwe (Blood Diamonds)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Havard? It is a delight to speak under your guidance, as a fellow south Wales valleys Member of Parliament. I immediately pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey); in her chairmanship of the all-party group on Zimbabwe, she has provided inspirational leadership for a long time.

In December 2000, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/55/56, supporting the creation of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. That led to the Kimberley process, a mechanism for negotiations, and the international treaty banning blood diamonds, established under UN Security Council resolution 1459 in January 2003. I put a great deal of effort into achieving that when I was British Minister for Africa, because illegally traded blood diamonds were paying for arms, which fuelled conflicts in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in Sierra Leone, where those very arms were used against British troops by terrorists. Now we are seeing a different kind of blood diamond from Marange in Zimbabwe, and it is high time that the Kimberley process and the World Diamond Council stopped turning a blind eye to serious abuse with an anti-democratic, violent purpose.

The history of Zimbabwe has been punctuated with violence. Cecil Rhodes’s exercise of colonial power in southern Africa was built on a monopoly of violence. Until it was swept away by the liberation war, which I supported as a British anti-apartheid leader at the time, Ian Smith’s racist Rhodesian regime used violence against opponents demanding democracy. Robert Mugabe’s ZANU, first elected in a landslide victory in 1980, betrayed the freedom struggle that it once led with distinction, by systematically using violence as a political strategy to maintain power and the privileges of an increasingly corrupt mafia surrounding him. Killings, torture and beatings of ZANU-PF opponents and massive human rights abuses accompanied the elections of 2000, 2002 and 2008. Mugabe’s regime specialised in stealing those elections by violence.

My fear is that Zimbabwe’s forthcoming election, due by June next year, might be no different despite the Government of national unity, who have given some relief to their beleaguered, suffering nation. In that Government, the Movement for Democratic Change has been given the Ministries of Finance, Education and Health, among others. ZANU-PF retained the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Mines and the Office of the President, the home of Zimbabwe’s feared secret police—the Central Intelligence Organisation or CIO. Since the MDC took control of the Ministry of Finance and clipped the wings of the Reserve bank, the security mafia loyal to President Mugabe has been on a hunt for sources of off-budget finance. It has now found those sources, thanks to an accident of geology and the failures of the international community.

In 2006, diamonds were found in the Marange fields in eastern Zimbabwe. The area holds one of the world’s richest deposits of alluvial diamonds. The gems lie close to the surface of the ground, making them easy to collect by hand. During 2008, the military deployed soldiers and helicopter gunships during the clearance of thousands of small-scale miners from the Marange diamond fields, killing and wounding many people in the process. Nearly every soldier in Marange is involved in one way or another in illegal mining. Soldiers have formed syndicates of diamond panners, whom they protect and escort.

Many of the diamonds are smuggled to the town of Vila de Manica, in Mozambique, only 12 miles from the Zimbabwe border. It is crawling with illegal dealers from countries such as Lebanon, Sierra Leone, Guinea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria and Israel, most living in smart houses, bristling with barbed wire and CCTV cameras, and guarded by armed men, admitting they do so with the help of army syndicates and senior ZANU-PF politicians.

Global Witness deserves our thanks for its impressive report, “Financing a Parallel Government?”, which has unearthed devastating evidence on Zimbabwe’s blood diamond trade. In Zimbabwe, mineral rights are vested not in the state, but with the President. Robert Mugabe has granted a series of mining concessions. One was to Canadile, a company that has since collapsed amid allegations of corruption, including against Obert Mpofu, the ZANU-PF Minister of Mines. Mpofu is a man on a £1,200 monthly salary, who is now rich enough to spend over £13 million buying a bank. Another was to Mbada Diamonds. Its chief executive officer, Robert Mhlanga, a Mugabe crony, is developing a £20-million mansion in Ballito, KwaZulu-Natal. Behind Mbada Diamonds and up to its neck in its shady start-up, is a South African scrap metal company, New Reclamation, and its former chief executive officer, South African business man David Kassell.

South African business interests were heavily involved in mining diamonds in Marange or profiting from their irregular sale, in what the South African Broadcasting Company last October reported as a:

“blatant disregard for the rule of law and continued plundering of the diamond fields in Eastern Zimbabwe. New evidence suggests that South African firms have muscled in, and are mining there illegally.”

In 2011, 25% of the shares of Mbada were transferred to a mysterious network of shell companies based in Mauritius, Hong Kong and the British Virgin Islands. Those companies are connected to Robert Mhlanga, a retired air vice-marshal in the Zimbabwean air force. The use of secrecy jurisdictions and tax havens should raise a red flag for any legitimate businesses trading with Mbada. They should be asking the question, who are the real beneficial owners of Mbada? We have seen with Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi how banks, lawyers and businesses colluded in illicit financial outflows of national wealth. I fear that that is being repeated in Zimbabwe.

A third mining concession was to Sino Zimbabwe Development and a fourth to Anjin Investments. Sino Zimbabwe Development purports to be a joint venture between the state-owned Zimbabwe minerals development corporation and an investor, Sam Pa—a businessman from the Queensway syndicate, a network of companies based in Hong Kong, Singapore and Angola. Sam Pa and the Queensway syndicate were the subject of a recent feature in The Economist, which raised two issues in particular. The first was the Queensway syndicate’s amoral deal in Guinea. Just one month after security forces massacred 150 protestors in a stadium, the syndicate signed a multi-billion dollar deal with the Guinea junta—effectively providing a financial lifeline to that pariah regime. Secondly, The Economist alleged that the syndicate was buying Angolan oil ridiculously cheaply and selling it on at market prices to Chinese oil companies—suggesting the Angolan people may have been cheated out of billions of dollars.

In Zimbabwe, several sources suggest that Sam Pa gave the secret police—the CIO—a large sum of money, which one CIO document places at $100 million, and over 200 Nissan pick-up trucks. In return for that apparent assistance, Sino Zimbabwe Development was granted opportunities in Zimbabwe’s diamond and cotton sectors. Sino Zimbabwe Development was set up and registered in Zimbabwe and Singapore. The Singaporean company is in turn part-owned by Strong Achieve Holdings, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands and controlled by someone believed to be a member of the Zimbabwean secret police. That, again, illustrates the highly disreputable role of the British Virgin Islands in facilitating such murky dealings. Sino Zimbabwe Development is ostensibly a legitimate business. Yet its three Zimbabwean directors, Gift Kallisto Machengete, Masimba Ignatius Kamba and Pritchard Zhou, are all believed to be members of the CIO, and the firm is in reality a front company for the Zimbabwean secret police.

Anjin Investments purports to be a joint venture between a previously unknown Zimbabwean firm, Matt Bronze, and a Chinese construction company. In reality, Anjin’s company secretary is Brigadier Charles Tarumbwa, who is also the Judge Advocate General at Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Defence, and is on the EU sanctions list for orchestrating violence. Anjin’s executive board includes Martin Rushwaya, the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defence, and serving and retired military and police officers. Anjin claims to be the biggest diamond mining company in the world and has been described by informed observers as having the potential to be the next De Beers. In reality, Anjin is a front for the Zimbabwean military; nor does that shadowy activity involve only diamonds.

On 27 June, the Russian business newspaper Kommersant reported that Zimbabwean officials had approached Russian companies with a prospective platinum deal in exchange for attack helicopters. A Russian joint venture, named by Kommersant as involved in the deal, is called Russ Zim and Rushchrome. The deal is ostensibly with the parastatal Zimbabwe Minerals Development Corporation. However, Anjin’s Brigadier Charles Tarumbwa is company secretary of the Russian joint venture, and the chairman of its executive board is Martin Rushwaya, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, who is on the board of Anjin. Again, the planned deal seems to have been cooked up by the Zimbabwean military-industrial complex.

Why is that important? First, the Zimbabwean military and secret police are known for their uncompromising support for ZANU-PF. It has even been alleged that money from Sam Pa has been allocated to a CIO smear campaign against MDC Prime Minister Tsvangirai, called Operation Spiderweb. If the secret police have access to off-budget sources of funding, they can set and finance their own agenda, in flagrant breach of democratic and civilian control of the security forces budget.

Secondly, Zimbabwe desperately needs tax revenues. Life expectancy at birth in Zimbabwe is 47 for a man and 50 for a woman. The Government are slowly rebuilding the education and health infrastructure after the devastation wrought by years of misrule and the hyper-inflation of 2008. Out of a budget of US $4 billion, the MDC Finance Minister Tendai Biti was promised US $600 million in diamond revenues by the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development. Yet he recently stated that Anjin had not paid one cent to the Zimbabwean Treasury, adding that Anjin’s failure to remit diamond proceeds to the consolidated revenue fund was in breach of the constitution. Anjin claims that it paid some money to the ZANU-PF-controlled Zimbabwe Minerals Development Corporation. Yet none of that has yet reached the Finance Ministry’s consolidated revenue fund. Diamond revenues are being siphoned off when Zimbabwe needs teachers and nurses, not attack helicopters and secret police thugs.

Thirdly, there is a risk that any money given by Sam Pa, Anjin and Sino Zimbabwe Development to the security forces will fund human rights abuses in the run-up to next year’s election. Let us remember that, to cling on to power in the 2008 election, soldiers, ZANU supporters, secret policemen and so-called war veterans—a pseudonym for Mugabe’s thugs—killed 200 people, tortured and assaulted 5,000 and forced 36,000 more to flee their homes.

What can the British Government do? I urge them to engage with the Southern African Development Community facilitators to push security sector reform and democratic and civilian control of budgets up the agenda in forthcoming negotiations. In the long term, much more must be done to regulate the diamond industry properly. I feel strongly that the Kimberley process certification scheme, which is designed to stop the trade in blood diamonds, has failed to deliver on the original objectives that we designed for it during my time as a Foreign Office Minister between 2000 and 2002. It has three weaknesses that have not been addressed. It does not cover polished gems—only rough diamonds. It applies only to crimes committed by rebel groups, not to human rights abuses committed by Governments such as Zimbabwe’s. It does not enforce its own rules properly: the scheme is found wanting when confronted with problems in Venezuela, Côte d’Ivoire and Zimbabwe.

The Kimberley process report on Anjin praises the modern security procedures of the company, makes small recommendations to reduce the risk of theft and smuggling and thanks the Minister of Mines for his co-operation, yet not once does it ask who owns Anjin. That is wilful blindness, and it has led member states, including the UK, acting through the EU, to authorise exports of Anjin diamonds.

Let us be clear: Zimbabwean military-controlled blood diamonds are now sold in the EU and almost certainly in the UK, appearing on wedding rings all over the place. It is time for jewellery companies to stop hiding behind the facade of the Kimberley process and to take responsibility for their own supply chains. Each company must ask, “Where do my diamonds come from, under what conditions are they mined and traded, and who benefits from their sale?” That system, known in the jargon as supply chain due diligence, was first developed for the trade in conflict minerals sourced from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It should be adapted for the trade in diamonds and other gems, so that those resources can play a constructive role in the development of other countries at risk, such as Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Burma.

I urge the British Government to commission the OECD, which has played an important role in working out the details of such a scheme for the trade in gold, tin, tungsten and tantalum, to examine how it could be applied to precious stones such as diamonds. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about that.

The European Union has placed many individuals and entities on restrictive measures: travel bans and asset freezes. One such entity is the Zimbabwe Minerals Development Corporation and its subsidiaries and joint ventures. Bizarrely, Anjin is not on the sanctions list, despite there being a more compelling case for its inclusion than for the inclusion of other mining firms that are sanctioned by virtue of their association with the Zimbabwe Minerals Development Corporation. Recently, the Zimbabwean Deputy Minister of Mines stated in Parliament that

“Anjin is owned by the Chinese and the Government of Zimbabwe where ZMDC owns 10% and Zimbabwe Defence Industries owns a 40% shareholding”.

Given that both Zimbabwe Defence Industries, which is wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence, and the ZMDC are already on sanctions lists, it seems to me that Anjin should be listed as well, not least on the grounds that it is a subsidiary of listed entities.

Even stranger, in my view, is the news that at its Foreign Ministers Council on Monday the EU proposes to remove or suspend some or all targeted sanctions. To do that less than a year before Zimbabwe’s next election could be very damaging. Are EU and UK officials really suggesting removing an asset freeze on someone like Didymus Mutasa, the former State Security Minister, who is accused by the EU of being

“involved in murders in Manicaland”,

or lifting the EU travel ban on our old friend Brigadier Charles Tarumbwa, who is accused by the EU of being

“directly involved in the terror campaign waged before and during the elections”

and of being in charge of a

“torture base in Makoni West, Mutasa Central in 2007/2008”?

Instead of suspending sanctions at the behest of ZANU-PF, Monday’s EU Foreign Ministers’ meeting and the British Government should argue for Sam Pa, Anjin and Sino Zimbabwe Development to be placed on the EU’s targeted sanctions list and for the Zimbabwe Minerals Development Corporation to remain on the list. That should remain the case at least until the election—probably less than 12 months away—has passed off peacefully.

If the intention is to wave a carrot and not just a stick, by all means suspend sanctions against some of those lower down the ZANU-PF command list, or examine the more calibrated strategy that is recommended by the International Crisis Group and that is being considered by southern African countries, but we must ensure that substantive sanctions, such as asset freezes on Anjin and Sam Pa, are imposed so that the security forces cannot build a war chest before the election.

If off-budget financing of the security forces is not addressed immediately, regardless of what happens to Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe could soon be ruled by a free-floating securocrat elite: unaccountable, unelectable and unstoppable. More than enough damage has been done already to the wonderful people of Zimbabwe, as a once-prosperous country has been reduced to penury. Let us ensure that we do not perpetuate the terrible damage that has been done by premature suspensions of highly targeted sanctions, especially on those who are responsible for the Marange blood diamonds, when the imperative is to impose more not less.

The World Diamond Council and Governments with a substantial diamond trade must act to block blood diamonds from Marange, or the whole diamond trade could well find itself tarnished and targeted by boycotts and protesters, just as was threatened until it acted in 2000. I hope that hon. Members will consider these matters and that the Government will take forward the policies that I have recommended for targeted sanctions.

09:52

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) on securing this debate. Much of what he said was incredibly interesting and important, and I am grateful to him for the lesson that he gave.

My own involvement in southern Africa began in 1979 when I spent four months in Zimbabwe, Malawi and South Africa. I had two great uncles working for the Colonial Service in Nyasaland, which is now Malawi, and a cousin who ran a fruit farm in the east highlands. In 1994, I gave advice to one of the political parties involved in the general election campaign in Malawi. Such experience gave me a good understanding of the political and cultural differences between this country and the west and southern Africa.

I will not pretend for one moment that I have a better knowledge of southern Africa than the right hon. Gentleman. None the less, my understanding of the region’s culture, coupled with my experience as a Conservative party agent, means that I understand the need for organisation within places. Added to that, my first ever job was working for the Diamond Corporation, so I have a little understanding of how the diamond world operates and how important southern Africa is to the whole industry.

Let me explain where Zimbabwe is at the moment and how it has got there. In 1965, as the Federation was falling to pieces, Ian Smith declared independence. From that moment on, with perhaps a short period of respite, Zimbabwe has had a very chequered career. UDI lasted for about 15 years and only became unsustainable following a bloody and difficult civil war. Zimbabwe was always considered to be the bread basket of Africa, and was able to deliver food to a part of the world that desperately needed it.

Zimbabwe is a country of strategic importance, as it is the gateway to South Africa, which is the principal regional power in this part of the world. We need to be working very closely with the Southern African Development Community and other countries in the region to deliver the route map that has been agreed. We also need to ensure that the international community begins to prepare for life after Mugabe has gone. Indeed, my understanding is that Mugabe is not well. He is thought to have prostate cancer and is spending a lot of time in Singapore. Therefore, we need to ensure that we have a solution for the future that enables us to get close to the region. We need to encourage the moderates within ZANU-PF for the time when Mugabe has gone.

Although the west views Mugabe as a demon whose regime is most certainly responsible for a series of murderous and bloody attacks, he is still seen, in many parts of southern Africa, as one of the great heroes of the struggle for independence. When the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and I were in Zimbabwe last year, we heard the story of how President Zuma took Mugabe into a crowded football stadium, with some 50,000 people, and welcomed him as a war hero. That is one of the difficulties facing President Zuma; how does he keep on side the balance of those people in his country on whom he depends for election but, at the same time, help to deliver this route map as well?

I will not pretend for one moment that Mugabe’s presidency has been a success; it most certainly was at the very beginning but unfortunately, as he has become more isolated, he has turned to more and more violent activities. I am concerned that the proceeds from the Marange diamonds have ended up being used in a corrupt way to fund the ZANU-PF coffers as it prepares for the general election when that happens—probably in the next year.

We must build relationships with the more moderate elements of ZANU-PF and ensure that we work with them to develop a governance process that will lead to an independent judicial system and a police force that is not corrupt. That is incredibly important. I have been talking with my hon. Friends in the Foreign Office about how we might develop a staff college to help those people from the emerging countries, especially places such as Zimbabwe, and show them how to set up a proper judicial system and a police force that is not corrupt. If we do not do that, people will not be willing to invest in Zimbabwe. They will say to themselves, “What is the point of us putting money and investment into Zimbabwe, if it is just going to end up being filtered and dealt with in a corrupt manner?”

When the hon. Member for Vauxhall and I were in Zimbabwe last year, we heard that some investments from South Africa were under a real threat of being confiscated. If that happens, frankly it will be very difficult to encourage anybody to invest in Zimbabwe.

One of the things that we need to do is to work very closely with South Africa to deliver a route map, and I hope that the Minister will take note of that point. We need to ensure that there is decent registration, and that we have observers in the country during the course of the registration process and before the election. If we do not do that, once again—unfortunately—ZANU-PF and Mugabe will go and steal the election, which would be very difficult to accept. We also need to have an approach that recognises that those people in what is probably the medium part of the military feel that if there is somebody else in power they are going to lose all of their assets. Adopting that approach is going to be another thing that is very difficult for us to go through.

I am also very keen to ensure that we recognise that southern Africa has a fundamental part in the whole of the world political strategy. Indeed, the Cape routes have always been incredibly important to us, because by using them we can ensure that we can export a lot of our goods. It would be most unfortunate if the submarines bases down in Simonstown were to fall into the wrong hands. That could be a threat as far as we are concerned.

As I say, having a judicial system that is free and independent is absolutely vital. I have recently heard stories of some Dutch farmers who have made quite a large investment in Zimbabwe. They have been in a court case and they are having real difficulty in trying to ensure that they can get the moneys that they are owed paid to them.

In conclusion, we need to ensure that there is support for the route map, and also that the more moderate people in ZANU-PF will have the opportunity to find a way out and do not feel that the west has totally and utterly turned its back on a lot of people. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out the Government’s attitude towards Zimbabwe.

10:02

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is very nice to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Havard. It is also very nice to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), one of the vice-chairs of the all-party group on Zimbabwe, of which I am the chair.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) for his persistence in securing this debate and for the fact that we are lifting the veil of darkness that sometimes hangs over the whole of the diamond industry generally and particularly in Zimbabwe. He was an outstanding Minister for Africa and I am absolutely delighted that now he is back on the Back Benches he is again able to get more positively engaged in helping Zimbabwe, because his knowledge of southern Africa is absolutely tremendous.

I share most of my right hon. Friend’s analysis—in fact, all of it. I will not go through some of the issues related to individuals involved in the Marange diamond area, but I want to raise some further issues related to that area. Having said that, I am absolutely delighted that over the years the all-party group on Zimbabwe has managed to keep some of these issues about Marange to the forefront. Just a couple of years ago, in June 2010, the then vice-chair of the group, Baroness D’Souza, who is now obviously in charge of the House of Lords, and I wrote to Stéphane Chardon, the EU representative who chaired the Kimberley process Working Group on Monitoring at that time. We expressed our grave concern about the way that human rights abuses and reports of killings in the Marange diamond field were being investigated by the group. We did so because in the many years since the situation in Zimbabwe became really serious the UK Government and other Governments around the world have felt powerless, but through the Kimberley process and through having an EU appointee as chair of the group we had some direct responsibility and control. With many of the points that my right hon. Friend made, we need to look at how the Kimberley process is working and consider whether we can make some effective changes.

I pay tribute to some of the members of the all-party group on Zimbabwe, particularly some of those in the House of Lords, who have continued to probe and ask questions about Zimbabwe. Lord Avebury, Baroness Kinnock and Baroness Boothroyd have been assiduous in keeping pressure on our Government and—indirectly—on the EU, and in ensuring that Government Ministers of whatever party have remained closely engaged with Zimbabwe. I also pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who is the current Minister for Africa, for the close personal interest that he has taken in Zimbabwe and indeed in the whole of southern Africa. I am sorry that he is not here for this debate today. When he phoned me yesterday, he was in Malawi, so I know that he is very intent on trying to see what the British Government can do to help the process in southern Africa.

Of course, Zimbabwe is of close interest to British taxpayers. Through our international development programme, we are expected to pick up the bill eventually—it is quite right that we should do so, and I have no problem with it—for rebuilding much of the infrastructure and institutions of the terribly ruined country of Zimbabwe. However, it would be the most appalling irony if the revenue from the massive national windfall of diamonds should end up in the pockets and overseas bank accounts of the very same army officers and ZANU-PF politicians who have wrecked Zimbabwe, especially if they are allowed to use that windfall to buy weapons, tanks and other vehicles to extend their illegal grip on power.

There is no doubt that, as my right hon. Friend has already said, ZANU-PF functionaries and Ministers are effectively running a parallel economy in Zimbabwe. That is clearly chronicled in the excellent report on Zimbabwe by Global Witness and it is something that we just cannot ignore.

I will mention one particular British company that sometimes does not get mentioned in discussions of Zimbabwe, but that has an involvement in the country. That company is Old Mutual. Last year, we met the chairman of Old Mutual, Patrick O’Sullivan, and its chief executive of long-term savings, Paul Hanratty, here in London just before one of the company’s annual general meetings, where some people were turning up to protest against the fact that Old Mutual’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Old Mutual Investment Group (South Africa) or OMIGSA, had invested in a South African company, the New Reclamation Group, which of course my right hon. Friend has already referred to. New Reclamation Group has a very poor reputation in Johannesburg. It is in fact, as has been said, more or less a scrap metals merchant. It basically presented a business case to Old Mutual to invest in the Mbada Diamonds company, and that investment was made.

We just cannot ignore the fact that a British company is involved in this way. When we talked to the chairman and chief executive of Old Mutual, of course they made the point that they are representing their shareholders and they cannot actually make policy. However, there is a moral judgment to be made in some of this activity, and as a primary landowner and property manager in Zimbabwe Old Mutual is interwoven within the fabric of society and its investment policy, far from being apolitical or just about business, plays a really important role in the country, and if it wishes to avoid perceptions of collusion or acquiescence in the continuing repression and human rights violations in Zimbabwe, it should disengage completely from anything that is linked with blood diamonds, and I call on it to do so.

I want to talk very briefly about a worry that exists at the moment and that was referred to by my right hon. Friend in his speech. It is a worry about the rumours—in fact, they are not rumours, because we all know that there are discussions on this subject going on within the EU—about whether there could be suspension of some of the sanctions that have been imposed. We need to start from the understanding that we are not involved in a “blame game” about who is right or wrong on whether we should consider suspending sanctions; it is a situation in which everyone wants to do the right thing. Sometimes when we are over here discussing what is happening in Zimbabwe, what may seem to us the right thing may not necessarily be the right thing to the people who are involved in the struggle in Zimbabwe.

There is a strong push, particularly from the Southern African Development Community and South Africa, for a carrot in the form of a vote on the new constitution, probably in an October referendum, as part of the global political agreement—the GPA. That would allow the process to go forward to free and fair elections next year, and I understand that we would then suspend sanctions. The detail may not yet be finalised as to how many would be suspended and whether it would be just sanctions on individuals or also direct sanctions involving, for example, the EU’s funding of industry in Zimbabwe, but they would not be lifted, or rather not suspended—it is important that I use the correct terminology—until such time as there was a free and well-organised referendum on the constitution.

