Westminster Hall

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 12 September 2012

[Mr George Howarth in the Chair]

Human Rights Violations

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I am delighted to have secured a debate on an issue that is of real importance to Members across the House. I am glad to see that representatives of other political parties are present to join in discussing such a vital issue.

The debate arises as a direct result of a report published earlier this summer by the Conservative party human rights commission, which I have the honour of chairing. I am particularly grateful to fellow members of the commission, including Members of both Houses of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and campaigners, for their work and support in helping the inquiry that led to the publication of our report. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who is present, for his work in the oral evidence sessions held during the inquiry, and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is also present, for her unstinting work in that respect.

I also pay tribute to all the organisations that submitted written evidence to the commission and to those who gave oral evidence. A wide range of organisations gave evidence to our inquiry, including Amnesty International, the British Medical Association, the Law Society, Medact, Human Rights Watch, the National Union of Teachers, the Rights Practice and the Peace Brigades. The result is the report entitled, “Professionals in the Firing Line”, which makes a number of recommendations to the Government that I shall deal with in turn.

In the ongoing debate about the state of human rights across the world, one thing is very clear: without the existence of impartial and independent professions and in the absence of proper systems allowing business people to operate with integrity, no society can truly call itself free or open. In other words, the implementation of basic standards of democracy and human rights at a political level will never be enough. Unless a country has a similar commitment to the free conduct of people offering and carrying out professional services—whether they are lawyers, doctors, teachers, journalists or people undertaking legitimate business—not only is the country in question obstructing freedom, but it is impeding its own economic and social development. Regimes in various parts of the world know that all too well, but they perceive the independence of professions or businesses within their societies as some sort of threat to their own political power.

For many years, I have been a member of a profession in England and Wales—the Bar—and its code of conduct tells barristers that among our duties must be the ability, at all times, to conduct cases “without fear or favour”. That is a phrase that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) will know well from his work as a lawyer. The words “without fear or favour” are very simple, but very powerful. They encapsulate two vital concepts for any professional holding themselves to be truly independent: first, the ability to operate freely and without worrying about any repercussions as a result of their actions; and secondly, the freedom to act without inducement or corrupt practice. In too many parts of the world, fear and undue favour are still all too prevalent in professional work.

Our report focused on several themes. Rather than taking a country-by-country approach, we considered the violations of human rights that are faced by different professions, according to the evidence that we received. We looked at the violations of human rights that are faced by lawyers and, according to the evidence, where the rule of law is weak or absent, lawyers face particular challenges. Whether they are challenging human rights abuses on behalf of political dissidents, representing communities threatened by large-scale economic development or defending people who are alleged to have infringed religious laws, lawyers face considerable infringements.

In places such as Colombia, Mexico, Nepal and Guatemala, lawyers face a range of human rights violations, including death threats, intimidation, stalking, assault, illegal surveillance and defamation. In Colombia, more than 400 lawyers have been assassinated since 1991. Shakespeare wrote memorably about killing all the lawyers but, in a different context and a different time, the lack of truly independent legal advice is a real threat to civil societies, such as that in Colombia.

I have focused on the dangers faced by lawyers. However, it is important to remember that not only are lawyers facing dangers, but the rule of law itself and the independence of the judiciary are under attack. For example, in Iran, the independent Bar Association, which was set up in 1955, was closed down after the revolution, and the majority of its directors were jailed. In the past two years, more than a dozen lawyers who had been members of that association have been imprisoned for defending political prisoners and even worse, because it is more permanent, many have been disqualified from practice.

In China, as it reaches a change of leadership, there again seems to be a crackdown on all forms of political dissent, which poses a particular challenge for lawyers, mainly due to an increase in police surveillance. We think that China has shown a complete failure to respect the United Nations basic principles on the role of lawyers. We have particular concerns about several cases involving the abduction, torture and house arrest or the holding incommunicado of lawyers. Of particular concern are the cases of Cheng Guangcheng, a blind lawyer, who has spent most of the past six years in prison or under house arrest for filing law suits on behalf of women forced to have abortions under the one-child policy; of Gao Zhisheng, a human rights lawyer, who defended Falun Gong and house church Christians and has at various times in recent years been jailed and beaten and is currently still in prison; of the several Molihua lawyers, who have been detained for varying periods in the past year; of the Beihai lawyers, who have been beaten up and arrested on various occasions; and, finally, of Liu Xiaoyuan, a Beijing-based lawyer and friend of the artist Ai Weiwei, who was detained for six days in April last year at an undisclosed location. All those are pretty stark examples of China’s failure to adhere to a basic tenet of human rights.

In Bahrain last year, the prominent defence lawyer Mohamed al-Tajer was arrested without a warrant by masked security officers, who took him to an unknown location and brought him before a military court, in which he was charged with allegations of spreading rumours and malicious news and of inciting hatred towards the regime. His trial was then referred to a civilian court and he has been released from prison, but his legal status is unclear. I mentioned Iran, and it would be wrong not to refer to the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh, who was arrested in September 2010 and is now serving an 11-year sentence for representing the Nobel peace prize recipient Dr Shirin Ebadi as well as many other human rights campaigners.

As a result of the evidence we heard, we have made a number of recommendations for action by the British Government. First, we recommend that they do everything that they can to promote respect for the rule of law and protection for lawyers in all relevant public statements and bilateral discussions.

Secondly, we recommend that the Government develop and maintain relationships with lawyers, especially those at risk and those involved in defending human rights campaigners, political activists and vulnerable communities, and in conducting anti-corruption cases. Embassy staff should visit lawyers and provide opportunities and platforms to meet.

Thirdly, we recommend that all United Kingdom diplomatic missions implement the EU guidelines on human rights defenders and include the protection of local human rights defenders, including lawyers, in their contingency plans for emergency situations.

Fourthly, financial support and technical expertise should be provided to Governments and lawyers to increase understanding of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. We also recommend that human rights violations and questions of impunity are investigated so that justice is upheld. Finally, we called for the ratification of the United Nations international convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances.

We then looked at the challenges faced by medical practitioners, whether they be doctors, nurses or other medical workers. We of course dealt with the incidents that arose from the unrest in the Kingdom of Bahrain in 2011, which involved a large number of Bahraini doctors. More than 200 medical professionals were arrested following the direct intervention by security forces in an incident at the Salmaniya medical complex, the largest public hospital. The events that followed are well documented, but the evidence that we heard from a number of professions were of arrests, detention and, sadly, mistreatment. We also looked at the use of military rather than civil procedures to deal with a number of people, and of criminal proceedings to address issues that were more properly the province of professional conduct.

The commission was pleased to note that 15 criminal prosecutions against medical professionals were dropped in March and that, in the aftermath of the unrest, the Bahraini Government set up a national institution on human rights and a new human rights and social development Ministry, and are making some progress in moving their society forward from the position it had reached last year.

We urge the Bahraini Government to allow foreign journalists and human rights organisations to observe such developments, and call on Her Majesty’s Government to monitor their progress so that we do not have a situation whereby lip service is paid to human rights.

We encountered evidence of the threats being posed to medical professionals not only in Bahrain, but in several other countries. We received examples of cases from Syria, Iran and India. In Syria, we heard evidence of the arrest, torture and abuse of health professionals, Sadly, we also heard about the death of a number of professionals in that country.

According to the British Medical Association, there are reports of some doctors being used by the Syrian authorities as tools of repression. In some cases, they were instructed to abuse wounded protesters who sought treatment in state-run hospitals, which is an appalling perversion of the oath that is taken by all doctors and the ethics that surround the medical profession. It is something that any truly free society would regard as abhorrent.

We also heard about the case of Dr Binayak Sen in India. He is a renowned paediatrician and human rights activist who was sentenced to life imprisonment for sedition and conspiracy against the state before being released on bail by the Indian Supreme Court last April. His imprisonment has been condemned by a number of organisations, including Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

It is also known that in conflict zones, medical professionals are deliberately targeted by those involved. For example, in Sri Lanka, during the final stages of the civil war, the military was accused of intentionally shelling field hospitals, killing doctors and other medical professionals. The United Nations report of the Secretary-General’s panel of experts on accountability in Sri Lanka said:

“The Government systematically shelled hospitals on the frontlines. All hospitals in the Vanni were hit by mortars and artillery, some of them were hit repeatedly”.

In the ongoing and historic ethnic conflicts in Burma, attacks by the Burmese army on clinics and medical professionals are well documented.

As a result of the evidence we heard, we make the following recommendations for the Government: consider proposing an extension to the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health to include reporting on protection for and violations of medical neutrality; work with the International Committee of the Red Cross to develop the project “Health care in danger” to better assure the security of health care workers during armed conflict; and ensure that British diplomatic representatives are present at any trial proceedings involving doctors or other medical professionals where there is evidence that the defendants have been subjected to violations of human rights or are being persecuted as a direct result of fulfilling their professional and ethical medical responsibilities. Finally, we welcome the Bahraini Government’s acknowledgement of the abuses that were committed, and urge the Government to monitor closely the progress of promised institutional change in Bahrain.

We then looked at violations of human rights being faced by journalists and media workers. We were helped by organisations such as Article 19, which works in the area of press freedom. Since 2010, more than 500 journalists have been killed and in 2011 alone at least 97 were killed. Among the most dangerous countries for journalists are Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Mexico, the Philippines and Somalia. It is right to note that Turkey and Uzbekistan have the highest number of journalists in prison.

It is estimated that 145 journalists are in jail around the world, with 67 in Turkey alone. They are mostly being held under anti-terror laws. Media workers are also vulnerable to violence based on gender and to sudden disappearances. At least 10 journalists disappeared in Mexico in 2011. Infringements against the media take place not only in countries with conflict situations or with little or no democratic progress, but in emerging democracies. It is crystal clear that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the crimes against journalists go unpunished. In other words, there is operation with impunity by both states and third parties within those countries.

Belarus is a country of particular concern to the commission. There are a number of continuing infringements against the freedom of journalists to operate. The case of Oleg Bebenin, who was found hanged in his country home in 2010, is one of the most concerning cases. Even though Belarus is in Europe, it is ranked 189th out of 196 countries for press freedom by Freedom House, which is lower than Iran or Zimbabwe. All mainstream media outlets in Belarus are controlled by the state and after a mass media law was passed in 2008 further restrictions were introduced, including allowing state prosecutors and the ministry of information to close or suspend news outlets if they

“threaten the interests of the state or the public”.

That has resulted in the denial of many licences for media groups and an increased risk to media organisations that are hostile to or disagree with the regime.

The position in China regarding the media also concerned the commission. In particular, many bloggers and others using the internet have been arrested in the last year. The Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China reports that more than a dozen reporters, including representatives of international media organisations such as the BBC, CNN and Bloomberg, have been detained or beaten by security officers when they covered possible protests. Zhang Jialong, the former Caijing magazine journalist who covered the detention of the artist Ai Weiwei, went missing in April 2011 after being approached by a person claiming to represent the police. In 2009, the Nobel prize laureate Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to 11 years in prison having been held incommunicado since December 2008.

In Iran, journalists face harassment, torture and imprisonment. They include Faranak Farid, a women’s rights activist and journalist. She was arrested in September 2011 and detained without charge. She is reported to have been beaten so severely that she is now unable to move one of her arms and has lost the hearing in her left ear.

I have already mentioned Syria in another context, but it would be wrong of me not to refer to that country and that regime again in discussing journalists. Several journalists in Syria, including Mohammed Zaid Mastou and Dorothy Parvaz, have been detained.

As a commission, we recommend that the Government take several steps to increase protection for media workers and to promote press freedom. We urge the Government to work to uphold and enforce UN Security Council resolution 1738 on the protection of journalists; we urge the Government to support activities to promote world press freedom day each year; and finally, we ask the Government to help to ensure that press freedom and the protection of media workers are raised in all bilateral and multilateral forums, with specific attention paid to the EU and the UN, and particularly with reference to the Governments of China, Iran, Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey and Uzbekistan.

The report then turns to the violations of human rights that are being faced by teachers. Once again, maintaining the integrity and independence of the teaching profession is vital if future generations are to have access to the truth and understand the world around them in an objective way. It is sad and concerning to note that in far too many regimes and countries teachers themselves are facing oppression and the use of violence by third parties within those countries. We are grateful to the National Union of Teachers for the evidence that it provided.

In countries such as Colombia, Ethiopia and Iran, the situation is particularly concerning. The position of teachers in Colombia remains grave. In 2010, 49 trade unionists were assassinated, 27 of whom were teachers and members of the Colombian teaching union. As I say, the position of teachers in Colombia remains very serious. In 2011, the killings continued; in fact, 29 trade unionists were assassinated last year. And so far in 2012, 16 trade unionists have been assassinated.

In 2009, Education International published a report on political violence against the education sector in Colombia. The report said that between 1991 and 2006 more than 800 Colombian teachers and education workers were murdered. Those killings were carried out primarily by right-wing paramilitary organisations, and once again they were committed with impunity—that means that there was no punishment, no comeback and no consequence as a result of those murders.

One example of such killings is that of Jorge Eliécer de los Ríos Cárdenas, a teacher who was responsible for an environmental education project. In June 2011, he was shot several times outside his school. He had publicly denounced the effects of open-cast mining on his local community and he paid for that with his life.

In Ethiopia, teaching unions have been restricted and teachers who have been active in illegal union activities have faced intense persecution. Teachers who have criticised the Government’s educational policies have been dismissed. In 2008, a new union, the National Teachers’ Association, was established but it was not recognised by the Government. In November 2011, an Ethiopian teacher burned himself to death in protest against human rights violations, having been jailed for helping to organise demonstrations against corruption in government.

In Iran, members of teaching unions have faced arrest and detention, and teachers belonging to religious minorities have faced severe persecution. Last year, the authorities in Iran tried to shut down the Baha’i Institute for Higher Education, which is the only higher education facility for those adhering to the Baha’i faith. As a result, dozens of academic staff were detained. Other cases from Iran that we heard about include that of Farzad Kamangar, a 35-year-old teacher who was imprisoned and charged with “enmity towards God”. He was sentenced to death and executed in 2010. Furthermore, meetings of the Iranian Teacher Trade Association have been prevented from happening and many teachers remain in detention.

After the protests in Bahrain that took place early last year, we have heard examples and received evidence of the violation of human rights of teachers and university professors in that country. In particular, we heard evidence about the case of Jaleela al-Salman, vice-president of the Bahrain Teachers Association. We are concerned about her arrest in March 2011, which took place in her own home in front of her children. We are also concerned about the dissolution of the Bahraini teachers’ union, which happened in April 2011. A new union was established but it was established by a Government ministry, and therefore there are concerns about the integrity and independence of that organisation.

Having considered all the evidence about teachers that it received, the commission makes the following recommendations: we urge the Government to seek systematic protection of the human rights of teachers across the world; we ask the Government to promote the implementation of fundamental labour standards, including the International Labour Organisation conventions 87 and 98; we ask the Government to promote the right of teachers to form trade unions; we ask the Government to seek accountability for crimes committed against teachers and teacher trade unionists around the world, particularly in Colombia and Ethiopia; and finally, we call upon the Government to seek the release of all teachers imprisoned in Iran.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. He has asked the Government to take certain steps, but does he agree that we also need to urge other countries to establish a body similar to our Joint Committee on Human Rights? I serve on that Committee, which considers whether all legislation is human rights-compatible. Does he agree that we need to encourage other countries to have such a committee, to ensure that all legislation is looked at in the light of human rights?

[Mr Buckland]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes a very proper point about the need for more effective political mechanisms for legislators, so that every possible step is taken to ensure that human rights legislation is passed in the country in question. I think that he will agree with my fundamental point that that, in and of itself, is not enough and that more needs to be done at the professional and civil levels to propagate standards of independence, integrity and freedom. Without that kind of culture developing in countries with poor records, such countries cannot be judged to be truly free.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend has briefly touched on the overall aspect, which is the separation of executive and judicial powers. The fundamental point is that it is great to have lawyers who can carry out their jobs, but it is important to have a judiciary that will give them impartial hearings. The countries that he mentions are affected by that, and unless the situation changes one will not get proper human rights.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the key importance of an independent judiciary. So many countries do themselves a disservice by not guaranteeing free and independent legal processes. They damage their own trade prospects by not giving businesses the confidence that any dispute with which they might become involved can be resolved properly by an independent judiciary. That challenges the viability of contract law, and we know plenty of examples of other countries that use English contract law, with its long reputation for integrity and reliability, as the way to do business. That is great for this country, commercially as well as politically, but other countries will do well to adopt the principles that for so long have applied in countries such as ours.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his thorough report, and I urge those who have not read it to do so. The excerpts from the report that he has drawn upon in his speech today are heartbreaking, and illuminate what goes on in the rest of the world.

Has my hon. Friend thought about the fact that the United Nations was set up in the wake of the second world war, to try to prevent such enormous atrocities as happened in that war from ever occurring again? Has he also thought about the fact that some of the UN’s institutions are not as effective as they might be—in particular, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which often has principal members who themselves have pretty dubious human rights records? What more could our Government do to urge the UN to be more effective? Many of my hon. Friend’s recommendations involve human rights resolutions.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right. The answer that I would give him today is that I think that the United Nations has brought together Governments but perhaps has a long way to go to bring together other levels of society. For an organisation such as the UN to make true progress, more work must be done at differing levels of society, more effectively to bring together professional organisations, for example. We are lucky in the United Kingdom to have organisations, such as the Law Society and the Bar Council, with international relations committees that do a lot of this work, by working with lawyers in other countries to spread best practice, share principles of freedom and justice and encourage other societies to work in a similar way. Without the support of member Governments of the United Nations, and of the institution itself, that work will always be too ad hoc to have universal application. That is my view about how the United Nations should now develop, nearly 70 years after its foundation in San Francisco in 1945.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for The Cotswolds for their interventions. Reference has been made to the integrity of contract law and to the rule of law, and that brings me on to the final area that we considered: the difficulties faced in many countries by people who are trying to carry out business or are in some way involved in representing people in business. I have made the fundamental point that threats to the integrity of business practice threaten not only freedom, but the commercial and financial viability of many countries. In particular, we looked at what is happening in Russia, and we are gravely concerned that the Russian state is either condoning or actively taking part in endemic corruption. There are two cases that we consider to be examples of the baleful effect of state corruption on the lifeblood of an economy.