It would be easy for a free and relatively peaceful referendum to take place in the autumn, but those who continue to be able to turn on the tap of violence can do so almost at will, and I worry that once we have suspended the sanctions—should we get a free constitutional process—it will be easy for that tap to be turned on extremely quickly. The violence is still there, whenever ZANU-PF and its apparatchiks want to carry out some atrocity. Just last weekend, they stopped a Movement for Democratic Change rally, so it is clear that they can do huge damage at will, and the money from the illegal diamond sales makes it easier for the violence to be turned on, with the machinery that they have.

SADC and South Africa are absolutely crucial, but I have mixed feelings, and am concerned. Perhaps when discussing the suspension of sanctions we can tie South Africa and SADC into the process, so that if some of the sanctions were suspended, but the GPA were not then fulfilled and violence started again, we could be absolutely certain that South Africa and the other SADC countries would do what they have said they would do if the sanctions were suspended. Disappointingly, the SADC leaders have, time after time, seen their solidarity not with the people of Zimbabwe, not with all those who have bravely and patiently struggled to represent the democratic will of the people, but with the crooks, bullies and corrupt people who are committed to keeping Mugabe in power at any price. If the British Government and the European Union suspend sanctions they will be putting huge trust in SADC, and in South Africa in particular as the guarantor of the safety and rights of the Zimbabwean people, and we must be certain that that trust will be rewarded in full by an unequivocal refusal by South Africa, leading the rest of SADC, to excuse or turn a blind eye to any resurgence of violence.

I do not believe that Mugabe will give up power peacefully, or that he will want what we would call a genuinely free and fair election—even with the best will in the world, I do not think that we can have a really free and fair election as we would see it. We can make next year’s election much better than the last one, but only if South Africa and SADC unequivocally accept that they have an international responsibility, and the quid pro quo of removing the ridiculous idea that the sanctions have caused Zimbabwe’s economic crisis. We all know— even the most extreme member of ZANU-PF knows— that that is nonsense, but it has been a potent weapon, used particularly in rural areas where the broadcasting media are still totally in ZANU-PF’s hands, and that has not changed under the GPA. The newspaper media are slightly freer, but the broadcasting media, which are the ones that get into the rural areas, are 100% ZANU-PF dominated. The SADC leaders have too often allowed Mugabe that kind of propaganda victory, by remaining silent on the violence until relatively recently and speaking out only to condemn the targeted measures imposed under the Cotonou agreement.

Many many years ago, when we were young, my right hon. Friend and I joined together in protests about apartheid in South Africa, in what was called the Stop the Seventy Tour, but nothing we did is an excuse for the unleashing of violence and intimidation on Zimbabweans just because Mugabe has a problem with the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth or the United States. Such things are never excusable. I have no expectation that the ZANU-PF hard-liners or the Zimbabwe military will change their ways. They are worried about losing their wealth and their ill-gotten gains.

I hope that we can give enough encouragement to men and women of good will, especially the younger generation who hope for a new Zimbabwe and all the millions of Zimbabweans who have left the country and live around the world. I understand that under the new constitution such people will, importantly, retain their citizenship, and be able to play their part in the new Zimbabwe, and we can help with that. We have to be very careful with the handling of the suspension of sanctions, because some sanctions have worked. It is nonsense to say that they have not—that is why there is such a push to get them lifted—but I accept that there might be some that could be suspended. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, however, that there are some people we cannot possibly take off the lists—indeed, there are one or two we might add.

I want to end by saying that I wish that everyone could read the amazing speech made by one of my Zimbabwean heroes, Roy Bennett, at Rhodes house in Oxford in May. Entitled “Smoke and Mirrors: another look at politics and ethnicity in Zimbabwe”, it was a wonderful speech, which put into around a dozen pages just what the future for Zimbabwe could be, and how we, as the British Government, can help.

10:18

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Havard, for allowing me to speak. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) on bringing this matter, which is of interest to a great many people, to Westminster Hall. The right hon. Gentleman clearly outlined the case for Zimbabwe, and passionately spoke of the need for the British Government, Europe and the free democratic countries to be involved.

It is simply outrageous that some countries are intent on ensuring that blood diamonds are mined and then sold all over the world. Some such countries, as Members have already said, are China—in particular—Russia and the United Arab Emirates. Those countries and others turn a blind eye to where diamonds come from.

I want to focus on the funding through blood diamonds of Robert Mugabe’s election terror campaign, and how it will affect the future of Zimbabwe. Who is Zimbabwe’s main partner in mining blood diamonds? China. The shadow of China hangs ominously over many sections of Africa, but nowhere more than in Zimbabwe. Anjin Investments, a Chinese-led venture in Zimbabwe, has announced that it is the biggest diamond producer, with allegedly 3 million carats to sell. In return, that company is funding a new military college in Zimbabwe for Robert Mugabe. The much-feared Central Intelligence Organisation or CIO, Mugabe’s secret police force, is well known for torture, brutality and suppression of freedom and rights in Zimbabwe. The CIO is flush with cash.

At the last election, Mugabe’s coalition partner controlled finance and, through that, where money went within Zimbabwe. Now, with money coming from blood diamonds, things are changing, and edging much more towards the next election and Mugabe’s hopes for the future. Blood diamond money has purchased hundreds of new vehicles in the past few months and has rearmed the army with thousands of new weapons from China. Salaries have been increased, and thousands of new officers have been trained. We must ask why. Is it happening in advance of the election and constitution change later this year, and of future elections? Many suspect that it will be used to intimidate voters in the next election.

The key to the outcome of the next election lies with the problem of blood diamonds. Over the past nine years, the Kimberley process has failed to evolve or to address the clear links between diamonds, violence and tyranny. It has been said:

“The KP has failed to deal with the trade in conflict diamonds from Côte d’Ivoire, breaches of the rules by Venezuela and diamonds fuelling corruption and state-sponsored violence in Zimbabwe”

and

“has turned an international conflict prevention mechanism into a cynical corporate accreditation scheme.”

That sums up exactly where we are.

The EU represents 27 member states. What discussions have the British Government had to work with other EU countries to stop or control the trade in blood diamonds? It is not an issue for the British Government alone; it is also an EU issue. We need to ensure that we work with our partners.

It is alleged that dirty diamonds are being mixed with clean gems, which means that corruption is happening at the highest levels. It is further alleged that officers in the Zimbabwean army hold senior positions in the Anjin partnership mining venture. Anjin has an estimated stockpile of up to 3.6 million carats. Should anyone be in any doubt about the lengths to which Mugabe’s regime will go, the BBC has claimed in the past few days to have discovered a torture camp known as Diamond Base in one of the areas from which the EU wants to approve exports. Again, I suggest that the British Government and the EU need to work together strongly. Why approve something when evidence clearly indicates that torture, killings and brutality are taking place? We do not want those things to happen. I am sure that the Minister will respond positively.

I have had an interest in Zimbabwe—or Rhodesia, as I knew it then—from an early age. I have many friends who have lived and worked there, helping its economy and its people. That is why I am here to contribute to this debate. Ian Smith, former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, had a famous saying that many Members will remember:

“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

I hope that Zimbabwe will have a free, democratic election and that Mugabe will be ousted, but I have some concerns, like the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), that the elections will be changed by the barrel of a gun and money from blood diamonds. We must, I believe, burst the blister of blood diamonds. The British Government’s involvement is critical.

The Minister is well known for his compassion and his level-headed responses, and we hold him in great respect. I ask him to show us how the British Government, along with their EU partners, will ensure that the democratic process in Zimbabwe is free of violence and brutality, and that the people can decide on their future.

10:25

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

Thank you, Mr Havard, for allowing me to make a short speech although I was late getting here. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) on securing this extremely important debate.

I have quite good experience of Zimbabwe, as I was an election observer in 2000. I have been banned by Mugabe from returning to the country, as I was critical of the regime. This debate is one of many that we have had here that are essential to put pressure on the Mugabe regime.

I have some simple points to make. ZANU-PF and the Mugabe regime need to pay for their army and their tyranny, which is why they need money. That is the blunt message that we need to convey in this debate. Blood diamonds are part of the criminal element that feeds into Government. I would go so far as to call it state-sponsored terrorism and violence. Blood diamonds feed a terrible regime that goes on destroying its people despite the so-called coalition Government in Zimbabwe.

The other point that I want to raise with the Minister is that I have a lot of experience of the European Parliament. Undoubtedly, a lot of countries in Europe with colonial backgrounds have links to different countries. It is therefore important not to take it for granted that all European countries will pull together on Zimbabwe. I ask him to speak to his counterparts in France, Belgium, Germany and all the other states of Europe with past links to Africa to ensure that we pull together to put as much pressure as possible on the regime, close down the trade in blood diamonds and bring about real democratic change. All of this is part and parcel of that. The EU has an important role to play. The diamonds are getting through in various ways, and the EU can do more to pull together. Thank you again, Mr Havard, for letting me speak.

10:28

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure as always to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. It has been a privilege to listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) in this extremely important debate, in which Members have shown their collective experience, knowledge and wisdom. The debate is useful in framing an important period for Zimbabwe. It gives us an opportunity to set some context for the important elections due to take place next year.

I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend, whose knowledge of the issue we all understand. He brings with him the specific experience of having been a Minister for Africa and having been involved in the Kimberley process. We need to use this debate to consider, analyse and assess where the Kimberley process is. If we are to make progress in dealing not just with Zimbabwe but with Africa as a whole, the steps taken by the international community and international institutions to assess the income from the extractive industries in Africa will be a key part of belief in governance and politics in Africa going forward. It is important that we take that into consideration.

I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) for his important observations on the importance of independence in judicial processes, which is still sadly lacking in Zimbabwe. He also made an important point about preparations for next year’s elections. Will the Minister reflect on the contribution that parliamentarians can make in observing elections in countries that are undertaking extremely important consultations on constitutional matters? There is an increasing tendency for parliamentarians to be excluded, ironically, from election observation missions. It is a sorry trend. There are a lot of missions. For example, I went to the Congo last year at a very important time for a very important election—the visit was funded by Christian Aid—and I think that I was the only Member of the House of Commons present, although I was joined by a colleague of mine from the House of Lords. It is important that the House of Commons considers the role of parliamentarians at important elections in countries such as Zimbabwe.

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, however, we have to be careful and think about the context of our relations with Zimbabwe, the way in which the United Kingdom is perceived there, and our connections and imperial past. That is never an excuse for bad behaviour, but, as I will say later, we need to operate from the perspective of principle and ask what the right thing to do is in dealing with the elections. We must try to avoid the lazy accusation that is so often made against the United Kingdom whereby our actions are perceived through the prism of our imperialist past by some in Zimbabwe, particularly the Zimbabwean Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made an excellent contribution, as I would expect. I promise to read Roy Bennett’s speech, and I am sure that she will give me full details of it following the debate. An overall assessment of the position in Zimbabwe is desperately needed. We have made some progress. Obviously, the involvement of Mr Tsvangirai in government has mitigated some of the dreadful things that were happening earlier in the decade, but it is clearly the case—much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath has said explains why—that some individuals in Zimbabwe are extracting vast wealth and they are using it for their own personal interest. That explains their desperate efforts to retain power and I take on board the scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall about them ever giving it up. We have to do all we can to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe, who have suffered so much in recent years, and who still suffer, have the opportunity at the ballot box to elect a Government who truly represent their interests, and not the partial and corrupt interests of many of those people to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath has referred.

We have also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made the important point that this is not just a matter for the British Government. Obviously, we operate at a European level through the European Union’s institutions, but this process can lead to a positive result only if the international community works together. Institutions need to be developed that can effectively monitor the way in which international trade is conducted and that can ensure that the proceeds of the huge wealth under discussion are used for the benefit of the Zimbabwean people.

On that wealth, transparency in the extractive industries will be key both to effective governance throughout many states in Africa and to dealing with the curse of corruption, which still afflicts so many countries in Africa. We have focused on Zimbabwe and the diamond industry, but the principles of openness and accountability are essential if we are to build credibility and belief in politics in Africa.

Today is an important opportunity for us to reiterate our support for and solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe, following the country’s tragic recent history, and to recognise the bravery of so many of the Zimbabwean people who have stood up to state-sponsored violence and intimidation over so many years. We as the United Kingdom have a responsibility to promote peace and democracy in Zimbabwe, and successive British Governments have been guided by the principle of how best to make it possible for the people of Zimbabwe to decide on the future of their own country. Of course, our own relationship has been perceived through the prism of our historic role, but it is important that our present policy is based on principles of openness and accountability and that it should be seen as such by the Government of Zimbabwe.

To set that relationship in context, the previous Labour Government increased aid to Zimbabwe to £67 million in 2009-10, and I am pleased that the present Government have maintained their own commitment to bilateral support. We want to do all we can to support the people of Zimbabwe, and our own constituents also feel strongly about the issue. The Government of Zimbabwe should recognise that. Our commitment is an historical one and it should continue.

It is extremely important that we pay tribute to the valuable work of a number of organisations in and around Zimbabwe, including Global Witness, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath has referred, the Open Society Foundations, and the British Trades Union Congress Action for Southern Africa, which arose out of the anti-apartheid movement. They have all informed and contributed to the debate.

I note that Members from all parties have started questioning the credibility of the Kimberley process. The evidence produced by my right hon. Friend is extremely important and deeply worrying. What is the UK Government’s present assessment of the credibility of the Kimberley process? Do they think that enough is being done to regulate the diamond industry fully and properly, both generally and specifically in relation to Zimbabwe? We have agreed during this debate that the issues are of international importance and that they need to be dealt with on an international basis. In order to achieve an effective international process, we must have belief in the processes that we have set up. My right hon. Friend has raised some real concerns, and unless they are addressed, it will be difficult to retain the trust required in the process to enable us to participate effectively.

This debate is timely, because just a few weeks ago a group of western ambassadors visited two high-security mining fields in Zimbabwe—the Chinese-owned Anjin and Marange resources. The group was headed by the EU ambassador to Zimbabwe, Aldo Dell’Ariccia; the first visit was by foreign diplomats. The Minister will know that, since the EU ambassador’s return, he has spoken about his doubts about the transparency of the operations. What discussions have the UK Government had with the EU ambassadors who visited the fields, and what were the outcomes of the recent visit?

We have also heard of Members’ concerns about enforcement. Critics believe that the Kimberley process appears to be applying enforcement only to crimes committed by rebel groups, but not to human rights abuses committed by Governments such as Zimbabwe’s. The Kimberley process took the decision in November 2011 to lift a ban on the sale of diamonds from the Marange fields in Zimbabwe. We have heard the evidence today; it is deeply disturbing and specific in content, and without a response to those allegations it is difficult to extend further support and confidence to the Kimberley process. What representations have the Government made to those supervising the Kimberley process on human rights abuses in Zimbabwe’s diamond fields?

As I have said, transparency is crucial in all extraction mining activities, including the diamond sector. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath set out, the Opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, runs the Ministries of Finance, of Education, Sport and Culture, and of Health and Child Welfare, while Mugabe’s ZANU-PF retains other Ministries, including the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development. The Finance Minister, Tendai Biti, reports that the Treasury is yet to receive money from the owned Anjin and Marange diamond reserves, and a crucial and simple question must be addressed: where is the money going?

It is essential that funds from diamond reserves go directly to the Treasury of Zimbabwe so that it can support the people of that country and their specific needs. As we have heard, life expectancy remains low, but the Zimbabwean Government are slowly rebuilding the education and health infrastructure. We—the British taxpayer—are trying to help with that process, but we must know and understand that the proceeds of Zimbabwe’s wealth will be spent on Zimbabwe’s real needs: doctors, nurses and teachers.

In a bilateral aid review by the Department for International Development for 2011-12, the Government rightly focused on the UK’s commitment to improving health and education for the people of Zimbabwe, including maternal and child health, water and sanitation. We cannot, however, countenance a situation in which the proceeds of Zimbabwe’s wealth are used for the personal aggrandisement of politicians, or the corrupting or influencing of elections. It has been widely speculated that money is being diverted from the progress that we all want to see, and used instead to supplement and support President Mugabe’s security forces. None of us wants a repeat of the horror and bloodshed that took place in the run-up to the 2008 elections in Zimbabwe, when ZANU-PF supporters and secret policemen killed and tortured hundreds of people. There are reports that Mugabe’s regime has already used diamond money to buy weapons and invest in training to intimidate voters in the elections. Less than a year before Zimbabwe’s next election, can we be confident that diamond assets will not go towards funding ZANU-PF electoral violence?

I look forward to hearing the Minister reiterate the UK’s support for the reform of security forces in Zimbabwe, particularly with regard to preventing ZANU-PF violence and intimidation in the run-up to elections. What discussions have the UK Government had with the Southern Africa Development Community and the African Union to push the issue of security sector reform?

I hope that the Government are working with the international community to ensure the strong presence of electoral observers—including parliamentary observers—both prior to and during the elections in Zimbabwe next year. Reports suggest that the EU is considering removing or suspending some of the targeted sanctions. What discussions have the Minister or his colleagues had with the EU on that issue, and what is the position of the UK in those discussions?

We all know that Zimbabwe has great potential, not only because of its courageous people but because of its past agricultural productivity, resources and the region’s natural advantages. Given our strong historical ties, the UK has a responsibility to do all it can to help to ensure that Zimbabwe becomes a prosperous, stable country. That includes ensuring that the diamond process is transparent, that funds reach the Treasury and that the population benefits. It is our responsibility to exert as much pressure as we can to achieve that end, and I hope that the Minister’s comments will reaffirm that collective goal.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Thank you. I call Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

That is not me.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

I apologise. I should have struck that name off.

10:44

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I will begin by thanking you, Mr Havard, for chairing the debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I also apologise for the obvious absence of the Minister for Africa, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham). As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said, he is currently travelling on the continent, although I know that he has taken a keen interest in this debate. He has followed this issue closely over recent months, and I suspect that he has been in contact with most of the Members present today. He will be interested to read the text of the debate, and he helped me considerably with compiling a response.

I also thank the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) for initiating the debate. His background in this issue, his courage over the years in dealing with the issues that lie behind this debate, not only in Zimbabwe but in South Africa, and his knowledge of the area and work as a Minister, have been exemplary. I appreciate his comments and I will reflect on them as the debate progresses. I share the comments made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) about other hon. Members who have made significant contributions to the debate and expressed their various points of view and knowledge.

I would like to highlight the work of Global Witness and the contribution that it has made with the publication of its report and the various other issues with which it is involved. I commend it for its unrelenting efforts to keep the spotlight firmly on Marange diamonds, and stress how much the Government share its concerns. The issues raised today are of considerable importance for the future of Zimbabwe and the prospects for free and fair elections in that country, and it is therefore important that we approach the debate in that context.

Since the formation of the inclusive Government, the situation in Zimbabwe has grown increasingly complex. We should no longer view Zimbabwe solely through the lens of Mugabe’s continued grip on power, although we must not be naive in assessing prospects for the future. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other hon. Members have been keen to press that point, and I assure the Chamber that the Government are in no way being naive when assessing the current situation of the Zimbabwean Government. For each reform made, another appears to be ignored. Instances of human rights abuses continue to decline, but low-level intimidation and harassment continue. The visit of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was an important step forward, but the day after her departure an MDC activist was brutally killed as a result of political violence.

Therefore, before I address in detail the issue of Zimbabwe’s diamonds and the relevant EU measures, I would be grateful for a few minutes in which to set out the broader picture as viewed by the Government. First, as has been noted in previous debates, we must acknowledge the fundamental progress that has been made in Zimbabwe since the formation of the inclusive Government in 2009, and particularly the impressive and vital turnaround of the Zimbabwean economy. It is fair to say that the pace of political progress has been slower than economic progress, but there have been steps forward, particularly within the last six months. Two key pieces of legislation—the Human Rights Commission Bill and the Electoral Amendment Bill—are about to pass through Parliament. Those important steps demonstrate that the global political agreement is not yet dead.

Even more important is the progress that has been made in the constitutional process, and we understand that negotiators from all parties have agreed a final draft that will soon be submitted to principals for approval. Once agreed, a second all-stakeholders conference should follow before the constitutional referendum takes place, and that is expected before the end of the year. Understandably, there are critics of the process, and particularly of the violence associated with the early stages of outreach. None the less, it represents a significant achievement and an important step towards the elections that we expect to see next year.

It is also important to recognise the ongoing efforts of President Zuma and his partners in the Southern African Development Community—a point made strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile). At the Luanda summit on 1 June, SADC again confirmed that elections cannot take place until necessary reforms have been completed. We continue to support SADC in its role as guarantor of the global political agreement, and applaud its efforts to work with all parties to keep the reform process moving forward.

The hon. Member for Wrexham raised the issue of freedom and fairness, and of elections and the importance of electoral monitoring including parliamentarians. I strongly support him on that. I was an election observer in South Africa in 1999, for the second elections there. Parliamentarians have an immense contribution to make, and it is increasingly important that they have, and take, the opportunity. We look with some concern at attempts to make it more difficult for parliamentarians to take part, so it is important to keep that process moving forward. More than one hon. Member said that South Africa had to take its responsibilities seriously and ensure that what everyone is talking about—a freer and fairer election process—actually happens on the ground. That will be the acid test of whether those currently in power in Zimbabwe recognise the democratic right of a people to change their Government as and when they wish, and to ensure that the process is there for that to be a possibility.

Such a commitment is vital, despite progress, as there is a long road to travel and a closing window of opportunity. High Commissioner Pillay identified many unresolved issues following her recent visit—in particular, the risk posed by some partisan elements in Zimbabwe’s security sector. We share her concerns that

“unless the parties agree quickly on some key major reforms and there is a distinct shift in attitude, the next election…could turn into a repeat of…2008”.

That continues to be the unfortunate, underlying reality of the situation in Zimbabwe. I hope that that note of caution is recognised by the Chamber. We very much understand that reforms are not irreversible. Everything has to be watched very carefully, despite the progress that has been made.

That leads me back to the central issue that is being debated today: the question of Zimbabwe’s diamonds and the influence they will have on the coming elections. The concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman are shared by the Government. As he is aware, there have been some positive developments. The most recent reports by civil society confirm that human rights abuses in Marange have decreased significantly since their peak in 2008, and we welcome that. However, I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns that revenue from Marange diamonds is being used to build an infrastructure of violence and intimidation in the run-up to elections. It is clear that revenue from diamonds is being siphoned off, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Finance Minister Biti reported a shortfall of $92 million of revenue in the first quarter of 2012.

The question of governance and transparency in diamond revenue flows therefore remains genuinely difficult to answer. It is clear that although there is still an important role for the international community—of course, we have discussed this with partners—solutions will have to be found inside Zimbabwe in light of lack of international unity. We have raised concerns about the handling of diamond finance with the British Virgin Islands. We will continue to work with international partners to support Zimbabwe, but our focus is increasingly on helping to improve conditions for effective regulation of the industry. We are, therefore, supporting initiatives by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in the mining sector. We will also bring the new Global Witness report allegations on Anjin to the attention of the Chinese.

The challenge in achieving international unity was illustrated by the difficulties faced by the Kimberley process in dealing with the situation in Marange. Despite being unable directly to address human rights violations owing to its narrow mandate, the Kimberley process managed to impose a near total ban on Marange diamond exports from 2009 to 2011. The agreement reached at Kinshasa last November, to allow restricted exports, is robust but fair. It allows Zimbabwe only to export diamonds from the Marange region that comply with Kimberley process standards. It established a credible independent monitoring mechanism to ensure those standards are respected, including a role for civil society—something hon. Members from all parts of House have supported the fight to achieve. However, as is well known to hon. Members, the remit of the Kimberley process only allows it to take action to tackle

“rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments”.

It is unable directly to address the issue of revenue flows from the sale of diamonds in Zimbabwe, although it has played a helpful role in increasing transparency over production and export data from Zimbabwe.

In answer to the questions from the right hon. Member for Neath and others, I confirm that the UK would like to see the Kimberley Process’s mandate expanded to enable it to take human rights more explicitly into consideration. We have negotiated a strong EU position— the hon. Member for Strangford was keen to know what we had been doing with EU members, and their responsibility—that reflects our sense that the mandate of the process must be widened, and we are encouraging other Kimberley process participants to support that position.

[Mr Hain]

I welcome the fact that the Minister has indicated that the Government will seek to broaden the remit of the Kimberley process on rough diamonds. However, despite a welcome indication that he will raise the question of Anjin with the Chinese Government, he has not said yet whether Anjin, Sam Pa and the Sino-Zimbabwe development will be put on the EU sanctions list when the British Government go to the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on Monday.

[Alistair Burt]

May I address that point a little later in my remarks? The right hon. Gentleman anticipates where I am going.

While in principle we welcome the development of a supplement on diamonds to the OECD due diligence guidance for responsible supply chains of minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas, we do not believe that this is the right time to launch such a process, given the risk of undermining ongoing efforts to reform the Kimberley process. An OECD-led process would also be effective only if the diamond industry and diamond producing states agreed to participate, and therefore significant further consultations would be needed before any such process could begin.

That leads me on to the important and live question of the EU’s targeted measures on Zimbabwe. As all are aware, those measures are under discussion in Brussels. In answer to the questions from hon. Members, let me set out our aim. We want to support the process towards a credible referendum ahead of free and fair elections in 2013. In doing so, we need to encourage progress and incentivise reform, which is why we need to use the measures in the right way to effect a change in behaviour. Therefore, we, and our EU partners, are looking at what options exist to best respond to the clear calls from reformers, including the Movement for Democratic Change, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and President Zuma and SADC, for the EU to show flexibility to support the reform process.

I was grateful to the hon. Member for Vauxhall, because she put it correctly when she spoke of mixed feelings about how to proceed, and of the uncertainty. I do not think it would be any surprise to indicate that that is exactly where we all are. It is difficult to get the balance right. However, we believe the best way to support progress is through a shift in the EU approach. We have, therefore, proposed to partners that, if there is a peaceful and credible constitutional referendum, the EU should respond accordingly with a suspension of the ban on direct EU development aid and a suspension of the asset freeze and travel ban on all but a small core of individuals around President Mugabe, particularly those who will have most influence on the potential for violence in the next election. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no prospect of any suspension being applied to President Mugabe himself. The process will demonstrate to reformers across the political spectrum that the EU is serious about responding to concrete progress on the ground, and reflects our confidence in the facilitation process being undertaken by President Zuma and the leaders of SADC. It also puts the onus on to the Zimbabwe Government to live up to their commitments. If the situation deteriorates, we can, of course, respond appropriately.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, all EU partners need to agree a shift in approach, and discussions are ongoing. Alternative approaches have also been suggested, including steps the EU could take in advance of a constitutional referendum.

Within that broad approach, the question of diamonds is particularly acute. We are grateful to Global Witness for its continued effort to shine a light on evidence, and to the right hon. Gentleman for the evidence he set out today. We have listened carefully, and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will do so, too. The militarisation of diamond finance is an issue that has a direct impact on the prospects for free and fair elections, and we are acutely aware of that risk. We are looking very carefully at the evidence and we will share it with partners. Although the dynamic we seek is one of responding to progress, where there is strong evidence we will of course take it seriously and encourage the addition of further names, but hon. Members will understand if I do not go into detail. Ultimately, this decision will be taken by all 27 member states in unanimity, based on the legal arguments.

We have had a very important debate, the consequences of which are long lasting. I hope I have done something to indicate the general approach of the Government, to recognise the evidence raised, and to give an assurance that evidence is taken into account in our discussion with all our partners. We know this is a complex area. We want to see progress and we hope that the deliberations of the Chamber and our own considerations will help that progress to move forward without any suspicion of naivety in our approach to the Government of Zimbabwe.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

I apologise for my senior moment earlier, Mr Burt, and I thank you for the quality of your responses. We now move to the next debate.

Stop and Search (Metropolitan Police)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate about the use of stop-and-search by the Metropolitan police. I should like to declare an interest, although it is not the normal type of interest that Members of Parliament declare in the House. I am a white 37-year-old woman. I have never been stopped by the police. My contact with them has only ever been polite, professional and reassuring. On the whole, I think they do a difficult job very well. Although I suspect those sentiments are shared by the majority of my constituents, I know they are not shared by all of them. That is why I called for this debate.

When I became an MP two years ago, I had limited knowledge of stop-and-search as a policing tool. I knew that the police had the power to stop people whom they suspected of wrongdoing and to search them for weapons and drugs. I knew that on occasions the police could issue a blanket provision in an area for a specified period, which would enable officers to stop individuals, even without reasonable suspicion, if serious violence was anticipated or had just happened. I also knew that under terrorism legislation the police could stop and search individuals who were suspected of involvement in terrorist acts.

What I did not know when I became an MP, but do know now, is how often stop-and-search is used by the police in certain parts of London and how young black and Asian men in particular are disproportionately affected. I had not appreciated the damage that can be done to individuals, families and communities when that policing tool is used inappropriately and to excess. I also know now that only one in 10 stop-and-searches in London results in an arrest.

In my two years as an MP, I have had my eyes opened. Mums have attended my surgeries in tears about the way in which their sons have been treated by the police. I have met young men and boys who tell me that they have been stopped by the police and been treated roughly and rudely and that they have felt embarrassed, humiliated and targeted. To be fair, I have met others who have also been stopped and searched who tell me that, although it was not a nice experience, they thought that the police did a reasonable job and that they did not have any complaints.

The Government and the Metropolitan police need to go further and faster to improve the way that stop-and-search is used. As it is used at the moment, it can be counter-productive and can create tension and mistrust between the police and the communities that they serve and protect. I want to be assured that, at the highest level, the Government and the police understand the resentment that has built up over a number of years among some individuals in certain sections of the population who feel that they are being disproportionately targeted. Although the power to stop and search is important and must remain, the number of occasions on which stop-and-search is used in London should be reduced. Section 60 notices—the blanket provisions that I have mentioned—must be used less frequently and cover smaller areas.

Of all stop-and-searches carried out under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, 89% are in the Metropolitan police area. Between 2006 and 2009, the number of those searches nationally went from 44,659 to 118,112. Within that figure, the number of black people stopped increased by 303%, from about 9,000 to nearly 39,000, and the number of Asian people stopped increased by 399%. Although that type of stop-and-search is now thankfully on the decline, with a 49% drop in the past year, it lies behind the resentment and anger that have grown in some communities in London. It is the backdrop to a situation that was reflected in the report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission last month, which showed that if you are black you are 37 times more likely to be stopped under a section 60 notice than if you are white.

Getting a grip on section 60 notices and limiting the instances in which they are used is one action point identified by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in his plan to improve the effectiveness of stop-and-search. I welcome that move and urge him, and the Government, to monitor closely boroughs in London with the highest authorisations historically, especially where those authorisations cover whole boroughs, as opposed to specific localities.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. A hallmark of a free society is that all citizens are able to walk freely around without undue expectation of being stopped. She correctly observes that the statistics between boroughs are variable. Is she puzzled, as I am, about why, out of all the stop-and-searches under the Terrorism Act 2000, none resulted in arrests for terrorism offences and fewer than 1% for other offences? It is not just disproportionality between boroughs and in the total amount that ought to be a consideration for the Minister; he should also consider the effectiveness of stop-and-search in stopping crime.

[Heidi Alexander]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s puzzlement about those facts. Although I do not plan to speak a lot about the effectiveness of stop-and-search as a policing tool in the short time available today, the Metropolitan police and the Government need to consider that in terms of the number of arrests. It could be argued—the hon. Gentleman has made this point in previous debates—that police time is being wasted in some respects and would be better spent focusing on other areas.

It is critical that people understand that there is a clear reason for the stop, and the manner in which the stop-and-search is carried out is also important. The problem with the section 60 stops is that they seem to be underpinned by a generic rationale and expectation that there will be or has been trouble. That serves to label certain individuals and groups, even if it is not the intention.

An excessive use of section 60 notices has exacerbated police-community tensions in London. Other issues must also be addressed. Young people in particular need to better understand their rights and, to put it bluntly, more complaints need to be made when stop-and-search is carried out badly. When complaints are justified and found to be fair, they must lead to changes in police practice.

I often ask young men who express their concern to me about stop-and-search whether they have ever made a complaint. The answer is a universal no, even when they feel that they have been treated disrespectfully. There is often a lack of trust in the system and a fear that, if they complain, it will just make matters worse. That is true for the families of the individuals being stopped as much as for the individuals themselves. In fact, during my advice surgery in Catford this Saturday, that point was made to me by a mum of a young man who had been repeatedly stopped. Some parents—particularly without English as their first language—lack the basic understanding of what is acceptable and not acceptable and how to make a complaint. A way around that has to be found. If complaints are not made and individual officers are not disciplined because bad practice is not identified and dealt with, how will progress ever be made?

I mentioned the mum I spoke to on Saturday, and I will tell the Chamber a bit more about her family’s experiences. As I said, her 16-year-old son has been stopped repeatedly by the police. I asked her how many times and she said that she had lost count. Her son has severe special needs and earlier this year he was charged with resisting arrest following a stop-and-search. On Friday last week, the courts found him not guilty of the charge, but the judge in summing up referred to the excessive police force used against him.

The effect of perpetual but arguably unwarranted police attention on that young man cannot be overstated. His mum believes that the reason he is now being treated by Lewisham’s child and adolescent mental health services is that his self-esteem has been damaged so badly by the police approach towards him. In a follow-up e-mail to me on Sunday, she said:

“I feel that the police should have a greater understanding of our young people with SEN needs. My son has had an educational statement since he was 8 years old. This means that since this age it has been acknowledged he has complex needs, yet when I told Lewisham police station that he was under CAMHS they had no idea what I was talking about. The police are taking statements from young men without any idea of their mental or educational disabilities.”

That is not the only case of that sort that has been brought to my attention in the past year. Other mums have talked to me about how their sons have felt targeted by the police, how their sons’ attitude towards the police has changed and, in some cases, how their sons’ behaviour has also changed. I appreciate that in some cases the practice of poor police stop-and-search may not be the only factor contributing to their sons’ behaviour change, but I have heard it from enough parents to believe that we must address the issue.

Better training of police officers in the practice of stop-and-search is vital if people’s experience of it is to improve. In Lewisham, we are lucky to have Second Wave, a local community group based in the borough, which has done excellent work to help the local police and the territorial support groups to understand the perspectives of the young people who are on the other end of that policing tool. Second Wave also goes into schools to enable young people to understand the perspective of the police. That sort of approach should be universal throughout the Metropolitan police area. We are also fortunate in Lewisham to have, as part of our police community consultative group, an active stop-and-search group, which is concerned by suggestions that such groups might be abolished and is adamant that the police must be more and not less transparent and accountable in how they use stop-and-search. I agree.

I am conscious that the Government and the Metropolitan police realise that stop-and-search is an issue. Indeed, the report earlier this year from the Riots, Communities and Victims Panel noted that police stop-and-search practices were one of the factors behind last year’s riots. The Government have their review of best practice, and the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner has set out a number of areas in which he would like to see improvement, but looking at best practice is one thing, and being honest about bad practice is another—both must happen if everyone is to have faith in the system.

We also need a means by which to measure progress against the laudable aims set out by the police commissioner in London. Perhaps the Minister can say what he sees success and failure looking like in London. What specific changes would he like to see in the practice of stop-and-search in our capital city, and over what time frame?

Stop-and-search is an important police power. If we are to tackle the serious problems of gun and knife crime, there will be occasions on which the police have to be able to perform a stop-and-search. At the moment, however, young people in my constituency feel “over-policed and under-protected”, as the Home Affairs Committee said a few years ago. That has to change, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments today on how he plans to achieve that.

23:14

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing the debate. The subject is of great interest to many people and communities, in London and elsewhere, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it.

Stop-and-search is an important area of operational policing policy and I recognise that, despite many improvements in how stop-and-search is carried out and recorded, its use continues to be a source of tension and concern in some communities and, in particular, among those of black and minority ethnic origin. The Government and the Metropolitan Police Service are clear that stop-and-search is a vital part of a police officer’s toolkit in deterring and combating crime and antisocial behaviour, especially knife crime, which is of particular public concern. It is, however, unacceptable that individuals might be targeted because of their race.

Stop-and-search is an important tool for the police but, in order to maintain the British model of policing by consent, which is so important, it is essential that the powers are used fairly and with the support of communities to protect the public. The uninformed use of stop-and-search, without the proper use of intelligence and the briefing of front-line officers, is likely to be unproductive in terms of identifying those carrying weapons and counter-productive in terms of community confidence. I agreed with what the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) said about the importance of ensuring that any disposals such as this that are used by the police are used in a way that ultimately succeeds in reducing crime—in reducing crime, it is important that public confidence in the actions of the police is maintained. The benefits of stop-and-search need to be carefully weighed against any negative impact on the confidence in the police service by the community and, in particular, by those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.

In general, stop-and-search powers are used in a proportionate and appropriate way in most cases, but their use needs to be improved by some forces. That is why in December last year the Home Secretary asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to look at best practice on stop-and-search. ACPO has submitted its report to the Home Secretary, which I am keen to see published so that forces may take advantage of the learning in it. The report is an important reminder that there are excellent examples of effective practice in the use of stop-and-search. ACPO is considering arrangements for publication.

The Metropolitan Police Service is the largest user of stop-and-search, and the new Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are aware of the impact on community trust and confidence of stop-and-search, which is why this January they announced a radical programme, “Stop It”, to improve the effectiveness of stop-and-search. The programme has led to a significant change in the way that the Metropolitan police use stop-and-search powers. I noted that the hon. Lady herself referred to the action that the leadership of the Metropolitan police is taking and it is welcome.

The “Stop It” programme focuses on three main areas in relation to the use of the powers: trust and confidence; effectiveness; and the protection of communities from violent crime. The aim is to renew the focus on reducing violence and for the power to be used in a more intelligence-led and targeted way, reducing the numbers of searches, leading to more arrests and more weapons seized and improving the standard of the encounter between the police and the public.

I want to come back to the “Stop It” initiative shortly, but I first want to address the issues that have been raised, including previously by the hon. Lady, about the blanket use of stop-and-search powers under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which is sometimes referred to as a “no suspicion” power. There are appropriate safeguards in the authorisation process for a section 60 order and the authorisation is rightly limited in its scope. I am pleased to learn that in the Roberts case the High Court has just found that the powers under section 60 are lawful. The Court stated that, while nothing in the legislation is racially discriminatory, the question of whether the legislation is being used in a racially discriminatory way is important.

Section 60 enables a police officer of at least inspector rank to authorise officers to stop individuals to search them for knives and other offensive weapons. The officers making the stops do not need to have individual suspicion that the person they are stopping is carrying a weapon. The authorisation, once granted for a period of up to 24 hours, can be extended only for a further 24 hours if authorised by an officer of at least superintendent rank.

The hon. Lady will be interested to note that the Met, under its “Stop It” programme, is aiming to reduce the overall number of authorisations under section 60 and to increase the intelligence threshold required to authorise pre-planned section 60 orders. The latest statistics on police powers and procedures demonstrate considerable progress, showing that the use of section 60 stop-and-search by the Met fell by 41% between 2009-10 and 2010-11. As “Stop It” rolls out, we expect the use of stop-and-search to drop further still.

That general approach of the more targeted use of stop-and-search by the Met will also continue during the Olympics, and I can confirm that there are no plans for blanket section 60 orders to be in place in particular areas. It remains an important policing tactic and a deterrent to crime, and will be used when appropriate, but based on the crime and intelligence picture at the time.

The hon. Lady’s borough of Lewisham has been at the forefront of stop-and-search work for some time, particularly in relation to the level of community engagement. She may know that in November 2010, a National Policing Improvement Agency-led initiative, “Next Steps”, was piloted in Lewisham. The purpose of that work was to improve community confidence in the use of stop-and-search. Evaluation of the work found that community satisfaction rates had improved, and that community groups were effective in their monitoring of stop-and-search.

One element of “Next Steps” was the briefing process, based on situation, background, assessment and recommendations, given to task officers to carry out stop-and-search based directly on intelligence. That element has now been adopted within the “Stop It” initiative. When the initiative commenced this year, some key performance indicators were set by the Met. They included improving the positive outcome rate to 20%, reducing the volume of negative drugs searches by 50%, increasing the proportion of weapon searches to 20%, and a 50% reduction in pre-planned section 60 authorities. The Met is aiming to achieve those targets by the end of March 2013.

The hon. Lady asked what specific steps I would like to be taken to ensure demonstrable progress. I have described the general reduction in the number of stop-and-search occurrences, and I hope that it is helpful for her to know that the Met has set itself indicators that it aims to achieve.

The progress made in relation to the “Stop It” initiative is reported to the Police Public Encounters Board, which is chaired by the ACPO lead for the stop-and-search initiative, and the Deputy Commissioner of the Met, Craig Mackey. Current performance shows that the positive outcome rate, which consists of arrests and cannabis warnings or penalty notices for disorder, is 17.3% for June 2012. That is a significant improvement on the rate in January 2011, which was 10.6%. The total number of pre-planned section 60 authorities for the Met for June 2012 was just six, a significant reduction on June last year where there were 103 authorities.

The Met is committed to ensuring “Stop It” will continue beyond this period as a routine part of policing to achieve the highest levels of trust and confidence in the use of Stop-and-search as a tactic for keeping our streets safe. Effective community monitoring remains at the heart of that work, and provides an opportunity to have an accountable process for delivering on confidence and satisfaction. Local monitoring will take place through the community monitoring groups, which are provided with the most up-to-date performance data for their respective areas and a process to hold senior officers to account.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful for the information about the reduction in stop-and-search that the Met has achieved. I do not want to drag the Minister too far away from the specifics of the metropolitan area, but will he comment on the impact that elected police and crime commissioners may have in enhancing accountability to local communities in their sensitivities to stop-and-search?

[Nick Herbert]

I know of my hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in this policy area. Elected police and crime commissioners will be responsible for holding the police to account in their force area, and in turn will be accountable to the public. Their responsibility is to secure efficient and effective policing, but they will need to be aware that to do that and to drive down crime—I have no doubt every candidate seeking election on 15 November will aim to do that—they must maintain the confidence of communities in their local police service. They will need to be alive to the importance of effective programmes to build community confidence in the way that the police service is policing the streets, and the use of stop-and-search powers and so on, but also in terms of the ambition that we should collectively have to ensure that the police service is reflective in its make-up of society today and that we continue to make progress. That has been important but not sufficient in relation to the proportion of officers from black, minority and ethnic communities, both in the nature of policing and how it is conducted, and in the make-up of the police service as a whole, and the wider interactions that the police service has with the community. Police and crime commissioners will want to be alive to all those issues, because they all relate directly to the force’s ability to reduce crime. They are not nice-to-do things or add-on things; they are important in themselves.

[Heidi Alexander]

Before taking that intervention, the Minister was talking about the “Stop It” action plan, and the progress that he and the Commissioner want to see by March 2013. Six months have already passed since the action plan was launched in January this year, and I wonder what progress report he has received on the specific indicators, other than section 60 stops. Can he update us on the progress that has been made so far?

[Nick Herbert]

I provided the hon. Lady with some of the updated information to last month about the number of stop-and-searches. First and foremost, the Met is held to account locally by the Mayor, and that is important. It is the Mayor’s responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient and effective policing. Of course we take an overall interest in policing, but it is for the Mayor to exercise that scrutiny, and to account to Londoners for that.

Notifying people that they are in an area where searches may take place is also being taken forward in the Met. That provides a number of benefits, including providing reassurance, acting as a preventive measure, and sending a clear message to those intent on carrying weapons that the police will seek them out and arrest them. The Met is currently using and expanding its use of a number of methods of communication, including leaflets, signs, text messaging, e-mail, Twitter, and other social networks.

In conclusion, I reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting the police to improve the use of stop-and-search. However, individual police forces know their own communities better than Whitehall does. Increasingly, they will be answerable to their local communities in the use of police tactics such as stop-and-search. In London, that will be through the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford noted, in the rest of England and Wales, through elected police and crime commissioners from November 2012. Furthermore, we announced in December our intention to introduce a new professional policing body that will develop skills and leadership, and improve policing standards. I expect that body to take the closest interest in this policy area. Yesterday, we updated the House on the very good progress on the formation of that body by the end of the year. It will be known as the College of Policing, and I am pleased that ACPO, the Police Superintendents’ Association and others are supporting it. It will be a service-led body to ensure that we are promoting high standards in policing.

I hope that that gives the hon. Lady some assurance that both the Government and the senior leadership of the Metropolitan police takes this issue very seriously, and are committed to reducing any undue disproportionality, improving the efficiency and effectiveness in the use of stop-and-search powers, and enhancing public confidence in their use.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

High Speed 2 (Heathrow)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr William McCrea in the Chair]

14:30

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is present. I am sure that she has lots of better things to do on an afternoon such as this, and it is a great pleasure to have her and other colleagues, all of whom are friends, in the debate.

There have been a number of Government announcements about rail investment over the past few days, so today’s debate is most timely. Let me state from the outset that I stand fully behind the Government’s proposed investments in our rail and high-speed rail networks. In order to allow our economy to compete with its European and global counterparts, it is vital that we have a truly world-class infrastructure.

I shall begin my remarks by discussing briefly the issue of western access to Heathrow—a matter of interest to my constituents in the Cotswolds—and I will then discuss the connectivity, or lack of, between High Speed 2 and Heathrow. It is, of course, possible for my constituents, and others in the west and south-west, to reach Heathrow by rail, but the requirement to change trains acts as a huge disincentive so people travel by road instead. For example, of the 650,000 passenger journeys from Oxford to Heathrow each year, an overwhelming number—98.9%—take place by road, rather than by rail. It is therefore important that all necessary steps are taken to encourage more people from the west of the country to access Heathrow by rail.

The creation of a spur from Reading to Heathrow will benefit those in the immediate vicinities of Reading and Slough, but for those further afield, at least one change of trains will be required. In addition to the Reading link, the creation of a new Heathrow station and a new hub with fast transport links to the main airport would provide a direct rail link to Heathrow for people in the west, south-west and Wales. Such a hub would act as a gateway to the airport, with connections by road as well as rail. A significant amount of the check-in and logistical facilities could be hosted at the new hub, allowing a complete transformation of the terminal structure at Heathrow airport. That would allow a far more efficient airport structure, with significant benefits for passengers and freight services—that is vital given that Heathrow is responsible for handling over half of the UK’s total air freight.

Given that we are in the process of electrifying the Great Western main line, we have a huge opportunity to create a fantastic rail and aviation link between the east and west of the country, with potentially huge benefits for people and businesses in the west, south-west and Wales. In my view, that goes hand in hand with the construction of HS2, which is the most costly single project ever envisaged by the Government.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise for intervening so early, but I may have to go to the other Chamber for a debate. Will the hon. Gentleman explain where he thinks such a hub would be located? What are his views on the best options for the hub’s location?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I will explain, but it was not my purpose to favour any one particular commercial option in this speech. A site is available within the vicinity of the interchange of the M25 and the M4, and there may well be others. It is a significant site of about 500 acres of largely disused land, so a possibility is available.

[John McDonnell]

Is that the Iver site?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I believe it is.

As I was saying, HS2 is the most costly single project ever envisaged by the Government, and will probably require more than the £34 billion often quoted. That figure is based largely on the assumption that 70% of HS2 users will be leisure passengers, and that seems a somewhat optimistic projection of income given that those people are price sensitive rather than time sensitive. To provide the House with a comparison, £34 billion compares with the £25 billion cost of the Trident replacement, and with the £17 billion for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and aircraft. HS2 is, therefore, a massive capital infrastructure project.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He talked about HS2 being phenomenally expensive, and he has mentioned that a number of assumptions have been made. Does he believe that it would be important and useful to have an independent review of HS2 and its usefulness to the economy?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

In light of what I am about to say about the alternative hub possibility, it may be that some form of review of the whole HS2 route would be a good idea. Perhaps my hon. Friend’s concerns and my suggestions could be incorporated into one study.

In this Parliament alone we will be spending £750 million on HS2 before a spade enters the ground, with £529 million to be spent between 2012 and 2015, according to answers to my written parliamentary questions Nos. 106148 and 106541. With the greatest humility, I say to the Minister that it is vital that we get the scheme right. It is no good commencing works only to realise at a later date that we could have done something better, because by that point it will be too late to change course. The UK has lagged behind our European counterparts in the construction of a high-speed rail project, but that presents us with an opportunity to take on board what has worked previously, and learn from mistakes made in other countries. There appears to be a lack of a strategic link between our aviation and rail policies. Indeed, as the Transport Committee in its recent report on high-speed rail stated:

“The development of what could emerge as separate strategies for rail and aviation again highlights the absence of an overall transport strategy: this is a lacuna which must be filled.”