The Sergei Magnitsky case has been well documented and the subject of debates, not only here but in countries across the world. A debate in the House some months ago highlighted the continuing concerns of both Government and Opposition Members about the role of the Russian state in the killing of the lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky. Putting it simply, Mr Magnitsky was arrested, imprisoned and ill-treated, and he died for having blown the whistle on the massive theft of tax revenue from the Russian state by its own officials. A simple recitation of those facts underlines the seriousness of the position that the Russian state now finds itself in and the danger to freedom that such cases reveal.

We believe that in recognition of the unique position of London as a destination of choice for many senior Russian officials, the Government should, as soon as possible, introduce measures publicly to restrict visas and to freeze the assets of Russian officials involved in serious corruption and human rights abuses. We were delighted by the reference to the issue in “Human Rights and Democracy: The 2011 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report”:

“Where there is independent, reliable and credible evidence that an individual has committed human rights abuses, the individual will not normally be permitted to enter the United Kingdom.”

That statement is particularly important in the context of a recent development in Russia: the decision by the authorities to withhold the identities of all 12 prosecutors involved in the posthumous—yes, posthumous—trial of Sergei Magnitsky. The man not only suffered indignity in life; he now faces it in death. The reason for withholding the identities, it seems to me, is simple. If legislation, which is being considered by the United States Congress among others, is passed, those individuals would face losing visa rights and having their assets frozen if their identities were revealed. That lamentable state of affairs further reflects the difficult and troubled situation that we face with human rights in Russia.

The other Russian example that we looked at was the Khodorkovsky case. Without going into the full details of that troubled history, the individual remains in prison, after eight years, and the case has still not been satisfactorily resolved. We regard it as yet another example of double standards being applied, rather than equality under the law, which has to be a basic tenet of all countries that hold themselves out to be free. That is important, because bilateral trade between the United Kingdom and Russia has been growing by an average of 21% every year since 2001. In 2010, exports from this country to Russia increased by 51% to nearly £3.5 billion, which shows the importance for British business of the integrity of the financial and business systems in countries such as Russia. Without that integrity, there is a direct threat to British business and the integrity of trade between our two nations. That is why, at a practical level, it is important that the British Government’s message to regimes that indulge in such practices is clear.

We urge the Government to introduce measures to support civil society in Russia, by encouraging and facilitating British professional bodies to engage with their Russian counterparts. We emphasise that Russia’s membership of European and global organisations such as the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the World Trade Organisation carries a significant responsibility to operate according to international rules.

A foreign policy that involves not only the use of political pressure to achieve change but investment in developing professional skills and capacity, with the direct input of British professional organisations in sharing best practice and providing training, will do much to help build a freer and more stable world.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I sense that my hon. Friend is coming to his peroration, but has he considered how our international development assistance might be used to persuade countries that have a less than perfect human rights record that they need to improve their performance?

[Mr Buckland]

Yes, I have. I firmly believe that the role of our international development programme is not only to give direct monetary help, where appropriate, but to facilitate and allow professionals and professional organisations to spread best practice and train professionals in emerging countries, by providing the appropriate funding for those programmes to exist.

As a country, we produce thousands of qualified professionals every year, and this is not an easy time for many of those professionals to go immediately into full-time practice because there is a lot of competition in the market. I believe that there is a great opportunity for some of our younger professionals and, indeed, for professionals who wish to take a mid-career break to put something back into the society from which they have benefited. What better way to do that than by embarking upon properly funded, properly structured programmes in countries with poor human rights records to spread good practice and freedom?

Our greatest invisible exports are freedom, the rule of law and freedom under the law. Let us ensure that fellow professionals in other countries can genuinely enjoy the freedoms that I and other professionals have enjoyed in this country so that they, in all their walks of life, can operate without fear or favour.

10:09

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) not only on securing this debate but on the way in which he has chaired the Conservative party human rights commission since taking up that post nearly a year ago. His dedication is shown in the high quality of the wide-ranging report and its in-depth recommendations. It is a privilege to be identified with the report and with his work.

[Mr Buckland]

I pay tribute to commission member Mr Ben Rogers, whom my hon. Friend and I know well. He has played an important part in bringing together the strands that form the report.

[Fiona Bruce]

I will augment the report by referring to additional examples of human rights abuses against professionals uncovered by a contemporaneous inquiry.

Since April, the Christians in Parliament all-party group has conducted an inquiry into human rights abuses in Iran, and my speech will focus on professionals who have suffered human rights abuses in that country. With the help of Elam Ministries and Eighteen07, the all-party group is currently cataloguing those abuses, particularly abuses against the rapidly growing Christian community,

A range of human rights abuses has been described to us, from job discrimination and the withholding of passports to false arrest and subsequent sleep deprivation, false information being given to families while those arrested are in detention, beatings, lengthy interrogations, mock executions and actual killings. I will highlight three examples given to us by professionals.

Issa Dibaj is the eldest son of Mehdi Dibaj, who a generation ago in 1994 was killed in Iran for his Christian faith. Almost 20 years later, Issa is still suffering as a result. He explained several forms of abuse that he has experienced. Although perhaps not as major as the abuses experienced by others, I cite the example of job discrimination. He is a teacher:

“I graduated with a first class degree in English literature from Tehran university, the country’s best educational institution. Despite being highly qualified, despite the fact that the university was in desperate need of instructors in English, and despite having the full support of the academic members of the board of the English department, my application for a teaching position in Tehran university was rejected with the vague explanation that ‘at present we cannot offer you this position’.”

I turn now to the evidence gathered for our report from the alarming testimony of another professional, Hossein Jadidi. A lawyer, Mr Jadidi was a devout Muslim who converted to Christianity. In our hearings, he reported enormous resistance from the authorities to his attempts to provide professional services to his clients, many of whom are also Christians. He discussed two clients in detail as an example.

On reporting to the Iranian intelligence ministry to be registered as his clients’ lawyer, Mr Jadidi experienced intimidation and threats and was not permitted to visit his clients, in contravention of Iranian law. Eventually, his clients were granted bail, but once the bail had been paid they were not permitted to leave the prison. The prison authorities then refused to receive Mr Jadidi’s written protest on their behalf. Mr Jadidi reports that he himself eventually became the subject of human rights abuses and persecution, which began with monitoring by the Government. He became aware of telltale sounds on his phone calls that indicated a third person was listening in, and he noticed that people were always watching him when he got out of his car.

In December 2010, the Iranian Government organised a large-scale programme of human rights abuses against Christians, taking hundreds of people into custody and questioning them. On their release, many reported back to Mr Jadidi that he had been the repeated subject of their interrogations. One said that an interrogator had told him, “We know what Hossein is up to, and he’s playing with fire.” Another interrogator used the interrogation to threaten Mr Jadidi indirectly by asking, “Isn’t he afraid that when he drives his car he will have an accident?” As a lawyer, Mr Jadidi knew the authorities needed to gather substantial evidence before arresting him, and because of the number of people detained who had reported back to him that he had been the subject of interrogations, he realised the authorities were putting together a file on him.

Mr Jadidi was a member of Iran’s religious minority committee of the human rights commission of the lawyers’ centre. He learned that other members of the committee were also being systematically arrested and taken into custody. At that point, he felt compelled to leave his profession and flee Iran to avoid his own arrest.

My third example involves a journalist and is equally disturbing, as it relates to BBC employees. We heard highly disturbing evidence from Sadeq Saba, editor of BBC Persian, which is part of the World Service. Other witnesses told us that an enormous number of people in Iran listen to BBC Persian. It carries great authority, as we all appreciate.

Mr Saba testified about what he termed a

“campaign of harassment and intimidation against BBC Persian staff and their relatives”.

He stated that although reports are widespread of journalists being persecuted throughout the world, it is extremely unusual to hear of journalists working in Britain being attacked through the intimidation of their families in another country. That is a particularly disturbing approach and creates serious worry for BBC staff based here, far away from vulnerable relatives who have no connection with the work of the BBC other than through a family member.

One journalist was instructed to report for interrogation via the internet, and was told that if they did not comply, their family members in Iran would be in danger. Most alarming in Mr Saba’s testimony was the number of people who had been approached in that way, or whose families had been approached. Over a six-month period, no fewer than 30 to 40 of Mr Saba’s staff on the BBC Persian service told him about such threats or intimidation. Their families had been contacted by the authorities. The regime suggests to family members, for example, that it might be best if the journalists give up their jobs or give information about the BBC to the Iranian Government. Families report being extremely scared of grave consequences if they do not comply. I put on record my admiration for Mr Saba’s staff and his leadership role. It is remarkable. He told us that to his knowledge, no journalist has succumbed in response to threats to them or their family.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to highlight those additional examples of the sufferings of professionals for their role in society. It is critical. I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly to the recommendations of the report that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon discussed. We in this country are in a unique position to make a difference.

10:22

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who mentioned some alarming instances of the targeting of courageous journalists, even in this country. I am grateful to her.

I commend the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on securing this debate, on his eloquent and comprehensive speech and on the report produced by the Conservative party human rights commission. It has reinforced many campaigns in the UK and worldwide by organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Article 19. It has also reinforced the commitment to human rights across the coalition parties and the House, which has been emphasised in government by the regular production of the human rights report, with its courageous list of countries of concern. That might not seem like a courageous thing for a Government to do, but when we are pursuing business and trade probably as desperately as we ever have, highlighting human rights concerns in countries such as Russia and China, putting those concerns boldly in print and raising them with the Governments is a courageous thing for our country to do. I am proud to support a Government who have done that, and I know that the Minister has a strong personal commitment to the human rights agenda.

In the time available, I will not go into a huge amount of detail—the hon. Member for South Swindon has already given us a lot of detail about many cases—but I will mention a few of the countries that he spoke about. In Bahrain, we can see that the Arab spring has not been an uncomplicated or one-way process. The Government of Bahrain have had a deeply ambivalent approach to rising demands for democracy and human rights, and the intervention of Saudi Arabia in that country has been profoundly unhelpful.

However, Bahrain was not a totalitarian state along the lines of the old Iraq or the Libyan regime. It is creditable that Bahrain has set up a national human rights institution and that the King commissioned a human rights report, which highlighted human rights abuses committed in the previous year or so. That is to Bahrain’s credit. However, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how well he thinks the Bahraini Government are implementing the report’s recommendations, and on why, for instance, campaigners such as Nabeel Rajab are still in prison in Bahrain.

The hon. Member for South Swindon highlighted cases in China. I am afraid that the catalogue of human rights abuses in China is depressing, and the evidence that he cited of a fresh crackdown is particularly depressing. Although we are seeking high levels of trade and investment with China, it is nevertheless important to maintain a human rights dialogue. I was particularly proud that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were prepared to risk the wrath of Beijing by meeting the Dalai Lama, albeit in a personal capacity. It made an important statement about a commitment to human rights, not just in Tibet but across China. It is important to keep emphasising that.

On the cases of business people working in Russia, the points made by the hon. Member for South Swindon were well made in the report and in his speech. One of two iconic cases is that of Sergei Magnitsky, in which Britain has a particular interest. The company that Mr Magnitsky was representing when he was arrested was a British company, Hermitage Capital, and Bill Browder, a British citizen, is conducting an extraordinary personal campaign to seek justice for Magnitsky, albeit posthumous justice. Britain should show leadership in the case. There is also the current imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. Unfortunately, in a case that parallels Magnitsky’s, their attorney, Vasily Aleksanyan, died in custody, refusing to collaborate by implicating his colleagues in Yukos in the accusations against them made by the Russian Government. He probably died for his beliefs in much the same way as Magnitsky.

Those cases have been highlighted at numerous levels in this country and in the European Parliament, which made a resolution in 2010 urging member states to take measures reinforcing sanctions against individuals implicated in human rights abuses. I strongly support the calls made in the report and by the hon. Member for South Swindon for further action, and I look forward to the Minister’s statement on whether we will take further action on freezing assets and taking advantage of the fact that London is a destination of choice for many in the Russian hierarchy. I urge him to do so.

Finally, on Russia, it is noticeable that the European Court of Human Rights has been a strong supporter of cases such as Khodorkovsky’s, and has declared his imprisonment unlawful. We are rightly seeking reform of the ECHR, as the backlog of cases is making the Court potentially unworkable, but we must be rather cautious that in our language we do not endorse the idea that Governments can pick and choose which cases from their countries come to the Court, because Russia would take great advantage of that. We must be careful that in our legitimate desire for reform, we do not accidentally damage the prospect of human rights in Russia and other European countries.

The hon. Member for South Swindon mentioned one other country, Belarus. I particularly commend a campaign by Liberal Youth called “Bears for Belarus”. That campaign grew out of the extraordinary action taken by a Swedish public relations company: it dropped cuddly toys with pro-democracy and human rights messages into the Belarusian state. Two journalists were arrested simply for having their photographs taken with cuddly toys as a subtle protest against the regime. A regime that can arrest people for having their photograph taken with a cuddly toy is some way away from the acceptable European level of human rights. The Government must do more to highlight human rights abuses in Belarus and to encourage other states to take action against them. I urge anyone listening to the debate or reading it on the internet to look up the “Bears for Belarus” campaign, and to get their photograph taken with a cuddly toy and make that statement, too.

Finally, perhaps it is a natural Conservative inclination to highlight the plight of professionals, but might I extend the remit slightly to other people who seek work and are vulnerable to human rights persecution? I ask the Minister to address the issue of migrant workers. Governments such as those of Indonesia and India have legitimate fears about, and have campaigned very hard for, the rights of migrant workers, particularly in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, who are particularly vulnerable to human rights abuses and who do not always attract the attention of international non-governmental organisations, or have the resources of companies such as Hermitage Capital to highlight their cases in the capitals of the world. They are suffering human rights abuses too, and I would like to hear that the British Government support Governments such as Indonesia and India in raising those issues.

Respect for universal human rights has been a Liberal and democratic tradition since the days of Gladstone, but I am very happy to commend the report of the Conservative party human rights commission to the House. I strongly support the words of the hon. Member for South Swindon, and congratulate him again on securing the debate.

10:31

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. It has also been a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). He has given us a comprehensive account of human rights issues that relate to the professions. In a sense, the account was depressing because of the number of cases to which he referred and which exist. I commend him, however, on the quite unusual achievement of making me read a Conservative policy document—something that does not always occur—and it was of great interest. It is positive that the hon. Gentleman secured the debate and that it was instigated by the report. In all the contributions to the debate we have heard a broad commitment to the principles of human rights, which we share.

We are fortunate in the United Kingdom to be able to speak out in Parliament, and outside Parliament, on these issues. However, we must always be cautious about suggesting that we are in a state of grace. The Minister has visited countries in north Africa on many occasions, and one challenge when visiting such countries is the suggestion from individuals that perhaps our own record bears closer scrutiny. We need to bear that in mind when we talk to other countries, because they can quote examples to us that show that we have not behaved—sometimes in the not too recent past—in the way that perhaps we should.

The debate is about human rights in relation to professionals, and I thought about that focus. Overnight, I heard the dreadful news about the death of a US State Department official in Benghazi in Libya, and that brings home to us the dangers that exist for professionals who are working in a representative capacity. What is distinct about the people in the group that we are discussing today is that they put themselves in a position of danger for the benefit of others, and it is a fundamental part of a developing democracy to acknowledge and accept that someone in a representative capacity may or may not share the political views of those whom they represent. It is important to communicate that concept. The hon. Gentleman is nodding. As a barrister, he will be familiar with that idea, but individuals from other jurisdictions do not always recognise it.

There have been a large number of high-profile cases, some of which have already been referred to. On business, the country that crops up is Russia. We have heard reference to Mr Gordievsky, Platon Lebedev and the Magnitsky case and the profound impact such cases have on democratic culture in Russia. The perception of British business of the inadequacies in the jurisdiction and the courts in Russia is a real issue that crops up in the conversations that I have with British companies that invest in Russia. The Russian Government should recognise that these cases are important and profoundly affect the perception of Russia in the United Kingdom.

A free press is fundamental and central to a democracy. Journalists throughout the world pay a high price to secure information about wars and corruption. Organisations such as Reporters Without Borders document the human rights abuses that journalists face globally. Although there is some variation in the figures presented by the UN and the International Federation of Journalists, it is clear that globally journalists, as we have heard today, are still coming under repeated attack and being censored, kidnapped, threatened, arrested, jailed, forced to flee and even killed.

The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) referred to the crucial role of the BBC World Service, which I take every opportunity to commend. It has done tremendous work in Arab spring countries and has a real impact in creating a culture of democracy that we all need to continue to support.

In March 2012, UNESCO drafted an action plan on the safety of journalists and the danger of impunity. The report notes that there has been little improvement in the safety of journalists in the past few years. The draft action plan emphasises the need to extend UNESCO’s work to assist countries to develop laws and mechanisms to support freedom of expression and information and to implement the rules and principles set out in its 1997 general conference resolution on violence against journalists. I ask the Minister for an update. When will the five aims of the plan be implemented and what resources will the UK devote to them?

The Arab spring has shown the huge importance of citizen journalism, with the impact of tweeting, blogging and video footage. Such journalists often have a wider impact than official journalism, so we need to be conscious that those individuals need to be included in any consideration of the protection of journalists. It is important for us to support them in every way we can.

The hon. Member for South Swindon made an interesting suggestion about the legal profession: UK lawyers taking a more active individual role in developing democracies. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that and to discuss it. When individuals are having difficulties in finding jobs, engaging with such organisations as the Bar Council and the Law Society, developing contacts with developing democracies and stressing the importance of the rule of law, perhaps through the use of young lawyers, would be a useful way forward. We have heard of the threat to young lawyers in places such as Columbia and Nepal. The situation is extremely concerning, and those lawyers always face pressure and attacks. What action is the UK taking to develop and maintain relationships with lawyers in countries where we know they are at risk and to ensure that embassy staff visit lawyers and provide support to them? Do the UK Government have any plans to provide support and technical expertise to Governments and lawyers, to increase the understanding of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary and to investigate human rights violations?

Health professionals are important and have been mentioned. In Bahrain, about which we have heard, doctors and nurses were accused of criminal activity. What began with the denial of access to medical treatment for injured protesters in February 2011 ended with security forces attacking hospitals, including the largest public hospital in Bahrain. How are the Government working with the International Committee of the Red Cross to support its project, “Health care in danger”, to help ensure the safety of health care workers during armed conflict?

The hon. Gentleman’s report mentions progress made in Bahrain. I am afraid that this week’s news of the rejection of appeals by individuals such as Mahdi Abu Deeb, the former president of the Bahrain Teachers Association, is a serious setback to hopes of reform. The UK Government have, to my knowledge, been quiet on the issue. What steps is the Minister taking in connection with the rejections of those appeals this week?

The National Union of Teachers in the UK does much work to raise awareness of the challenges faced by teachers, as hon. Members have mentioned. According to the NUT, the situation for teachers in Colombia, Ethiopia and Iran is of special concern. In 2011, the Iranian authorities attempted, as we have also heard, to shut down the Baha’i Institute for Higher Education. What action are the UK Government taking to protect the human rights of teachers?

I should like to ask the Minister about Government policy relating to human rights more generally. I am pleased that the Government have carried on the previous Government’s initiative and published an annual human rights report, and I welcome their words on human rights. But the hon. Member for South Swindon mentioned lip service, which registered in my mind. We must avoid paying lip service to these issues. Difficult decisions and questions arise.

We learned in a Foreign Affairs Committee report earlier this year and from other corners, including Human Rights Watch, that there is a developing perception that, in some instances, the UK Government deem commercial relationships more important than dealing with human rights issues. As a former Business Minister, I am aware of the conflicts that can arise, as mentioned by the former Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, when he recognised that, although there is no inherent contradiction between business and human rights, short-term tensions can arise. One example of that is the UK Government’s decision to take no stance on the Bahrain grand prix—Bahrain has been mentioned a number of times today—in stark contrast to the Leader of the Opposition who saw the event adding to instability and conflict in Bahrain. Will the Minister update us on how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is managing those short-term tensions between commercial interests and human rights? Does he think that the UK Government’s stance on the Bahrain grand prix helped progress on human rights in Bahrain?

In its report, the Foreign Affairs Committee emphasised the need for human rights to feature more significantly across the Government. Will the Minister give hon. Members an update of the progress the Foreign Office is making to ensure that UK Trade and Investment, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and UK Export Finance in particular take full account of human rights in their dealings?

British embassies are rightly placing the emphasis on trade, investment and business abroad. What emphasis are they placing on important human rights issues, such as those raised today? I do not expect a full breakdown from the Minister now of the number of individuals in embassies who are dedicated to working on human rights, but, as we have heard today, this is an important issue, not just for Her Majesty’s Opposition, but for UK Government parties. Such important matters weigh prominently on the minds of parliamentarians.

The UK has a great tradition in such areas, and we want to go out there and speak clearly and authoritatively on human rights issues. To do that, we must ensure that when difficult issues arise, we take a principled and correct decision, although at times doing so may be difficult, and make it clear that we will not accept the suppression of human rights to commercial interests.

This has been a useful, timely debate. I thank the hon. Member for South Swindon again for initiating it and look forward to the Minister’s reply.

10:45

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Howarth. I commend all colleagues who spoke during the debate. There is a fair number of lawyers among us. I appreciate the way that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) introduced the debate, for which I congratulate him. I also congratulate him on the work done by his commission—by all members of his commission—in bringing this matter forward. That thorough piece of work was reflected in the thoroughness of his speech, which highlighted such a number of issues. I am pleased that we had the time to allow that exposition.

It is difficult to respond to everything. Once again, my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is like an erudite machine gun, asking a series of questions that I could not possibly respond to in 15 minutes, unless I dealt solely with those, but I shall try to answer some. Everything that he mentions is important and anything that I cannot deal with today, I will find a way of dealing with. The same goes for other colleagues who contributed.

The report was particularly valuable because it did not just say that the world is a bad place, which we know. It contains specific recommendations for us to work on, some of which I will comment on now and others that I shall have to respond to later. I appreciated that aspect of the report.

As colleagues know, and as the hon. Member for Wrexham rightly said—he has to put us on the spot—we take human rights values seriously, and they are in the forefront of the Government’s policy. It is clear that, although we live in a world of universal values, we do not live in a world of universal standards. That puts us in conflict with other states. Some states are greater friends than others. We raise the issues and are conscious of the conflicts that arise. There are various ways of raising matters and bringing them forward: sometimes that is done publicly and openly and sometimes it is done with increasing tempo if there is no reaction from the states with which we are engaged. Some states have appalling human rights records and others have generally good records, but there are blips.

We try to take people as we find them, but the House can be assured that we raise the subject of values, sometimes in difficult circumstances. I will mention one or two specifics. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we always have to do this in the spirit of humility. Our record is not spotless, whether in past years or more recently. Only today the House will deal with the Hillsborough incident and I suspect that the state will be dealing with some degree of regret about how it handled that. In recent times we have had to deal with Bloody Sunday. We do go to states on the basis of saying, “Don’t just look at what we say, look at our experience of how we’ve dealt with things well or poorly. We try constantly to learn from our past and appreciate that, in places, there has been pain. But equally we have a lot to be proud of in respect of what we stand for and what we work for.” Getting that put together is important.

The report is about professionals and it is right to recognise that and mention that some types of work raise particular issues of danger and risk. However, in no way is the report intended to be exclusive; it highlights the concerns of a particular group of people who work, but neither my hon. Friend nor the Government, nor any Member of the House would minimise the fact that human rights issues affect many.

I assure the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who made a sound contribution as usual, that of course we recognise that migrant workers have the same human rights as everyone else. Last year, the Government strongly endorsed the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and, while they do not deal explicitly with migrant workers, they provide an opportunity to continue work in that field. The Department for International Development has some such projects as well. It is right to raise the issue, but the House should be in no doubt: we do not consider the report to be exclusive and we recognise the rights and issues facing many others.

I hope that I have made it clear that the Government see the promotion of human rights as an integral part of UK foreign policy. We promote human rights because it is right to do so—right because we are a nation with a conscience, but also right because it is in our fundamental interests to do so.

I thank the commission for highlighting the human rights violations that business people and professionals suffer as a result of their work. As the report acknowledges, often such groups and individuals suffer attack precisely because they use their positions to protect and promote the rights of others. They are human rights defenders, and the defence of such groups and their rights is important to the Government. I appreciate how my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon constructed the report thematically, and his speech likewise, so let me make my response in the same way.

The commission’s report recommends that the UK should provide visible support to the rule of law and lawyers, and that we should ensure that our embassies and high commissions are implementing the EU guidelines on human rights defenders. We thank the commission for that recommendation and we agree that providing support to promote the rule of law is important. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), gave a speech on that very topic in The Hague in July this year, highlighting UK policy and our work. The UK strongly supports the EU guidelines on human rights defenders, which are a crucial part of that work.

In answer to the questions on engagement asked by the hon. Member for Wrexham and others, our overseas missions work with EU colleagues locally to support human rights defenders, as well as with colleagues from other like-minded embassies. In line with the guidelines, FCO staff regularly meet human rights defenders, including lawyers and journalists, we raise specific instances of abuse or detention with governments and we often speak out publicly.

As we look at the development of democracy in areas such as north Africa, it is important that we take the opportunities of our Arab partnership programme to engage specialists such as the Bar Council, the Law Society and others that might have specialist information to impart, and that is what we seek to do. The whole benefit of the Arab partnership is that it is not only Government to Government but involves civil society working together. Increasingly, we will look at opportunities to do just that.

An example of our work is the diplomatic effort and visible support that the United Kingdom, working with EU and other partners, has given to human rights defenders in Belarus, a country mentioned in the report and the debate. Our actions have maintained pressure on the authorities to take account of their human rights obligations.

To provide urgent practical support to human rights defenders, in 2011 we joined other international donors in establishing Lifeline, the embattled NGO assistance fund, which aims to provide emergency assistance and small grants worldwide to civil society that is facing increasing repression and harassment because of work in promoting human rights.

Let me turn to medics and, in conjunction with them, Bahrain. The commission’s report details human rights violations against medical personnel. UK policy is clear that it is unacceptable for medical professionals to suffer violation of their human rights for fulfilling their ethical responsibilities. UK diplomats observe trials of human rights defenders and, where appropriate, we seek to observe the trials of medical professionals as well.

I shall look at the other recommendations, but let me say one or two things in particular. The hon. Member for Wrexham mentioned health care in general and the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross. We are a strong supporter of the “Health care in danger” initiative, we are supportive of ICRC efforts to protect health care workers in armed conflict and we share the ICRC analysis that violence against health workers and infrastructure is among the most serious contemporary humanitarian challenges—we are active in discussing those matters with the ICRC.

The report details the situation in Bahrain, which has been raised again today—it is complex, as the House knows and I have spoken of it before. Bahrain is a society that, over time, has sought to make political reforms in the context of the country’s difficulties between Sunni, Shi’a, monarchy and others, which came to a head in the 2011 crisis and how that was handled. Our current perception is that the position remains patchy. There is no doubt that the kingdom’s effort to hold a public inquiry and to produce a report in public that criticised the Government was unique in the region, and a series of recommendations has been followed. I have a copy of the ICRC follow-up unit’s report of July 2012, which is solid reading, but it cannot be seen without recognising the intent to deal with the issues. It is not, however, complete, and nor is the implementation of recommendations.

Crucially, progress depends on political dialogue in Bahrain. Recent efforts were made over Ramadan by the Government to engage with opposition parties, which also have a responsibility. Violence on the streets has increased, as has the level of violence—pipe bombs, the discovery of two bomb-making factories—but violence will not help. The opposition must be clear, publicly and privately, as it has been, that it does not condone such violence. Opposition engagement in conversation with Government authorities will help. Both sides have work to do. The House can be assured that we take that seriously, and we use our opportunity of representation to make our case and to keep the kingdom moving in the direction that it has plainly set out for further reform, although we recognise that that is patchy and that there are human rights and other difficulties.

We were disappointed at the Bahraini civilian court decision last week to uphold the sentences of 13 political activists in the country. We welcomed the decision to review the cases in a civilian court, as recommended by the Bahrain independent commission of inquiry, but we remain concerned about the strength of the convictions. Reports at the time those individuals were sentenced, which were acknowledged by the BICI, suggested that some individuals had been abused in detention, denied access to legal counsel and coerced into confession. We urge the Bahraini Government to ensure that the human rights and freedoms of their citizens are fully upheld at all times. We are aware that the defendants can now appeal to the Court of Cassation and we expect that process to be conducted thoroughly and with urgency. We will continue to watch the appeal process.

Regarding the medical staff, none is currently behind bars and a further appeal is pending. Some sentences were repealed when the cases came from the military to civilian courts, which we welcome. Nabeel Rajab remains behind bars and his case will now be heard on 27 September. The appeal by the Bahraini teachers will be heard later in September, and we expect that process to be conducted thoroughly and with urgency while ensuring that due legal process is followed.

On the grand prix, I do take issue with the hon. Member for Wrexham. It was a matter for the Bahraini authorities, and I am not sure that the process of the grand prix going ahead necessarily set back anything in Bahrain. There was an opportunity for peaceful protest in the days leading up to the grand prix, which was observed by the Bahraini authorities—those protests were allowed—and only the violent protests were subsequently shown on television in this country. The process of getting the grand prix held, which was a Bahraini decision, demonstrated that it could be held—an opportunity for comment was provided, and then the country went back to its other work. So I am not sure that we should have taken the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman and made remarks—we did the right thing.

I must move fairly swiftly if I am not to lose the rest of my time. As soon as I can find my remarks, I shall be able to continue. The problem with too many papers is that I have now lost the text.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

We do not hear much about human rights abuses in one or two countries such as North Korea, but the commission took some horrific evidence. Will the Minister say something about regimes that have some of the worst human rights records?

[Alistair Burt]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We need to ensure that, in picking out individual countries, we recognise that there are many other countries that we could discuss. My hon. Friend mentioned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but we could also deal with Iran in great detail in relation to today’s debate. We remain deeply concerned about human rights issues in Iran—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for mentioning those—where the record is disgraceful. We make regular comments on trials and on the various professions involved.

I spoke about journalists only recently in a public statement. We support world press freedom day, and that is something that we will continue to advance. We take a particular interest in journalists online, recognising the dangers to them, while the other professions dealt with include trade unionists and teachers. The concerns in Colombia that were mentioned worry us deeply—we have spoken about that—and we remain concerned about the human rights situation in Moscow. I shall update the House from time to time as issues occur.

Petrol Prices (Wyre Forest)

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I am pleased to see the new Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) in his place. He has long been a friend of Wyre Forest. Four or five years ago, when he was a shadow Transport Minister, he visited Wyre Forest to inaugurate a campaign to save a local driving test centre in the face of swingeing cuts in the number of centres under the previous Government. I am delighted that his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) was instrumental in resolving that inequity, and that we will have a driving test centre as a result of the Department for Transport’s sterling work.

This debate is specifically about fuel prices in Wyre Forest, but the issue affects every rural and even semi-rural community throughout the country. The Backbench Business Committee has secured a debate on the matter in the Chamber later this week, and it could be argued that I might have done better to save this speech for that debate. I am sure that there will be a huge amount of interest in Thursday’s debate, and I am eager to use the opportunity today to put on the record my experience in trying to resolve the problems facing my constituents, and the apparent stonewalling by the fuel retailers, particularly the big chains.

The debate is about the inequity facing Wyre Forest and other rural communities. It is about how my constituents have been charged more at the pumps in Kidderminster, Stourport and Bewdley than those of hon. Members in larger urban and suburban centres. Let me put the matter into context. Since I was elected, I have been contacted regularly by constituents who have noticed that they can buy fuel at up to 6p per litre cheaper in nearby Wolverhampton, Dudley and even Bromsgrove than they can locally.

Around a year ago, I contacted the retailers asking for an explanation. I wanted to know why they saw fit to overcharge my constituents. Their reply, after cutting through the various explanations of Nectar points and price reductions depending on the contents of a shopping bag, was that prices are set locally and that that is how retailers best compete with each other. I thought that that was fair enough, but as I was eager to understand their pricing models further, I contacted local retail managers and asked to meet them to talk about fuel prices. They said, “Ah. We just collect local data and send it to regional price setters who are responsible for determining the price.” I then asked to see the regional price setters, at which point I was met with stony silence. It seems that fuel retailers are reluctant to talk about the prices they charge locally.

However—credit where credit is due—Tesco agreed to meet me, and Emma Reynolds, its Government relations guru came to see me recently to explain its strategy. She told me a great deal about the special offer on fuel prices that it has introduced, and many retailers certainly provide special fuel price offers to customers. A 50% reduction is available on Tesco fuel for those who buy a specific range of items, and all retailers have a form of offer. She also told me that the general pricing strategy of the fuel retailers—Tesco, ASDA, Sainsbury, Texaco and so on—is to compete with the lowest price within a specific radius of the petrol station concerned, and for Tesco that is 3 miles.

At this point in my speech I intended to make a few lame jokes at the expense of the petrol retailers, and to jest that perhaps “every little helps”, but the only people who are really helped are Tesco’s shareholders. However, I updated my research yesterday, and to my utter delight it seems that the pressure that I have been putting on petrol retailers locally has been heeded. As of yesterday, instead of a 6p premium in Wyre Forest by petrol retailers within a 25 mile radius, which was the situation I faced a year ago, the substantive premium is now just 1p, although there is a rogue cheap supplier at ASDA in Dudley which charges 2p less than in Wyre Forest.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He says that there is a 1p price range in our region, but will he comment on the fact that in Cardiff this morning, petrol was 3p cheaper than in Redditch?

[Mark Garnier]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour, who is also a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and takes a keen interest in what happens in Wales. I will come to that anomaly between cities and smaller rural towns and semi-rural areas, which is a great problem.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a topical and important matter in the area I represent in Northern Ireland, which is a rural community. He referred to demand and pressure in urban and rural areas. Some of my constituents must travel long distances to get to work because of where the work is, and may spend £50 or £60 a week just on petrol and diesel. Does that not underline the issue for many people in rural communities, where we need a price structure that is achievable, fair and affordable?

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. People living in rural communities are doubly penalised. They face not only high prices, but higher mileage because they probably have worse access to public services. I will continue to make that point throughout my speech. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to raise it on behalf of his constituents.

I said that fuel retailers have cut the premium locally as a result of my pressure, but there may be other reasons, not least that last week the Office of Fair Trading announced an inquiry into fuel prices. That welcome U-turn by the OFT is important because pressure on households is, as we all know, incredibly high. It is tough enough having to pay high fuel prices because of currency and commodity prices, but when duty and tax are added, and then local factors, households face a toxic mix of costs.

Despite local success, a number of serious factors must be taken into account. First, special offers provided by the supermarkets do not constitute a fuel price management policy. If anything, unreasonably high fuel prices locally provide an opportunity for offer-making. Although the big retailers say that helping the consumer is the reason for making offers, we all know that it is about one thing: competition between retailers. Tesco is against ASDA, and against Sainsbury and the rest of them. One offers loyalty points; another offers a discount if a minimum amount is spent in the supermarket alongside the petrol station; a third will discount fuel prices if certain items are bought, and on it goes.

Such offers are marketing plugs that associate the retailers’ names with what seems to be a special offer. I am sure that some offers are taken up, but the reality is that people refuel when the needle is on empty, and not when they have just done the weekly shop. In any event, such offers may seem enticing, but when we were paying 6p a litre more in Wyre Forest, the discount was worth 6p less than in neighbouring Wolverhampton and Dudley because the discount was from a higher level. The fundamental problem was always high local prices in Wyre Forest and other rural and semi-rural communities.

Secondly, the pricing model adopted by supermarkets and fuel retailers favours those in big cities. Fuel retailers try to be the cheapest within a three-mile radius or thereabouts. In a large conurbation such as Birmingham and the black country, many petrol stations will create a chain within 3 miles of one another. In that instance, a petrol retailer east of Birmingham who decides to have a few days undercutting the local market to try to stimulate more demand for their product will create a ripple that spreads across the whole city and probably into the black country. Given that there is a significant number of petrol retailers in that area, there will always be healthy price competition, stimulated by occasional but regular mini price wars.

However, in districts such as Wyre Forest, Strangford and Redditch there are far fewer petrol stations and, importantly, around areas such as Wyre Forest, there is a desert of petrol stations, rather like a doughnut, so the only price competition will be within the locality itself. With far fewer retailers in that closed area, price competition is lower, and it is suggested that some of the big retail chains have deliberately undercut local independent suppliers to drive them out of business, ensuring less competition on pricing. That is anecdotal, and there is no evidence to support it, but it is what people talk about.