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. On the relationship between aviation and rail, does he think that by the time the project is actually completed, there may well be a totally different set of circumstances as far as air transport is concerned?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I anticipated that sort of intervention, and perhaps I will cover the hon. Gentleman’s point in my speech. If I do not, I will be happy to give way to him later in the debate.

We need only look at the Netherlands, Germany and France, and at airports such as Schiphol, Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle, to see the routeing of new high-speed lines via hub airports to create a direct interchange between air, high-speed rail, and the existing classic rail network. The purpose of linking Heathrow and HS2 is to provide an integrated rail and aviation system that would release scarce airport capacity by shifting short-haul flights to rail.

The current proposal is to build a spur from HS2 to Heathrow. However, that will not happen until the 2030s at the earliest, so at best Heathrow will not receive a high-speed rail link for around 20 years. If HS2 were linked directly to Heathrow under the proposals that I am outlining, it would receive a high-speed link soon after construction on phase 1 begins in 2026.

Another important design factor is that because the spur points only north, rail services between Heathrow and Europe would not be possible, and the potential for replacing short-haul flights will not be fully realised. We would, therefore, have to wait even longer until the spur has been extended to form a southern loop around Heathrow to connect it with HS1, but no plans are in place for that, let alone a firm budget. Again, I say with great humility to the Minister that no other country deliberately seeks to bypass its main airport in that way.

The spur is also inherently inefficient as it relies solely on airport passengers filling trains. European precedents show the benefit of having airports on a main line, thereby allowing trains to serve both city-to-city and airport passengers, like a string of pearls linking each together.

[Mr Donohoe]

In a previous Adjournment debate, one question was never raised although it might have solved a lot of problems. Is the hon. Gentleman aware—as a regular customer of the airport, I am—of the distances and time it takes to travel between terminals at Heathrow? As a consequence of those times and distances, a single hub railway station would not really make a lot of difference.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Gentleman picks up a very important point. I was not going to have time to make it in my speech, but I will now answer his intervention. I believe that it would be perfectly possible to have, from the hub that I am suggesting, a relatively high-speed bus that not only takes people into a terminal at Heathrow, but takes them directly to where the aircraft are. There are all sorts of exciting possibilities to make passenger journeys an awful lot easier than they are at present.

In the “Draft Aviation Policy Framework”, published last Friday by the Government, they recognise the following:

“Rail offers opportunities for efficient and environmentally-friendly connections to airports, particularly for larger airports where passenger numbers are sufficient to justify fast and frequent services.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the House. When the Civil Aviation Bill was discussed in Committee and on the Floor of the House, rail links were clearly important factors. The hon. Gentleman is outlining that case now. Does he believe that if a rail link is established along the lines that he is suggesting, that will provide an economic boost? I am thinking of, for instance, connections with the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—the world’s developing economies, where job opportunities come from and where contacts are made. Does he believe that there will be job creation in his constituency and other constituencies as a result?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

That is why I think that world-class infrastructure is vital—for job creation and economic prosperity—but it is also vital, when spending these very large sums, to ensure that we have the best solution. I will go on to explain why I believe that my proposal not only is cheaper, but could be delivered quicker and will produce a better result.

As there is no airport in the UK larger and more important than Heathrow, which alone accounts for 1% of the UK’s GDP, should we not do whatever we can to improve rail links, including with the HS2 project, as I was saying to the hon. Gentleman? The Government have repeatedly stated their wish to see Heathrow become a “better, not bigger” airport, but Heathrow continues to grow in terms of the numbers of passengers using the airport. That is something that we should celebrate, frankly. However, air quality, congestion and delays are already significant issues at Heathrow and, in the case of the air quality, it is illegal. Without an integrated approach to surface access, Heathrow’s challenges can only get worse.

How would a direct link between Heathrow and HS2 help? The answer can be found in the Conservative party’s rail review, published in opposition by the Minister. Although she will not thank me for quoting it, I will nevertheless. It clearly sets out the benefits of integrating air and rail infrastructure. It states:

“Good connections to major airports…also significantly enhance the benefits of high speed rail. So a Conservative Government will support proposals…for a new Heathrow rail hub. This would link Heathrow terminals directly into the main rail network and the lines to Reading, Oxford, Bristol, Plymouth, Cardiff, Swansea, Cheltenham and Southampton, greatly improving public transport links to the airport.”

It also stated:

“The plan would also include construction of a new high speed link connecting Heathrow…to the Channel Tunnel Rail link and the new route north, providing a viable alternative to thousands of short haul flights now clogging up the airport. By freeing up landing slots, our proposal would help tackle overcrowding problems and allow more space for long haul flights, making Heathrow a much better airport, but without the environmental damage that would be caused by a third runway.”

I could not have put it better myself.

It is potentially billions of pounds cheaper to route the high-speed line via a Heathrow interchange on the Great Western main line, compared with the current proposal for the development of a series of branch lines, loops and spurs. The current costs of building HS2 from London to Birmingham, followed by a spur from HS2 to Heathrow and then a loop to rejoin the HS2 main line at Old Oak Common, is projected to be in the region of £20.5 billion to £20.7 billion. However, a connection along the lines that I am suggesting, between HS1 and HS2, connected directly to Heathrow and then on to Birmingham and further north, is projected to cost £17.5 billion, which represents a significant saving on the current proposal. That route, I believe, would be quicker to build, and the passage of the hybrid Bill through Parliament might well be easier, as there would be fewer objections.

Shifting passengers from road to rail and making Heathrow operate more efficiently by reducing passenger and aircraft overcrowding mean that the environmental impacts will be reduced. Let me give an example. Unite the Union calculates that a B747 taxiing and holding for 40 minutes on the ground—a not uncommon occurrence at Heathrow—uses as much fuel as it does at cruise altitude from the UK to New York. Of course, that not only contributes to Heathrow’s air quality failing to comply with legal limits, but increases airlines’ costs. Additionally, the relocation—the point that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was making—of landside facilities outside the existing congested airport site will create more space for aircraft, allowing for more efficient operations. It is suggested that removing unnecessary ground facilities and streamlining the structures of the terminals at Heathrow could allow the creation of an additional 18% of air capacity in one fell swoop. Although that would not remove the demand for a third runway at Heathrow, it would certainly provide the breathing space necessary for the Government to undertake full consideration of the options available to them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) suggested.

A high-speed route via Heathrow also avoids the major environmental impacts of the current proposals on the Chilterns and west London. It would follow the example of HS1 by following motorway corridors and the shortest route through an area of outstanding natural beauty, with tunnelling below existing rail corridors where the new line passes through urban areas. The proposed route of HS2 will pass underground from Euston to Old Oak Common before moving overground through large parts of densely populated west London. The line then goes through 20.8 km of an AONB, of which 7.6 km will be above ground and the remaining 13.2 km in a tunnel.

My alternative route via Heathrow would see the entire route through west London tunnelled underneath the Great Western main line before surfacing near Heathrow. Of course, that would involve significantly more tunnelling in London than the current proposals. However, the greatest costs of tunnelling are in the initial set-up. The cost per mile of tunnelling drops as we tunnel further. That approach would greatly reduce noise and air pollution during the construction phase for very large numbers of people. It would follow the precedent set by HS1: much of the line is tunnelled under London, with only a 1-mile section approaching St Pancras overground. It would then have far less surface impact than the current HS2 route, which will pass overground through vast swathes of west London.

The line would then proceed overground to Beaconsfield in the M40 corridor before entering a 12-km tunnel through the entire width of the Chilterns AONB at its narrowest point. In other words, the impact on the Chilterns would be minimised. This tunnel not only would be shorter, but would remove almost entirely the impact of HS2 on the AONB. That might assuage the extremely vocal and well funded local opposition groups that have been set up and that are heavily involved in the judicial review proceedings against the Government in relation to the current HS2 proposals.

Directly connecting Heathrow with the UK’s regions and Europe in the first phase of high speed rail allows rail to replace both domestic and European short-haul flights, releasing vital additional capacity and resilience while linking the UK’s regions to the country’s hub airport. Improving access from the UK regions to Heathrow, our only hub, means that business links with global markets are improved, giving passengers the choice of flying via Heathrow or from regional airports.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington would agree with this. The UK is beginning to lose the aviation advantage that we have consistently had in the past by offering more flights to Asia. Heathrow is now losing out to airports such as Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol and Frankfurt, which are offering more flights to Asian destinations. The knock-on effect is that businesses—

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

That is just not true. Heathrow is one of the most successful hub airports in the world. It offers more flights to BRIC destinations; it offers more flights to China than any of its continental rivals. London is arguably the best-connected city in the world, with far more connections than equivalent cities around Europe, including connections to 360 destinations worldwide.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

With great respect to my right hon. Friend, that may be true for routes to north America, but I think that it is beginning to be—[Hon. Members: “No.”] Let us look at the figures. I think that for secondary Chinese airports, Frankfurt is beginning to overtake Heathrow. I am happy to stand corrected on that, if it is not true. The knock-on effect is that businesses are likely to locate to where the best air connections are, not only for passengers but for freight.

Are there any disadvantages to the approach I am outlining? The answer, in my view, is not really. Birmingham is as far west of London as it is north, so it is incorrect to say that a route west of HS2’s alignment is somehow taking the line out of its way. A diversion of HS2 via Heathrow will add perhaps only three minutes to journey time for trains to stop at Heathrow. I suggest that that is immaterial when set against the benefits I outline. Indeed, British Airways and HS2’s own external challenge groups confirm that, in reality, passengers do not ascribe any value to such small journey time savings, and claiming that each minute saved is worth £0.6 billion seems rather simplistic.

The direct linking of Heathrow and HS2 and improved access to Heathrow from the west would provide enormous benefits to the people and businesses in my constituency and many others to the west of Heathrow. It is, as I have said, vital, given the costs involved, that we maximise the benefits of high-speed rail.

I am fully supportive of the project in principle, and I am certainly not calling for the Government to abandon and give up on all the good work they have done so far. I would urge the Minister however to use the opportunity, before the hybrid Bill is introduced to Parliament, to pause and reflect on whether the direction we are taking, both physically and metaphorically, is the right one. If we take time to consider an integrated approach to air and rail, we can consider the entire HS2 route at the same time. We could then start construction from both north and south in order that the completion date is not extended.

Though it is obviously only one element of the HS2 project, the decreasing business case ratio for HS2, which now stands at 1.2:1, is another reason why we should examine the matter further. Indeed, as the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the now Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), said in evidence to the Select Committee on Transport:

“If it”

—the business case ratio—

“were to fall much below 1.5, I would certainly be putting it under some very close scrutiny.”

Given the importance of putting in place world-class infrastructure, it is vital that the Government retain an open mind. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend the Minister has to say on the matter. I would be grateful if she agreed to meet me and other interested colleagues once Parliament has returned in September, to discuss this matter in further detail.

Not only would the hub proposal enormously improve road, rail and air connectivity, it is also a win-win: it is potentially cheaper; the disturbance and environmental pollution in densely populated areas of London is reduced; the damage to the Chilterns AONB is far less; and the connectivity to Heathrow for my constituents, businesses in the Cotswolds and others in the west, south-west and Wales is greatly improved. In short, it is the sort of strategic infrastructure investment that the UK needs to project us back towards the top echelons of global competitiveness for the duration of the 21st century.

14:53

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Minister; I cannot be here for her response because I will be in the debate in the main Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing the debate. It is an invaluable debate to secure at this time.

In several debates on the issue, I have expressed concerns that the High Speed 2 consultation did not include the Heathrow link as part of a comprehensive consultation on the overall route. The consultation on the Heathrow link was done separately, which was incongruous to say the least. So far, we have witnessed 11 separate options for the link between high-speed rail and Heathrow, in addition to the hub proposal that has been brought forward. I would welcome more information from the Minister in due course on the exact route of the western link into Heathrow announced yesterday.

High-speed rail has consequences for my borough. Despite the Government’s welcome assurances on the tunnelling that will go ahead, areas of Hillingdon will still be directly impacted by high-speed rail. It will have a deleterious effect on people’s homes and local communities. I would welcome further information on the Government’s consideration of the representations that have been made by the London borough of Hillingdon and others.

[Mr Donohoe]

Can my hon. Friend, as one of the local Members, indicate the time it takes to travel between the terminals—terminals 1 to 5—and the distances? I have looked at it, and it does not make a lot of sense to have a hub outwith the airport.

[John McDonnell]

That is an extremely valid point. To give BAA its due, it is looking at the efficiency of the transportation of passengers within the airport complex. I do not necessarily think my hon. Friend’s point negates the full argument about a hub, but it certainly undermines some of the arguments for it.

The hub option was raised previously, as well as in local consultations that I undertook, and it would have environmental consequences for that part of west London, particularly West Drayton, which is located fairly close to the proposed Iver site. Some green belt areas would also be lost. In addition, there are concerns about the links from the hub into Heathrow airport. Whether there is a high-speed bus link or a separate direct railway line to the airport from the hub, there will be consequences, depending on the route, for the Heathrow villages, which have only just recovered from the threat of the third runway. If there is not to be a hub, and one of the 11 direct-link options is taken up, the link will travel through my constituency and, I say to the Minister, we would expect the same commitment to tunnelling as has been given to other areas, to avoid the environmental impacts on people’s homes and communities.

The Government tell us that the consultation on the next stage will be in the autumn. When we raised that matter with the Secretary of State, there was an indication that interested Members may well receive some form of briefing on some of the narrowed options being considered in advance of the formal consultation. I would welcome the opportunity to bring together interested Members, as the hon. Member for The Cotswolds said, to discuss with Ministers the range of narrowed options and the consequences for our individual constituencies, to ensure that we can provide local input into the Government’s final consideration, but also highlight the impacts on our individual communities.

As I have said in previous debates, to be frank, having separate consultations on the main line and on the link into Heathrow is no way to plan a railway network. Let us now make up the ground and ensure that there is full involvement of MPs in the final stage of consideration and, after that, of whole communities in the consultations on the implications of the different options that the Government are exploring. None of the options is free from environmental consequences, certainly within my area. Many of my constituents would welcome a more efficient Heathrow, as other Members have said, because many of them work there, but they want to protect their local communities and homes from any further direct environmental impacts that might result.

I welcome the debate. I do not believe the hub is necessarily the solution. It has consequences. We need early consideration of the range of options as soon as possible, to give some certainty to local communities and to avoid the continuation of what is becoming a blight—certainly on my area.

14:58

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I add my congratulations to those that others have given to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this important debate. I agree with the thrust of much of what he said.

Let me start by welcoming the Government’s announcement of the western spur link to Heathrow. It will greatly improve Heathrow’s rail connectivity to the west and to some areas to the north. I have slightly higher ambitions for the link than my hon. Friend. If we combined that spur with the electrification of the Great Western line and the extra pass it would create, it might be possible to schedule direct services from the west into Heathrow. I do not have the exact timetable modelling to hand, but I believe that it would be possible.

In conjunction with the welcome announcement of the east-west rail link, which goes through my constituency and will also be electrified, it is proposed that some trains will run from Reading to Oxford and then over to Milton Keynes and Bedford. I see no reason why those services should not start at Heathrow, which would be most welcome in my part of the world. Such a move would boost the connectivity of Milton Keynes and our local enterprise area and be attractive for inward investment. The announcement is certainly welcome and hugely significant.

Let me turn to High Speed 2 and its connections with Heathrow. As a member of the Transport Committee, I have looked at the matter in some detail. For some time, I have taken the view that we must look at our strategic rail and aviation policies as two parts of the same whole. They cannot be looked at in isolation from each other, and I have a number of suggestions on which I hope the Minister will reflect.

One of the ambitions for high-speed rail is to achieve a modal shift from domestic aviation to high-speed rail, which is welcome. If we look at the upgrade of the west coast main line, there is a significant shift of traffic from Manchester to London from air to rail. High-speed rail offers greater potential to achieve that shift in domestic travel, and, as my hon. Friend said, that will free up some slots at Heathrow for longer-haul destinations. However, that is only part of the answer. The number of slots that that will free up is comparatively small in relation to the total and increasing demand on Heathrow. At present, there are 1.25 million journeys a year from Heathrow to Edinburgh; 1 million to Glasgow; and 800,000 to Manchester, with a significant percentage of those transferring to other flights. Heathrow is not the destination for many people. Strategically siting a Heathrow hub to attract more of that domestic aviation market will offer huge potential and relieve some of the capacity at Heathrow.

I urge the Government to have a think at this critical juncture before we commit to the detailed legislation on High Speed 2 and proceed with the aviation strategy. We should not rush in and commit ourselves to one project that we might later regret. I do not expect a detailed answer from the Minister at this point. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds has mentioned a Heathrow hub, but that is one of many solutions. Others may be available. I urge the Government to use this brief interlude to do a bit of strategic thinking and to ask themselves, “Have we got the detail of this right, or are there better options available?”

Let me give a couple of suggestions to illustrate what I mean. If we look at Birmingham airport in conjunction with Heathrow, there is real potential that together they can be regarded as a split hub or a virtual hub. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) has raised the issue of the travel time between different Heathrow terminals. If—it is a big if—High Speed 2 is constructed efficiently, it will not take much longer to travel between Heathrow and Birmingham airport than it does between Heathrow terminals. It will possibly require air site to air site connections that do not involve changing trains somewhere, but it does, none the less, offer huge potential.

With modest capital expenditure on its runway, Birmingham airport has considerable capacity. It would be perfectly possible for it to be regarded as part of Heathrow—as part of a split hub. I do not think that the detailed planning work has been carried out. Before we get into radical long-term options such as building a third or fourth runway at Heathrow, Boris island or any other option, we should consider much more carefully the potential that we have. I believe that options such as a split hub are possible, but I am not a railway civil engineer; there are people far brainier than me who can determine such things. The option should be considered, because it would find favour with the people at Birmingham airport who are aware of its huge potential.

[Mr Donohoe]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a fellow Scot, for giving way. The biggest problem in transport today is the connectivity between various forms of transport. Unless and until we wake up to the fact that technology is now available to overcome that, all of what he says is meaningless. As somebody who has to travel on a weekly basis, using three or four different forms of transport, I see how much time is wasted every time I have to travel back to my constituency. Until that problem is overcome and is understood by Government, any of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals are of no value whatever.

[Iain Stewart]

In part, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must look at journeys as a whole and not as individual component parts. For decades, we, as a country, have not got this right. Improvements could be made in a number of areas, from ticketing arrangements through to big capital investment. Yes, we have to do that, but I am putting forward one idea through which we might be able to achieve better connectivity. A journey from London to New York might involve taking a train for the first part of it. In Germany, such through-ticketing options do exist. The first part of the journey, for example, is on Deutsche Bahn before the passenger transfers on to Lufthansa. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman, I am more optimistic about the potential to achieve such connectivity.

If High Speed 2 is properly connected to High Speed 1 and the channel tunnel, we will open up the option of achieving a modal shift not only in the number of domestic passengers into Heathrow but in the number of passengers travelling from Heathrow and Birmingham to the near continent, to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam. It would require careful planning. At the moment, it is estimated that the pivotal point for making a rail journey more attractive than flying is about three and a half hours. That will probably lengthen as business travellers value properly constructed carriages that allow them to do business during the course of their journey. If we look at the total travel time involved in a journey from Birmingham to Paris, there is real potential to achieve that modal shift, which will free up more capacity for longer-haul destinations without having to resort to the radical options of new runways or a completely new airport.

Let me give a few figures. There are 1.3 million flight passengers a year going from Heathrow to Amsterdam, the same number going to Paris and Frankfurt, and 500,000 to Brussels and Dusseldorf. Therefore, significant capacity at Heathrow could be released if we get the planning right.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

There is another point in my hon. Friend’s equation. Railway stations seem to be located in the middle of city centres, whereas airports are on the outskirts of cities, and sometimes considerably so. There is always the necessity for a different type of journey to get to the airports. If we go directly from the centre of Glasgow to the centre of Paris, there may not be too much difference in time with high-speed rail.

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It is not an either/or situation. The line between Frankfurt and Cologne calls at Frankfurt airport, so people have the option of going either to the city centre or to the main airport.

My hon. Friend has put forward the Heathrow hub as a specific model. I do not have any particular detailed knowledge about whether that is the correct solution, but it is one of several possibilities that should be seriously considered.

In essence, that is my point. I do not want the Minister to come back and reject the Heathrow hub or favour another option. I just urge the Government in the recess, when tempers cool down a little and there is time for a little more blue-sky strategic thinking, to use that natural pause in our strategic transport planning to assess whether we have got this matter right or whether we could make some adjustments to improve the capacity of what we have and what is already planned before we start committing ourselves to more radical options, which have all sorts of other issues surrounding them.

On that point, I will conclude and allow other Members to speak in the debate.

15:10

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am very grateful, Dr McCrea, for the opportunity to speak, and I apologise in advance for not having notified you of my wish to do so. However, bearing in mind the time that we have, it is important that a wide spectrum of opinion on this issue is heard.

As you know, Dr McCrea, I represent South Swindon, which my constituents and I regard as the hub of the Great Western Railway. Swindon is very much a town that looks outwards in terms of its opportunities for growth, jobs and investment. One of the main concerns of businesses in Swindon, the town I have the honour to represent, is connectivity with Heathrow airport. In many cases, that is a more important issue for my constituents than connectivity with the centre of London, which is why the announcement last week by the Department for Transport about the creation of a western connection from Heathrow to the Great Western line was welcome news indeed. Of course, we understand that the control period is up to 2021, but a commitment of just under half a billion pounds is a significant shot in the arm for the economy that I represent. It potentially brings Swindon within 55 minutes of Heathrow airport, if the line from Reading through Maidenhead and Slough to Heathrow is constructed. Electrification would bring greater flexibility and, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) has said, we hope to see a direct service from Swindon and the west to Heathrow airport.

However, the debate today is somewhat more long-term. It is quite a common mistake that we all fall into as politicians in failing to appreciate the amount of time that a lot of these big projects take. We must remind ourselves that the High Speed 2 project is a project that will take 15 years or longer, rather than something that deals with the here and now. Although it is always important to look at the raw facts when it comes to the current operating success of Heathrow, that does not mean that in the medium to long term that position will remain the same. It is important to remember that when we consider this debate and where we are going. We are talking about a long-term future for Heathrow and long-term connectivity and capacity. That is why it is important that the case made so strongly by my hon. Friend is considered very carefully indeed.

I accept that many different permutations and options have been put on the table in the long debate about how we connect Heathrow airport with our rail network. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) was careful to make that point and he is absolutely right to say that neither he nor anybody else has a particular monopoly of wisdom when it comes to the precise nature of such a scheme.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

None of us have.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend says, “None of us have”, and I reinforce that message. However, it is very important for people like me to make a strong plea for the Government to look to the long term and to understand that it is only by achieving direct connectivity to airports such as Heathrow that we will acknowledge the fact that, with the exponential and welcome increase in the use of our railways, the demands upon our network will only become more stringent.

My worry is that we will be standing or sitting here in Westminster Hall in 15 years’ time, and looking back and realising that we have missed a great opportunity to rectify an historical anomaly when it comes to an airport of the significance and size of Heathrow. There it was, having been constructed in the post-war era, and it expanded to meet the huge demand placed upon it, and yet there were no direct rail links to it until many years later, when there was the link to Paddington. Now we have more development, which is welcome indeed. However, those poor rail links to Heathrow are an anomaly of history that we are duty-bound to try to rectify.

That is why it is absolutely vital that, in understanding the potential of HS2 to unlock the north, we must not forget the west. That is the plea I make today, that in any future development of HS2 priority is placed upon the need to connect the major airport for our country with the rest of England and the wider UK. Central London is, of course, an important destination, but the businesses that I represent tell me time and time again that it is Heathrow airport that is crucial to their future success. The importance of businesses’ ability to link with Heathrow should not be underestimated.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am sorry to keep intervening on my hon. Friends’ speeches; both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) have made very good points.

The reason that I called this particular debate today was that once the planning gets too far down the line—excuse the pun—and particularly when the hybrid Bill has gone through this place, it will be much more difficult to consider alternatives than it is now. Now is the time that we must urge the Minister to stand back, pause and consider whether there are any better alternatives; there may not be, but she should look to see if there are.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. When I looked in detail at a map of Old Oak Common—and I am delighted that it will become an important part of this network—one thing struck me very forcibly that I had not realised before, and that is how close the Euston line runs to the Great Western Line. In fact, there is a connecting spur now that allows trains to move between the two networks.

That spur is a metaphor for the debate that we are having today. We are within an ace of getting things right in terms of judging future demand, not only for rail capacity but for the future of our principal airport. As I have said, it would be a missed opportunity, as well as a tragedy, if we were within an ace of getting things right and we then missed the opportunity that, as my hon. Friend says, the hybrid Bill presents. He is right to say that once we proceed down the line of legislation, it will become more difficult to add on various concepts or indeed to get the basic concepts right in the first place. So this debate today is timely, I welcome it and I congratulate him on securing it. I wish to add my voice on behalf of both the west of England and south Wales—let us not forget that region—and the whole growing economy and growing population that need support and proper connectivity with what will continue to be our principal airport for many years to come.

15:17

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Dr McCrea, for the opportunity to speak. It is a great pleasure to serve under you in the Chair.

I congratulate the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this important and timely debate today. I commend him for making a speech that had many excellent and vital points. He will be delighted to hear that I will reinforce those points in my own speech.

This debate is important because, despite the step change when Heathrow was linked to the national network in 1999 and which has already been referred to, its rail links remain inferior to those of most of its European competitors and indeed to those of many smaller UK airports. And this debate is timely because last week we had not only the very welcome news of investment in a western rail link to Heathrow but a continuation of the silence about the central issue of airport capacity in the south-east. Of course, this debate is closely tied to that issue. In addition, the issues surrounding the Boston Manor viaduct on the M4 have underlined the fragility of existing transport links to Heathrow, as well as the need for infrastructure resilience and a range of alternative routes.

The proposed construction of a rail spur to link destinations to the west of Heathrow directly to the airport could bring real improvements. Removing the need for a journey via Paddington or a coach from Reading will reduce journey times and it will make rail a more attractive option for hundreds of thousands of airport users each year, cutting congestion on the M4 and other roads. Both the draft aviation strategy framework and the high-level output statement are short on detail, so perhaps the Minister will fill in some of the gaps. What is the status of the £500 million of funding mentioned for the scheme? Does she expect the aviation industry to foot some of the bill? What is the timetable for putting together a business case for the programme, and can she confirm the planned opening date of 2021, which has been mentioned in the media? Is it intended that the link will provide through services from the west of England and south Wales to Heathrow, or will local trains simply shuttle between Reading, Slough and the airport?

[Mr Donohoe]

Has my hon. Friend considered how long the connection to Scotland will take?

[John Woodcock]

That, I know, is a continuing and important longer-term issue for High Speed 2. Every time it is raised it is incumbent on us all to stress that even the first phase, as it is currently set out, would reduce journey times to Scotland. Obviously the further north the high-speed line goes, the faster those journey times will be, which we all want.

A western link would provide welcome improved connections, as will the commencement of Crossrail in 2018; but if Heathrow is to function better as a major national airport it needs national connectivity. The airport currently has 70 million passengers a year. Whatever decisions are eventually made on south-east expansion—if they are made—Heathrow will remain dominant for the foreseeable future. Yet for much of the country, it is cosmically hard to access, at present, except by car or a domestic flight. To take the example of my constituents in south Cumbria, there are many business or holiday destinations to which only Heathrow offers a direct flight, and if people want to avoid a five-hour drive and hefty parking charges they consider taking the train. However, they find that that will take just as long and will require four changes, which is not much fun for people with a lot of luggage, those with a young family, or people who have limited mobility. Instead, many take a domestic flight from Manchester, at financial and environmental cost, or they fly via a European hub airport.

High Speed 2 could help to solve that problem and significantly strengthen Heathrow as a truly national airport. Linking Heathrow into HS2 at the earliest possible opportunity would allow for faster, far better integrated journeys between the airport and various northern destinations. Connecting Heathrow would, as has been well explained in several speeches today, make it possible to boost the economies of the regions, reduce road congestion and cut short-haul flights, and, in doing so, begin to address Heathrow’s chronic capacity problem. We deeply regret, therefore, that Ministers have chosen to reject Labour’s call for the first phase of HS2 to run via Heathrow. Instead, they have opted thus far for an expensive branch line, which it appears will not even be legislated for as part of phase 1 and will not be built until an unspecified future date. Can the Minister provide any more clarity on that point?

An Old Oak Common interchange with Crossrail would indeed make for an easier journey to Heathrow for many people; but it is no substitute, as has been explained today, for a through train. As the hon. Member for the Cotswolds eloquently explained, the sad thing is that the Minister used to get that. If she does not mind, I shall quote her. In March 2010, just before the general election—how things change—she told the House of Commons that

“the idea that some kind of ‘Wormwood Scrubs international’ station is the best rail solution for Heathrow is just not credible.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 451.]

Hear, hear: but just two years on, that is exactly what the Minister proposes—at least until 2033. Why the volte face? Will she take this opportunity to condemn the potentially deeply damaging briefings from somewhere in Government, suggesting a wobble on the entire project? If she is not wobbling, it is important that she should say so now, and I am delighted to give way.

[Mrs Villiers]

There is no wobble on this project. HS2 is going ahead.

[John Woodcock]

The Minister is not for wobbling and we are very pleased to hear it.

Any aviation strategy—and it would be nice to have one—must have as its starting point maximising the efficiency of the capacity that already exists. It is far better to use a slot to land 600 passengers from Beijing than 200 from Manchester. Ministers are right to cite, in their recent document, the potential for code sharing to promote through tickets from international flights to trains; but the key to that success is that the high-speed train should stop at the airport, not several miles away. Further, as has been mentioned, an HS2 link into Heathrow could provide a connection to the existing line to the channel tunnel, raising the possibility of high-speed trains replacing hub flights to nearby European destinations.

There is still time for Ministers to reconsider their stance on HS2. The right hon. Lady knows that high-speed rail commands support across the House. It has the full support of the Opposition, and we are keen to work together to get the necessary legislation on the statute book and to get spades in the ground. However, we will continue to argue that Heathrow should be part of phase 1 of the scheme. A failure to connect Britain’s hub airport to its first domestic high-speed line would epitomise the failure to join up UK infrastructure planning—a failure in transport that has bedevilled the country for too long.

15:27

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

It is a pleasure to respond to an interesting and well-informed debate. I congratulate, as other hon. Members have done, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing it and on his thoughtful and insightful speech on his ideas for the route options for HS2. I thank him and other hon. Members for the support that they have expressed for the announcements that we made yesterday on improving the rail network and for their support in principle for the dramatic further improvement that we will deliver with the HS2 project. It is always welcome to hear Opposition Front Benchers repeat their support for high-speed rail, because it is only with cross-party support that projects of such magnitude can be successful.

The Government have put transport at the heart of their strategy for economic growth and recovery, because improving our transport system is one of the best ways to support British jobs, boost business and create growth. That is one reason for our commitment to the biggest rail capacity expansion programme since the Victorian era. Yesterday, we added a further major package of projects to that already ambitious programme.

We fully accept the importance of high-quality surface access to airports, and we emphasised that point in the aviation framework document that we published last week. We are co-ordinating our rail and aviation policies, and I fully agree with the points made this afternoon about the importance of co-ordination and integration, between air and rail on the ground and in the decision and policy-making processes. That point was made by my hon. and great Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), and by my hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). [Interruption.] Well, I have known my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon for 20 years, so he gets an extra-warm mention whenever we are in a debate together.

Reliable rail and road access can obviously contribute greatly to the quality of the passenger experience at our airports, and it is an important component in ensuring that our airports provide high-quality international gateways. It is particularly important to airport workers and crucial to the air freight sector, which is another important UK industry. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds that greater use of rail access to airports has the potential to reduce carbon emissions, as well as relieving road congestion, and also improving air quality, which is a real issue at Heathrow.

[Mr Donohoe]

I am sure that the Minister has listened to my questions to some of the other contributors this afternoon. Can she tell us how long it takes the passenger who gets out of a plane at terminal 4 to get to terminal 1, and what distance they travel?

[Mrs Villiers]

Certainly. It takes passenger a while to get from terminal 4 to the other terminals. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue about Heathrow’s current layout, and I will come to it in a moment. Despite the adversities, however, Heathrow continues to be a successful airport. I appreciate and understand the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds, but one of the fundamental drawbacks of his proposed rail hub at Iver, to support Heathrow, is that it would be more than three miles from the airport terminals. What my hon. Friend advocates would compound the problem that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) has just alluded to, which is that Heathrow is already very spread out.

Returning for a moment to the environmental impact of surface access, I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). It is important that we all focus on the environmental impact of surface access, as well on that of aviation. We are committed to working with airport operators, local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to improve surface access to our major airports across the country. Time constrains me from going into detail, but improvements are under way in Manchester and Birmingham, and Luton will get better road access and Gatwick a new station. A tremendous amount of work is under way to improve access at a number of airports.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My right hon. Friend is making a helpful speech, but I would not like the four interventions made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) to colour the debate. With innovative solutions, it is possible for travellers, having checked their bags in at the hub that I propose—or others propose—to get in to a more rationalised Heathrow airport and on to an aeroplane via high-speed rail at considerably increased speeds.

[Mrs Villiers]

But it remains the case that among the downsides of my hon. Friend’s suggestion are the distance from the terminals, the lack of a serious proposal about how that distance will be travelled and a failure to cost the idea.

Returning to the work that is being done on rail access to Heathrow—the subject of the debate—Crossrail is now well under way, more than two decades since it was first proposed, and the tunnel boring machines have started their journey under central London. We expect the Crossrail project to provide new services that link Heathrow directly with the west end, the City and Canary Wharf for the first time. The 2010 spending review confirmed the Government’s shared commitment with the Mayor to the tube upgrade programme, which will increase the overall capacity of the London underground network by 30% and improve reliability, benefiting people travelling to Heathrow by tube.

Last week, as has been acknowledged, we announced as part of our aviation policy framework that the Government will provide funding for a new rail line to Heathrow from the Great Western main line near Slough. It would provide significantly improved connections from destinations west of the airport—a point already made—and would cut journey times from those destinations by as much as half an hour. Easier, faster and more convenient access to one of the world’s busiest and most successful airports should provide a significant boost to the economies of the Thames valley, south Wales and the west and south-west of England.

I very much welcome the enthusiasm shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South about how we might seek to take advantage of the electrification and east-west rail proposals, to see if we can further improve and enhance access to Heathrow airport.

The shadow Minister asked a number of questions about the project. More work is needed to refine it and assess delivery time scales over the coming months, including the consideration of route options. The scheme remains subject to the delivery of a robust business case, and we hope to secure funding contributions from the Heathrow aviation community.

[Mr Donohoe]

When this issue was presented to the House, at the outset, an area of some dubiety was that tunnelling would be cheaper than putting rail above ground. I have talked to a number of civil engineers, and none of them believes in that prospect. Can the Minister shed any light on where the information came from?

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

I know that the Minister is delighted to look towards her very good friend, and her other hon. Friends, but it is always nice if you turn towards the Chair and look also at Opposition Members.

[Mrs Villiers]

I do apologise, Dr McCrea, and I shall ensure that I project more efficiently around the room. I have now completely forgotten what the hon. Gentleman asked me about.

[Mr Donohoe]

Tunnelling.

[Mrs Villiers]

Yes. It depends on the circumstances. It is important to appreciate that a significant cost associated with tunnelling is the disposal of spoil. In certain instances, combining two tunnels might reduce the cost of such disposal, so tunnelling does not end up cheaper than doing something on the surface in every case. However, where we can get synergies between two different projects that reduce the cost of spoil disposal, we can deliver an overall reduction in cost.

On the route options, whether for western access to Heathrow via conventional rail or, in due course, the high-speed rail spur to the airport, we will seriously consider what is viable regarding tunnelling, just as we have done in relation to the rest of the HS2 route. It is too early to make the decisions because they are subject to consultation and further processes, but we will, of course, seriously consider that, given the areas through which the new lines would go.

In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, if things progress smoothly, the new line giving western access to Heathrow could be operational by around 2020 or 2022. No final decisions have yet been made on timetables for direct trains, but we expect there to be through trains from destinations in the west, because that would be the better way to realise the benefits of the programme.

Our high-level output specification proposals, announced last week, to improve access to Heathrow from the west will complement our work on HS2, which we expect to provide greatly improved access to the airport from destinations in the midlands and the north of England. We are taking a phased approach to HS2.

In phase 1, when the London to Birmingham line is built, we want passengers from the west midlands, Manchester and other cities in the north to be able to connect as seamlessly as possible with the Heathrow Express at a new station at Old Oak common. Phase 1 is expected to open in 2026, and will include a direct connection to Birmingham airport. I welcome the interesting ideas proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South about how we might use that improved surface access to Birmingham to help the airport flourish and attract more aviation passengers, potentially from the south-east, given the improved rail access that HS2 will deliver.

Phase 2 will follow in 2032-33, when the HS2 line will be extended to Manchester and Leeds. A direct connection with Heathrow is planned as part of the second phase.

[John Woodcock]

Why has the Minister changed her mind? Has the Secretary of State for Transport just taken a different view?

[Mrs Villiers]

A huge amount of work has been done to analyse the options, including one of the biggest consultations ever undertaken in this country. I would be arrogant to ignore the results of that work and that consultation. I am absolutely convinced that the preferred route, which will be proposed in a hybrid Bill, is the right one, and I will explain why in due course.

[John Woodcock]

You have not said that you agree with it.

[Mrs Villiers]

I do agree with it. I give the shadow Minister my firm assurance that the preferred route that we are proposing, after the consultation and consideration of all the consultation responses, is the right one.

[Mr Donohoe]

May I show the Minister a poster that I picked up in Wendover on Sunday? It does not give us much hope that constituents in that part of the world are likely to have as much enthusiasm as us about the building of HS2.

[Mrs Villiers]

It is inevitable, when one seeks to build a major piece of infrastructure, that it will cause anxiety in the areas in which it will have a local impact. I will come in a moment to the efforts that the Government have been making to mitigate or reduce the impact of HS2. We fully understand the anxiety felt by those in the local areas affected and by those with wider concerns about protecting the countryside, but as I have said in the House many times, I firmly believe that, with high-quality engineering and care, we can mitigate the worst effects of HS2 and emulate the success of HS1, which has been delivered without the catastrophic local impacts once predicted for it. I believe that it is possible to deliver infrastructure on that scale in a way that is fair to the local communities affected by it. The Government are determined to do all that is reasonable to ensure that we mitigate the local impact of HS2.

To pick up where I left off, the Government’s preferred option for delivering the direct connection to Heathrow is a spur running from the main HS2 line, which would allow passengers from the midlands and the north to travel directly to the airport without having to change trains. Some of my hon. Friends and colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Member for The Cotswolds and for Milton Keynes South, asked for a pause. I assure them that other options, including a direct alignment that would have taken the line to Birmingham nearer to Heathrow, were considered before deciding on the preferred route that was presented for consultation.

Further thought and analysis was carried out on direct alignment as part of the consultation and the Government’s consideration of the many thousands of responses. As I said, it was one of the most extensive consultations ever carried out, and I am confident that the outcome is the right one. I assure my hon. Friends that further scrutiny will take place when the hybrid Bill goes through Parliament.

After the consultation and analysis were completed, it was decided that a spur to Heathrow would provide the better option, and it was concluded that the proposal advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds would have involved too great a journey time penalty and too much extra cost and, as I said, would not have taken the line to the airport. The site at Iver, the proposal for which he supports, is more than three miles from the airport terminals.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s sincere belief in the Government’s preferred solution rather than the option that I proposed, but I am trying to get something out of this debate. Will she carefully consider building the Heathrow spur in the first phase of HS2, so that at least the residents of Birmingham and Birmingham airport can get the benefit of that spur as soon as possible? Will she also consider the northward-facing aspect of the spur, so that at least it can be used from central London, as well as by those approaching London from the north?

[Mrs Villiers]

I will come to timing in a moment. We are enthusiastic about making progress on all aspects of HS2 as soon as we can. If we can speed up the process, we will be delighted to do so, but as I said, I will come in a moment to the timing of the next steps on phase 2 and the spur. I assure my hon. Friend that the spur is planned to have what is known as a delta junction, which could enable trains to run from Heathrow on to HS1, and possibly on to European destinations, when the spur is built.

On the timetable, the Government have asked HS2 Ltd to develop detailed route options for the spur. The plans will then be subject to detailed public consultation in 2014, alongside the rest of phase 2. If possible, we would like to make fast progress and start the consultation next year. Depending on the results of that consultation, the spur could be included in the hybrid Bill for the second phase, including the Y network.

HS2 represents a valuable opportunity to draw important strategic links between major components of our transport infrastructure. As my hon. Friend mentioned, other countries have successfully integrated high-speed rail services with their international airports. Using HS2 to improve access to the country’s major hub airport for businesses in the midlands and the north will create new opportunities for growth. Better links to Heathrow will make those regions even more attractive locations to invest and do business in, because they will benefit from Heathrow’s global reach as a successful hub airport.

As I said earlier, London has one of the most extensive aviation networks in the world, with connections to more than 360 destinations. Heathrow alone has more flights to the crucial BRIC economies than any of its rivals, including more flights to China. Airlines are expanding and covering new routes to key emerging markets. For example, British Airways recently started a new route to Seoul.

I agree with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that we should look to HS2 to provide an attractive alternative to thousands of short-haul flights. Experience in Europe shows that where high-speed rail competes with aviation, it can capture a significant proportion of the market for journeys of up to three or even four hours. For example, Air France stopped flying between Paris and Brussels entirely when the high-speed rail link opened between the two cities, and high-speed rail in Spain led to a significant switch from domestic aviation to the train. Deutsche Bahn proposes to start direct services between London, Amsterdam and Paris, so the train could start to compete with the plane for some passengers on those routes, just as Eurostar already does on the Paris-Brussels-London route.

[Mr Donohoe]

There has even been a change domestically: BA has removed all services from Birmingham to London as a result of the upgrading of the west coast main line.

[Mrs Villiers]

Absolutely. The upgrading of the west coast main line encouraged a switch from air to rail travel from Manchester as well.

I believe that the HS2 plans that I have outlined have the potential to deliver further air to rail switch. In particular, the completion of phase 2 will deliver journey times between Edinburgh or Glasgow and London of not much more than three and a half hours. In 2010, there were about 382 flights a week between those destinations and Heathrow, and about 962 flights a week to the five London airports from Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Providing an attractive alternative to those flights could release vital capacity, which could provide opportunities for developing new routes to emerging markets and other key long-haul destinations in just the way that my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds and others have outlined today. Better integration of rail and air in terms of flight schedules, through-ticketing and baggage check-in could intensify the switch from the plan to the train. The shadow Minister has made a valid point on those maters.

No debate on HS2 would be complete without reference to the local environmental impact. I fully recognise people’s concerns about the local environmental impact of HS2 and the preferred route, including the potential impact of a proposed Heathrow spur. There is no easy way to build a new train line through our country. I am afraid that the alignment proposed by my hon. Friend and supported by Mark Bostock would not be a miracle solution. Local impacts would still have to be considered, and, frankly, there would still be controversy. It would just be transplanted to a different area.

We have gone to very great lengths to listen to those with concerns about our preferred route and to take steps to mitigate its local impact. In particular, we are working to respond to the concerns of communities around Euston, where the station redevelopment impacts most on homes and communities. The Secretary of State for Transport regularly meets elected representatives from the area; we are working with Camden council; and we have already agreed to fund the Euston opportunity area planning framework to address the issues raised by the planned Euston expansion, including the investigation of options for the provision of replacement social housing. Elsewhere on the route, there will be a more than 50% increase in tunnel or green tunnel compared with the plans that we inherited from our Labour predecessors.

As I have said many times, I believe that, with the right mitigation and high-quality engineering, HS2 need not have anything like the extreme impact that its opponents fear. The precedent provided by HS1 shows that it is possible to have a high-speed line that does not devastate the communities through which it passes.

There are difficult times ahead, whether in relation to the main part of HS2 or to the Heathrow spur under discussion, but I firmly believe that this project will generate tremendous economic benefits. It is vital if we are to deal with the capacity crunch that we will face on our inter-city rail connections in the coming years, and that is why I welcome the support that has been expressed for HS2 in today’s debate.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Minister, and I also thank all the hon. Members who have participated in the debate. I wish those Members who will now leave the Chamber a very pleasant recess.

15:52

Sitting suspended.

Cyprus

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

16:00

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on Cyprus under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I welcome the Minister, who is not the Minister for Europe, but his portfolio includes responsibility for human rights. The issue of human rights transcends the boundaries of Cyprus and should be a matter of concern to us all. Indeed, some years ago, the Minister was on the campaign trail in Enfield, Southgate and may know about the issue of Cyprus. It is certainly of great concern to my constituents and others.

In the past 40 years there have been many debates about Cyprus in this House. Over the seven years that I have been in Parliament, and particularly given my constituency interest, I have inevitably been involved in speaking on Cyprus and securing many such debates. This time it is a particular pleasure to have secured a debate, because this month Cyprus has assumed the presidency of the European Union. It is a great historic achievement of a small but important island in Europe. It is a cause for celebration of the independence and sovereignty of Cyprus. Its leadership comes at a crucial time, given the travails in Europe. I am sure that the House will wish the Cyprus presidency well over the next six months.

But—sadly, with Cyprus politics there is usually a “but”—the reason why there have been so many debates over nearly four decades is that Cyprus remains divided, with the north occupied by Turkish troops. Ministers—and perhaps the Minister here today—will visit Nicosia during the next six months. That city is the only divided capital in Europe; part of the island in the north remains occupied by troops from a foreign country—Turkey—leading to the north being one of the most militarised places in the world.

During this six-month period, pressure needs to be put on Turkey to properly recognise the Republic of Cyprus. The threats made by Turkish leaders to freeze relations with the European Union while Cyprus has the presidency should not wash with the United Kingdom or the Government. If—as many want—Turkey wants in time to be a member of the European club, it needs to play by the rules, which include respecting the rotating presidency and also respecting European agreements, not least the customs union. It is extraordinary that, although a key aim of the presidency is developing European Union maritime policy, Turkey refuses to fulfil the Ankara protocol and to accept Cyprus ships at its ports. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that during the next six months the Government will do all they can to put pressure on Turkey to recognise Cyprus and not let it off the hook during a period that can be seen too easily as a vacuum period.

The subject of the debate is Cyprus, but I have already spent time talking about Turkey. When I spoke in a debate two weeks ago about UK relations with Turkey, I spoke about Cyprus. Sadly, Turkey’s influence and involvement in Cyprus are significant. We and no doubt the Minister will want to reaffirm that the future of Cyprus must be properly determined by Cypriots, but Turkey calls the shots in the north. It is therefore incumbent on Britain to help to ensure that Cypriots— Greek and Turkish Cypriots—have the freedom and capacity to determine their future as a reunited island based on the principles of the United Nations framework of the bizonal, bicommunal federal solution.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Having been to Cyprus on two separate occasions in the past six weeks as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I very much endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. We are conscious of the problem that he has identified, and it would be extremely helpful if the present Cypriot Government addressed the problem of fraudulent titles, which is a problem for some 2,000 people in the UK who have interests in the land. A Minister in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Cyprus told me that they would try to sort it out. Does my hon. Friend agree that, just as we have to sort out the Turkish question, the Cypriots have a responsibility to sort out the problem of fraudulent titles?

[Mr Burrowes]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention on the issues of fraudulent titles and illegal occupation of land. The Foreign Office website advises UK citizens to be clear about property ownership in the north. It advises against exploiting the situation and highlights the illegality in the north. It is a huge problem that needs to be resolved.

I imagine the Minister who took up the brief today may have approached the debate with some weariness given the stalemate in the talks between the Cypriot leaders. The House is familiar with the debate. The main purpose of the debate today is to seek to break new ground and to urge the Government not to sit on the sidelines or just cheer or cajole from the terraces, but to take seriously our historical responsibilities and our responsibilities as a guarantor power. We have responsibilities to many of those represented here. I see my hon. Friends here. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), has a significant number of Cypriot constituents, as do my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). It is clear that many Members are concerned that we do not simply let the next six months pass.