[Jim Shannon]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some retailers sell petrol and diesel with no profit, and perhaps at a loss, just to keep the small independent retailers out?

[Mark Garnier]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. In Wyre Forest, the pricing policy of a local, independent retailer is to make a 3p per litre profit on the cost at which they buy their petrol and diesel. That is interesting, because for a great period, that retailer was substantially undercutting big chain retailers, and as a result, I recommended that my constituents visited it, because it provided the best deal. However, when I checked its price again, that retailer is now 3p or 4p more expensive. The big chain retailers are almost certainly buying wholesale fuel from the same wholesale outlet, and they are probably paying the same amount for that fuel. Therefore, if Callow Oils is still adopting its pricing policy of 3p more per litre, it would indicate that the big chains are running at a loss. It would be interesting to find out more—if the retailers answered my telephone calls, I could find out. I think, however, that the big retailers may well be working at a loss to stimulate local demand.

With fewer retailers in a specific area, there is a greater demand against available supply than would be seen in bigger conurbations, so the price is inevitably higher. In this instance, local factors push the price along the price/demand curve against consumer interests. It is important for big retail chains to have such areas of high pricing. If they are to ensure a sustainable average price of fuel across the whole marketplace—across the whole country—they must ensure that areas of low pricing, such as cities, are balanced by areas of high pricing. That penalises rural regions in favour of urban areas, which is very unfair, as I think we would all agree.

If someone lives in Birmingham, London, Cardiff, or any other city, they will have easy access to far more efficient local public transport infrastructures. The availability of a sensible local public transport service also provides competition to petrol retailers; they are competing not only against each other for customers, but against local public transport. However, if someone lives in a rural or semi-rural area, such as Wyre Forest, their local public transport is neither as accessible nor as user-friendly. They will need to use their own car far more than their urban-based cousin. They will have little practical choice, and will have to buy fuel to run their car. That lack of choice helps drive up local fuel prices, doubly penalising the high-mileage rural commuter.

What am I trying to achieve with this morning’s debate? First, I want yet again to highlight the inequity of the pricing policies of big supermarkets and fuel retailers. We all know about that issue, and many of my colleagues raise it again and again. This is another push in the effort to get big retail chains to heed the plight of rural consumers. People living in rural communities should not be used to subsidise the fuel bills of town and city dwellers.

Secondly, I want to appeal to the retail chains to adopt a more pragmatic pricing policy. I accept that a national pricing policy would probably not work, but using a rigid three-mile radius is probably too tight in certain areas. I would like to see a pricing policy that never allows a district to become isolated within its own pricing area. A pricing link that jumps significant gaps is needed. That can be achieved either by having a larger radius across the country, or by having a radius that takes regional petrol station density into account.

As I mentioned, the OFT last week announced its investigation, which I welcome. It will look at a range of areas. The fact that prices go up pretty quickly with oil price rises but are rather slow to come down is a key concern, but I am particularly keen for that investigation also to look into regionalised price anomalies.

I am grateful to the Minister for his time and attendance this morning. As a free marketer, I am reluctant to ask him to legislate on fuel price equalisation across regions. Fair competition must be the answer, and if the competition turns out to be unfair, or evidence emerges of local cartels, I sincerely hope that the OFT will uncover that and deal with it appropriately. The experience in Wyre Forest, where it appears that local pressure has brought the reward of better local pricing, suggests that retail chains might listen, even if they are reluctant to get together for a meeting—notwithstanding Tesco. Sainsbury’s, take note.

The Minister, of course, has a far louder voice than I or many of my Back-Bench colleagues, and I appeal to him to use every opportunity at his disposal to give petrol retailers a regular prod to ensure that the plight of rural dwellers is taken into account.

11:08

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

Although it is a surprise to be here this morning, Mr Howarth, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, on what is my first outing representing the Government, and to respond to the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). I thank him for his kind words. I remember well the day in Wyre Forest, although he forgot our trip on the steam train, in addition to the driving centre. I am pleased, too, to see my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) here today, as it shows the interest in this matter from communities beyond Wyre Forest.

I am surprised to be here this morning, because the debate has been misallocated to the Department for Transport. Many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest were about competition and fuel price policies, but neither is the Department’s responsibility. Therefore, I apologise if it is not appropriate for me to answer all his points, as the responsibility to do so lies with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

I was pleased, but not surprised, to hear my hon. Friend say that he is a free marketeer and that he does not wish to see the market regulated. As he knows, the petrol retail market is not economically regulated now. As with standards and competition policy, there are legal restrictions, and it is for the Office of Fair Trading to investigate breaches and enforce those. I will come on to the OFT’s investigation in a moment, but clearly, the existing situation is right, and the market operates on that basis. Like my hon. Friend, I do not wish to see economic regulation.

This debate goes to the heart of the fact that, in this time of economic difficulty, high fuel prices are putting a lot of pressure on households and businesses. Businesses are working hard, as are the Government, to ensure that motoring remains affordable for all. We have taken extensive action to ensure that motorists are supported. In the 2011 Budget, the Government cut the fuel duty by 1p a litre, and we have scrapped the previous fuel duty escalator, replacing it with a fair fuel stabiliser. That mechanism, which was effective from Budget day 2012, is designed to ensure that the burden of higher oil prices is better shared between oil companies and motorists through the increased taxation of oil and gas production when oil prices are high. When oil prices are above the trigger price of £45 a barrel, fuel duty will increase by the retail prices index only. When they are below that trigger, it will increase by RPI plus 1%, but that happens only when prices fall below the trigger point for a sustained period. My hon. Friend will remember that, in the autumn statement 2011, the Government deferred the 3p a litre fuel duty increase until August 2012. In June this year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that that increase would be further postponed.

The Government are acutely aware that the high price of oil is a burden for people at this difficult time. As a result of our actions, motorists are being helped, and frankly, if that help had not been in place, whatever the price pertaining—whether petrol is more expensive in Wyre Forest than in Birmingham, or in Redditch than in Cardiff or Strangford—the reality is that the price would be 10p higher than it is now. The existing situation is a direct result of the Government’s action.

[Jim Shannon]

Even allowing for the Government’s steps, which I very much appreciate, in 2008, the price of a barrel of oil was $147, and the price at the pump was £1.04 a litre. In 2012, the price is about $100 per barrel and the price is £1.39 a litre. I am not a mathematician, but even taking into account those extra charges, that does not add up. I know that the responsibility does not lie with the Minister, but it illustrates to many of people inside and outside the House that oil companies are making exorbitant profits, and there is a need for the regulator to take control.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman has put an interesting point about mathematics on the record. He tempts me to pre-empt the OFT investigation, which I would be ill-advised to do. I advise him and other hon. Members present to see what that investigation says. None the less, I hope that he takes the point that the Government are taking action because we recognise the burden of cost. In a moment, I will say a little about the Government’s concerns in relation to market transparency, because that is the line that he is going down, and I understand that.

The road fuel retail market in the UK has always been an open market, not an economically regulated market. The Government consider that to be very much in the wider interests of consumers. Regulation is undertaken by independent competition authorities. However, my predecessor made the point clearly that the Government are concerned about the lack of transparency in the market. As has been expressed not only in this debate but more widely, many people are concerned about fuel prices. They are concerned that the recent reductions in crude oil prices are not being seen at the pumps either at all or as quickly as motorists would like.

The Government have made their position very clear. The previous Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), spoke several times about motoring costs, as did the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. We have made the point that it is in our mutual interest for motorists and businesses to be confident that they are being treated fairly. That is important for the long-term benefit, and that point has been made several times.

When wholesale costs are coming down, those reductions should be passed on transparently and without unnecessary delay. Certainly, the aim of the fair fuel stabiliser is to ensure that action as well. Many members of the Government—the previous Secretary of State for Transport and other Secretaries of State—have made the point that motorists have the right to expect that when there are changes in the crude oil price—they can see those changes on the evening news—they will be reflected at the pumps. There is a duty on the fuel retailers to reflect that. The Department for Transport is on the record as saying that we want not only to see that happening, but to see it happening more obviously, so that there is greater transparency.

The previous Secretary of State put pressure on the fuel retailers to ensure that there was some transparency in their pricing policies. I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest that at least one of the major retailers of petrol was prepared to engage with him; it is to that retailer’s credit that it did so. Of course, being a financier of some repute in his previous life before first entering the House, he will recognise that those are quite normal pricing strategies. Whether his constituents see them as equitable or fair is another question. He will recognise that what that retailer said to him was not that different from what can be found in almost any economics manual.

As I said, the Government are clear that there needs to be transparency in this market and that we need to see that transparency being enacted. We also need to be clear that the industry is giving confidence to consumers. That is why both the Department for Transport and the Department of Energy and Climate Change wrote to several industry organisations, challenging them to ensure that there is transparency and encouraging them to work with the Government to take that forward.

The continuing and increasing public concern about the inability of some fuel retailers directly to reflect the reductions in crude oil prices in pump prices is the reason why on 5 September the OFT, which is, as my hon. Friend knows, the independent authority with responsibility for reviewing markets and enforcing the legal standards that relate to competition in this market as well as other markets, issued a call for evidence to help it to identify whether there are competition issues and a lack of transparency.

My hon. Friend mentioned that he thought that there might be anecdotal evidence of collusion, price undercutting and an attempt to drive out local independent retailers. He would therefore want to recognise—I think that he did so in his speech—that it is right and proper that the OFT gets on with its job and identifies whether there are competition issues overall in the sector or in parts of it.

The Government have made it clear that we fully support the call for information on the road fuel retail market. We clearly recognise the importance of fair pricing to cost-conscious motorists. It is clear that the OFT has been given a brief to explore what are a number of claims about how the road fuels sector is operating. I congratulate my hon. Friend, because almost everything that he spoke about in his speech is in the terms of reference for the OFT’s work. That is why I made the points about collusion, transparency, price fixing and driving out local independents. All those points are explicitly set out in the OFT’s terms of reference.

The Government have asked the OFT to call for evidence, and it is getting on with that. It has said that it will publish its key findings in January, alongside recommendations for action if it believes that to be necessary. It will obviously be appropriate at that time for the Government to make some response. It would clearly be inappropriate for the Government to pre-empt the outcome of that consideration and to speculate on what the next steps might be. Therefore, if my hon. Friend will indulge me and perhaps speak to the relevant Department in January about the outcome of the OFT’s work, I hope that he will get satisfaction. It is vital to the Government that we increase consumer confidence in this area. That is why the Government have asked the OFT to investigate. It is why Secretaries of State have been putting on pressure to ensure that the wholesalers ensure that there is retail price transparency.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I have no doubt that the message about his standing up yet again for his constituents in Wyre Forest will ring through Wyre Forest tonight via the local press, and I congratulate him on that.

11:26

Sitting suspended.

Aerospace Industry

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]

14:30

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to appear under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Turner. This is the first opportunity that I have had to welcome the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) to his new position as Minister. His closeness to the Chancellor has clearly paid off—congratulations to him.

Aerospace has been much in the news of late, particularly with the ongoing debate on airport capacity in the United Kingdom. My immediate motivation in asking for the debate was that the discussion on airport capacity has largely excluded mention of the importance of the UK aerospace industry. I hope that deficiency will be addressed and remedied this afternoon. The UK aerospace industry is a great national success. We are the premier aerospace manufacturer in Europe and second only to the United States worldwide. We hold 17% of global market share, which generated £24.2 billion of UK revenue in 2011—75% of which was exports.

I have two fundamental points about our world position in aerospace. First, it has been very hard won. It is the result of long-term policy and investment decisions made by Governments of different political persuasions and by the sector itself over many years. Secondly, it is a valuable resource. Developed and developing economies are ambitious to eat into our market share. China and Russia see the importance of the aerospace industry and are anxious to move into it. Companies such as the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China and the United Aircraft Corporation are ambitious to take part in the expanding world market.

I have read “Reach for the skies”, and I must say that it is an excellent document. A civil servant once told me that he did not think that a change of Government made much difference; I would not quite go along with that. The document is impressive and a welcome template for the future of our aerospace industry—as a former aerospace Minister, I want to put that on record. It is persuasive, and in preparing for the debate, I spoke to a large number of representatives from the industry, and it is striking how widely supported it is by those to whom I spoke.

The document owes a lot to the model the previous Government established for the UK automotive industry. The establishment of the Automotive Council made the UK the investment destination of choice for the world automotive sector in the past five years, not only the past two. The recent announcements by Honda and BMW—trumpeted by the Prime Minister—followed earlier decisions on investment by Nissan, General Motors and Toyota, and are testament to the attraction of the UK.

The Automotive Council has been a success for important reasons. First, it has buy-in at a very senior level from both Government and industry. Secondly, it has shown a capacity to identify the policy required and to implement it. The most obvious example is the car scrappage scheme, which the Government implemented quickly and efficiently in response to a crisis in the automotive sector in 2008-09. The long-term consequences of the framework for developing effective policy are reflected in the recent inward investment decisions made by businesses based abroad.

Thirdly, there is a spirit of co-operation in the industry between management and the work force. I despair at some of the rhetoric that I hear from the Tory right about fire-at-will policies. Such policies will undermine successful employment relations in successful businesses and do nothing to improve skills development. I urge the Minister to make early visits to plants such as Halewood on Merseyside, where the close working relationship between trade unions and management is creating an effective workmanlike atmosphere in which real progress is being made.

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

Will the Minister extend his visit to Jaguar Land Rover, where the trade unions recently played a big part in securing more than 1,000 jobs in the west midlands? That was no mean feat for trade union co-operation.

[Ian Lucas]

Absolutely. That is an excellent point. In his new role, I am sure that the Minister will see such examples if he visits those factories and others across the country.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. The aerospace industry is vital for the UK economy. It has thrived through a combination of good management, supportive trade unions and long-term Government support. Does he agree that we should learn lessons from the success of the aerospace industry and draw on them to build a comprehensive industrial policy in Government?

[Ian Lucas]

I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. An important thing that industry and Government can do together is identify deficiencies in the UK and devise policy to address them. Supply chain development has been identified as a difficulty that needs to be addressed in both the automotive and aerospace sectors. I am pleased that the UK aerospace partnership is following that broad structure, which has been successful in the automotive sector. I hope that the successful approach will continue. Will the Minister confirm that he will act as the joint chair of the partnership with Marcus Bryson of GKN? Will that reflect the Government’s commitment to the success of the partnership?

In passing, I should mention that I am grateful to GKN for providing me with an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship back in, I think, 2003-04. It gave me a great insight not only into the company and the aerospace industry more generally, but into the onset of globalisation, its challenges and the work that a large manufacturing company needs to do to deal with it.

In all my dealings with the aerospace sector, I have been struck by how good it is at engaging with MPs—not only local MPs, but anyone who shows an interest in the industry. It is keen to work with both Government and Back Benchers to extend the appreciation of the industry. The general public still have not got the fact that we are leaders in aerospace—I take part of the blame for that, because I was the Minister for a year—so we need to repeat that fact consistently.

Airbus, which is next to my constituency, has been a great friend to me over many years. AgustaWestland has kept me informed about the exciting developments in the civil helicopter sphere in which it is involved. The ADS group, as a collective organisation, works extremely hard to promote the aerospace industry in the UK.

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

My hon. Friend mentioned AgustaWestland. As shadow Defence Minister, I would say that British aerospace’s enormous success and the respect that it is held in globally are extremely important to the defence sector. The commercial and defence sectors are put in separate boxes—one does well and the other less well—but it is vital that we have a strong commercial aerospace industry, which in turn supports our defence needs.

[Ian Lucas]

That is indeed the case. My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the importance of both the defence and the civil aerospace sectors. There will be particularly difficult times, as there have been for the defence sector in the past couple of years, while the civil aerospace sector is more buoyant. It is important to have a very close relationship between those two arms of the sector to ensure long-term planning.

Aerospace is a growing sector. The aerospace growth partnership report states that

“growth in air travel has proved remarkably resilient”.

It is forecast that that will continue, with 27,000 new large civil airliners needed by 2030. There are also extremely challenging climate change regulations in place, so air travel expansion will be coupled with demand targets that will need to be met by technological advances. As a nation, we are well placed to address those challenges—for example, through the development of composite technologies, leading to lighter, more fuel-efficient aircraft. We need to make sure that such commitments are worldwide, so that we do not hand a competitive advantage to our competitors. We must ensure that the UK industry’s advantages are not prejudiced in the world market.

One of the key issues facing UK aviation at present is the introduction of the EU emissions trading scheme. Please will the Minister confirm that the impact of the scheme on UK aviation is being assessed? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the UK industry is not prejudiced by the introduction of that scheme?

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

Does my hon. Friend accept that the aviation and aerospace industries have made great strides and great progress in cutting emissions compared with, for instance, shipping, where emissions are still very high and very little progress has been made? The focus seems to be very much on aerospace, as if it was somehow the only polluter.

[Ian Lucas]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows the great Brian Fleet from Airbus very well. The first time I met Brian in 2001, shortly after I was elected, I raised the issue of emissions, which took him slightly aback. He was able to give me a very good response on the work that Airbus was doing back then to combat the emissions challenge. That has come to fruition with the A330—an incredibly impressive piece of engineering—and that project has very ambitious goals for addressing the climate change challenge. As a nation, we have the advantage that we can produce more fuel-efficient, lighter aircraft than anyone else, and we should use that to increase the strength of our industry.

There is, however, a threat. I am advised that China has suspended orders of 45 A330s from Airbus, which amounts to $10 billion of business. That might have a real impact on Airbus jobs across Europe and also act as a barrier to environmental progress. The aerospace growth partnership must also work hard to identify the deficiencies that exist in the UK aerospace sector. The industry is open about those deficiencies and wants to work with the Government to address them.

Recent investment decisions—such as the one in June to shift the conversion of 14 A330 multi-role tanker transports from Cobham Aviation Services to Airbus Military in Madrid, costing about 300 UK jobs—have sent out warning signs. It is important to appreciate why that is happening. There was the real worry about the failure of the UK to win a £13 billion military aircraft contract with India, which the French press called

“the biggest arms contract of all time in the subcontinent”.