One of the areas of new ground is curiously an old one: religious and cultural heritage. Last May, I led an all-party group delegation, including my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North and for Hendon and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), to clean up some cemeteries and churches in Cyprus. Some of the cemeteries had been neglected, but most had been desecrated. Having visited the north last November, I witnessed for myself the desecration and damage. I resolved that the next time I returned we would do something practical about it.

Our delegation did not visit national political leaders, which is what usually happens. We wanted to focus on the local communities and villages to try not only physically to restore respect to trashed cemeteries and pillaged churches, but to restore the link between the village associations—both Greek and Turkish Cypriot—which, through the conflict, has sadly been lost.

Our visit’s aim was not to try to change the world or to solve the Cyprus problem—or indeed to restore all religious and cultural heritage—in a few days. The aim was to take some small but practical steps through cleaning a cemetery or a church to rebuild confidence and to make the point that, as British Members of Parliament with responsibilities, along with the Cypriots who were with us, we would not tolerate the desecration of religious heritage.

We will not accept the status quo. We made the point loud and clear that the situation cannot just be accepted and allowed to carry on. The memories of loved ones and the places of worship that people want to go to matter. Such respect transcends faiths, backgrounds and countries. It is about respect for common shared values. In building those small steps of confidence, the aim was to lead to a better future.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. Does he agree that when we visited heritage sites on the north and the south of the island they were sadly not as they should be? By reaching beyond the politicians in the villages of Pigi and Peristerona, we saw people coming together from both sides of the island who have not seen each other for a long time. They shared that wish for respect and for restoration. We can reach above the politicians, and civic society has a role to play in helping to bring about the right solution.

[Mr Burrowes]

That visit was one of the most positive that I have been on, because we were able to see that. The common refrain is that the problem is not the people but the politics and the involvement of an outside political force in the form of Turkey. For example, in Peristerona—because of our presence, no doubt—there was a feeling of wanting to do something about a church that, throughout the time of division, had not been touched. Over time, debris, rubbish and droppings had accumulated. While we were there, we were able to see that church cleared of the debris—we were able to make a video—for the first time. A Cypriot who lived in Liverpool just happened to turn up on a visit. He had been baptised in the church before it was destroyed and desecrated. To see someone take an interest and some care—local Turkish Cypriots were helping to restore it as well—made a big difference to him. He said that there is a brighter future and that we can do something about it—not just so much talk that we often hear about, but real, practical action.

There were, however, some who warned us against doing that. Particularly in the north, politicians tried to lobby against us and build division where there was none. The media also seemed to be against us. There was caution, too, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I see some of the team here, and I pay tribute to its helpful advice throughout the trip, for which I was grateful. There was a cautionary note saying that we should do things only when we had the approval of various people, not least Mr Kucuk in the north, the so-called Prime Minister. He would give us direction on whether we were able to go ahead with our cleaning activities.

What we actually found was that Cyprus does not wholly work like that—quite properly so. It works through villages. It works through different villages that take their orders from no one; they run themselves as they have done in years gone by. They will not simply take orders from those on high. They were concerned more with the relationship they had with us and the village association people, and they were willing to take steps. They said very clearly that they would give permission for future cleaning programmes, which was encouraging and we need to make progress.

One of the highlights was our visit to Assia. Again, there were cautionary notes about it being in a nationalist area and close to an army base. However, with Greek Cypriot association villagers who had the confidence to come over for the first time with us, we were able to build a good degree of confidence with local Turkish Cypriots, mukhtars and mayors and say, “Yes, together we can do something about this.” In that village, a mosque and a church need restoring, and together they want to work on them. We also went to a cemetery that had been trashed over the years, but they were able to go there for the first time and see that we cared about the fact that the cemetery needs to be in a better condition.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, for securing the debate and for organising the visit. He mentioned the visit to Assia, which I found very poignant. Some of the people who accompanied us from the UK and, as he said, felt safe coming out with us, took us on a tour around the graveyard. One gentleman’s aunt had died on the day I was born, so I certainly feel a link with what we want to achieve in Assia. I certainly hope that, following our visit, we will have a programme of works, and that the mukhtars and the people in the north will engage with the people from the south, and from the United Kingdom, to ensure that graveyards are cleaned up, churches are repaired and some kind of civility is brought back to the island of Cyprus.

[Mr Burrowes]

Those were poignant moments. The villagers of Assia have agreed to go back, in agreement with Bishop Porfyrios, to restore the crosses that have been broken and put them back in their place. That will be an important symbolic moment that says that this is a village where we care for our loved ones. In fact, when I went back in November, which was a motivation for this visit, they were saying, “How can we respect the living if we cannot respect the dead?”

[Nick de Bois]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for letting me make a very brief intervention. I hope that he will understand why, at this point, I am also keen to remind hon. Members of our visit to the south. For example, in Kivisili we also saw a willingness to put right some of the graveyards that were not in a satisfactory condition. The spirit he talks about relating to our visit to the north is also reflected in the south.

[Mr Burrowes]

We agreed to go across the whole island, so we visited Limassol, Larnaca, Dromolaxia, Kivisili and Kalo Choiro, as well as Afania, Assia, Genagra, Pigi, Peristerona and Nicosia. That was important. For example, we went to the Limassol mosque which, not long before we visited, had been partially burned by vandals. We were able to visit the mosque with Bishop Porfyrios and Imam Shakir, who were affirming their united support for a greater respect for religious and cultural heritage. The problem is not one of division or religious division—that is not a problem at all. They were saying that we can look at the issue of religious cultural heritage as one where we can respect religion, which can be a uniting, not dividing, force, to build confidence and trust for all Cypriots. I ask the Minister to support such confidence-building measures in areas of religious cultural heritage. Citizens from this country will be going to Cyprus to carry out such visits in the future.

This is a current issue, and there is a concern that it is not all positive. There are reports this week that the cemetery in the village of Trachoni in the north has been completely destroyed to make way for the building of a new police station. That does not help at all when we want to build a common future for Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and I ask the Minister to condemn that approach.

[Mr Cash]

Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to take another question which relates, as I understand it, to the refusal of the Turkish Government to recognise the law of the sea and the exclusive economic zone in relation to gas? That is a huge issue that raises massive questions about good faith.

[Mr Burrowes]

I was going to come on to that. The discovery of hydrocarbon reserves is a wonderful opportunity—a natural resource for the whole of the island of Cyprus—to help resource a reunited island. There are struggles in the region both with energy and finance, and that provides hope for a brighter future. That is why it is depressing that, at this time, Turkey is being provocative in bringing ships around to show an aggressive approach, and not fully recognising that this is a resource for Cyprus. Outside powers should not be trying to get their hands on it. As a guarantor power, Britain has responsibility for the independence of the island. This is a threat to that independence. I understand that the Minister for Europe has been vigorous in making representations, and I ask the Minister present to reaffirm that respect for the integrity of that resource for the benefit of the island, which offers real hope for the future—a dynamic that can happen now and can be assured.

This period could lapse into a vacuum period of six months where the talks are stalled, but we can make practical progress. In Famagusta, the fenced-off Varosha area has been looted, uninhabited and decaying for nearly 40 years. Will the Minister reaffirm what the Prime Minister has said—I am sure that he will want to do so—in response to my reference to this on behalf of other hon. Members? The Prime Minister said:

“We fully support all the relevant Security Council resolutions, including UNSCR550 and UNSCR789. We have raised this with the Turkish authorities”.

I urge the Government to continue to do that. The Prime Minister recognises

“that measures to build confidence between the communities in Cyprus can have great value in facilitating efforts towards a comprehensive settlement. We continue to encourage all parties to the Cyprus problem to develop such measures.”

Famagusta is one such area that can come under UN supervision and properly allow, in compliance with those United Nations resolutions, for the return of lawful inhabitants. Hon. Members believe that that would help to facilitate efforts towards a settlement. That does not need to wait for a settlement; progress can be made, as it can in the area of missing persons. There was a protest yet again last week by the relatives of missing persons. The relatives are still literally crying out for basic information about their loved ones, despite the great efforts of the communal committee for missing persons—work supported by the European Union, and by the UK taxpayer, too. Unfortunately, the whereabouts of those relatives are in the domain of Turkish authorities, in military bases and in Turkey itself. There must be compliance with the European Court of Human Rights judgments to allow the whereabouts of those missing people to be established.

It is important that we do not rely simply on the fact that the talks have stalled in the past six months, on what will be said, which is that we want to ensure that the Cyprus problem is resolved by Cypriots, and on the UN framework. Obviously, we want that, but we want to ensure that Britain takes its responsibilities seriously and that we as a Government step up our pressure on Turkey to recognise Cyprus when Cyprus has the European presidency. We also encourage Cypriots to step up and civil society to take a place where there are political talks and restore religious heritage and other things beyond that. We will be right behind them, supporting them every step of the way. We are doing that on behalf of British Cypriots and because of our historical responsibilities, so that we can, at long last, end the need for such debates in Parliament.

[Dr Offord]

While we were in Cyprus, the mukhtars in the north part assured us that they would continue with some of the reconstructive works that they had engaged in before we got there. That was a sign of great hope and a positive step during our visit, but will my hon. Friend confirm that he has received letters of reassurance from the mukhtars to say that the work will continue, which they assured us during our visit that they would provide?

[Mr Burrowes]

The words were positive. I have said that we need actions, not just words. It is disappointing that we have not yet had that practical confirmation from those authorities. We will pursue that. If the Foreign Office can help us to do that as well, that would be much appreciated, because we have laid the groundwork and now need to ensure that we carry on with it. We should now allow a lot of Cypriots to walk over the bridges that have been built, so that we can build confidence.

We are happy to talk about Cyprus a lot, but it is important that we do not have more debates about it in the present context of a divided island. We want to support and stand full square, throughout the House, for a free, reunited Cyprus. As the holder of the presidency of the EU, it should be free and reunited. We need that sooner rather than later.

16:22

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). He is right. I belong in the elite group of people who have stood in Enfield, Southgate in a general election. He belongs in the even more elite group of people who have won in that constituency. I pay tribute to all colleagues who have joined us for this important debate, specifically my hon. Friend, who has a deep, consistent interest in this subject, which is a cause of great importance to a large number of his constituents and in which he takes an interest more widely.

Let me make a couple of points in response to specific issues that my hon. Friend raised, then touch on three themes that came out of the debate: cultural sites, missing persons and natural gas and mineral reserves, which were mentioned in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash).

The United Kingdom fully supports Security Council resolutions 550 and 789, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned, and we will continue to raise those issues with the Turkish authorities. We urge Turkey to implement the additional Ankara protocol when we have a suitable opportunity to bring that to its attention. It is important that the European Union and Turkey find a way to make progress on this issue.

My hon. Friend was right to draw the attention of the House to this significant moment in the long history of Cyprus, because from 1 July until the end of this year it holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union. There are close links between our countries: Cyprus is one of only three EU member states in the Commonwealth; more than 80,000 British citizens live on the island; more than 300,000 Cypriots live permanently in the UK, many of them in Enfield and other parts of north London and across the country; a million British people visit the island annually; and 11,000 Cypriot students attend British universities. I strongly take on board the point that was made about our historical obligations and our contemporary interest in events happening in Cyprus.

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister commit to looking into the question of the fraudulent title to land? Many thousands of English—British—people have land in Cyprus. I raised that matter when I visited. Will he commit to taking that forward, to ensure that there is a proper resolution in the courts so that these titles can be remedied?

[Mr Browne]

I will happily undertake to task the Department with looking into that. The Minister for Europe or I will write to my hon. Friend.

I have mentioned the three areas that I want to talk about in the five minutes available to me. First, on missing people, there are significant efforts to help families discover the fate of their relatives and give them the opportunity to bury them with respect. We understand that this is an important and sensitive issue for all Cypriots and recognise the need for it to be resolved. The work of the committee for missing persons is of great significance. Since its establishment in 1981, it has been one of the only institutionalised bi-communal committees in Cyprus. To date, the remains of 853 individuals have been exhumed from different burial sites located across the island and 321 remains of individuals exhumed within the framework of the CMP project have been identified through this process—255 Greek Cypriots and 66 Turkish Cypriots.

Of course, to complete its vital work the CMP must be granted access to all areas where it needs to excavate. I therefore urge all those in control of such areas, including the Turkish military, to co-operate fully with the committee. The Committee of Ministers responsible for the supervision of the Turkey v. Cyprus case in the European Court of Human Rights case has also underlined the need for Turkish authorities to take concrete measures in relation to the missing persons, and particularly in relation to the CMP’s access to all relevant information and places.

Secondly, the cultural heritage of the island, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate discussed at some length, is a sensitive area and the technical committee on cultural heritage, established in April 2008, has the mandate to work on improving the situation. The committee has developed an action plan to protect vulnerable buildings. It has already started work on some projects and hopes, with further funding, to be able to implement more of its plan. The UK Government strongly believe that respect for religious and cultural buildings is a key element in building trust between different communities, including through the preservation of churches, mosques and other buildings of religious and cultural heritage.

Thirdly, and finally—I am conscious that I am slightly skimming through these areas, but I know that hon. Members will want to hear the response to specific points—my hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Enfield, Southgate mentioned the discovery of substantial gas reserves in Cyprus’ exclusive economic zone, which we regard as good news for the island. There has never been any doubt about the United Kingdom’s support for the right of the Republic of Cyprus to develop the reserves that lie within its exclusive economic zone. Along with the international community we have publicly stated our recognition of Cyprus’ sovereign rights to do so.

We welcome President Christofias’s saying that the gas reserves should benefit all the people living in Cyprus. We hope that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus will take further steps to demonstrate to Turkish Cypriots that they have a clear interest in the development of these reserves. We call on all parties to handle the issue in a way that does not undermine the settlement process and urge both sides not to escalate the issue.

I express once again, on behalf of the Government, my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for raising this subject and reiterate that the Government remain committed to seeing a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus.

[Dr Offord]

Treading carefully, because this Government and no other Government apart from the Turkish Government recognise the northern Republic of Cyprus, will the Minister undertake, or give us assurances, that his Department will assist either the all-party parliamentary group on Cyprus or hon. Members present in seeking assurances from the mukhtars in the north that they would undertake the work that we have described?

[Mr Browne]

In the seconds that I have left, let me say that I will bring that to the attention of the Minister for Europe, who I am sure will take it on board as he does all representations from hon. Members.

Further Education Loans

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

16:30

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I think that we last met in the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill—what a spectacular use of all our time that was. I hope to finish a little early to allow some of my colleagues to say a few words—in particular, the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden).

It is a great pleasure to have secured this debate on the last day of term—an important debate that, frankly, following the Minister’s announcements last week should have been held on the Floor of the House. However, as with the Government’s higher education policy, on which we wait in vain for a White Paper and proper scrutiny, the Government have a terrible fear of discussing their skills and education strategy—such as it is.

It is also a great pleasure to have in the debate the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who graciously visited Stoke-on-Trent a fortnight ago to see the excellent work done by Sara Robinson and her team at Stoke-on-Trent college. For a city such as Stoke-on-Trent, the debate is vital. As a report from the Centre for Cities think-tank revealed only last week,

“Skills are the biggest determinant of success for cities, and are critical to the life chances of individuals.”

We are a city with some of the finest craftsman and most skilled workers in the land, who produce objects of inestimable beauty, but we also need to up our educational and skills attainment levels and we expect Government partnership to help us to do so.

Thus far, sadly, we have not had the kind of support that we would like: the scrapping of education maintenance allowances was not helpful, while the botched introduction of higher education tuition fees has seen steep falls in applications to the surrounding universities of Keele, Staffordshire and Manchester Metropolitan. My fear is that some of the strategic thinking that was at work on higher education policy has also been at work in further education—not only the same model of lending, but the same insouciance about detail and accountability.

There are some crucial differences between the higher education sector and the further education sector. A system of loans is an entirely new approach to FE provision and the so-called deterrent factor seems more complex. The argument that up-front course fees can act as a deterrent to learning has some merit. The impact of debt is less clear. I was concerned about the piling up of debt by students moving from level 3 qualifications to higher education and facing a double whammy.

I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the Minister’s concession in last Thursday’s statement that the Student Loans Company will now wipe the outstanding loan for access course students who go on to complete a higher education course. Perhaps the Minister could explain, however, why that offer does not apply to other level 3 qualifications, such as A-levels, BTECs or advanced apprenticeships. The Minister must surely be concerned by his Department’s impact assessment, which suggests that up to 150,000 students might drop out of adult learning altogether.

Clearly, we need a larger evidence base and greater scrutiny of the proposals. Some 375,000 adult learners stand to be affected by the changes, of which a disproportionate number are women—often carers. At Stoke-on-Trent college in my constituency, 1,080 of the 1,780 affected students are women. That is why the £50 million bursary for vulnerable students is a welcome addition, although I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether that money is being drawn from other learner support budgets. If so, could he tell us whether the negative impacts of removing the funds have been properly assessed?

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. At Stoke-on-Trent, which is similar to Rotherham, he mentioned 1,800 students; in Rotherham and Barnsley, there are probably 3,000 students over 24 who could be hit by up to £4,000 a year extra, for the first time ever paying the full cost of their fees and having to take out student loans for further education. Does he agree that that will put people off and that it is perhaps the worst possible time to introduce student loans for further education, when people are worried about their jobs, their debt and how they are going to pay the bills?

[Tristram Hunt]

In Stoke-on-Trent and, I imagine, in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, we have seen a fall in the number of those who are seeking to go on to higher education in local universities as a result of the increase in tuition fees to £9,000. Will we see the self-same fall among those who are seeking to go on to further education? That is exactly the wrong strategy to pursue in such cities, which, above all, need to upgrade their skills.

I also welcome Government recognition that there is a capital issue in FE with the STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering and maths, although it is not clear how that will prevent the cost differential between those more expensive courses and the cheaper humanity courses in a sustainable way. Again, we need more details.

Another difference between the higher and further education sectors does not stack up well for the proposals—the relative homogeneity of higher education courses in terms of length, the academic calendar, qualifications offered and the application process, compared with courses in further education, which can often vary in length, begin at different points and have much less obvious timings. To be generous, the Student Loans Company does not have an outstanding record of delivery even when administering the far simpler world of higher education loans. In the Minister’s response, will he outline what steps he is taking to ensure that the Student Loans Company can cope with that added pressure? We will certainly see the consequences in our constituency surgeries if the change goes wrong.

My greatest concern with the proposals, however, surrounds their financing. It is my understanding that the Government have estimated that only 40% of all level 3 qualification loans will get fully repaid. As my right hon. Friend implied, under the current policy, the Skills Funding Agency funds 50% of the cost of further education courses. There is a powerful case for not decreasing state support for further education on social mobility grounds—perhaps even more so than for higher education—but the Government have been clear that deficit reduction is part of their motivation. If only 40% of the loans are repaid, how would that represent a better deal for the taxpayer?

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that there will be an in-built inefficiency if the numbers of students fall so substantially that the fixed costs of colleges are no longer adequately covered by student fees?

[Tristram Hunt]

That is precisely the kind of area that we will need to look at when considering how the loans play out. What we saw in the higher education loans system was all sorts of additions to the initial policy, as the Government sought to unpick the consequences. In the way that things have been managed, we simply do not have the data to appreciate what will happen.

We can be positive about many elements of the Government plans, but we need to thrash out the questions of the consequences: value for money for the taxpayers; whether the Government have a philosophical objection to public investment in skills, although we know how important they are; and some of the detailed practicalities surrounding last week’s announcement, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested. It would have been helpful to have had the discussion in the House, with more colleagues with FE colleges in their constituencies present to explore such major public policy changes.

16:40

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) not only on securing this debate, but on the detailed, cogent and strong case he made that gave both an overview of the issue and the specific details from his constituency. This debate is necessary because, as has been pointed out, the Government have used negative resolution procedure to lay regulations on these loans without any debate or oral statements. This is the biggest change for a generation; it will affect 375,000 learners, and because of the way the Government have introduced the regulations, it will come into effect on 1 September which is before the House returns from its summer recess. That is why it is so important to have more details from the Minister today.

Further education colleges now have to make decisions about retaining courses and staff as part of a Treasury cuts-driven loans system—let us make no bones about it—that even the Department’s officials say will cover only 80% of the current learner cohort. I appreciate the concession that the Government have made in response to widespread concerns across the sector, and the personal diligence shown by the Minister and the Secretary of State on this matter. Those concessions, however, and the written ministerial statement, have only provoked further concerns of substance from all FE stakeholders, and I want to raise one or two of those points with the Minister today.

My hon. Friend noted that only about £20 million of the bursary money is new money, and the 157 Group has also drawn attention to that. Will the Minister say how the funds will operate, what flexibility he is going to give to colleges, and what extra administrative burdens that will place on them? Will he pledge to lobby the Treasury if the £50 million proves inadequate?

The chief executive of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education said that the loans system is new territory and creates uncertainty, and as we have heard, the Government have asked the Student Loans Company to administer FE loans as well. The SLC’s mixed record in such matters is well known. Will it have additional staff to administer the more complex FE structure, without the central processing mechanism used by UCAS in higher education? Will the Minister comment on the admission by his officials to stakeholders—I was present when it was made—that colleges may have to work with a paper-based system from the Student Loans Company for the first year because of the speed with which FE loans are being introduced?

The Government have promised to write off HE access course loans, but stakeholders such as Million+ are rightly concerned—as was my hon. Friend—that vulnerable individuals will shy away from taking up access courses in the first place. Will the Minister look at a potential broadening of the write-off, or at a grace period of perhaps three to five years for HE access students who, through no fault of their own but due to family circumstances or whatever, find themselves unable to get on an HE course immediately?

Loans are also to be enforced on adult advanced and higher apprentices to take out on an individual basis. However, the written ministerial statement made little reference to how that will work, or to the concerns voiced by the Government’s Commission for Employment and Skills about the potential reluctance of individuals and employers to participate. Why has the Minister so far not taken note of those concerns and those of Unionlearn? What consultation has he had with major employers involved in apprenticeship programmes, including the armed forces, about such reservations? Have his officials made an estimate of the number of adult apprentices who are at risk of dropping out if they are forced to take up loans on an individual basis? In a written reply, the Minister told me that he currently has no agreement with the Treasury to prevent it from clawing back unused loan funding if take-up is slower or poorer than anticipated. Will he undertake to obtain such an agreement before the loans are introduced next March?

As my hon. Friend and other colleagues have said, we need adult learners to continue to prosper and thrive, and not to be put off in places such as my hon. Friend’s constituency in Stoke, from improving their life chances and—this is important—from contributing to kick-starting growth in our local economies, something that we desperately need.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) on initiating this important debate. He and the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) have spoken about skills being critical to cities. Do they therefore concur that the FE freedoms outlined in the “New Challenges, New Chances” report will give more freedom to employers to meet the needs and demands of the future work force, and are a positive step in the right direction?

[Mr Marsden]

That is probably more a point for the Minister than for me, but I will observe that freedoms are great but, as we know, the freedom to dine at the Ritz is not a very useful freedom. This measure must be seen in the context of extra administrative burdens that the FE loan system may place on colleges. In a way, that brings me to my final point. The devil is in the detail, and the Government will be judged on how they deliver this huge change to the further education system over the next 12 months.

16:45

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) on securing it. He is right to say that it is timely and, to pick up on his first point, that we should have an opportunity to debate the issue at greater length. I have already made, and I will continue to make, overtures to create some space for such a debate when we return, not least because I am always happy to debate skills and further education. I do not say that those things are the Government’s only shining example of success—far from it—but they are certainly shining brightly. That is because we are determined to give FE colleges the freedoms and flexibilities that they need to become increasingly responsive to employer need and learner choice—my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) referred to that.

Disraeli said that it is easier to be critical than to be correct. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central was not terribly critical and was correct to welcome the measures that have been put in place, which I shall mention in a moment. First, however, let me set the scene. With the new freedoms that I have given the sector, it is essential that further education is able to offer as many people as possible the opportunity to gain learning as a means of improving their prospects through progressive learning or access to employment.

When we debated the comprehensive spending review, I and my colleagues in Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—in particular the Secretary of State—were determined that our priority should be those who are most disadvantaged, either by an absence of prior learning or by their circumstances, and those to whom we could make the most difference in terms of further education. That is not to underestimate the significance of lifelong learning or second and third chance education. Indeed, in the same CSR negotiations we cemented and safeguarded the adult and community learning budget that had been threatened and—I am reluctant to say this—sometimes disparaged by the Labour party when in government. That safeguarding surprised some who had not anticipated that we would be so protective, but I believe in adult and community learning not only as a means of re-engaging people but because it adds to the individual and collective well-being of our nation. As you know, Dr McCrea, I believe in the promotion of the common good and would not do anything to inhibit the interests of the people.