The UK lost that contract. I hope that the aerospace growth partnership will consider key decisions made by international investors when such investments happen and, if they go abroad, look at why they do so.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Another issue that affects not only the aerospace industry but manufacturing in general is the law of unintended consequences. For example, the EU’s introduction of new financial regulations, even though we all think that they are necessary, can mean—I hope that the Minister will address this—that when companies, such as manufacturing ones, borrow from a bank to hedge against changes in exchange rates and so on, that can have a major impact because it affects their liquidity, which is a big concern in manufacturing at the moment.

[Ian Lucas]

Indeed it is. I am sure that the Minister will address that point in his closing remarks.

It is imperative to have the continuity that I hope we are seeing in aerospace policy taken forward from today. Above all, aerospace is a long-term business that needs long-term approaches from the Government and from industry. What is very encouraging about the aerospace growth partnership is that, as a Minister who had responsibility for aerospace in the previous Government, it has so much in it that I am pleased to support. I am, however, concerned about whether the Government as a whole buy into such an approach. Last weekend, the Minister said:

“Deregulation and privatisation worked before”.

Will he please clarify what particular deregulation he intends to apply to the aerospace industry, and how that will help Britain to compete?

One identified weakness in UK aerospace is access to finance. I take a contrary view to the UK Government about the banking deregulation of the late 1980s, which was one reason why British banking has been so unresponsive in its support for manufacturing companies. Banking deregulation since the late 1980s has reduced competition between banks, and the welcome recent expansion of challenger banks is a development that could assist supply-chain development in the UK. I am very pleased by what the Secretary of State has said about a business bank that would build on the initiatives of the green investment bank—it would also build on developing Labour policy—but such a bank must not just be a rebranding of existing funding mechanisms. Will the Minister say whether such a bank would be able to raise capital to support the aerospace industry?

Those are all Government initiatives that business has identified as necessary to address deficiencies in the banking market. That market, which has built up since the 1980s, has produced a situation in which businesses, especially smaller and medium-sized ones, have been starved of investment. The advantage of the aerospace growth partnership is that it has identified a defect in the industry and is working in partnership with the Government to address it. The last thing that the industry needs is a raft of soundbites born out of the dogmatic attachment to laissez-faire that the Secretary of State deprecated in the Chamber on Monday.

The industry also needs an effective Department that not only says the right things, but does them, too. Earlier, I mentioned the success of the car scrappage scheme, and in aerospace there has been repayable launch aid investment, which is a key factor in the continued success of the British aerospace industry. Contrast that with what the Public Accounts Committee said this week about the regional growth fund and the role of this Government—that

“the Committee was highly disappointed to find that so few final approvals had been given and so few projects had actually started. The Committee was particularly concerned that with £1.4 billion set aside for the Regional Growth Fund, of the £470 million so far paid out by Government, £364 million has been parked with intermediary bodies via endowments and a further £57 million paid to other intermediaries. Only £60 million has been spent on front-line projects.”

[Mark Tami]

The key to repayable launch aid investment is that it is repayable. Aid has been repaid, and the scheme has been very successful for companies such as Airbus, but the Government have also made money on it, so it makes sense all round. It is not only about the money, but about the fact that the Government are demonstrating to other Governments that they support companies such as Airbus.

[Ian Lucas]

Indeed. Airbus consistently says that the scheme has been a great return on investment for the British taxpayer and that it has provided not only payments in cash, but, over many years, jobs—including high-skilled ones—training and careers for young people in regions such as north-east Wales, which my hon. Friend and I are honoured to represent.

When Government funding is limited, it must be efficiently and quickly applied. UK aerospace is a success. In “Reach for the skies” we have an agreed approach across political divides that has been formulated by the industry to ensure that it remains a success, and it is set out in the aerospace growth partnership report. We now need continuity and concentration on swift implementation of policy. It would be a massive mistake to undermine the shared vision of the future by applying outdated ideology. That has been part of the problem and will certainly not help our aerospace industry to rise to the challenges of the future.

14:49

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on securing this important debate and welcome the new Minister to his role. His predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), was a strong and vocal advocate of the aerospace industry, and I hope that the Minister will become one, too. I apologise to him and other Members that I have to leave straight after my contribution, but I look forward to reading the debate and the Minister’s response at a later date.

The aerospace industry is vital to Pendle’s manufacturing base. I raised the subject during Business, Innovation and Skills questions last Thursday. In reply, the Secretary of State said:

“Aerospace is an excellent example of how Government and industry can work together to create growth and world-leading industries.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2012; Vol. 549, c. 382.]

The UK aerospace industry is the second largest in the world. It is worth more than £24 billion and employs a huge number of people in Pendle in highly skilled jobs in firms such as Euravia, Graham Engineering, the Merc Engineering Group, PDS (CNC) Engineering, Regal Precision Engineers, Rolls-Royce, T and R Precision Engineering, Weston EU and Whitwam Precision Components.

Last November, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) re-established the all-party parliamentary group on aerospace, and I was delighted to take on the minor role of treasurer. In June, we held a meeting with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I was encouraged by what he said about Government support for the industry.

The broad picture both locally in Pendle and nationally is encouraging. I have visited most of the companies that I just mentioned, and on the whole, they are doing well and are positive about the future. Aerospace industry exports rose by 15.6% in 2011 and the civil aerospace market is booming worldwide.

Pendle’s largest aerospace employer, Rolls-Royce, which employs more than 1,000 staff at its sites in Pendle, recently reported record profits and an order book of nearly £52 billion in its civil aerospace division. I took my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Barnoldswick site before the last general election and look forward to my next visit there on 19 October.

I echo what the hon. Member for Wrexham said about the positive role of the trade unions. One concern that was raised by Rolls-Royce trade union officials at their last meeting with MPs here in Parliament—it was also raised with me by my local trade union representatives—is the unforeseen consequences that the EU’s reform of financial regulation could have on companies such as Rolls-Royce, and I could not agree more with them.

The Minister might be aware that, after the financial crisis, the G20 agreed that over-the-counter derivatives contracts should, if sufficiently standardised, be moved to clearing houses and be reported to trade repositories. That poses real challenges for large non-financially based companies that utilise OTC derivatives for risk management purposes. That is particularly important to the UK aerospace sector, because virtually all deals are done in US dollars.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue affects not only aerospace but UK manufacturing, which is something that we are all trying to build up at the moment? He has touched on an important issue.

[Andrew Stephenson]

This is a huge matter that will affect all non-financially dominated companies and all large-scale manufacturing companies. Using OTC derivatives allows companies to focus on development and growth of the business and is a simple way of managing risks; it is simply good housekeeping. If the move goes ahead, it will not be long before companies such as Rolls-Royce will be looking to move their headquarters overseas. It is a crucial point, and I applaud the trade unions for spending so much time trying to raise it.

Turning back to my local area, the regional growth fund has had a positive effect. The Government have agreed to fund the Regenerate Pennine Lancashire bid for an additional £7.5 million in business support and its accelerating business growth in Lancashire scheme is designed to meet the needs of local manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises.

There was also a successful bid from the North West Aerospace Alliance, which I met last December to discuss the challenges that face the industry. It is currently putting together a bid for a national aerospace supply chain centre that would be based in the enterprise zone at Samlesbury in Lancashire. Needless to say, I strongly support the creation of such a centre in the north-west, even though it would not actually be in my constituency.

The regional growth fund announcements came just two weeks after the Government said that they would back the bid from the Visions Learning Trust to create a new £18 million university technical college in east Lancashire. The sponsors of the new UTC are Pendle companies with large aerospace contracts, such as Graham Engineering and Weston EU, so the college will play a key role in addressing the skills shortages faced by many local aerospace companies.

All such developments come on top of issues that the Minister has previously talked about, such as cutting corporation tax, promoting exports and getting the banks lending again. However, there are some areas where the Government could go further. In advance of this debate, I spoke to Dennis Mendoros, the founder and managing director of Euravia—an aerospace company based in Kelbrook. It is a medium-sized business with a global reach, and it won the Queen’s award for export in 2010. Mr Mendoros believes that the main issue that has not been extensively discussed is the support that should be provided to aerospace companies with a strong export record.

As many hon. Members will know, exports account for nearly 75% of the UK aerospace turnover. None the less, Mr Mendoros feels that UK export companies do not receive any real structured support from the Government, whereas other countries, such as France, Singapore, and the USA have a structured national strategy for aerospace development. He believes that much more could be done to ensure that UK Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence are focused and committed to supporting UK export companies, especially small and medium-sized businesses such as his own. In addition, he believes that it would be helpful to receive tax incentives to help procure new technologies, skills and expertise, which are essential for continuous growth.

I am aware that industry and the Government have formed the aerospace growth partnership to look at those issues and at what more can be done to support the industry. Will the Minister explain how that partnership and other structured support can help SMEs such as the one run by Mr Mendoros?

In conclusion, the aerospace industry, which is vital to Pendle, is doing incredibly well, with a growing number of orders and jobs. However, more could be done to help SMEs with exports. As I have said in previous debates on manufacturing, the long-term future of the aerospace industry in the UK cannot be secured without a long-term commitment to research and development and support for the supply chain. The Government have done a lot for the aerospace industry so far, but many of our international competitors are taking similar steps, so we need to be constantly striving to stay ahead of the game.

14:59

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am delighted to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on securing it. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his promotion.

As several hon. Members have already said, the UK’s aerospace industry is tremendously successful. It is an industry that we should be incredibly proud of. It is the largest aerospace industry in Europe, and globally we are second only to the US. In addition, huge growth in aerospace is expected, particularly in the commercial sector. Therefore, it is no surprise that there is a great deal of interest from Members from all parties in this debate. As the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) mentioned, given that interest, I re-established the all-party group on aerospace a year ago. I would like to put on record our thanks to the Business Secretary for addressing our last meeting.

I am sure that it will come as no surprise to Members that my constituency has a vital aerospace presence. Indeed, Wolverhampton has a long and fascinating history of aviation and aerospace development. I will not attempt to recount it all in the time that I have available today, but I will talk about one small nugget. Although Sunbeam is better known for its motorcycles and world-beating cars—the first British car to win a grand prix was a Sunbeam made in Wolverhampton—the company first manufactured aircraft in Wolverhampton in 1912 and made aircraft during the first world war.

Today, Wolverhampton is home to a significant and thriving aerospace cluster, with Goodrich Actuation Systems, which was recently bought out by UTC Aerospace Systems, being the biggest employer; indeed, Goodrich has taken on 150 new employees since the start of 2012. There are other aerospace companies in the city, such as Moog, Timken and HS Marston, which is part of Hamilton Sundstrand, a company that, like UTC Aerospace Systems, is owned by United Technologies. So parts for the world’s most high-tech and impressive civilian aircraft, such as the Boeing 787, Bombardier C series and Airbus A380, are made in Wolverhampton. Beyond Wolverhampton, the aerospace industry is vital to the wider British economy, as hon. Members have already outlined.

Despite the vitality and success of the British aerospace industry, we must not be complacent about its future. The whole aerospace industry is more global than ever before, and with that the British industry faces fierce competition from the world’s largest economies. The US aerospace industry remains the world’s largest, but it is worth noting that huge investment is being made in China and other emerging economies. The global competition that the British aerospace industry faces today is fiercer than ever before, and the competition that it will face in the years to come will be of a different scale and magnitude from the competition that it has faced in previous years.

Continuity of policy is therefore imperative. I want to make that point strongly. We need cross-party agreement about the strategic importance of the industry and about the Government’s role in supporting it. Although two and a half years seems a long time in politics, it is important to the industry beyond 2015 that it receives ongoing support from whichever party—or parties—happens to win the next election.

I welcome some of the steps that the Government have already taken, and I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham in welcoming the aerospace growth partnership, which provides an excellent framework for co-operation between the Government and the industry. I have had positive feedback from industry representatives about the AGP, which, as my hon. Friend has said, is modelled on the success of the Automotive Council.

I also welcome the announcement made in the Budget this year—unfortunately, it was one of the few announcements made in the Budget that I do welcome—that the Government will provide £60 million to fund a new world-class centre in the UK for aerodynamics. I would be grateful to the Minister if he gave us some more detail about that centre at some stage. When will it be opened? Will the Government commit to fund it beyond the initial two-year commitment that they have made?

Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that other countries around the world, including those in our own neighbourhood, are much more astute and generous in supporting aerospace research and development. I wonder whether the Minister shares the concerns in the industry that, if we are not careful, our competitors will simply out-compete us if their Governments give them far greater support for that essential R and D.

The industry also has concerns about intellectual property rights, and I would be grateful to the Minister if he assured the industry and Members that the Government are keeping a watchful eye on any further weakening of IPR for aerospace companies.

Whenever I visit aerospace companies in my constituency and whenever I meet representatives of the industry, they always raise the issue of skills, which the hon. Member for Pendle has already mentioned today. Given the sheer growth of the industry and the existing skills shortage, there is likely to be a cliff edge in five years’ time, with an acute shortage of engineers, technicians and skilled workers. Moreover, engineering graduates unfortunately do not always go into engineering jobs. Some are attracted to the City and some are attracted not to the aerospace industry but to other industries. There is a real concern in the aerospace industry that it will not be able to maintain its global position if more engineers are not attracted to it in the years to come.

The big names, such as Airbus, do not have trouble finding apprentices. I spoke to a representative of Airbus earlier today who told me that the company received 1,300 applications for 85 apprenticeship places, which is quite astonishing. However, the big names are concerned that it is sometimes more difficult to attract apprentices and a sufficient number of skilled workers for the posts that are advertised further down the supply chain.

I want to follow up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham made about the EU’s emissions trading scheme. Aerospace companies are investing to reduce the emissions that their aircraft produce and are producing ever-lighter and more fuel-efficient aircraft, but it is absolutely essential that we strike the right balance between tackling climate change and ensuring that European rules—I am an admitted pro-European, so I am in favour of some European rules—do not disadvantage European aerospace companies to the benefit of non-European ones.

As the Minister is aware, there is a real fear that, if the ongoing ETS dispute with China is not resolved, China will threaten to suspend its order of 45 A330 aircraft. That will simply push the production of those aircraft from Airbus here in Europe across the Atlantic to the US. As recently as yesterday in Berlin, he was made aware of these concerns by Airbus, and I would welcome any reassurances that he can give about what the Government can do at a European level to mitigate the risk of losing such a significant order.

In conclusion, we must not be complacent about the future of the British aerospace industry. Although we should continue to celebrate its successes, we must be alive to the growing and fierce global competition that it faces today and in the future. Again, I want to stress that cross-party support for the industry and long-term continuity are incredibly important, given that it is such a long-term industry. In that vein, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

15:08

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

Thank you, Mr Turner, for calling me to speak; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. I also welcome the Minister to his new job, and I am obviously very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) was able to secure this debate.

As hon. Members have said, we can be rightly proud of the British aerospace industry. It has been a great success for our country; it is high-value, high-tech and high-quality. It is everything that we want it to be. Several colleagues have said that the industry is worth more than £24 billion to the UK economy and that more than 400,000 jobs rely on it, either directly or indirectly.

I am proud to have Airbus at Broughton in my constituency. It is a company that supports around 100,000 jobs, either directly or indirectly. Broughton is the centre of wing excellence, not only for the UK but globally.

Airbus has been a success story, but the success has been hard won. Back in the 1970s, when Tony Benn, the then Secretary of State for Industry, had a choice to take up the share in Airbus or support Concorde, he chose the latter, which in hindsight was probably not the better option. BAE Systems picked up the share in Airbus, and we were fortunate in the UK to have the wings. It was through luck rather than judgment, if we are honest, but the wings have turned out to be the best part of the aircraft to have, with a lot of value added. BAE Systems chose to sell its share several years ago, and that is generally regarded as not the brightest decision it has ever made. Then again, the company probably has a record of such decisions—if I am not being too unkind.

Airbus has continued to grow, and projects such as the A380 and the A350 are moving on. Despite the fact that we were told that there would not be a market for some of the aircraft, the orders are now beginning to come in and the company is extremely successful.

It has not all been plain sailing. The events of 9/11 saw a dramatic decline in orders, and some orders were scrapped. Airbus was able, nevertheless, to ride that difficult period, thanks not only to the company itself but to the unions, which made some difficult choices to maintain employment and, importantly, the skill base, as colleagues have already mentioned. One of the first decisions taken after 9/11 was to write to every apprentice in the company to say, “Whatever happens, your job is safe.” That compares, perhaps, with the approach of some other companies—if I am honest, particularly British ones—whose first decision would have been to get rid of apprenticeships, considering them a cost rather than the long-term investment that they are.

Currently, Airbus has a 64% market share of civil airliners, which is an incredible state of the order book. There were more than 1,400 orders last year and, with a backlog of 4,500 orders, that equates to work for about seven or eight years. Last week we saw the first A350 wing leave Broughton for Toulouse, for the test aircraft that is being put together there.

The apprenticeship scheme is important because it is an investment. There are 393 apprenticeships already going through, and a further 85 apprentices have been recruited this year. We have to praise the company, because it has not been doing this only recently, but for many years, at a time when the rest of British industry had decided, frankly, that somehow apprenticeships were a thing of the past, and that, rather than investing in younger people in their own companies, they could pinch staff from others.

[Ian Lucas]

Isn’t it striking how many individuals in the aerospace industry at very senior—chief executive—levels are former apprentices?

[Mark Tami]

Yes, that is true. We have mentioned Brian Fleet, who has retired from Airbus but started off as an apprentice there, left and then came back. That is telling. Such people have a real feel for all levels of the company and are loyal to the aerospace industry and to this country.

Nevertheless, we cannot rest on our laurels. There are threats to Airbus, not only from Boeing in America but from growing industries in Russia, Brazil, Canada and China. When orders are given to Airbus, or indeed to Boeing, part of the deal will often be that some production function will end up going to one of those countries. We might not like that, and in an ideal world it would not happen, but that is how it works, and the challenge for us is to stay ahead and always be moving forward so that no matter what we end up giving away we have something to replace it with, the skills and value of which are hopefully higher than what we have lost.

Airbus is a European partnership, and we are fortunate to have the wings. Spain, Germany and France would love to have the wings. Although we have had a good order book, going back, as I mentioned, for many years, it is always about the next aircraft. We have the A350, and the next one will be the replacement for the A320, which is the real workhorse of the fleet for most airlines. Clearly, we want that here, and it should be here, but Spain, Germany and France will make a good case for its being elsewhere. If we lost that work, the long-term future would not be good. It is vital, therefore, that we invest now. Composites are the future—in fact, they are not the future, they are now. Aircraft are being built with composites now. The UK was behind in composites, and is now catching up, but we need to invest more if we are to bridge the gap that is still there.

The Government need to invest. They have put money in and given support, but I am concerned when I hear that government is not about picking winners. I do not have a problem with picking winners; I have a problem with picking losers. We must invest in success. In the past, the Government too often waited for companies to fail and then threw money at them. That perhaps delayed what was going to happen anyway, but rarely did it turn around a business that had probably gone too far to be saved. I do not have a problem with investing early in the success of a company. There is a huge and growing market out there to exploit, and we are fortunate to be in a strong place in it.

Mention has been made of the military side of things, which unfortunately is sometimes seen as totally different from the civil side. Clearly the planes are different, but the ways in which planes are developed, whether via composites or a whole host of engineering changes, often come from innovations made through military aircraft. The 400M military transport aircraft is the first aircraft to have composite wings produced in Bristol. A lot of work has been done there that could be used for composites in civil aircraft as well. We have only to look back to the Boeing 747, the entire development of which was, I think, paid for by the US military apparently because it was going to be a military transport aircraft. Clearly, it was never going to be that; it was just a way of being able to pay Boeing’s development costs for what became a successful large-scale airliner. We cannot, therefore, separate civil and military; they are both important.

Colleagues have already addressed some of the main issues regarding the EU emissions trading scheme, so I will not go into great detail, but the point I will make is that China and America are concerned and angry about how the scheme operates. I am not saying that we should just scrap it, but we need to consider ways of getting through the issues, otherwise we will end up with a repeat of what we had in the World Trade Organisation, with the different sides throwing rocks at each other and no one really winning.

Mention has been made of the orders that are potentially under threat. It is not just Airbus that would lose from that, but the whole supplier chain, including Rolls-Royce, which would supply the engines for the aircraft. It is important that the situation should not spiral out of control.

The motor industry has also been mentioned; clearly the industry in the UK went through a dramatic decline. I am pleased that we now produce more cars than we ever did in the past—or, if we are honest, we assemble more. However, the supplier chain has not recovered and we have lost quite a lot of the design stuff. Some has not come back—perhaps it never will. Even the aerospace market is very competitive, and there is pressure to get suppliers to give the best price. Sometimes those suppliers will come from abroad; but we still have a good supplier chain in this country, and we need to invest more in it.

Training has been mentioned, and perhaps, whether with Airbus or anyone else, we need to focus lower down, because we still have skill problems. We must be honest about that and address it. It is a major problem, and it relates not just to technical skills but some basic skills. I think many employers are struck by the fact that there are still such problems.

[Emma Reynolds]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government might consider the Rolls-Royce model of taking on more apprentices than are needed, and, at the end of the training, making the extra apprentices available further down the supply chain, so that it has those skills available to it?

[Mark Tami]

That is a good point. One of our problems is from the days of privatisation. Whatever faults people may have found in state-run companies, they trained a lot of people to a high standard. After privatisation, one of the first things to change was that many people were not trained any more. I am thinking of electricity supply companies. Many people trained in the public sector ended up going into the private sector. Complaints are made to me about Airbus or other bigger companies poaching people from the supplier chains to feed their needs. That can only happen for a while before the supplier chain—and quality—suffers. Then Airbus or whichever company is involved will look elsewhere for support.

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

My hon. Friend will be aware of the Government’s trumpeting 800,000 extra apprenticeships. I think the figures were given to Parliament yesterday. Are those the type of apprenticeships that could help the automobile and aircraft industries, or are they mini-apprenticeships? What sort of apprenticeships are necessary?

[Mark Tami]

We are still somewhat unclear. We hear large figures, but do not know. Some jobs that are, I think, dressed up as apprenticeships, may be very low-skilled. Clearly, we need all the jobs we can get in this country. However, aerospace is a high-tech industry and we need people to fill gaps in it; otherwise companies—and today they are all global—will go elsewhere. We must be extremely careful about that, but it is a great industry and can have a strong future if the Government take it seriously. However, we must support it and invest in it.

15:23

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

I want to talk about two things: the importance of the aerospace industry, not only in its own standing, but as part of our industrial base; and the contribution and potential of the manufacturing technology centre at Ansty, near Coventry. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for obtaining the debate, which is an important one.

Other hon. Members have talked about how successful the aerospace industry is, and the figures speak for themselves—100,000 direct jobs, £24.2 billion of annual earnings, 75% of which are earned from export markets, and 17% of the world market, second only to the United States. In no other area of industry do we hold such a pre-eminent position. It is not one that we can afford to give away.

There are too many people in this country who think that we are a post-industrial society, and not all of them take that view from a state of ignorance: there are pre-eminent economists—we had one at the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs the other day—who think that we can earn our living in the world by providing financial services and nothing else. I fail to see how that model will ever be successful. We shall not keep our people gainfully employed, and pay our way in the world, off the back of financial services, no matter how successful the sector is—and it has blotted its copybook big-time in the past couple of years.

In my time in the Ministry of Defence I learned the importance of the aerospace industry, not only to the industrial base, but to our ability to produce the wherewithal to defend ourselves and play a role in the world—something that should not be underestimated. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), who has now left us, talked about the need for an industrial policy. Will the Minister tell us whether he agrees that there is a need for such a policy? There are people who are worried, because of some of the views and attitudes that he has expressed in the past, about his arrival in the Department and whether there will be an attempt to push us into a laissez-faire, devil-take-the-hindmost situation. It is a real concern, and I hope that he will take the opportunity to lay that fear to rest.

The aerospace industry is important in itself—but it is not fully appreciated that that is not its only importance. The synergies across the different parts of our far too small industrial base are also very important, not necessarily to the primes—the big companies, the likes of which my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) has been discussing—but to small and medium-sized enterprises, and second and third-tier suppliers in the Coventry and Warwickshire area. They do not do aerospace: they do aerospace, automotive and defence supplies. They flex between one and the other. They locate themselves in the area, and can continue to manufacture there, because there is a skill base on which they can still draw. It is not as big as those of many of our competitors. Hon. Members may want to compare the size of the German industrial base, not so far away. We need critical mass, and the aerospace industry plays an important part in our ability to maintain it. I come from what has been recognised as a car town, so hon. Members might ask what on earth I am doing talking about aerospace, but it plays a huge part in underpinning the skill base of the Coventry and Warwickshire area, never mind the celebrated car companies of the past, or Jaguar Land Rover, which continues to provide employment.

The manufacturing technology centre at Ansty, near my constituency, was established by two midlands regional development agencies—the old East Midlands Development Agency and Advantage West Midlands—which came together with several universities. The concept was to do something that we all recognise the country has been weak at in the past. We have had great pure science expertise in our universities and have repeatedly failed to turn it into product, market share, jobs and skills. The manufacturing technology centres were established to provide that through path, to pull those technological capabilities out of the universities and to encourage companies to share and explore the synergies they all need.

The centre in Ansty, led by Clive Hickman, is now fully operational with 125 people and 39 member companies, a third of which are aerospace companies, with Rolls-Royce playing a particular part. The centre currently has 29 projects with small and medium-sized enterprises. If we want to maintain what was sometimes glibly called high-tech manufacturing capability, we need facilities such as the manufacturing technology centre and we need those facilities to spill out and have a bigger impact on the local economy.

The Ansty development site is still underdeveloped and not fully exploited, despite a fantastically favourable geographical position, with direct access to the A46 trunk road, M69 and M6, easy access to the M40 and west coast main line and—if High Speed 2 is ever built and the Government do not back out—the first station out of London not that far away. The old Rolls-Royce Ansty site, now sadly under-utilised, is coterminous with the development site. The problem for Rolls-Royce is that, although valuable high-tech work is still done on the site, output has shrunk compared with overheads, as operations have shrunk over the years.

I want the expertise of the manufacturing technology centre to spread into the rest of the development site, and I encourage Rolls-Royce to exploit fully again the Ansty site next door, which could have a huge impact on the local economy. The Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership is doing its best to deliver that, but I wonder about its capacity. I know the Government are totally opposed to the old regional development agencies and think they were over-bureaucratic, but the LEP is private sector-led. The Government must ensure that the LEP has sufficient capability and support to provide the leadership necessary to secure such jobs in the Ansty development site off the back of the manufacturing technology centre.

15:32

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who is a very good friend, on securing this important debate. He is to be commended for bringing this vital topic before the Chamber in such a thoughtful, knowledgeable and measured manner. He was an excellent Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and acted as a champion for important future sectors such as the aerospace and automotive industries. He has demonstrated that same commitment to British industry today.

Speaking of congratulations, I welcome the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) to his appointment as minder of state at the Department. This is his first Adjournment debate in that role. I also welcome his elevation to the Privy Council. He has an important role in championing British industry in a long-term, modern and constructive way, relevant to the needs and ambitions of business in the 21st century, and I wish him well in that task.

On a slight tangent, this is my first opportunity in a debate on aerospace to pay tribute to Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, who died last month. That extraordinary man was brave, modest and inspirational, and it should be remembered that his first love was flying.

15:34

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:49

On resuming—

[Mr Wright]

Before we were rudely interrupted by the Division, I was about to take off in tribute to Neil Armstrong, whose first love was flying and aviation. After he came back from the moon, he became a professor of aeronautical engineering at Cincinnati university for the best part of a decade.

Coincidentally, today marks the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s moving and powerful speech about the moon project, probably the best example in history of Government and industry working in harmony. This is what he said:

“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard”.

I genuinely hope that the Secretary of State’s speech yesterday, on an industrial strategy for the UK, will have the same sort of wide-ranging and dramatic impact as Kennedy’s speech had in September 1962. Having said that, given that the Secretary of State has made 15 speeches on this topic since he came to office—an average of one every eight weeks—without any real, discernible impact, I shall not hold my breath on behalf of industry.

In today’s excellent debate, we have heard that the UK aerospace industry is a national success story that should be promoted and celebrated, arguably more than it currently is. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and others have pointed out that this country has 17% of the global market, making the UK the largest aerospace industry in Europe, and second only to the United States in the world. Some 2,600 companies in the UK directly employ more than 100,000 workers, and last year generated a turnover of close to £25 billion, with three quarters from exports.

As we have heard this afternoon, there are huge opportunities and potential for the industry. Airbus, in its global market forecast published last week, estimated that there will be a need for 28,200 passenger and freight aircraft to be delivered between now and 2031, a potential market worth $4 trillion. Passenger traffic will more than double in the next 20 years, with those passengers flying on larger, more efficient aircraft like the A380, that will be made of material that is substantially lighter but more endurable, and which will consume less fuel and make less noise.

Although the growth of civil aerospace will be large and potentially lucrative, there are also targeted opportunities that our defence aerospace industry, because of our global reputation, should be able to, indeed must, take advantage of. In the face of that huge potential, there is also enormous competition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) mentioned. We cannot afford to be complacent in such an important sector. On the back of that, much of today’s debate has rightly focused on the role of Government in relation to business and aerospace in the context of planning an industrial strategy.

Opposition Members believe strongly that the Government should set out a compelling vision for what this country’s economy will look like in the next 30 or 40 years. They should be determined—not necessarily to pick winners at a company level, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned—to identify those sectors in which we as a nation have a current competitive strength and a comparative advantage that will allow Britain to play a leading role in global markets in the decades to come. Co-ordination of policy right across Whitehall, not just confined to the Minister’s Department, should then be pursued relentlessly and without dither for the single-minded purpose of allowing those sectors to thrive.

With that in mind, Labour Members fully support the championing of the aerospace sector as a vital and much-needed part of the UK economy. As I have explained, UK aerospace has a leading role in the global market, not just now but in the growth of the sector in the next 20 or 30 years. All Opposition and Government Members should therefore be determined to maintain that market edge, and to enhance it for the good of the national economy.

The aerospace sector has capital expenditure programmes and lead times for research and development, design and manufacture measured in billions of pounds and in decades. The industry and its supply chain need to have confidence and certainty to allow them to plan for the long term. Policy uncertainty is bad for business and for the interests of the UK aerospace industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East eloquently said.

We therefore applaud the creation of the aerospace growth partnership, which is somewhat similar, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said, in its ambition and scope to the work done with the Automotive Council for another vital sector for the UK economy, the automotive sector. The aerospace growth partnership builds on the progress made by the advanced manufacturing strategy introduced by the previous Labour Government as part of the “New Industry, New Jobs” initiative. The aerospace growth partnership’s strategic vision for UK aerospace, “Reach for the skies”, is ambitious and clear, focusing on what we believe to be the right areas of strategy, technology, manufacturing capability, supply chain competitiveness and engagement and communications, as well as the vital work undertaken on skills for the sector by the aerospace and defence sector strategy group.

The key strategic findings of “Reach for the skies” state quite explicitly:

“The UK can retain its position as the largest aerospace manufacturer in Europe (and number two globally) if industry and Government work together to address barriers to growth”.

It goes on:

“Companies are more likely to invest in creating jobs and capabilities in the UK if they believe the Government is committed to maintaining the UK as an attractive environment for aerospace.”

Opposition Members certainly support such a commitment.

In that context, and given the debate that we have had, will the Minister take this opportunity to appreciate that in the modern economy, in important industrial sectors such as aerospace, close co-operation, partnership and activism is absolutely necessary between the Government and business? Indeed, it is the only way the UK will maintain and enhance its competitive edge. Will he also take the opportunity to support, in full, the industrial strategy approach set out by the Secretary of State this week; in particular, what he told the House on Monday? The Secretary of State said:

“The other theme is the need for partnership between business and industry. Very few countries have a purely laissez-faire approach, and we should learn from their experience. We also should draw on our experience; I have learned much from some of my predecessors, particularly Lord Heseltine, who has an office in my Department and is contributing valuably to thinking on this subject.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 25.]

Will the Minister fully endorse his Secretary of State’s approach? Will he also take the opportunity to reject his own comments in The Sunday Telegraph, particularly—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham mentioned this—when he said:

“Deregulation and privatisation worked before”?

Is that not a somewhat dated and discredited approach that will do nothing to address business needs in a fiercely competitive and interconnected global economy of the 21st century? It is like trying to solve the problems of 2012 by harking back to 1982, or like listening to a Sony Walkman when the world is excited about iPhone 5s.

“Reach for the skies” states that business and the Government are working to identify the product and manufacturing process technologies that will position the country for growth, and that a business case will be set out by the end of this month. Is that still on track? Will the Minister update the Chamber on that important matter? Similarly, the document states that business and the Government will develop a strategic plan for the UK aerospace industry’s underpinning and enabling capabilities within academia, the supply chain and the relevant Catapult, as well as creating a strategic road map—or should that be runway—to exploit future technologies. Again, will the Minister give an update on progress on that?

I am concerned that business policy should not merely reside in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but that the reach of an industrial strategy should stretch right across Whitehall. In that vein, the Minister will want to address one of the findings in “Reach for the skies”. A big factor in whether we can maintain and enhance our competitiveness in aerospace—mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East and for Alyn and Deeside, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) —is the shortage of skilled engineers, particularly at senior technician, graduate and postgraduate level. What work is the Minister doing to address that, and how is he engaging with the Secretary of State for Education on this vital issue, particularly as the Education Secretary has downgraded the engineering diploma? Does the Minister share my concern that studying engineering at school, college, as an apprentice and at university does not seem to be a top priority in Sanctuary Buildings, and that for the sake of our competitiveness in the next 20, 30 and 40 years it should be a priority, especially when it comes to important sectors such as aerospace? Will the skills strategy for aerospace be delivered as planned by autumn 2012?

One of the risks to the industry identified by the aerospace growth partnership is access to finance, especially in the supply chain, and we need to ensure that the gap between banks and aerospace businesses are closed. Yesterday’s speech by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills mentioned setting up a British business bank. That is a welcome step, as we are the only country in the G8 that does not have such an institution for small and medium-sized enterprises’ financing requirements. Will the Minister say a little more about that? Will he expand on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham? Will the British business bank have new money and new borrowing powers, or is it a case of existing arrangements being consolidated into something new? How will SMEs in the aerospace supply chain derive benefit from such a bank?

Concerns about the EU emissions trading scheme have been raised in the debate. There is no point in undermining our competitiveness and losing trade to the likes of China and Russia, and order books being lost. I hope the Minister will spend some time addressing that, too.

Opposition Members are passionate supporters of the UK aerospace industry. We need to give the major players certainty and stability, allowing them to invest for the long term. We want UK aerospace to maintain its global pre-eminence as the market grows sharply, but in the face of fierce competition, this is possible only with an active partnership between Government and industry. We will support the Minister and the Government wholeheartedly if they adopt that model. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity—his first in an Adjournment debate—to pursue such an approach for the sake of the advancement and prosperity of the UK aerospace industry, long into the future.

16:00

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) both for giving me such an early opportunity to answer this debate as Minister for the aerospace industries and for the tone he set in launching this debate. I may have other debates with the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) where words such as “dogma” and “ideology” are more appropriate, but I do not think this has been one of them. It has been an excellent, timely debate that allows me to report on yesterday’s meetings in Berlin of the European Ministers in this area, which focused on Airbus, one of the world’s largest aerospace companies and a key part of our aerospace sector. I met Thomas Enders and Tom Williams and heard directly from Airbus about its position in the marketplace and its reports on progress with each of its planes.

The aerospace sector, as the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and other hon. Members reminded us, is not just about the large global companies. The UK has many thriving mid-sized companies and small and medium-sized ones as well. Hon. Members might be interested to know that, while in Berlin, I spent some time with one of the aerospace regional trade associations, the Midlands Aerospace Alliance and some of the smaller companies exhibiting at the show. They were doing a great job seeking out export opportunities for this country. One of the companies there, for example, was Tritech, based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wrexham. It is interesting to note that Tritech, which provides castings for a range of customers, was formed in the difficult industrial climate of the early 1980s, but has gone from strength to strength.