To that end, we made it clear that priority would continue to be placed on basic skills, younger learners and people below level 3. When introducing loans, we limited them to people over the age of 24 and those studying for a qualification at level 3 or above. That was a deliberate attempt—more than an attempt; a deliberate policy decision—to prioritise the least advantaged, because in my judgment, it is the duty of the fortunate to promote the interests of the less fortunate, no less in government than in our personal affairs.

In net terms, around 10% of FE learners will be affected by the new loans, and as I have said, they will be older learners and people studying at level 3 and above. Notwithstanding, however, that that is a small minority of the FE cohort, I received representations over time, we conducted an impact assessment, we surveyed the sector, and we engaged in discussions with the 157 Group, NIACE, the AOC and others—the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) referred to them all. Those representations made it clear to us, and that analysis showed, that some kinds of learner might be, in the words of the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), disproportionately affected by the prospect of loans. One has to be a little cautious, because similar evidence before the introduction of HE loans suggested a lower take-up than subsequently occurred. One therefore needs to qualify one’s doubts in those terms, but I do share the view that we needed to do more. Indeed, that was set out in the very good letter sent to me at the end of June by the hon. Member for Blackpool South, who has contributed for the Opposition. He identified four areas in which he believed that there was a particular issue and he put his case, as ever, very reasonably and fairly. Those four areas were essentially access to—

[John Healey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, I will happily give way.

[John Healey]

When I came into the Chamber, the Minister said, “Are you here to pay tribute to my work?” I have been known to do that and I suspect that his hand has been forced somewhat on this question of student loans. Before he moves off the impact assessment and the research, is he not worried that that research showed that only one in 10 current students would definitely do their course if they were faced with having student loans as he is proposing?

[Mr Hayes]

Actually, if one looks at the impact assessment closely, it suggests that after clear communication of the offer, we will expect full take-up of the funding for loans. A very significant majority of people, when the circumstances of the loans were explained to them, said that they would participate. Initially, some were very likely to do so and some were less certain, but the number saying that they would participate grew as these things were explained to them. By the way, full take-up of the loans would be 90% of 24-plus learners studying at level 3 and above. We are therefore talking about a very significant majority of 10% of the cohort. That is where we are in terms of the overall FE numbers.

It should be borne in mind that the impact assessment was carried out before I announced the mitigation package, to which the hon. Member for Blackpool South has referred. I was coming on to why we put that in place. A case was made about access to HE. It seems to me perfectly fair to argue that it would be unacceptable for someone to borrow to study an access course and then borrow again to study an HE course. The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked whether we could look at the issue of timing. I think that we should and I will do so. I think that there is an argument for people who do not immediately progress to HE, but do so perhaps a year or two years later. We need to consider how we manage that, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I will certainly look at it.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend the Minister care to tell us a little more about the £50 million bursary fund that is available over two years, because that is quite an important element of the mitigation and support package?

[Mr Hayes]

I am almost as excited about that as my hon. Friend. I will certainly come to it, because it is wonderful news. I have been asked to give more detail and I will in the time available. Let me just finish my point about the access-to-HE measures. They mean that anyone who goes on to HE will see their access loan written off. That is very important, as that route disproportionately contains people with poor levels of prior attainment; after all, that is why they are doing access-to-HE courses. They are often doing so later in life. There is also a disproportionate number of women and women returners in that group. That is very important, too. What we are doing is therefore socially regenerative; it is about social justice. All I do is driven by my passion for social justice. That is what those courses are about and that is why we have taken this action.

However, that alone, in my judgment, would not have been sufficient. That is why I wanted a bursary fund. The hon. Member for Blackpool South has asked how much of that is drawn from existing provision. About £20 million is completely new money. As hon. Members will know, there is some existing learner support money in FE. It is targeted at, for example, people with learning difficulties and disabilities. That will be made part of this bursary, but I do not anticipate that any learner will be worse off as a result of these changes. In other words, we are not displacing the interests of any group of learners. It is just more straightforward for colleges and learners to have these things in a single national bursary package.

I have always favoured the idea of a national bursary fund, by the way, so this is the fulfilment of another long-held ambition, framed by the discussions that I have had over many years with the sector, which argued that it would be a very effective way of allowing colleges to respond to local circumstances. They know their cohort best; they know their circumstances better than I ever could. We therefore need to build in a level of discretion to allow colleges to work with their communities, their learner base and their local employers to ensure that what they are providing meets the needs.

However, the point made from the Opposition side of the Chamber about how much discretion there will be was well made. I think that we should set down some criteria according to which we expect the money to be allocated and I will do so, having had discussions with the sector and bearing in mind—let us get the time scale clear—that the application period for loans opens in April 2013 for courses starting in August or September 2013. Therefore, although it is true that we will not have a chance to debate the matter more fully until this September, it is not happening until the year after the next academic year. The hon. Member for Blackpool South makes the point that FE colleges must plan and he is right. That is why we have done what we have now, rather than waiting any longer. I hope that the fund will address the issue of older learners, who were, according to the impact assessment, disproportionately risk averse in terms of loans. That is hardly surprising. Someone of 55 might perceive a 30-year loan in a rather different way from someone of 20 or 25.

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

My hon. Friend the Minister makes a very important point. May I welcome the cautious approach that he has taken in this area? Does he agree with me that at a time of recession, when we are trying to get our economy going, supporting adult learning is incredibly important for reskilling the work force and those who may find themselves out of work?

[Mr Hayes]

As I am the champion of apprenticeships, my hon. Friend would hardly expect me to disagree with that analysis. He is right that skills are critical to recalibrating the competences of our work force in a way that makes our economy more sustainable by making our businesses more resilient.

The bursary fund is exciting and new and will allow us to address some of the perfectly properly argued concerns of Opposition Members, but more than that, I wanted to accept NIACE’s proposal of a mid-life learning health check, so that we could look at people at the age of 40 and 50 perhaps and use the national careers service to gauge when and where they could study to upskill or reskill. That there is a need for that has been argued by the sector for some time, and we have taken it on board as part of this package.

On the issue of STEM, which was raised specifically, I take the view that tying capital investment to STEM is not only about growing capacity, but about pinning down the costs of those courses. It is often argued that the costs are so high because of the need to resource in order to deliver them. I will look at how we can be specific about that in the next FE capital round. We have already had a number of such rounds, and we will have many more, because it is vital that we invest in our college infrastructure. We have excellent colleges, such as the one that I visited in Stoke, when, as a result of the kindness of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), I was able to take away with me an Arnold Bennett volume to read over my brief summer sojourn.

All of that represents responsiveness. It was developed after discussion with hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was certainly discussed with the sector. It is a considerable step forward. But I just say this. Our determination is to ensure that it is put in place efficiently and effectively, so there will be no paper-based system. This will be done properly. The Student Loans Company will get it right, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South urged it to do, quite properly. This is a fair package—a just package. It is a package of which we can all be proud. We should now move forward together with confidence to put in place loans and get rid of up-front fees—a point that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central very generously made and that I would have made otherwise. We should do so in the spirit that has imbued all we have done; one of elevating practical learning by elevating those who teach and learn in our FE colleges, who change so many lives by changing so many life chances.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Order. I wish right hon. and hon. Members a very pleasant recess.

Question put and agreed to.

17:00

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

Tuesday 17 July 2012

Competition and Markets Authority

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I have decided to appoint Lord Currie as the chair-designate to the Competition and Markets Authority.

Lord Currie will commence his appointment in the summer which will be for an initial period of four years. His appointment as chairman will be subject to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill receiving Royal Assent and to scrutiny by the BIS Select Committee.

The appointment has been made in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ code of practice (April 2012).

Lord Currie was chair of Ofcom from its inception in 2002 until 2009, dean of Cass Business School from 2001 until 2008 and before that deputy dean at London Business School.

He is currently chair of the International Centre for Financial Regulation and board member of Dubai Financial Services Authority. Lord Currie also holds a number of non-executive roles spanning academia, Government and the voluntary sector and sits as a cross-bencher in the House of Lords.

Lord Currie will be stepping down from his current non-executive directorships of Royal Mail, IG Group and BDO.

Green Technologies (UKTI/ECGD Support)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

The 2010 coalition programme for government contained a commitment that:

“We will ensure that UK Trade and Investment and the Export Credits Guarantee Department become champions for British companies that develop and export innovative green technologies round the world, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel production.”

UKTI set out in its strategy “Britain Open for Business” how it would promote low-carbon exports; this includes a green export campaign that aims to build the UK’s reputation in the green and low-carbon sector and to promote this capability overseas. UKTI is embedding this campaign into trade work in all markets where there is a clear opportunity to do so.

The Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), operating as UK Export Finance, has been engaging with companies and trade bodies based in the UK which are involved in the development and export of green technology exports. The purpose has been to ensure companies are aware of the support that is available to them from ECGD if they require credit insurance, export working capital finance, contract bond support or if their buyers require export credit loan finance. Through engagement with overseas project sponsors ECGD has also promoted the availability of export credit finance to help to influence them to purchase supplies from companies based in the UK.

This work by UKTI and ECGD is intended to assist UK exporters of low-carbon technologies and support them in taking advantage of international opportunities.

As to support for dirty fossil fuel energy production, “dirty” should be taken as referring to projects which produce pollution in excess of international environmental standards. The standards which ECGD applies are those set out by the OECD in the OECD Council recommendation on Common Approaches on Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Due Diligence and are usually those of the World Bank Group. ECGD will normally refuse support for exports to projects that do not meet those standards.

The UK will seek to promote the strengthening of the relevant World Bank Group international standards to include limits on emissions of greenhouse gases.

Capital for Enterprise Ltd (Triennial Review)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

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

The triennial review of Capital for Enterprise Ltd will commence during October 2012.

The coalition Government made a commitment to review public bodies, with the aim of increasing accountability for actions carried out on behalf of the state.

BIS has agreed with the Cabinet Office that Capital for Enterprise Ltd will be one of the NDPBs for which the review will commence during the second year of the triennial review programme, financial year 2012-13.

The review will be conducted as set out in Cabinet Office guidance, in two stages.

Stage 1 will:

Identify and examine the key functions of the Capital for Enterprise Ltd and assess how these functions contribute to the core business of BIS.

Assess the requirement for these to continue.

If continuing, then assess delivery options and where the conclusion is that a particular function is still needed examine how this function might best be delivered, including a cost and benefits analysis where appropriate.

If one of these options is continuing delivery through Capital for Enterprise Ltd, then make an assessment against the Government’s “three tests”, which are: technical function; political impartiality; need for independence from Ministers.

If the outcome of stage 1 is that delivery should continue through Capital for Enterprise Ltd then the second stage of the project will be to ensure that it is operating in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance, using the Cabinet Office “comply or explain” standard approach.

The report of the review should be completed within six months from commencement, and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Government Consultation

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)]

Today my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Minister with responsibility for business and enterprise, the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) and I are announcing a new approach to Government consultations.

The civil service reform plan commits the Government to improving policy making and implementation with a greater focus on robust evidence, transparency and engaging with key groups earlier in the process.

As a result the Government are improving the way they consult by adopting a more proportionate and targeted approach. The new approach to consultation is based on making the type and scale of engagement proportional to the potential impacts of the proposal. The emphasis is on understanding the effects of a proposal and ensuring real engagement rather than following the same bureaucratic process.

This guidance therefore replaces the code of practice on consultation issued in July 2008.

This will mean that Departments will follow a range of time scales rather than defaulting to a 12-week period, particularly where extensive engagement has occurred before. Policy makers will need to give more thought to how we consult with people. The aim is to replace potentially unproductive process with real engagement with those who are affected—in some cases earlier consultation so groups can shape policy earlier in the process.

Consultation can take different forms but the expectation is that it will be “digital by default.” This approach will need to be varied for vulnerable or other groups whose access to information technology is limited, but it should mean that Departments can be more, not less, effective at reaching particular groups affected by policies.

The principles of the compact between Government and the voluntary and community sector will continue to be respected.

The new consultation principles will be promoted within Whitehall now, and the public will begin to see new guidance take effect after recess. In line with the principles of open policy making we welcome views on how the new approach should operate in practice. Copies of the new guidance have been placed in the Library of the House.

Money Laundering

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

The Government are today publishing their response to the consultation on proposed changes to the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and an impact assessment on those changes. The 2007 regulations implement the European Union’s third money laundering directive in the UK.

The proposals being taken forward will both reduce the regulatory burden on firms and make the UK’s money laundering regime more effective and proportionate. The amendments are, for the most part, intended to benefit UK businesses by removing from the scope of the regulations those firms that are not at high risk of money laundering or terrorist financing and by enabling UK businesses to take full advantage of simplification measures provided in the European Union (EU) directive.

The Government committed to a post-implementation review of the 2007 regulations two years after they came into force. This review was undertaken in 2009-10, in conjunction with the Better Regulation Executive. The review entailed an extensive call for evidence, meetings, conferences and interviews with stakeholders. The Government’s response to the review was published in June 2011 and contained a consultation on 17 proposals to improve the UK’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regime.

Following this consultation, which drew 72 responses and involved extensive engagement, the Government are taking forward proposals with a net annual benefit for businesses of £3 million.

The measures that will be taken forward are:

Extending the use of reliance: The Government will extend the permitted use of reliance, a mechanism by which a firm can rely on the customer due diligence (CDD) carried out by a different firm. This will minimise the duplication of CDD checks by the regulated sector and reduce the burden CDD places upon customers.

Exempting non-lending credit institutions: Only businesses that lend and advance money should be subject to the regulations. The regulations will be amended to exempt credit institutions that offer time to pay for non-refundable services, such as health and golf clubs. The Government do not consider that such businesses present a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, or that the global standards and EU directive require such businesses to be regulated.

Regulating overseas estate agents: Global standards and the EU directive require the regulation of estate agents because of the high money laundering risks in this sector. UK estate agents selling overseas properties will, therefore, now be within scope of the regulations.

Amending the fit and proper test: The “fit and proper persons” test is applied by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to decide whether a person is suitable to run a money service business (MSB). This test will be amended in the regulations to ensure that individuals who are not fit and proper cannot run a business which is at high risk of money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation of financing. This also ensures consistency with the financial action taskforce (FATF) global standards, the EU directive and the fit and proper test applied by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) under the Payment Services Regulations.

Right to appeal against HMRC decision: The Government will clarify the right to appeal, to ensure that individuals have easy and economic access to a fair hearing if they wish to challenge HMRC’s decision.

Regulatory enforcement measures: These measures support the Office of Fair Trading, HMRC and the FSA as supervisors in taking action to ensure compliance with the regulations.

A full explanation of the proposals being taken forward can be found in the Government’s response document and impact assessment. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

ECOFIN

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 10 July 2012. Ministers discussed the following items:

Economic governance—“two pack”

The incoming Cypriot presidency updated Ministers on the process to be followed for trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament on the “two pack” of economic governance proposals. The Parliament has suggested changes to the proposals. The Council confirmed that the general approach it agreed on 21 February would be the starting point for the negotiations: the first working-level meeting with the Parliament was scheduled for 11 July.

Revised capital requirements rules (CRD4)

The presidency briefed Ministers on progress made in trilogue negotiations, and expressed its wish to finalise the negotiations as soon as possible. It had already held its first trilogue and had scheduled further meetings very soon. It will aim to achieve adoption of both the directive and the regulation at first reading, though it acknowledges several outstanding issues requiring resolution—including the mechanism for member states to impose additional prudential requirements, remuneration policies, crisis management, sanctions, the balance of power between the authorities of “home” and “host” countries, corporate governance, and the powers of the European Banking Authority (EBA). The UK favours a full and faithful implementation of Basel 3 in the EU and member states having the flexibility to increase minimum standards in order to protect financial stability in their jurisdiction.

Proposal for Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive

The Commission presented its proposals for a directive, which the Council noted, and Ministers held a preliminary exchange of views. The presidency’s aim is for the Council to agree a general approach by December.

Presentation of the Cyprus Presidency Work Programme

The new presidency presented its work programme on economic and financial affairs for the next six months. It will prioritise implementation of recently adopted initiatives on economic governance, fiscal consolidation, strengthening the European financial services framework and accelerating structural reforms, as well as some tax issues. Ministers exchanged views on this: I highlighted the European Commission’s €15 billion upward revision to its June proposal for the 2014-2020 multi-annual financial framework, which was already unaffordable, and called for re-prioritisation of the EU budget. The Council took note of the presidency’s programme.

Follow-up to the European Council on 28-29 June 2012

Ministers discussed work required to follow up the June European Council discussions, on establishing what has been termed “genuine economic and monetary union” and a banking supervisor. On the latter, the Commission will present proposals, expected in the autumn: the Council held a preliminary exchange of views in advance of these. I intervened to welcome the European Council’s commitment to the integrity of the single market and to highlight the need to protect against its fragmentation—such as discrimination between the euro area and euro “outs”—and I pointed out that banking union makes sense for the euro area, as mutualised risk should be accompanied by mutualised control.

European Semester

The Council adopted the recommendations to member states on their economic and fiscal policies, and the specific recommendation on the economic policies of the member states of the euro area. As required by the “comply or explain” principle established by economic governance legislation agreed last year, the Council provided explanations of its modifications of Commission proposals and recommendations.

Ministers also discussed the European semester more broadly and suggested ideas for improving the process in 2013. The presidency called for further discussions at Council meetings scheduled for the autumn.

Spain’s Excessive Deficit Procedure

In a late addition to the agenda. Ministers agreed to extend Spain’s deadline to correct its deficit under its excessive deficit procedure. Spain will now have until 2014 to bring its deficit below the EU’s 3% of GDP reference value.

Other business

The Council agreed to recommend the nomination of Yves Mersch (currently Head of Luxembourg’s central bank) to the executive board of the European Central Bank (ECB). This recommendation will be submitted to the European Council for a decision, after consultation with the European Parliament and the ECB’s governing council.

Tax Policy (Consultation)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Budget 2012 announced a number of tax policy changes that will be subject to consultation. HM Revenue and Customs is today publishing the following documents:

High-risk areas of the tax code: the stamp duty land tax (SDLT) “transfer of rights” or “subsale” rules—A consultation on broad options to address SDLT subsales avoidance.

VAT treatment of small cable-based transport—A consultation on the introduction of a reduced rate of VAT for small cable-based transport.

The following consultations are due to be published during summer recess:

Life insurance policies: time apportioned reduction —A consultation on reform to time apportionment reductions reflecting a policyholder’s period of residence outside the UK.

Foreign currency assets and chargeable gains—A consultation on whether to introduce a rule requiring companies with a non-sterling functional currency to compute their capital gains and losses in their functional currency.

Details of these and other planned consultations are included in a consultation tracker, available from the HM Treasury website:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_updates.htm.

The tracker includes specific anticipated launch dates wherever possible, to help representative groups and others manage their engagement with the Government on tax policy development. Any changes to the dates mentioned above will be publicised on the tax consultation tracker.

Local Government Finance

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

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

I am today publishing a consultation and informing the House of a number of steps we have taken to support our localism agenda and the important financial reforms we are delivering through the Local Government Finance Bill.

Business rates retention

The business rates retention scheme will enable local authorities to retain a proportion of locally collected business rates to help fund the services they provide, therefore creating a direct link between business rates collected and local authority income, and reducing local authorities’ dependency on central Government grants. The technical consultation document, also published today, sets out proposals for the detailed workings of the new business rates retention scheme that is to be introduced from April 2013.

The scheme will give councils a strong financial incentive to promote local business growth while ensuring that all local authorities have adequate resources to provide services to local people. Analysis undertaken by the Department for Communities and Local Government shows that the projected economic benefits of the new business rate retention scheme could add an additional £10 billion to national gross domestic product over the next seven years. And councils who succeed in growing their local economy get a direct boost to their coffers. This is not simply about redistributing the proceeds of growth—if these reforms lead to every council working as hard as it possibly can to help businesses thrive, then they have the potential to increase growth overall, which is good news for communities in as much as any increase in business rates means more money to invest in local services.

This publication follows the 2011 consultation on the proposals for business rates retention and extensive discussions on the proposals with the local government sector, as well as the associated statements of intent published on 17 May this year. I have placed copies of the consultation document in the Library of the House. The consultation document, a supporting equality statement, a Plain English Guide to Business Rates Retention, a step by step guide and a revised pooling prospectus are also available on the Department for Communities and Local Government website and the Local Government Finance website at:

http://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/brr/sumcon/index.htm

We look forward to receiving views on our proposals. The consultation period will close on 24 September 2012. We will then put forward our proposals for local government funding for 2013-14 in a draft local government finance settlement later this year.

Council Tax Information Letter

The Government also today issued a council tax information letter to local authorities to make them aware that, when considering applications from service personnel for second homes discount on their private properties, they do make payments on their UK or overseas service accommodation in lieu of council tax. This payment is paid to the billing authority where the service accommodation is located by the Ministry of Defence.

Council tax support

To support the planning of local council tax reduction schemes, and to provide clarity on our plans for secondary legislation, I have also published, on 16 July 2012, key draft regulations regarding the localisation of council tax support, as we said we would in the detailed statement of intent on regulations published in May.

Under the reforms set out in the Local Government Finance Bill 2012, local authorities will be required to make their own council tax support schemes by 31 January 2013. The draft regulations I published yesterday will ensure all local schemes contain any requirements prescribed by the Secretary of State, including provision of support for vulnerable pensioners, and also set out the requirements for a default scheme, which will come into effect if a local authority fails to make a scheme by the prescribed deadline.

The publication of these regulations in draft form is intended to give authorities and interested parties the opportunity to make any comments or ask questions on the process and the draft regulations, to ensure that the final versions will enable local authorities to implement the prescribed requirements or default scheme smoothly.

It is essential that local authorities press ahead now with developing their schemes. Schemes have to be agreed by the end of January 2013 and will apply from 1 April 2013. This means local authorities need to start consulting now to ensure they can give full consideration to the views local people express, and provisions in the Local Government Finance Bill make clear that the billing authority can consult prior to the Bill coming into force.

Parish and community cheques

Today we have published a consultation paper proposing the removal of an outdated rule that limits the ability of parish and community councils to use modern methods of payment. The rule requires all cheques and other orders for the payment of money to be signed by two members of the council. It applies to all parish councils in England and community councils in Wales, as well as some charter trustees in England. As the rule is contained in primary legislation the paper proposes that the reform should be implemented by a legislative reform order made under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. The paper sets out the robust yet flexible control framework that will take the place of the two signature rules; this framework has been developed by the local council sector. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, the Government propose to lay a draft order before Parliament in the autumn. A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Library of the House.

Local Government Pension Scheme

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

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

My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, made a statement to the House on 20 December 2011 setting out principles to govern the reform of the local government pension scheme agreed between the Local Government Association and local government trade unions. These reforms are designed to ensure the scheme is sustainable and affordable in the long term, while at the same time being fair to both scheme members and local taxpayers.

I can now report to the House that the Local Government Association and local government trade unions have begun informal consultations with their respective memberships on new design proposals for the scheme to be in place by 2014, within the 19.5% cost ceiling agreed by the Government. A favourable outcome will be followed by a statutory, national consultation by the Government in the autumn.

Details of the proposals are contained in a joint statement issued by the local government trade unions and the Local Government Association which can be found at www.lgps.org.uk. A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library of the House.

Defence Materiel Strategy

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

A core element of the transformation process under way in the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is reforming its acquisition system to drive better value from the defence budget. This includes changes to the Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) organisation to ensure it has the structures, management and skills it needs to provide the right equipment to our armed forces at the right time, and at the right cost. This is essential to tackle the legacy problems in defence acquisition that led to cost and schedule overruns, and which have resisted previous reform. The people at DE&S work hard to provide battle-winning equipment, support and logistics, but the current system does not work for them, does not always support them, and is not delivering value for money for the taxpayer.