In his speech yesterday on industrial strategy, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said that aerospace was a sector where the Government are developing a long term strategic partnership. I emphasise that, because there has been much discussion about picking winners, and so on. This is much more about backing winners and helping the industries pick their own winners and seeing what Government can do to support them. As the Secretary of State emphasised yesterday, there is a need for a partnership between Government and the industry on aerospace because, although it demands long-time horizons, the potential prize is measured in trillions of dollars.

It was clear from our meeting and update with Airbus yesterday that the opportunities are immense in terms of future orders to replace the ageing fleets, both in the United States and Africa, and there are also enormous challenges from increasing global competition and the need for step changes in technology to further improve the environmental performance of new aircraft. I hope that it is clear that this Government recognise the value of the aerospace sector and are committed to work with companies, not simply to sustain it, but to grow it.

Several hon. Members mentioned the size of the sector. It contributes more than £24 billion a year to our economy and provides directly more than 100,000 highly skilled and high-paid jobs, and many more than that indirectly. At present we are a world leader in the design and manufacture of large aircraft wings and components, aero-engines and advanced systems, such as landing gear. These are the most complex parts of any aircraft. The UK is well placed to pick up a significant share of the huge growth opportunities that exist in the global market for new aircraft. Airbus estimates that more 27,000 new large passenger aircraft will be required by 2030.

As several hon. Members emphasised, including the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), this is a competitive market. I do not want to tempt the hon. Member for Hartlepool any further, but I am a little surprised that he mocks privatisation: these are all successful companies because they are private companies, competing in a competitive private market. However, I recognise the role of Government in sustaining that market and helping it grow. That is why we created the growth partnership, to work with companies and tackle barriers to growth, boost exports and grow the number of high-value jobs in the UK. I confirm that I will chair the group, together with Marcus Bryson from GKN.

The growth partnership is not about the Government trying to impose a strategy on business, but about better understanding where companies see opportunities, helping them to identify them and removing the bottlenecks to growth. The growth partnership now involves the commitment of more than 80 senior business people, supported by eight full-time secondees provided and funded by the aerospace industry. That is a major investment by the sector and an indication of the importance that it attaches to the initiative.

Hon. Members have been kind about the “Strategic Vision” document that we published in July. I will add more detail to that, showing how we will implement it, towards the end of the year. However, we are already supporting the industry in a number of ways. At Farnborough air show, we announced a further package of Government and industry investment—more than £200 million—which includes £100 million of investment in aerodynamics; joint industry and Government funding for 500 masters-level degree places in aerospace engineering; and further investment in low-emissions engine technology and towards major business-led aerospace research and development projects.

In addition, the aerospace sector is benefiting from the creation of a high-value manufacturing catapult centre, part of a network backed by £200 million of Government funding, helping to better commercialise the outputs of our world-class research base. We continue to support aerospace exports through UK Export Finance, supporting more than £2 billion of aerospace business last year.

Such support should not, as hon. Members have said, simply be about money. A lot of this work is about how to flesh out the partnership and deal with some issues that this sector, like others, confronts—notably, the shortage of skills, which is particularly an issue for small and medium-sized businesses and better UK sourcing of the supply chain—and, of course, what the industry and the Government need to do collaboratively to help bolster our research and development base. I will give the House more details on how we will implement the strategic vision in a few months.

Let me deal with some questions asked by hon. Members. I apologise if I am not able to deal with all of them in the remaining six minutes. I will write to hon. Members about any questions that I have missed.

Access to finance is critical for small and medium-sized companies, which is why we are working hard to reform banking and have more challenger banks able to develop those more traditional business relationships, which the larger banks got away from in the run-up to the financial crisis, and ensure that lending is really getting through to those small companies when and where they need it and on terms they can afford. My Department will be monitoring access and the use that the bigger banks are making of the funding for lending scheme, ensuring that the full benefit of that scheme is being passed on.

On the emissions trading scheme, Airbus yesterday left the Ministers from France, Spain and Germany, and me, in no doubt that the threat of retaliatory action is now extremely serious. I, too, left my fellow Ministers in no doubt of our position. The emissions trading scheme is now law—part of a directive—and that has been passed not only by the European Parliament and Council but by this House. We have environmental obligations that all of us want to honour. Equally, the directive makes it clear that there is provision for review where there is international agreement to deal with such a review, and I have made it clear that the work of finding a solution to the problem, in particular the issue of extraterritoriality, is now urgent. The clock is ticking as the directive has to come into force in April. We need to find a way through—a solution through the International Civil Aviation Organisation or other forums in which there is dialogue between the European Union and China and so on.

The regional growth fund was mentioned by a number of Members, and there have been criticisms of the pace of some of the earlier awards under the scheme. I look forward to responding on that when I appear before the Select Committee shortly.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) asked me specifically about the aerodynamics centre. The £60 million is obviously not all for the centre. On the location, it will be no surprise to learn that a number of options have been put forward. A panel of experts is meeting this week and will give me advice shortly. We hope to announce the decision soon.

On investment in composites, we will continue to support the national composites centre in Bristol, part of the series of catapult centres, and to encourage the use of the centre by aerospace companies. The right hon. Member for Coventry North East asked me about the manufacturing technology centre at Ansty Park, which is also part of the high-value manufacturing catapult centres. At Farnborough, we announced some £40 million to support a series of projects that Rolls-Royce is leading on advanced manufacturing processes and that is one of the first initiatives to go through the MTC. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is still underused and that there is scope for greater capacity, I am happy to have a look and to reply in more detail.

The United Kingdom has an aerospace sector of which we can be justly proud, but I assure hon. Members who have participated in the debate that we cannot afford to be complacent. They will see nothing other than an unstinting and unflagging commitment from the Government to making Britain the best place in the world for aerospace businesses to invest, design, manufacture and export.

I am grateful for the kind words that hon. Members offered me on my appointment and for their interest in this particular sector and their non-political approach, exemplified by the formation of the all-party group, in the work of which I shall certainly take an interest. I might have missed some individual points made in the debate, but I hope to demonstrate the kind of commitment to the industry that others in the Chamber have demonstrated previously and so well in the debate. The sector is vital and I certainly pledge to do what I can to support it.

Police Officer Reductions

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

16:14

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I requested a debate on police cuts to look at the evidence. My constituents are interested in the numbers of front-line police and in how those police protect them and their families. I will also look at the evidence on how the number of front-line officers affects crime and at the effect of the cuts in different parts of the country.

I pay tribute to police officers in front-line and so-called back-office roles, to community support officers and to civilian staff who support their uniformed colleagues. The hard work and dedication of the police has made a huge difference to communities throughout Merseyside and the rest of the country. The dedicated people who work as police officers and support staff feel, however, that their hard work is being compromised by cuts that go way too far and that those cuts will undermine the ability of the police service to keep the people of Merseyside safe. They also have grave concerns that cuts in police numbers will put pressure on them to go on duty alone, rather than with a colleague—a risk not only to personal safety, but to ability to do the job.

Turning to the evidence, according to the Home Office in July, the number of police officers had dropped by nearly 10,000 under this Government—more than the inspectorate of constabulary expected and showing the depth of the cuts involved. Substantially more than half the cuts so far are from 999, neighbourhood and traffic response—officers we rely on in an emergency. That represents the lowest number of police officers on our streets in almost a decade. The number of police community support officers has fallen by 9% in the past year alone. The British crime survey shows that crime fell by 43% under Labour and that such progress has ground to a halt under the Tory-led Government, whom we now know have cut almost 10,000 officers. Our first piece of evidence therefore suggests a link between the number of police officers and the level of crime.

When Labour left office, record numbers of police were on the street: over 16,500 more than in 1997, in addition to more than 16,000 new PCSOs. I will come to the worrying Government plans for PCSOs shortly. The record number of police officers meant that not only did crime fall by 43% under Labour but the chance of being a victim of crime was the lowest since records began. Also, for the first time since records began, crime fell in a recession. That, sadly, is no longer the case, as we see the fall in crime grinding to a halt in a double-dip recession made in Downing street. Indeed, the lack of jobs and growth is putting additional pressure on the police.

Historically, people unable to find work might, from economic necessity or lack of anything productive to do, find crime to be an alternative. That was resisted initially in recession through a combination of prevention and policing. Preventive measures put in place allowed people to keep their homes and caused unemployment to be much lower than in previous recessions. Another key measure of the previous Labour Government was the excellent neighbourhood policing initiative, which helped to cut crime rather than cutting the police.

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

My hon. Friend referred to prevention. Does he agree that our police officers work hard to fulfil the first and primary responsibility laid down by Robert Peel, which is to prevent crime, rather than only chasing after criminals? Does he also agree that it is greatly to the credit of the police that they do not whinge about their difficult situation but get on with the job? In a way, however, the effects of the reduced numbers to which my hon. Friend referred are therefore played down.

[Bill Esterson]

My right hon. Friend will make an excellent police and crime commissioner. I shall touch on the post for which he is standing a little later, but he is absolutely right that the police do get on with things. They soldier on regardless of what is put before them by politicians, and they try to make the best of a bad job—the record police cuts qualify as a bad job.

The record number of front-line police under the previous Government ensured that any inclination to crime that resulted from being out of work or short of money was challenged by the police because there were enough of them. A combination of prevention and enforcement therefore meant that crime continued to fall in a recession.

Now we have fewer police and worrying signs of a reverse in the levels of crime, following unprecedented cuts in funding, all at the expense of those at risk of suffering from crime up and down the country. So much for being tough on crime and tough on its causes—more like tough on the victims of crime, as they are the victims of a political dogma that sees the opportunity to cut the size of the state, not least policing.

People in my constituency want to see police on their streets, but 624 police officer posts will have been lost from the Merseyside force between 2010 and the end of 2012-13, as a direct result of the Government’s 20% cut in the police budget. A further 178 staff support posts will be lost over the same period. The Prime Minister promised to protect the front line, but that has not happened. It is no good Ministers blaming chief constables and police authorities. A 20% cut by the Government is not the fault of the police service. If they are so keen to cut the amount spent on police officers, why have they insisted, with due respect to my right hon. Friend, on a new bureaucracy that will cost more money to set up—money that could be spent on front-line officers? I am, of course, referring to police and crime commissioners.

The prospect of having Tory commissioners striding around their patches, lauding it over professional police officers, is not a happy one. I understand that Tory candidates plan to have their own uniforms, like some latter-day sheriff of Nottingham, although I hope that the people of Nottinghamshire will have the good sense to vote Labour in the elections on 15 November, to avoid the dreadful prospect of a series of Tory commissioners playing at cops and robbers.

I turn to another part of the police service and the excellent men and women who also contributed to the cuts in crime that we saw under the previous Government. I mentioned them earlier. Police community support officers are a key part of neighbourhood policing, which makes a big difference through the relationships that they and their police constable colleagues can build and in their work in crime prevention and helping to create productive activities, particularly for young people, often directing them away from crime and antisocial behaviour.

From April 2013, funding for PCSOs will no longer be ring-fenced. In my view they are essential to the success of neighbourhood policing, but given the massive cuts being made by the Government, it will be very difficult for chief constables to keep the current number of PCSOs. On Merseyside, only one local authority has been able to continue its funding of PCSOs in support of the police authority funding. Local government has also been clobbered by this Government of course, and it is no surprise that councils such as mine in Sefton had to end their funding for PCSOs several years ago.

In 2011, a Unison campaign to protect PCSOs in Lancashire obtained more than 5,000 signatures from the public and created supporting motions in the House of Lords. Council leaders responded to such a groundswell of opinion throughout Lancashire by agreeing to continue to support funding to keep PCSOs on their streets.

What is happening to police services, as the police make the cuts imposed on them? Some 75% of front desks have closed in Merseyside and Lancashire alone, resulting in significant loss of direct service to communities and of long-serving staff who have built up local knowledge and connections that will not be replaced. In my constituency, front desks in both Formby and Maghull have closed. Many people, especially elderly people, feel safer when they know there is a police station round the corner that they can go to, even if they do not use it often. People do not always like to use the phone, or have a car to go to a police station miles away.

One third of custody suites have also closed throughout Merseyside. There are also concerns about forensic science and fingerprint services. The concern raised with me is that there will be a significant reduction in police staff and loss of a highly skilled work force in services that play a major part in catching criminals. Potential closure of those specialist services is in advance of a national review that is due to make its own recommendations for all forces to implement.

Next on the list are control room staff. The 999 and general inquiry services are experiencing high turnover of staff in north-west England, resulting in the use of transient, inexperienced agency workers. Forces such as Cheshire have evidence of low morale in this group, which is forced to work to unrealistic Government targets on call time allocation and other indicators. Some police services are considering outsourcing, which will increase the risk of having staff without the local knowledge and relationships needed to ensure that such work retains its focus, despite targets, on the proper response that the public need, not on statistics or profits. That reminds me that the Government are closing coastguard stations around the country, including the one in my constituency, to make way for two super-national call centres that will have no local knowledge. Service and safety are being sacrificed in the coastguard service, and it seems that the same may be happening in the police service.

Police services throughout the country have no option other than to deliver the Government’s cuts agenda. Chief constables say that many of the jobs that go in the various specialisms will be have to be done by police officers, who will therefore spend less time on the beat and more time in an office, with the added expense that that will incur. That will add to the already sizeable reductions in the number of police on the beat.

The biggest cuts have been in the poorest areas. As with the fire service and local government, the metropolitan areas have had the biggest cuts. A 20% cut in Government grant across the board hits those with the lowest council tax base hardest, because grant makes up a bigger proportion of the total finance available.

I met representatives of the Merseyside Police Federation who told me that the Government’s cuts to the force are dangerous. The federation warned me that Merseyside police will be

“significantly affected by the 20% cut in police budgets imposed upon police forces”.

The effect of the Government’s cuts on the police has been even greater in Merseyside, as I demonstrated, because of how the police budget is calculated. The ration of funding to the police is dependent on the demographics of the area. Merseyside is funded with 83% Government grant and 17% council tax precept. Surrey is funded with around 50% Government grant and 50% precept, on account of the relative wealth in the area.

The Government’s decision to slash its police funding by 20% has a greater impact on areas with more deprivation than on more affluent areas, particularly those down south. As a result, Merseyside police are being hit particularly hard by the cuts. Merseyside is set to lose 650 police officers, as well as 103 police community support officers and 452 civilian staff, because it must lose £61.4 million from its budget over the next four years.

The Police Federation tells me that Merseyside has already lost around 500 of the 600 police officers due to be lost through the process of natural wastage and a recruitment freeze. The police authority is doing its utmost to make savings to counter the loss of such a large number of officers. This week, it was announced that 40 new officers are being taken on because of the savings that have been made, but that is a drop in the ocean considering the losses that Merseyside police has experienced. Forty gains against 600 losses is a pretty bleak score card, and Merseyside police still face losses because of the huge savings in the next few years.

One of my major concerns is that the excellent work by Merseyside police officers in recent years, particularly in reducing crime rates, will be reversed. Merseyside police have taken great strides in combating crime rates over the past decade, but the Police Federation believes that it is inevitable that crime and disorder throughout Merseyside will rise, so turning round the continuous reduction that has been witnessed in recent years. I have spoken to officers who warn that the cuts are dangerous and will lead to a rise in crime. The Government need to know the damage that they are doing to policing in Merseyside. The result will be not just a rise in crime, but an increase in the fear of crime in our communities.

I said that I would look at the evidence, which is found in the figures produced by the Home Office and in what police officers say when responding to surveys. A survey by the Police Federation shows that police officers in England and Wales believe that the Government’s cut of 20% in the police budget over the next four years and the reduction in police officer numbers will have a detrimental effect on crime and result in the public receiving a poorer service. That is what police officers say. The evidence is also found in what the Police Federation says, in the experience of the public through the loss of front desks, police officers and PCSOs on the beat and in the increase in crime.

In Lancashire, the acting chief constable, Chris Weigh, told the Lancashire Evening Post that his force was taking 513 police officers off the streets and that that had led to an inevitable increase in the number of offences. The force has an annual budget of £287 million and must save £42 million over four years. Mr Weigh described how he has been tackling burglaries in the county and how his officers had tackled burglary spikes last year. He asked how much longer special operations can continue to be employed to target burglary, when resources are falling. Figures released in April show that serious acquisitive crime in Lancashire rose by 8%, house burglaries were up by 8.4%, vehicle crime was up by 6.4% and assault without injury was up by 15%. The acting chief constable said that there has been

“a genuine, real increase in offending”.

That was confirmed by the chair of the Lancashire Police Federation, Rachel Baines, who said:

“It is the inevitable result. Officers are being hit from every angle.”

In just two years, the Government have cut police numbers back to what they were nearly a decade ago, weakened police powers, undermined morale and reduced crime prevention. What is required is a change of course and for the Government to implement a proper plan to cut crime, not police officers. We need real change from the Government to make our streets safer. Neighbourhood policing must be prioritised, antisocial behaviour must be taken seriously and the causes of crime need to be tackled, with police and local authorities working together. We should ensure that there is no privatisation of core policing and that strong communities are built, with respect to all, and responsibility by all.

I welcome the Minister to his post today. I hope that his response will provide confidence to my community and others around the country that he will listen and act, not only on the points that I have made today, but on what the police and public say about the need to reverse police cuts.

16:31

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Turner, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing the debate, even though I do not agree with a great deal of the assumptions and analysis he has presented this afternoon.

Perhaps we can start on a point of agreement, however, by recognising the work of the police service. As the Minister with responsibility for security during the Olympic and Paralympic games, it has been a privilege for me to work alongside the police. I pay tribute to their incredible work over the 105 days of the policing plan for the events, which ensured that safety and security were provided. We all recognise the job that the police do and the big contribution that they make to keeping our communities safe. In the context of Merseyside police, I also pay tribute to the work of Chief Constable Jon Murphy, which is providing a sense of assurance, and I want to recognise the work that individual police forces and police authorities are doing to respond to the challenge of dealing with budget settlements over the comprehensive spending review.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s central argument, the Government have no choice but to deal with the deficit that was caused by the actions of the previous Government, meaning that all public services must constrain their spending. As a service spending £14 billion a year, there is a broad consensus that the police can and must make their fair share of the required savings. The Government are clear that savings need to be made while ensuring that the quality of service that the public receive is maintained and, where possible, improved. This is not about salami-slicing policing resources; it is about transformation and long-term change in the way that services are delivered.

Furthermore, there is a great deal of talk about the reduction in central Government funding for the police, but we must be clear that that is only part of the picture. The police service, nationally, receives around a quarter of its income from the police precept element of council tax. The exact proportion varies from force to force, and I should stress, the level at which it is set is a matter for individual police authorities —or, from November, the police and crime commissioners—to decide.

Nationally, about £2 billion of savings needs to be made by the police service by 2015. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has challenged forces to drive through efficiencies, and it has shown that over half the savings required nationally—some £1.15 billion—could be achieved by forces raising their performance to that of the average of comparator forces.

Action to date in support of and among local forces includes our having extended the public sector pay freeze to police officers and staff, which will save at least £350 million by the end of the spending review period. Savings arising from the implementation of part 1 of Tom Winsor’s “Independent Review of Police Officers’ and Staff Remuneration and Conditions” will support chief officers in keeping posts and maintaining and improving services for the public. The police can, and are, making further savings by adopting an increasingly national approach to buying equipment and services, and forces can also make substantial savings in their IT spending.

On procurement, we are seeing the service operating with increasing commercial intelligence and using its collective buying power to buy more smartly and at a reduced cost. We have supported the service in doing that by mandating the use by all forces of specified framework agreements for purchases in key categories of goods and services, identified through the collaborative police procurement programme.

There is already evidence of the service’s success in delivering even better value from national frameworks by working together to purchase equipment through them. The service can go further in making procurement savings through reducing the volume of spend, as well as through price savings. The Government have consulted on extending the range of mandated categories and are considering the consultation responses. They have also identified the scope for the service to save at least £200 million a year by joining up procurement of non-IT goods and services.

Forces are also making substantial savings in IT. We have seen police spend fall by £73 million last year compared with 2009-10, and we are clear that there are real opportunities for further savings to be made. The new police information communications technology company will play a key role in helping forces make the most of such opportunities. In total, forces are planning to make about 24% of their savings through reducing non-pay costs. As just under 20% of forces’ budgets are spent on non-pay areas, that shows that forces are prioritising finding savings from non-pay budgets.

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister touched on a point that I did not raise, which was about using private companies to run police services. As he will know, that is of great concern to the Police Federation and many others. Perhaps he can help me understand how a private company, where it needs to make a profit, can run services more cheaply to the taxpayer than if the efficiencies were sorted out in-house.

[James Brokenshire]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that has been the experience; a number of private companies, in specific roles and with specific functions, have carried out those services, and many police forces around the country are utilising private companies to deliver some specialist services.

I should apologise for the absence today of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who is at the police superintendents conference and is therefore unable to respond to the debate. I know that he would want me to send his apologies. He has made the point, as the hon. Member for Sefton Central may know—my right hon. Friend’s comments were reported in this morning’s newspapers—that the private sector can and does have a role in the delivery of certain services. We are clear, however, that the fundamental principle of warranted officers conducting police services is always to be the bedrock of policing. Although the hon. Member for Sefton Central may find it strange to think that private services can deliver, and assist in the delivery of efficient and effective services, we believe that there is a role for the private sector in such a context.

The hon. Gentleman asked about officer numbers. The Government are clear that what matters is how officers are used and deployed. For instance, when the last Government left office, about 25,000 officers and PCSOs were working in non-front-line roles. In some cases, there may be understandable reasons for that, but by and large that is not where the public expect to see them. It is not where their skills, experience and professional judgment are best used and, frankly, it is not where they will deliver best value for money for the taxpayer.

The Select Committee on Home Affairs said in February 2011:

“We accept that there is no simple relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime.”

That point was reiterated in the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, “Policing in austerity: One year on”, published in July 2012. It is borne out by the evidence from the majority of forces, which, despite also experiencing reductions in budgets and officer numbers, are successfully managing also to reduce crime in their areas. I pay tribute to their work and therefore disagree fundamentally with the analysis that the hon. Member for Sefton Central sought to make.

The Government have a clear vision, which focuses on restoring professional discretion and reducing bureaucracy in the police service. We are committed to taking central Government out of local policing and concentrating instead on the national issues on which the Government should focus. To increase local discretion, we have cut police red tape, saving 4.5 million police hours, the equivalent of 2,100 officer posts. Additionally, the Government are replacing bureaucratic accountability with local democratic accountability through directly elected police and crime commissioners. On national issues, we are introducing the new National Crime Agency, which will lead the UK’s fight against serious and organised crime, strengthen policing at the border and ensure that local police are linked up to work nationally and overseas.

What matters is how effective the police are at fighting crime, and the effectiveness of a police force depends not on overall numbers but, ultimately, on how well it deploys its resources. That is why although total officer numbers across England and Wales fell between March 2011 and March 2012 by 3.6%, recorded crime also fell by 4.2%. I believe that that national picture is reflected in Merseyside.

Merseyside has seen its central Government funding reduced by 6.7% in 2012-13. This year, Merseyside is receiving £264 million of Government revenue funding. The local authority also agreed to increase council tax by 3%—it was one of 22 to do so—meaning that the authority is receiving an additional £64 million of funding through precept for 2012-13. Plans show that Merseyside is planning to increase by 2015 the proportion of officers on the front line from 85% to 91%, which is higher than most other forces. The force has also planned to have 76% of its total work force on the front line—again, a higher proportion than most other forces.

Service delivery continues to be protected. In the past year, recorded crime has remained flat in Sefton Central and has fallen in each of the other Merseyside police boroughs. Between March 2011 and March 2012, total recorded crime across Merseyside fell by 3.5%. The force currently retains more than 200 points at which the public can access police services. I also point out that victim satisfaction for Merseyside is, at 88%, greater than the level for England and Wales as a whole. I pay tribute to the work that is conducted in Merseyside.

Although we may disagree on a number of fundamental issues, I trust that the hon. Member for Sefton Central will agree with me that the vast majority of police forces are rising to the challenge posed by the funding and work force reductions made necessary by the budget deficit, which, I say again, was caused by the actions of his Government.

Protecting the Antarctic

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

16:44

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Turner; I look forward to a happy half-hour. It is also great to see my hon. Friend the new Minister in his place. It is a great honour to introduce what I think is the first Westminster Hall debate that he has to answer. I am grateful to him for coming along to do so.

Protecting the Antarctic is a very important subject and one that I and many other people take very seriously. Recently, the Committee Environmental Audit has been doing some very interesting work on the Arctic. That has raised a few issues about the importance of our polar regions in general, and it is therefore right that we consider the Antarctic as well. I thank my colleagues on the Environmental Audit Committee for all their support of my interest in the Antarctic and, of course, our work on the Arctic.

This discussion about the Antarctic is timely because of course it is 100 years since Captain Robert Scott attempted to reach the south pole. He did so not just to get there first, but to undertake very important scientific work. In doing all that and much more, he established the British presence in the Antarctic that we think is so important now. We need to ensure that we continue with that.

The other important link with Robert Scott is of course his son. In Robert Scott’s last letter to his wife, he hoped that his two-year-old son would show an interest in the natural environment, and he certainly did, because he helped to establish the World Wildlife Fund and he established the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, which is based in Slimbridge in my constituency. In addition, he worked extraordinarily hard to highlight the need to protect the Antarctic. I am therefore very proud of the connection that my constituency of Stroud has with the Scott family, with that epic attempt to get to the south pole and with the incredibly important legacy that was left.

That is the background to why I am here, thinking about the Antarctic and wishing to promote and protect it. Indeed, I will be promoting a private Member’s Bill on the issue later in the autumn. If people want to know more about the Antarctic, I can recommend a book by Sara Wheeler, “Terra Incognita”. It is a brilliant and very lively book. It talks about going down to the Antarctic with the British Antarctic Survey—I will talk about that later—and the lifestyle that one can expect to have in such a cold climate. Incidentally, the first human being to be born in the Antarctic was a Peruvian, and that took place in 1978.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and putting forward that very important Bill. If there is any need for proof of the affection in which the British people hold the Antarctic, we need only look to Edinburgh, where voters recently replaced a Lib Dem with a penguin. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of that.

[Neil Carmichael]

Absolutely. I also followed the fate of Dirk the penguin. He went out drinking with some Australians and ended up in a pool with very aggressive fish, but he did survive, so obviously penguins are notable for a lot of things, not just standing—

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

Like the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on securing this enormously important debate. Antarctica, as he says, is uniquely important scientifically, climatically and environmentally. Is it not vital for the protection of penguins, and flora and fauna in general, that there is strict enforcement of the restriction on resource exploitation and unregulated fishing in Antarctica and, like me, does he look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government are doing to reinforce that strict enforcement?

[Neil Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and I thank him for that important contribution to the debate. He can be reassured that that is exactly the direction of travel in which I think we need to be going. The Bill that I will be bringing to Parliament would strengthen those protection mechanisms, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be there to support me on 2 November.

The Antarctic is important for a number of reasons, not least its pivotal role in regulating the earth’s climate. The Southern ocean is a massive sink for CO₂. Although it is obviously a harsh environment, we must all recognise that it is also fragile, which is what the right hon. Gentleman was really alluding to. The challenges are captured in the statistics, such as the fact that in the past 30 years the air temperature has risen by 3° C and the sea temperature by 1° C—87% of the glaciers are in retreat. Without doubt, there are challenges to confront and recognise in our thinking.

There are also questions. For example, the number of krill—a relatively common, shrimp-like creature, stuffed full of protein—is starting to decrease, due to not only fishing, but environmental changes. Marine life in general also needs to be protected. That area of water alone contains 120 species of fish, which we must of course celebrate, but also ensure we can defend.

There are threats to the Antarctic that it is important to highlight today. We have considerable good international co-operation. Britain has been a key leader in that process and we need to both salute and cement it. We have played a great part in the Antarctic, not only because of Robert Scott and the Falklands, but because a whole host of foreign policy issues bring us to recognise the pivotal role the area plays. Although we are still recognised as a key leader, it is our responsibility to demonstrate leadership now, as more and more nations become more and more interested in the Antarctic. It is necessary to talk not only about protecting the environment, although that is critical, but about Britain’s interests in the region.

Overfishing is a risk. I do not want to get into a discussion about the common fisheries policy, because its area does not stretch that far, but we need to think about protecting fish stocks.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important and timely debate. He is of course right to say that we must do all we can to protect and preserve the fragile environment of the Antarctic. Does he agree that that does not necessarily equate to doing nothing there? There are those who would ban any form of human activity in a fragile environment of that kind, but properly controlled fishing and exploration for oil and minerals may well be beneficial in some ways to the economy and the environment of the Antarctic.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The key point is that we need to ensure that, if pollution occurs, the polluter pays. We must also ensure that they go with insurance, rather than worry about it after an accident. That is a critical part of the legislation I have brought forward. It underlines the fact that although we need people down there, they must conduct responsible activity in a responsible way that protects the Antarctic and does not threaten or damage it. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to underline that point.

Shipping is worth noting, given the accidents in recent years. According to research I recently undertook, we have had 12 significant incidents in five years. That again underlines the need to protect the area.

I visited the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge. It is partly the instrument of our presence in the Antarctic. I recognise, as we all do, the constraints on public funding at this time. The Natural Environment Research Council is a perfectly responsible body, but I hope that when those two bodies come together, the role of the BAS is still recognised for its importance in securing our presence in the Antarctic and in researching its interesting history and the story it can tell of how the earth developed and how climate change, oddly enough, has been an issue for many centuries. If we drill into the ice, we can look back over 800,000 years to explore what has happened. That process alone—carried out by the BAS—has been of decisive importance. I ask the Minister to think carefully about our presence in the Antarctic and the role of scientific exploration there.

The purpose of today’s debate is to highlight the importance of the Antarctic, to underline the need to protect its environment, to recognise its important role in our global climate and to strengthen the argument for a British presence there. That is why I am keen not only to talk about the Antarctic in general terms, but to do something about it. On 2 November, I will bring the Antarctic Bill before Parliament for its Second Reading. It has two parts. The first is about protecting the environment, which hangs on insurance and the concept that the polluter pays, as we discussed earlier. It is an important concept that we should apply to other areas that we need to protect, including the Arctic. The second part is about protecting marine life, vertebrates and other living creatures. The Antarctic is a sacred part of the globe. We must treat it as such and recognise that it is fragile. It is a subject of interest across the globe, as the Antarctic treaty makes clear, which is why we must strengthen the treaty’s structure by recognising its place in our domestic law.

Finally, I return to Robert and Sir Peter Scott. They were of decisive importance to the natural environment. As we all know, Robert Scott is being celebrated as a great explorer and a man of huge character who left a massive legacy. We are building on that legacy. His son, Sir Peter Scott, made a huge contribution to the natural environment, with, in particular, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust in Slimbridge, and also the WWF, which he helped to set up. It, too, is a critical supporter of the need to protect the Antarctic.

To sum up, our interests are to protect the Antarctic for future generations, and to ensure that global climate is properly understood in connection with the Antarctic and that Britain continues to deliver the necessary leadership in the region.

16:57

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

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner, for my first Westminster Hall debate as a Minister. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), first, on securing the debate; secondly, on doing such detailed and through research into the subject, and, thirdly, on the lucid, articulate and knowledgeable way in which he introduced it. He detailed the important history of the Antarctic, his constituency links to it and his visit to Cambridge. I am delighted that my first Westminster Hall debate as a Minister is on this key environmental and important part of the globe.

The debate is extremely timely. The Antarctic and the environment should never be far from our thoughts, particularly because it is the world’s fifth largest continent—nearly twice the size of Australia. The debate is timely because of the centenary of Captain Scott’s expedition and the coming celebrations of Ernest Shackleton’s famous exploits on the Endurance.

Even though I have been in this office for only a short period, I am aware that the UK has the oldest sovereign claim, stretching back to 1908, to any part of Antarctica, and that we have maintained a strong and permanent presence there since 1943. I want to make sure that everyone is aware that, as a nation, we should be proud of the continuing British presence in the region provided by the skilled and dedicated men and women of the British Antarctic Survey and of the Royal Navy’s ice patrol ship HMS Protector.

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he was seeking: the commitment to supporting the current level of UK activity in the region, particularly scientific research and tangential matters, will not change. I want to place it clearly on the record that the UK is firmly committed to upholding the Antarctic treaty system, and we take our responsibilities towards the proper governance and environmental protection of the British Antarctic territory extremely seriously. However, we are not complacent, as my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will be interested and pleased to hear. We need to look consistently at what more we must do to protect and promote the future of the continent.

I want to acknowledge and reinforce the references that my hon. Friend made to the positive British influence in the Antarctic treaty system. It is fair to say that it would be hard to find an international treaty that has been more powerful, influential and successful in preventing unnecessary conflict and exploitation. As he rightly pointed out, the environmental provisions of that treaty were brought into domestic law by the Antarctic Act 1994, but it is right that we continue to review the importance and the workings of the legislative architecture surrounding Antarctica.

That is why we are particularly delighted that my hon. Friend has introduced his Bill. The UK is already committed, absolutely rightly, to implementing such provisions and related ones into domestic law. I am confident that, subject of course to the will of the House, the provisions set out in the first part of the Bill offer a targeted, proportionate and reasonable way to implement our international obligations. They will ensure that those organising Antarctic expeditions and other tours take preventive measures and establish contingency plans to reduce the risk of environmental emergencies, and that they secure insurance and other financial security for response action in the event of such an emergency. A good example of that might well be in relation to oil leakage from a ship or other vessel. There is every opportunity to make a practical difference to protecting the Antarctic environment and its wildlife, as well as to enhancing Britain’s international leadership and strategic interests, which are also important.

I want to be clear that there is no risk that the UK will be disadvantaged by early adoption of the proposals in the Bill. The liability provisions will not come into force until all the international parties to the Antarctic treaty have adopted them. By acting now and leading the way on this useful protection, we will be at the forefront in regard to influence and we will thereby strengthen our leadership role, without tying our hands by adopting rules that other countries do not.

The second part of my hon. Friend’s Bill details a range of changes to existing Antarctic legislation. The changes aim, first, to recognise and respond to the increasingly international flavour and co-operative nature of scientific activity; secondly, to provide better protection of historic sites and monuments, and thirdly, to ensure that the lists of protected species—fauna and flora—are up to date to reflect the likely pressures presented by global temperature changes.

Taking all those elements together, the Bill demonstrates in a practical way—with the Government’s support—the UK’s commitment to upholding the Antarctic treaty system and to having comprehensive environmental protection of Antarctica. The Government therefore stand ready to support the passage of the Bill through the House. The Bill will ensure that our domestic legislation is among the most comprehensive in the world, which is good both for the Antarctic environment and for the many people, British and others, who visit the continent and do scientific research there.

The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) made an important point about potential resource exploitation. I want to confirm that the UK is a key player in and is committed to the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, which is the framework that regulates fishing in the Southern ocean. The architecture takes a very conservation- based approach and, thanks to a UK proposal, there is already a large marine protected area in the Southern ocean. We are working with other members of that organisation to promote further areas, and I hope that such protection will be put in place in the future.

I want to confirm, as this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), that, absolutely without question, the Government agree about the importance of peaceful human activities in support of peace and science. Tourism and fishing are very strictly regulated, and hydrocarbon extraction is prohibited under the Antarctic treaty. Given the fragile environment—a key point made by other hon. Members—we fully support the continuation of this indefinite prohibition.

[Mr Gray]

It is of course very important that hydrocarbon extraction could be prevented in the Antarctic. However, it does occur in the south Atlantic, and it is terribly important that the strongest possible environmental controls should be applied to oil exploration off the Falklands and down towards Antarctica to prevent oil spills and so on from affecting that continent.

[Mark Simmonds]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is one of the main focuses of the first part of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, which will be debated on the Floor of the House later this year. It is absolutely essential that we maintain the prohibition within the Antarctic treaty area.

To conclude, Antarctica is vast, but it is vulnerable, as we have heard. The UK has a long and proud history of active, positive engagement and leadership in protecting Antarctica for the good of all, and we are keen to maintain the UK as a leading force. Now is exactly the right time to renew and refocus our efforts to protect this sensitive region to ensure that it remains a place of peace and co-operation into the next generation and beyond.

I am extremely happy to meet my hon. Friend, and other Members if they are so interested, to discuss the detail of the Bill to make sure that we get it exactly right. I look forward to debating its finer points later this year. I very much hope that, with co-operation, the Bill will receive an expeditious passage through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

17:08

Sitting adjourned.