Over the last year, Bernard Gray, the Chief of Defence Materiel, has analysed the root causes of the current situation and identified three interlinked issues. These are: a historically overheated equipment programme, where far more projects were planned than could be paid for; a weak interface between DE&S and the wider Ministry of Defence with poor discipline and change control between those setting requirements for equipment and those delivering the programmes; and insufficient levels of business capability at DE&S for the scale and complexity of the portfolio it is asked to deliver. The result has been significant additional costs in the defence budget of the order of hundreds of millions of pounds each year, with money spent managing the consequences of delay rather than delivering maximum capability for the armed forces.

I was able to announce to the House on 14 May, Official Report, column 261, that we had finally balanced the defence budget. The MOD is now engaged in a process of transformation to deliver the behaviour-changing incentives and structures that will maintain the budget in balance in the fixture. The restructuring of DE&S is key to this process.

For decades the Ministry of Defence has wrestled with this issue without success, and it is clear that addressing it within current structures will be extremely challenging. Earlier this year, I therefore asked my officials to focus their efforts on considering the comparative benefits which could be derived from changing DE&S into either an executive non-departmental public body with a strategic partner from the private sector (ENDPB/SP), or a Government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) entity. The work done to date, suggests that the strategic case for the GOCO option is stronger than the ENDPB option. Further value-for-money work is under way to confirm this assessment. In the meantime, as resources and commercial appetite constrain our ability to pursue these two options simultaneously to the next stage, I have decided that MOD should focus its effort on developing and testing the GOCO option further.

The work to determine value for money between the options will take place over the next few months, and in parallel we will begin development of a commercial strategy, engaging industry to hone our requirement. This work will support decisions later in the year on whether to proceed with the GOCO option and whether to launch a competition for the private sector management company to run the organisation. Provided that the further work demonstrates that the value-for-money case for GOCO over ENDPB/SP is conclusive, this will be followed by an investment appraisal that will test the GOCO against a public sector comparator, following which a decision on whether or not to proceed will be taken.

Individual Electoral Registration

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am announcing today that the Government have placed the implementation plan for individual electoral registration (IER) in the House Library. The plan has also been published on the Cabinet Office website.

The aim of this plan is to explain how the new system will affect citizens and electoral administrators and how this change will be delivered. In particular, it outlines the timetable for the work and how this will be managed alongside other activities electoral administrators will have to carry out over that period. This plan has been developed in consultation with key delivery partners, the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA), the Electoral Commission (EC) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE).

We have been working with stakeholders throughout the process of developing our proposals for IER, and have already consulted on the overall policy and the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, adapting our policy to reflect feedback from Parliament (notably the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which carried out pre-legislative scrutiny on our proposals), the public, and other stakeholders. We piloted data matching last year with 22 local authorities. We will continue the approach of working with stakeholders throughout the delivery of this change, to ensure that we have assurance that the new service will work effectively on the ground before we go live in 2014.

Education Services Reform

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

We need to reform the way that local authorities and academies are funded for central education services. We have inherited a complicated system which can no longer support the rapid growth in the number of academies and today I am announcing proposals to make it fairer, simpler and more transparent from 2013-14.

Academies are responsible for a range of education services such as school improvement, audit and HR, that local authorities perform on behalf of maintained schools. Academies receive a grant (known as the local authority central spend equivalent grant or LACSEG) to fund those additional duties. This gives academies greater freedom to secure the right services for their pupils.

Local authorities and academies receive funding for these responsibilities separately and the current method of calculating how much money each academy should receive is convoluted and bureaucratic. We have to wait until every local authority tells us how much they plan to spend on services for maintained schools in their area before we can calculate the grants for academies. This means that academies can receive vastly different levels of funding from one year to the next and the rates tend to vary starkly across the country.

Moreover, as more schools adopt the freedoms of academy status, basing this grant on the amount spent by the local authority is increasingly incongruous. In two local authorities, for instance, all state funded secondary schools are now academies and the funding for education services needs to be brought into line with this significant shift in school provision.

Local authorities fund central education services from the money they receive for schools from the Department for Education, as well as from their general funding. The Government believe that money intended for schools should be given straight to schools themselves so that they can decide how best to spend it. That is why I announced in March that, from 2013-14, it will be compulsory for local authorities to allocate all of the money that they receive specifically for schools (the dedicated schools grant) directly to the maintained schools and academies in their area.

I am also proposing that the money that is currently paid separately to local authorities and academies for central education services should be replaced by a single grant. This would be allocated on a simple national basis according to the numbers of pupils for which they are responsible. The new grant would be paid directly to individual academies and to each local authority for all the pupils in maintained schools. The funding for these functions will be transferred from the Department for Communities and Local Government, to be administered by the Department for Education, and so I am consulting on these proposals alongside the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s consultation on the introduction of a business rates retention scheme from 2013-14.

Distributing this money on a clear and transparent basis will help to restore confidence in the system and will put an end to the dramatic year-on-year turbulence and national variation in funding levels. This will take us further in achieving our objective of raising the attainment of all pupils across the country.

I have also published the Government’s response to the consultation held late last year on the way that funding for central education services was removed from local authorities in 2011-12 and 2012-13 to reflect the transfer of responsibilities to academies. This sets out the steps we have taken to ensure that the amounts deducted better reflect the number of academies in each local authority over the two-year period.

Copies of these publications will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

British Council (Annual Report)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

Copies of the British Council’s annual report and accounts for the 2011-12 financial year have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It can also be found at the British Council’s website www.britishcouncil.org.

During the period the British Council received £180,500,000 grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Building Stability Overseas

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

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

I, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Defence, wish to update the House on the progress our three Departments have made in implementing the Building Stability Overseas Strategy (BSOS) that we launched on 19 July 2011. The BSOS is one of the cross-Government strategies adopted following the strategic defence and security review.

We launched the BSOS at the time of the Arab spring, which was a profound demonstration that genuine stability can only be achieved when societies have strong and legitimate institutions to manage tensions peacefully. The BSOS was the first cross-Government strategy on conflict issues. It sets out that it is in the UK’s interest to build capacities overseas that help prevent the conditions that lead to conflict before they develop; and to identify emerging crises early and to respond rapidly to prevent or mitigate them.

We have made good progress in implementing the new strategy since its publication. The BSOS has produced a range of different mechanisms that ensure that the different skills, perspectives and expertise across Government are brought together in an integrated way.

We have established new systems for early warning, to better identify rising risks. Senior officials from across Government meet regularly to systematically review and, if necessary, challenge the Government’s approach to selected priority countries.

We have increased the level of overall resources for conflict prevention in the tri-departmental conflict pool and are aligning the pool’s approach more towards upstream conflict prevention. I intend to place before the House details of proposed conflict resources allocations, through the conflict pool, for financial years 2012-13 and 2014-15 once the National Security Council has endorsed them.

Our aim is to ensure a clear fit between conflict pool allocations and the Government’s highest conflict and stability priorities. We have increased conflict pool funding for the middle east and north Africa region, aligning our work closely with that of our Arab partnership initiative which supports Arab-led efforts to build more open, prosperous and stable societies. We are increasing our support to Somalia and Pakistan, while continuing important commitments to the Balkans, the Caucasus and to the UK’s peacekeeping presence in Cyprus. Within the conflict pool, we have also created a new £20 million early action facility (EAF) to provide rapid funding for unforeseen crises or to address new opportunities for conflict prevention. The facility has already been used to support work on Syria.

For the first time, we have made conflict pool allocations across more than one financial year, increasing our ability to plan ahead, deliver better value for money and improve the impact of our work. We are strengthening the conflict pool’s focus on achieving results. Our reform programme will draw on recommendations from independent reviews this year by the National Audit Office and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact.

We commissioned an internal review of the tri-departmental stabilisation unit. The review concluded that there continues to be a clear need for the stabilisation unit. It will remain an important tool to help integrate the Government’s approach to conflict and to help build more stable states. We are working to implement the recommendations of the review, including strengthening the leadership of the unit and its oversight by our three Departments, moving the unit to a new location and driving value for money and efficiency changes (including headcount reductions).

Our development programme continues to prevent conflict upstream, supporting countries to make that vital transition towards a peaceful, stable and lasting future. Three-quarters of the Department for International Development’s (DFID) focus countries are fragile and conflict affected states. DFID is on track to direct 30% of UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) to such countries by 2014-15. In 2011-12 UK aid investments supported freer and fairer elections in four countries, helped 300,000 women to access justice through the courts, police and legal assistance and helped over 16 million people hold their authorities to account.

The UK can achieve a much greater impact to building stability and preventing conflict around the world when we work with others. We are well placed to do so, exploiting the UK’s established roles and networks at the UN, within the EU, NATO and other multilateral forum and with our traditional partners. We are working with the UN’s Department for Political Affairs to improve its capacity for conflict prevention. We have provided UK secondees to the European External Action Service conflict prevention team and we are ensuring conflict prevention features in EU budget negotiations. We are also engaging with a broader range of partners, including Brazil and South Africa. The BSOS has enabled the UK to remain at the heart of international thinking on conflict prevention. The London conference on Somalia in February was a good example of the way UK leadership can reinvigorate and galvanise international efforts.

We recognise that Government do not have all the answers and therefore we are seeking deliberately wider views beyond Whitehall to provide challenge and to ensure we access, reflect on and assimilate latest thinking. We have used the positive reaction to the publication of BSOS from NGOs and academics specialising in conflict to develop relationships further through joint initiatives.

The BSOS recognised the need to include the protection of women and children. I informed the House of the Government’s new initiative to tackle sexual violence in conflict on 12 June including the establishment of a new team of experts and an international diplomatic campaign during our G8 presidency in 2013. As well as directly supporting and undertaking investigations, this team will support upstream interventions by providing training to national authorities to strengthen their domestic response to rape and other crimes of sexual violence.

In post-conflict scenarios, holding those responsible for appalling crimes of sexual violence and removing the sense of impunity will contribute to the peace building process.

The new approach outlined in the building stability overseas strategy is already beginning to have real impact on way the UK tackles conflict and instability overseas. We have the tools in place and are now working on implementation. Addressing instability and conflict overseas is a sound investment in both our national interest and a better future for all.

Informal Health Council

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

EU Health Ministers met in Nicosia, Cyprus, on 10 and 11 July. The United Kingdom was represented at official level. The agenda included discussions on organ donation and transplantation, the health work force, and health security.

The meeting began with a discussion on organ donation and transplantation. This discussion was followed by a lunch debate on the health work force, centring on the priorities outlined in the EU’s action plan for the EU health work force. There was also broad consensus that the EU could support the pursuit of these priorities in member states by facilitating the sharing of experiences and best practices, but that member states alone were competent to define their own work force strategies.

Following presentations from the presidency, the Commission, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Greece, health security was also discussed, in particular risk and crisis communication strategies.

Boundary Commission for England (Reappointment of Deputy Chair)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

I should like to inform the House that I have made the following appointment under schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986:

The Honourable Mr Justice Sales re-appointed as Deputy Chairman of the Boundary Commission for England effective until 30 June 2014.

Senior Civil Service Appointments (Correction to Parliamentary Answer)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

I regret to inform the House that I have recently discovered that there was an inaccuracy in the answer I gave to a commons parliamentary question (85074) on 15 December 2011, Official Report, column 882W, about off payroll senior civil service appointments to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas).

I am now advised that the correct answer is that at the time of the question in December 2011, the Ministry of Justice had engaged nine senior managers working in senior civil service positions on an interim basis (deployed within the MOJ IT directorate). Within its executive agencies and non-departmental bodies, there were two senior managers engaged in a senior civil service position on an interim basis (one in the National Offender Management Service and the other in the Legal Service Commission).

Furthermore the answer described the process for the procurement of contractors and interims through a single managed service provider, Capita Resourcing Ltd. This was normally the case for the main Department and its executive agencies. However, it should have been made clear that the Ministry’s non-departmental public bodies have their own processes and are not obliged to use the Ministry’s single managed service provider. In addition, where the single managed service provider was unable to source specifically skilled individuals, then other providers are engaged.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Civil Litigation and Funding Costs)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

This statement amends the one I made on 10 July 2012, Official Report, column 20WS. The wording in relation to the sanctions under part 36 of the civil procedure rules (offers to settle), paragraph (i), contained a factual error, which has now been corrected.

On 24 May 2012, Official Report, column 94WS, I announced the Government’s implementation plans for the provisions under part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 relating to civil litigation funding and costs. The Government have now considered further advice from the Civil Justice Council and I can therefore set out further details of those provisions.

A regime of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) is to be introduced in personal injury claims, so that claimants conducting their case properly will not have to pay towards defendants’ costs if the claim fails. Rules will be drafted on the following basis:

i. QOCS will apply to all claimants whatever their means; there is to be no financial test to determine eligibility;

ii. Subject to the provisions below, claimants who lose will not have to contribute towards defendants’ costs (there is to be no minimum payment by a losing claimant);

iii. QOCS protection would be lost if:

(a) the claim is found to be fraudulent on the balance of probabilities;

(b) the claimant has failed to beat a defendant’s “Part 36” offer to settle; or

(c) the case has been struck out where the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action or where it is otherwise an abuse of the court’s process (or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings).

iv. The principles set out in part 36 of the civil procedure rules override QOCS, but only up to the level of damages recovered by the claimant;

v. QOCS protection would apply in relation to claims that are discontinued during proceedings (subject to iii(a) above); and

vi. QOCS protection would be allowed for all appeal proceedings as the requirement for permission to appeal controls unmeritorious appeals.

The Ministry of Justice is considering further the practicality of QOCS protection not applying to elements of a claim for personal injury that are pursued for the benefit of a third party (such as a property damage insurer or a credit hire provider) in respect of goods, services or indemnity provided by a third party to the claimant as a consequence of the accident.

The sanctions under part 36 of the civil procedure rules (offers to settle) are to be reformed on the following basis in order to encourage early settlement:

i. There is to be an additional amount to be paid by a defendant who does not accept a claimant’s offer to settle where the court gives judgment for the claimant that is at least as advantageous as an offer the claimant made to settle the claim. This additional sanction is to be calculated as 10% of damages where damages are in issue, and 10% of costs for non-damages claims;

ii. In mixed (damages and non-damages) claims, the sanction will be calculated as 10% of the damages element of the claim;

iii. However, the sanction under these provisions is to be subject to a tapering system for claims over £500,000 so that the maximum sanction is likely to be £75,000; and

iv. There would only be one sanction applicable for split trials.

The new rule on proportionality has been agreed by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC), and the test is intended to control the costs of activity that is clearly disproportionate to the value, complexity and importance of the claim. The senior judiciary are considering revisions to the costs practice direction to give effect to the new rule.

Changes to the civil procedure rules (CPR) will be considered by the CPRC in the autumn, in order for the necessary changes to come into effect for April 2013. The Ministry of Justice will continue to engage with key stakeholders throughout the implementation stage and will also work closely with the senior judiciary on other aspects of Lord Justice Jackson’s reforms, which are due to come into effect at the same time. Updates are provided on the judiciary website at:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications-and-reports/review-of-civil-litigation-costs.

Prison Capacity Management

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

The Government are determined to provide a fit-for-purpose modern custodial estate that can deliver high quality, cost-effective and secure regimes that protect the public and reform prisoners. While the prison population temporarily rose as a result of last summer’s civil disturbances, since April it has resumed falling. New modern prison places in the private estate at HMP Oakwood and HMP Thameside have begun to come on stream so that we now have an opportunity to close some of our more expensive and superfluous prison places.

I am therefore announcing the closure of HMP Wellingborough which will see a reduction of 588 prison places.

On Friday 13 July the gap between the prison population and our useable capacity stood at 3,500 places. The prison estate in England and Wales has not operated with this degree of headroom since early 2011 and there is more unused capacity in the prison estate now than there was before the announcement in July last year to close HMPs Latchmere House and Brockhill, or prior to the serious public disorder in August 2011.

Capacity continues to grow with the number of available prison places planned to reach 91,600 by the end of the year. This will ensure that our operational capacity continues to take account of prison population projections in a way which meets the need both for greater efficiency and ability to support a strengthened focus on protection of the public and rehabilitation.

The closure of these places will provide estimated cost savings of over £10 million in annual running costs and avoid significant capital costs on refurbishment of up to £50 million in the next few years. We would expect to be able to absorb most staff displaced by this process elsewhere in the system and to avoid the use of compulsory redundancies wherever possible.

Judicial Pensions Reform

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

On 5 July the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed to the House that the Government will be taking forward legislation to introduce changes to pension schemes for the NHS, teachers and civil servants.

I have been considering the necessary reforms of the judicial pension scheme (JPS) in line with these wider public service pension reforms. The JPS is a critical element of the remuneration offered to the judiciary. Nevertheless we must ensure that the pensions provided are fair, sustainable and affordable. Accordingly, I have written to the heads of jurisdiction today setting out my proposals that will ensure that the pension provision for judges compares fairly with that offered to others in the public service. They also meet Government expectations for reform. This will be discussed with the judiciary over the summer and I will come back to the House further on the final detail.

Detainee Inquiry

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

In my statement on 18 January 2012, Official Report, column 751, announcing the Government’s decision to bring the detainee inquiry to a conclusion, I said that Sir Peter Gibson, the inquiry chair, had agreed to provide the Government with a report on its preparatory work to date, highlighting particular themes or issues which might be the subject of further examination. The inquiry sent its report to the Prime Minister on 27 June 2012. The Government are now looking carefully at its contents and remain committed to publishing as much of this interim report as possible. I will provide a further update when the House returns.

Military Medals Review

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I have today placed a copy of Sir John Holmes’ interim review of the rules and principles governing the award of military medals in the Libraries of both Houses. The interim report brings welcome transparency to these arrangements. It finds that the overall approach is reasonably based. However, it also identifies areas where it is worth considering whether the rules could be applied with greater flexibility and transparency. It proposes ways forward to address some past grievances while maintaining the distinctive British tradition that military medals are hard earned. I hope this will help to draw a line under past campaigns and provide a more open decision-making process in future. I welcome the report and have asked Sir John to lead a second stage of work to make further recommendations using the principles he has proposed to implement his findings. This work will be completed as soon as possible in the autumn.

Special Advisers

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Listed below are the names of the special advisers in post at 17 July 2012, including each special adviser’s pay band, and actual salary where this is £58,200 or higher, together with details of the special advisers’ pay ranges for 2012-13.

The paybill for the period 2011-12 was £6.2 million¹. This compares to £6.8 million for the period 2009-10 (excluding severance payments made at the general election to special advisers in the last Administration).

DVLA Office Closures (Correction to Parliamentary Answer)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

There was an inadvertent error in the answer to the parliamentary question from Charles Kennedy on 9 July, [115811], Official Report, column 69W. The answer indicated that Bangor, Beverley, Chester, Dundee, Exeter, Inverness, Maidstone, Peterborough, Sidcup, Theale, Truro, and Worcester Local Offices would close on 30 November 2012. The date should have read 30 November 2013.

Vehicle Identity Check Scheme

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

The Department has today published a consultation paper on the future of the vehicle identity check (VIC) scheme.

The purpose of the VIC scheme is to deter the crime of vehicle ringing. Typically, this involves the theft of a car often of significant value, which is then given the identity of a similar car (make, model, colour etc) which has been the subject of an insurance write-off. The written-off car is obtained cheaply; its identity (vehicle identification number (VIN) and registration numbers) is then transferred to a higher value stolen car which, now apparently genuine, can be sold at market price.

Since the introduction of the VIC scheme in April 2003, around 717,000 checks have been undertaken and 38 confirmed “ringers” detected, at a cost of around £30 million to the motorist. About 75% of the checks were undertaken on cars which were seven years or older, which were written off because the cost of even small repairs was greater than the very low market value of the vehicle, often meaning that the cost of the check fell on the less well-off members of society.

Although it is felt that the scheme has become, unintentionally, an unnecessary burden to many honest motorists, the police feel that it is still the only deterrent to “ringers”. The scheme also enables vehicle purchasers to be aware that the vehicle they are considering purchasing has previously been a write-off and confirms that the vehicle identity has been checked and therefore provides some protection against purchasing a stolen vehicle.

I intend to consult on whether to retain, re-scope or abolish the scope of the VIC scheme in a move to explore whether fewer vehicles can be checked in the future in order to remove unnecessary burden on law-abiding citizens, without jeopardising prevention of vehicle ringing.

The consultation documents can be found on the Department’s website. An electronic copy has been lodged with the House Library.

Red Tape Challenge

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

Last November, the Department for Transport launched the rail transport theme of the red tape challenge—part of the Cabinet Office’s project to review all of the outstanding regulations currently on the statute book. Following a rigorous process of challenge, stakeholder discussion and public consultation, I am now pleased to be able to announce the results.

The Department put forward every secondary regulation relating to rail transportation for public discussion under the rail transport red tape challenge. Some 198 of these were judged still to be live with a further 23 being identified as already “lapsed or spent”. Of these 221, I propose to scrap, merge, simplify, amend or improve 88 (40%).

The detailed breakdown I propose is:

High Speed 2 (Consultation Update)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)]

On 10 January this year, I made a statement to the House announcing my decision to take forward proposals for a national high speed rail network following the completion of a major public consultation exercise.

On 29 May, the consultation responses were made available online. Subsequently, when it became clear that a small number of responses had not been published, my Department and HS2 Ltd reviewed how the consultation responses had been processed.

This review identified that 413 responses, amounting to less than 1% of the 55,322 responses received in total, had not been included in the part of the consultation response assessment carried out by the Government’s independent response analysis consultants, Dialogue by Design. The results of this analysis were summarised in their report published alongside my announcement of 10 January (“High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future—Consultation Summary Report”). This report formed just one of the elements supporting my decisions, alongside other evidence including analysis of issues raised in consultation responses carried out by my Department and HS2 Ltd, as well as engagement with the public, MPs and other stakeholders through roadshow events, seminars, visits and meetings.

Of the 413 responses identified, six had been incorrectly marked as duplicates by Dialogue by Design. The remaining 407 were among those sent in by email to my Department rather than via the direct channels set out in the consultation document and were unintentionally not forwarded to Dialogue by Design for analysis.

My Department commissioned a supplementary analysis from Dialogue by Design which concluded that these responses

“do not provide any information that was not already included in the previous consultation summary report or would have made a difference to the substantive content or balance of that report”.

Inclusion in the original analysis would not have changed the substance of Dialogue by Design’s findings, nor affected the considerations which informed me in taking my decisions following the consultation.

All affected respondents will be contacted with these details.

Jobseeking (Additional Support)

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The Government have a strong offer of support to help young people find work: the Work programme, the Youth Contract and measures such as work experience and apprenticeships.

We know that lack of experience in the workplace can be a fundamental stumbling block for young jobseekers. This is compounded in difficult economic times when the labour market is even more challenging for those seeking their first job.

I will test the impact of providing additional support to young people with a limited work history from the very start of their benefit claim. This trial has been jointly developed with the Greater London Authority.

Further information on the details of this scheme will follow in due course.

Workplace Pension Reform

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Later today I will be publishing the Command Paper “Government response to the consultation: Improving transfers and dealing with small pension pots, (Cm8402)”, along with an associated impact assessment.

From this month, the first savers will start to be automatically enrolled into workplace pension schemes. This will help many people to start saving, or save more into a pension. But bringing more people into pension saving will increase the numbers of small dormant pots, which are created as people move jobs.

Our updated figures, set out in the impact assessment, suggest that around 50 million dormant pots will be created by 2050 if no changes are made to the current transfers system. This could significantly undermine the Government’s commitment to encourage pension saving if people lose track of their pots, and so miss out on valuable retirement income

We need to reduce the number of small dormant pension pots in the system, making it easier for people to keep track of their savings. This will also reduce administrative burdens for providers, supporting low-cost pension provision. We issued a consultation document in December 2011 which set out ways to deal with a proliferation of small pots, ranging from small changes to the current system to encourage transfers, to automatic transfers of small pension pots. I am grateful to all those individuals and organisations who provided responses and participated in our workshops.

The overwhelming response to the consultation was that the small pots issue urgently needs to be resolved. The vast majority of our respondents agreed that an automated transfer system is the best way forward. Creating a system in which small pots follow people through employment is the preferred approach among savers, according to a recent survey by the Association of British Insurers. The Government’s analysis indicates that this option will achieve the most consolidation and generate the most administrative savings in the long run. We have outlined our preference for this approach in the Command Paper, ahead of essential work with all interested parties to firm up the policy and design an implementation strategy.

I will place a copy of the impact assessment in the House Library.